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  1974  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  Next

Comments 99051 to 99100:

  1. Glaciers are growing
    Starnut: Yawn. You're going to trust Crichton but not climate science. Lovely. Don't you think it's odd that someone would write a novel trying to scare people about a project designed to scare people? Where did you get that "over 100,000 glaciers" number, btw? And you don't think that monitoring, say, 10 glaciers in 10 different areas of the world will give us useful data? Or you think that these particular glaciers in the WGMS have been carefully selected by scientists who are in on the hoax? Also, what's a "short-term climate model"? Climate is 30 years, according to climatologists. Finally, speaking of zombies, the science of climate is, by most measures, about 150 years old. The basic radiative physics of CO2 have been established for about that long as well. It's established science. The remaining questions we have are mainly about ocean heating and and cloud effects.
  2. thepoodlebites at 01:50 AM on 12 January 2011
    Ice age predicted in the 70s
    I've tried to post replies but my posts are being pulled. What's the point of continuing the discussion when only one side is being represented? The posts concening my college experiences is true. Why do you question my veracity and censor my replies?
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] I see only one deleted comment. That comment was deleted as it contained an inflammatory comment about another poster here on Skeptical Science. Keep the dialogue on the science and on the subject matter of the post (being off-topic is a prime reason comments get pulled) and all will be well.
  3. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Well done, Kate.
  4. Glaciers are growing
    I checked the WGMS and their data is from 100 monitored glaciers. Since there are over 100,000 glaciers world wide this can lead to an entierely new discussion on how or why these were chosen. Trying to figure out the science of climate is still in its infancy and so many things are based on simulations that are based on limited data and potentially flawed assumptions that what impact an additional 100 - 200 ppm of CO2 is doing to the world is truly just a guess for now. When short term climate models(3-5 year) are consistently correct then we can start looking at longer term modeling systems. I don't doubt we need to be better shepards of our planet, but the only way to not impact the planet is to not be on the planet and that is not going to happen (at least any time soon regardles of any zombie movies you may watch). An interesting fiction novel to read is by Michael Chrichton - STATE OF FEAR. He makes many interesting points on the science and politics of Global Warming and Climate Change. While it is fiction, he does add many true facts to the story line.
  5. Seawater Equilibria
    56, boba10960, One thing nags at me. Ultimately, the ocean-atmosphere interface is a "rate of reaction" situation with a balance (which can then be altered by temperature, partial pressure, and other factors, such as acidity and the biological pump to which you refer). So if the ocean temperature change was insufficient to alter CO2 enough to account for the rise in CO2, but some other event injected CO2 into the atmosphere, would that not have put things out of balance and caused the ocean to begin to absorb CO2 to try to restore the balance? Shouldn't CO2 levels have fallen after such an event, or the ocean subsequently warmed enough to balance things (which you are saying clearly didn't happen)? Are we now in an environment where CO2 levels should be naturally falling (slowly reabsorbed by the ocean) even prior to the next orbital shifts towards a glacial period? Something in this doesn't make sense to me.
  6. Seawater Equilibria
    56, boba10960, Thank you. I've only skimmed it so far, but it looks like a fascinating paper, and an important set of details in understanding past events.
  7. It's not us
    #16: "the total Earth weather system(s) has only studied intensively for 40 years compared" Wow. Aside from being factually incorrect (weather and indeed climate science is more than 40 years old): We've only gone into space since the '60s, not even a mere 50 years. So by your illogic, we cannot know anything about what happened before we went into space? However, moon rocks are much older than even '30+ million years' (try 3.5 Byears). We study those moon rocks, as we study signals in the universe that are almost as old as the universe itself! Please, for your own self-respect if nothing else, stop making statements things like that.
  8. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 00:05 AM on 12 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    This 'it's a natural cycle' argument is one of my pet annoyances. Thanks for the post - it's clear and concise and should be obvious to all, but obviously some still have some trouble in understanding the basics. Now if someone said the rising temperature trend and other changes (eg ocean acidification etc) are 'a natural response' to all the CO2 waste we're dumping into the atmosphere, that would sit very well with me. @ skywatcher #9 - I suspected the Tisdale article was just another variation of McLean's 'I'll just remove the temperature increase to show there is no temperature increase' trick! I wasn't prepared to wade through the tortuous post in detail, but it looked that way when I skimmed it. Thanks for the confirmation.
  9. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Philip64 at 19:58 PM on 11 January, 2011 "Climate changes 'naturally'; so it's nothing to worry about." Forests burn naturaly, yet we still worry about human caused forest fires.
  10. Seawater Equilibria
    - Alexandre @ 23 "Gish gallop. I did not know this expression. Very descriptive." "A key technique that denialists use in debates, dubbed by Eugenie Scott the “Gish gallop”, named after a master of the style, anti-evolutionist Duane Gish. The Gish gallop raises a barrage of obscure and marginal facts and fabrications that appear at first glance to cast doubt on the entire edifice under attack, but which on closer examination do no such thing." - Real Climate As in Mr Pilmer does the "Gish Gallop"... http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/plimer_does_the_gish_gallop.php
  11. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    @ScienceofDoom at 21:28 PM on 11 January, 2011: We know sea level is rising. While some of this comes from groundwater sources being discharged and some from glacial\ ice sheet melt, much\ most of it is from thermal expansion. This indicates to me the ocean is accumulating energy. If the oceans were losing energy to the atmosphere they would not be undergoing thermal expansion. We cannot answer all the questions yet, but we can put boundries on the uncertainties. Any hypothised mechanism must be within these boundries. If a natural cycle is part of the solution, where is the energy entering the atmosphere coming from? "That's why this article seems like an over-simplification of the problem." As it is only the intermediate answer I suspect the simplification is deliberate, though I would leave that answer ultimately to the author.
  12. Seawater Equilibria
    Martin #16, Sphaerica #39 and keithpickering #54 Although Dr. Franzen is mainly referring to shorter time scales, the principles he describes apply to the end of the last ice age as well. The average ocean temperature (mainly deep ocean) warmed by about 3 degrees C with the end of the ice age. The exact warming is still debated, but it is not nearly large enough to account for the entire rise in CO2 (see above posts). At least three factors contributed to lower CO2 during the last ice age: 1) A colder ocean absorbed more CO2, 2) The biological pump was more efficient than today, transferring more carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean, and 3) The ocean's alkalinity (the negative charge that Dr. Franzen refers to) was greater than today. Furthermore, the efficiency of the biological pump depends on both the rate of biological processes that transfer carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean, and on the rate of physical processes that mix CO2 from the deep ocean back up to the surface where it can be vented to the atmosphere. These factors are interrelated in complex ways, and it is the complexity of these interactions that has made it so difficult for scientists to unravel the exact suite of processes responsible for glacial-interglacial changes in atmospheric CO2. The sequence of events at the end of the last ice age was summarized by G. H. Denton, et al., The Last Glacial Termination, Science 328, 1652 (2010): 1) Around 21,000 years ago changes in Earth's orbit (seasonality of solar insolation) started to melt the northern hemisphere ice sheets. 2) Around 18,000 years ago the amount of freshwater entering the North Atlantic Ocean due to melting ice became so large that it severely perturbed deepwater formation and global meridional temperature gradients. Note the timing here: The first signs of warming in Antarctic ice cores occurred at 18,000 years ago, long after ice started melting in the northern hemisphere, and coincident with the severe perturbation in the North Atlantic. There is general consensus among paleoclimatologists on these first two points. What happened next is the subject of substantial disagreement. One view is that a change in deep ocean mixing, around 18,000 years ago, caused by all of the meltwater flowing into the North Atlantic, vented CO2 from the deep ocean and also helped to warm Antarctica (D. M. Sigman, et al., The polar ocean and glacial cycles in atmospheric CO2 concentration, Nature 2010, 47 (2010)). The alternative view is that the change in global temperature gradients, around 18,000 years ago, triggered by all of the meltwater flowing into the North Atlantic, perturbed atmospheric wind patterns in a way that both warmed Antarctica and released CO2 from the deep ocean, a process that takes place mainly around Antarctica (R. F. Anderson et al., Wind-driven upwelling in the Southern Ocean and the deglacial rise in atmospheric CO2. Science 323, 1443, (2009)). Which ever view proves to be correct, the end of the ice age was triggered by a change in Earth's orbit that started melting northern hemisphere ice sheets. Some thousands of years later, the meltwater entering the North Atlantic Ocean perturbed ocean and atmosphere physics in a way that caused CO2 to be released from the deep sea - mainly by an increase in physical mixing that reduced the efficiency of the biological pump. Although the warming that lowered the solubility of CO2 in the ocean cannot be neglected, it had less impact on atmospheric CO2 than was caused by the change in ocean mixing.
  13. Eric (skeptic) at 23:00 PM on 11 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    My explanation of variations in warming is that variable natural factors amplify or delay warming. The warming from increased CO2 is steady but there are two primary natural factors involved: variable storage of heat in the ocean (correlates with ENSO pretty well) and variable amplification of warming (correlates with AO pretty well). The Erl Happ article at WUWT postulates AO levelling off and going negative. Whether it does remains to be seen, but a more negative AO will lead to less amplification and perhaps cooling if it continues.
  14. It's not us
    @cloa513: "You can't average temperature readings" Sure you can.
  15. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    To those who offer the Singer/Avery "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" arguments, you might ask whether, every 1500 years, the world's population discovers and exploits vast reserves of petroleum and whether, every 1500 years, that population reaches six billion.
  16. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    A combination of what things, HumanityRules? I've yet to see any of the contrarians come up with a decent explanation of what-other than CO2-might be causing the last 60 years of warming (the period during which CO2 emissions rose at the fastest rate). Basic Physics tells us that CO2 molecules help to trap Infrared Radiation, & its this radiation that causes an overall warming of the planet. That's basic physics, HR, no matter how much you try & skirt around it. Also, if PDO & Incident Solar Radiation have both been trending downwards for the last 30 years, then why is that period of warming more rapid than the period of 1950-1980?
  17. Seawater Equilibria
    Tom Curtis #46 and as quoted by muoncounter #50 Two quick comments: 1) The CO2 sensitivity values I have seen are substantially smaller than that attributed to Bacastrow; more like 7 or 8 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 per degree of ocean warming than 12 ppm. 2) More important, the correct sensitivity is not to SST (sea surface temperature, which encompasses only the upper few tens of meters of ocean depth), but rather to the change in average average temperature of the entire ocean (the average depth of the ocean is 3800 m). Whether the correct sensitivity is 7 ppm/degree or 12 ppm/degree, it is necessary to warm the entire ocean to gain this effect. Most of the deep ocean, e.g., below 1000 m, has not warmed significantly since the beginning of the industrial period. Consequently, since most of the volume of the ocean has not warmed historically, and the surface ocean has warmed on average less than 1 degree C, warming of the ocean cannot have contributed significantly to the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 (approx. 100 ppm). (Just a different way of agreeing with the original post of Dr. Franzen.)
  18. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    It's well worth understanding what Bob Tisdale did in the post you link to macwithoutfries. He took a long time and a lot of figures to identify two small regions on the globe (one north and one south) on either side of the ENSO region, that most neatly encapsulate the progressive warming trend of his two larger regions. Once you subtract the progressive warming trend in both... surprise surprise the warming trend mostly disappears! The 'trick' he uses to 'hide the incline' is to pretend that the two smaller regions are oscillating in relation to some part of ENSO when in fact they are progressively warming with superimposed oscillations. He does not tell his reader why these two small regions show the warming trend. No real surprise that the overall anthropogenic warming with superimposed ENSO/La Nina-like oscillations happens to look a lot like the warming of the tropics and mid-latitudes, and so when you subtract one from another you end up with no trend. It is simply a cleverer way of doing the same thing McLean et al were guilty of last year. What we learn from Bob Tisdale: 1: The tropical oceans show a strong ENSO signature. 2: Subtropical/midlatitude oceans are dominantly progressively warming, with overlain pulses of heating/cooling influenced by heat originating from ENSO. Ah wait.. we knew that already. Do we learn what is causing the progressive warming (and of course the Arctic amplification)? Of course not! Do we learn how this fits in with other fingerprints of warming? Of course not...
  19. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    I was quite struck reading Trenberth's 2009 paper, "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy". For example: "It is not a sufficient explanation to say that a cool year is due to natural variability. Similarly, common arguments of skeptics that the late 20th century warming is a recovery from the Little Ice Age or has other natural origins are inadequate as they do not provide the physical mechanisms involved. There must be a physical explanation, whether natural or anthropogenic." I recommend people read the whole paper because he points out that currently we can't actually total up the elements of the global heat budget to say why a given year is cooler or hotter. That's why this article seems like an over-simplification of the problem. As a relevant digression, I've read a lot of papers on the ice ages. There are lots of theories to do with Milankovitch cycles. But many Milankovitch theories cancel out many other Milankovitch theories because they are contradictory. Perhaps one is correct. To say we know and understand what causes temperature variations seems like something that needs demonstrating. I invite the writer to list the ocean heat changes for each year over the last 10 years and then match up the changes in albedo, OLR, ocean temperature with ocean heat content along with an explanation that links them together. Perhaps it is clear - I would really look forward to seeing the article. I did write an article some time ago about Trenberth's paper but from a different direction - Is climate more than weather? Is weather just noise?
  20. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Excellent piece. The 'natural cycles' argument is the one that is usually inferred, if not directly evoked, every time skeptics mention the Vikings, the Medieval Warm Period etc. Climate changes 'naturally'; so it's nothing to worry about. Makes you want to pull your hair out ...!
  21. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    macwithoutfries The timing is great. Dismissing it as ramblings may play well with the gallery but I'm not sure it works well with the mindful "avarage person".
  22. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Kate, "What if global warming is just a natural cycle?" To turn this question around I think the "average person" also struggle with the idea that it's just CO2. What are you talking about here? The last 150, 50 or 30 years? There is always the option that it isn't just anything, rather the combination of many things. Afterall the IPCC wording goes "that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." The argument seems to be more nuanced than is it just natural or is it just anthropogenic but to what extent each is contributing to the present trend.
  23. It's not us
    cloa513, could you provide more details of the difficulties due to physics, relating to average temperature readings. Also, what makes you state that the earth has existed for "30+ million years" ? Why not write '4.5+ billion years' - the reality ? Do you think it is nearer to 30 million years old ?
  24. macwithoutfries at 19:14 PM on 11 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Perfect timing - see the same-day denier misinformation from here! (ideally now those ramblings should be debunked in a slightly more specific way).
  25. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    "it's just a natural cycle" that happens to coincide precisely in timing and rate with the massive outpouring of CO2 over the last 150 years, and especially the last 30. The odds of the two things coinciding are astronomical (so to speak).
  26. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Great Job Kate!
  27. It's not us
    You can't average temperature readings (impossible due to physics) so can't really prove temperatures are increasing. We simply do not know enough to make extreme statements that changes are the result of humans- the total Earth weather system(s) has only studied intensively for 40 years compared to the Earth existing for 30+ million years so only 4 "fingerprints" are real evidence. The rest are changes.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You have me at a loss for what to say (and that never happens). All I can say is that you are not even wrong. I recommend that you start here, then go see the big picture, then top it off with a proper demonstration on how to compare temperature records.
  28. keithpickering at 17:23 PM on 11 January 2011
    Seawater Equilibria
    Martin #16 Orbital forcing kicks in first, by changing the relative lengths of the seasons. (E.g., in a warming phase summer is the longest season, but in a cooling phase winter is the longest season). This results in ice-albedo feedback from the greater (or lesser) snow amount over the course of the year. Albedo is a huge forcing agent. Oceans warm, and CO2 feedback kicks in.
  29. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    Apiratelooksat50, The fact that your cite, Roy Clark, thinks the current gaseous composition of the atmosphere has held steady for the last billion years should tell you all you need to know about his competence (which is nil). The quality of your arguments suggest you aren't really thinking about the information you're assimilating, but simply repeating it uncritically. Nice Jimmy Buffet reference though.
  30. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    @apiratelooksat50: "It supports the orbital changes theory as an initiator of change" Yeah, except we have a pretty good idea that orbital changes aren't responsible for the current warming.
  31. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    @gallopingcamel: "Enough of the straw man approach." Yes, please stop using strawman arguments. "It may surprise you when I assert that CO2 "always" correlates with climate as it affects the energy balance through the well understood process of capturing long wavelength radiation." You may assert it, but in fact you'd be wrong if by "correlating with climate" you mean exactly correlating with temperature. CO2's effect on temperatures is not direct. Sure, the energy imbalance may closely follow the amount of CO2, but the effect of the energy imbalance are anything but linear. "Where we diverge is in the magnitude of the effect in relation to other things that influence climate, such as water vapor, clouds, aerosols, cosmic rays etc." We do diverge on that. The problem is that you have no evidence to support your position. "What should be red flags to those of you who are so sure that CO2 is the magic bullet of climate change is the inability of the modelers to explain past climate change and their lack of predictive powers." That's not a logical argument. Why would uncertainty in models change the basic physical properties of CO2? Also, their "lack of predictive powers" is highly subjective. In fact, models have worked pretty well so far, and there is no lack of explanation for past climate change. Again, it's quite simple: CO2 used to be a feedback, now it's a forcing. You have yet to even come close to challenging this simple fact. "As "apiratelooksat50" and others including myself have pointed out many times, the uncertainties are great." Not so great that we cannot have a pretty good idea that CO2 sensitivity is between 2.5 and 4C. "We are trying to measure changes of a few tenths of a degree in measurements that oscillate over very wide ranges from night to day and summer to winter." Appeal to complexity "What we know about climate change is vastly exceeded by what we don't know. " Again, appeal to complexity. Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it isn't true. "Those who express certainty that CO2 is driving modern climate come across as zealots rather than scientists." Well, the evidence supports it, so it is very likely to be true. Of course, certainty is for fanatics, but that doesn't mean we can't evaluate the chances of something being true or not. To argue otherwise is simply not logical. When a lot of evidence points one way, and virtually no evidence points the other way, then chances are the one supported by evidence is true. Again, that may not be a very romantic view (I suspect most contrarians get a kick out of being the underdog), but it's the truth. "You have it backwards. It is up to the proponents of AGW to make better case for the hypothesis." Nice try. As others have pointed out, the case of AGW has been made. It is up to you to disprove. So far, you've been doing an extremely poor job at it. Perhaps it's time to reevaluate your position? "Like the above esteemed scientists" That's sarcasm, right? Singer and Lindzen are far from being esteemed scientists. They are scientists-for-hire who've been shown to be wrong time and time again. "Trenberth's "rebuttal" of Lindzen & Choi 2010 was a fine piece of nit picking but failed to change the main conclusions of the paper." Actually, Trenberth's rebuttal left Lindzen & Choi in tatters. But keep rooting for the "underdogs," I'm sure they'll be vindicated in the third act, right?
  32. Not So Cool Predictions
    Re: Norman (69) Your source uses data from 1979-2002 from the CDC. Albatross' source uses NOAA data from 1997-2006. I've broken down the data (183 deaths due to hypothermia, average 18.3 per year) for you here: Why the disconnect? Good question. NOAA's data tracks from 1988 while the CDC goes back to at least 1979. Probably a wider definition of hypothermia deaths being used by the CDC (multiple ICD-9 codes). An example of apples-n-oranges in action. Good comeback. Much better. The Yooper
  33. Not So Cool Predictions
    Also ...
    Last winter the continent of South America had a record cold winter
    Cite? Parts of SA had unusually cold weather, but I've seen no *credible* source suggesting that the entire winter over the entire continent set a record. You can claim it. You claim to be a scientist. Therefore you can cite it ...
  34. Not So Cool Predictions
    I mean, the graph is actually *labelled* "weather-related" (not *climate related*) deaths.
  35. Not So Cool Predictions
    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?
    Because roughly 600 people die per year due to hypothermia, and extra special cold weather only adds about 18 deaths to that average. Climate vs. weather, the basic principle denialists can never, never grasp.
  36. Not So Cool Predictions
    Chemist1:
    The East coast is currently expreriencing record breaking cold conditions, (and snowfall in some places exceeding expectations of climate scientists and many meteorologists)
    Yet another person who doesn't understand that deep cold leads to little snowfall ... And of course he's leaving out the fact that many parts of the northern hemisphere are experiencing intense warmth, because, well, umm ... Why, chemist1? Is there any reason you fail to mention the anomalous warmth up north, where sea ice extent is once again *receeding* rather then increasing, in winter? Because it's effing warm in parts of the arctic?
  37. Not So Cool Predictions
    "others try and look at paleoclimate extending 400,000 or more years ago." These would be looking at *changes* in climate, and would never argue that you need to look at 400,000 year intervals to detect such *changes*. Chemist1 would define climate as being the average conditions in the area of earth over the last 12 billion years, in which case the billions of years before earth was fully formed would dominate the climate record.
  38. Seawater Equilibria
    48, Dan Bailey, No, it was much older than that. It was focused, I think, on a published paper. I can't remember any keywords that will help me find it. Dang.
  39. 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?
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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
  45. 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?
  46. 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."
  47. 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.
  48. Seawater Equilibria
    So an ice free Artic will lower atmospheric CO2?
  49. 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?
  50. 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.

Prev  1974  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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