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  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  Next

Comments 99101 to 99150:

  1. 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
  2. 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".
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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!
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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!
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Seawater Equilibria
    Thanks - I did get it. and it is a very good argument. Thanks for the references.
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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?
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. Seawater Equilibria
    #28 sure, I just feel that kinetics arguments are more easy to grasp - but maybe just for me
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. 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."
  33. 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.
  34. 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!
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. Seawater Equilibria
    Response to #25 Good points!
  39. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Superb archive and thanks for the resource. Tamino has a great knack of providing both accessible and robust statistical analyses, and it is gratifying to know that at least some of his earlier work has been recovered. I did a search for his 'Riddle Me This' post which in the past I used to link to on many occasions to rebut the 'global warming has stopped' arguments. It has been lost from Tamino's site but an archived copy of it appears here. It is well worth a look, as is one of his very recent posts here which is in a slightly different way an update to 2010, though only using annual data and GISS. The earlier post included multiple sources at monthly resolution which made it so powerful. I do not know if climatechangepsychology has other of Tamino's more recent lost posts, but may be worth a closer look, googling Tamiono specifically at that site brings up quite a few hits.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thanks, I'll look into Tenney's site for more Tamino posts archived there & add them to the main post above when I get the chance!
  40. Seawater Equilibria
    I agree with everything you've written concerning the CO2 system, but most skeptics (I mean the ones that are smart enough to be engaging, at least a little bit, until they become delusional anyway) I've seen using the "CO2 is coming from the ocean" meme don't use a strict inorganic chemistry approach. Instead, they focus on circulation, and ventilation of the deep water, which has very high DIC concentrations, leading to high aqueous-phase pCO2. When this water is brought to the surface, there is a very high sea-to-air CO2 flux (which is why atmospheric pCO2 rises during la Nina (lots of deep water brought to the surface) and decreases during el Nino(Peruvian upwelling mostly shut off)). So, clever skeptics then use this to argue that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not coming from the surface water, but deep water that is brought to the surface. In this case your steady-state thermodynamic argument is useless, and you have to be willing to discuss how we know that upwelling isn't responsible (isotopic signatures yadda yadda, I'm sure there's a post on that here somewhere). Don't take this as a criticism, but people relying on your reasoning had better also read up on the isotopic signal as well, because it doesn't matter if you dodge the jab if he follows with a crushing uppercutwelling.
  41. Seawater Equilibria
    'Restraint' looks like the wrong word. 'Constraint' looks better. And there is no such word as 'restaraint'! "the observed quantity of dissolved of boric acid yields" needs to be fixed, too. It is hard enough to follow the chemistry without such grammatical errors and/or omissions of substantives.
  42. Seawater Equilibria
    Gish gallop. I did not know this expression. Very descriptive.
  43. Not So Cool Predictions
    Chemist1 wrote : "...climate is the averaging of weather over a minimal timescale. Some are comfortable with 30 years, others 100 and others try and look at paleoclimate extending 400,000 or more years ago. 30 years is just a drop in the bucket in terms of climate." Hey, this sounds like a good game - 'make up your own climate definition (depending on what you want, or don't want, to see'. I would like 'climate' to mean an average of approximately 42.13 years, to two decimal places. Why ? Why not ? An even better idea, though, is to ask for definitions from the organisations that actually know what they are talking about : like the World Meteorological Organisation. Shall we ask them ? What do they say ? The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). I wonder why ? Let's see what the UK Met Office have to say : Thirty years was chosen as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations. Oh well, scrub my 42.13 years - I'll go along with the experts.
  44. Seawater Equilibria
    #21 being a chemist I am used to see things molecule by molecule so with a lot of simplification: 1. every fraction of a second billions of billions of CO2 molecules leave ocean 2. every fraction of a second billions of billions of CO2 molecules enter ocean 3. with such huge numbers chance is not important, only averages count 4. if CO2 was the same as nitrogen or oxygen, situation would be simple, the only force keeping the CO2 in ocean would be week intermolecular forces (van der Waals) - the higher temperature the faster are molecules moving they do not spent enough time together and so it is not so advantageous from energy point of view to stay in liquid 5. CO2 dissolves in water to carbonic acid which is very weak but still acid and so neutralization comes to picture and it quickly starts to be rather tricky as also these reactions depend on temperature 6. but as long as you do not find a reaction which would be accelerated with increasing temperature (and faster than decreased solubility of gases with temperature) and which would transform CO2 to something insoluble which would drop to the ocean bottom you have to be aware of the possibility that with increasing temperature ocean as carbon sink will be less efficient 7. but of course the major driving force for carbon removal is biological pump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_pump); actually one of reasons behind ice ages is that in time of ice ages was less water in atmosphere -> more dust -> biological pump more efficient as oceans far away from lands were fertilized -> 190ppm of CO2 in atmosphere -> less warm -> less moisture - more dust ... 8. and that is the main problem with science, I wanted a short break from programming and so started a replay after 10 minutes of writing I have not mentioned a lot of arguments which would be useful to mention , wrote from top of head and did not think about arguments much so the replay may contain a few factual mistakes but at least you may see another chemist view ;)
  45. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    GC @197, "You have it backwards. It is up to the proponents of AGW to make better case for the hypothesis." No, you have it backwards GC. In science one can prove nothing; it is not mathematics. One can, however, refute or disprove something. The scientific case for the theory of AGW has already been made-- it has evolved from the knowledge and understanding integrated over more than 100 years and across multiple disciplines. Now if you wish to refute it or disprove the theory of AGW, then the onus is on you to present credible, coherent and reproducible scientific evidence to the contrary. They have been trying to do so for over 100 years now (Spencer Weart's book provides an excellent overview) and so far all attempts to do so have failed. Those opposing the theory of evolution have run into the same problem again and again. The fact that in the past global SAT lead CO2 is well understood, is entirely consistent with the science and also demonstrates that CO2 is in fact an important regulator of global SAT (as was also recently demonstrated by Lacis et al. 2010). Additionally, that observation does not, however, preclude CO2 from being a major climate driver when we rapidly increase it to its highest levels in potentially 15 million years. Even Christy, Lindzen and Spencer agree that doubling CO2 will warm the planet-- that is increasing CO2 will increase global SATs. However, believe (rather wishfully some would argue) that climate sensitivity is low. But that is a subject for another thread. In closing GC, if you or a graduate student or scientist can disprove the theory of AGW, then I see a Nobel in your future.
  46. Seawater Equilibria
    Response to #16. It is my understanding that geophysicists explain the ice ages using the Milankovich cycles, i.e. pertubations of the earth's tilt and ellipticity mainly caused by Jupiter's mass. The gist of my argument is just this: CO2 cannot be thought to just pass from the ocean to the air without some driving force. The driving force for it to enter the oceans is clear - increasing partial pressure. But in the other direction the only possibility I can see is increased temperature. And the calculation of the chemical equilibria involved, invoking the necessary condition of eletro neutrality, show that only about 14 micrmoles are released from a kilogram of water when the temperature is raised by one degree. In other words as the ocean warms locally (say during the day) a small amount of CO2 will be released locally. But the ocean will be cooling elswhere (when it's day in one place it's night in another) and therefore, as ythe quation shows, for each degree of cooling 14 micrgrams dissolve. In other words the ocean is constantly "breathing" CO2 in and out, the net change is zero and the air wovement, i.e. wind, homogenizes the gas phase.
  47. Seawater Equilibria
    The Marine Inorganic Carbon Cycle by Frank J. Millero Chem. Rev., 2007, 107 (2), pp 308–341 DOI: 10.1021/cr0503557 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cr0503557 provides in depth discussion. see: http://imars.usf.edu/~carib/Public/Millero_2006_2007/Millero_review_Article.pdf if you have no access to paid version
  48. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    gallopingcamel wrote : "What we know about climate change is vastly exceeded by what we don't know. Those who express certainty that CO2 is driving modern climate come across as zealots rather than scientists." 'What we know about cosmogony is vastly exceeded by what we don't know. Those who express certainty about the origins of the universe come across as zealots rather than scientists.' Help - we can't know everything, let's give up or call those smarty scientists zealots for being so clever and all, pretending they know more than the rest of us. By the way, previously you went on at length about what you are doing to convince yourself of AGW - if such an end result is possible with you. What similar work have you done to convince yourself of the merits of cosmogony and evolution ?
  49. Seawater Equilibria
    Response to #9. I am highly interested in seeing your argument that the second law is violated by global warming. Please be aware that I taught graduate und undergraduate thermdynamics for nearly 50 years and have thought extensively about GW for the last ten. That is not meant to scare you off - just to provide you with information that might help you to frame a response.
    Moderator Response: But all such discussions *must* occur on the appropriate thread, not this one. Use the Search field at the top left to find that Argument containing "law."
  50. Seawater Equilibria
    Response to #13. Thank you. Excellent analogies for what I am trying to do!

Prev  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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