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  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  Next

Comments 100151 to 100200:

  1. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    In regards to Trenberth's quote of "there's always an element of both," this should make people even more concerned about small changes in global temperature. When you take that naturally variable signal, one with a number of peaks and troughs each year, then you turn the knob so that the overall signal is higher... that means you end up with much higher peaks and troughs that don't reach quite as low. And I think this hits straight to the heart of the safely issue that this thread is supposed to be about. It's that variability in the rising signal that is going to cause the most disruption. The 2C global average is not going to hurt anyone (optimistically hoping we can keep it below 2C), but the amplified peaks are going to get very very ugly.
  2. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    To clarify my statements in the previous post - Science consists of reasoning from measurements, exiting theories, known physical principles, etc., and generalizing new unifying and explanatory hypotheses that can be tested. Making up numbers based upon opinions of what "should be" is not science in any way, shape, or form. But if anyone is is willing to believe in the results of such an approach, I have have some investment opportunities in a couple of phlogiston and anti-gravity devices! :)
  3. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, The thermals and latent heat transfer don't matter because they aren't contributing to the overall radiation budget - they are just moving energy around "non-radiatively". I'm not saying they don't occur because they definitely do; however, the way they're transfering energy isn't from absorbtion/re-radiation like GHGs and clouds.
  4. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Re #107, So on the same thread we have "skeptics" arguing that the (statistically insignificant) increase in Antarctic sea ice means that we have nothing to worry about concerning the dramatic loss of Arctic ice. Other "skeptics" seem to be suggesting that the statistically insignificant increase in Antarctic sea ice runs contrary to the theory of AGW-- which it does not. And then, lo and behold, we have someone at #107 claiming that Antarctic ice extent was less in the past-- not clear from the abstract whether or not they also include sea ice. The mind continues to boggle at the inconsistency and incoherence of "skeptic" arguments. This one can be filed under, "climate has changed in the past" strawman.
  5. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 - I just looked (again) at the link you provided here, and this graph seems to fit the status of "not even wrong". No evaporative or thermal transfer from the surface to the atmosphere. A back-radiation value of 146 W/m^2, when a value of ~333 has been established and measured repeatedly since the 1950's. 239 W/m^2 of visible light directly to the surface, rather than the 161 W/m^2 measured value (with ~78 absorbed by clouds). 93 W/m^2 through the atmospheric window, when it's only 40. See Trenberth 2009, and a more detailed component description in the earlier Trenberth 1997, plus their (excellent) references. If your hypothesis is directly contradicted by observations (as this is on multiple counts), it's time for a new hypothesis. Reality is a harsh critic, and "should have" speculations using made-up incorrect numbers, such as those on that web site, are not science.
  6. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, KR answered it in 327 for incoming, outgoing and net. My wood stove doesn't have to be at equilibrium to show that it conducts heat to the air next to it that is in addition to BB radiation. The earth does the same thing. My question to you: does the earth conduct heat to the atmosphere or not? If yes, is that included in BB radiation or not? If yes, then why is S-B formula the same in a vacuum as in air?
  7. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    muoncounter #38 Actually I think CO2 is not the cause of the long slow warming from 1880 to 2010 but what if it is ? The rate is so slow that there is no catastrophe is there? There is periodic fast warming and cooling superimposed on this long term trend. http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ In 1997 after 20 years of positive PDO the Koyoto Protocol 1997 was signed http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php After the PDO had been negative for almost 40 years Newsweek published the famous article on Global Cooling. [1975] Newsweek Article on global cooling http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm Is this just a coincidence ?
  8. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, "RW1, the wood stove at 200C next to me is outputting a decent amount of black body radiation warming myself, furniture and cats. But I can also visibly see the thermals above the stove (light refraction). I can also feel that heat rising. I also have a pot of water and kettle on the stove. As that water evaporates, the pot and kettle cool and cool the stove surface under them by conduction. All these heat transfers are additive, they all subtract heat from the stove and add it to the room (the water vapor is latent heat). None of these examples is a system at equilibrium where power in = power out, which is what the climate system is. In the case of the water in the pot on the stove - a better analogy is a pot of water where continuous heat from the burner (on low) is keeping the water at a constant temperature (at equilibrium); where the heat from the burner is the equivalent to power coming in from the Sun and the temperature of the water is equivalent to the surface power. But you didn't answer my question, what is the power flux at the surface?
  9. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    For those trying to argue that people have not been dying becasue of anthropogenic climate disruption, please consider the wise words of Dr. Kevin Trenberth to the New York Times recently: "It’s not the right question to ask if this storm or that storm is due to global warming, or is it natural variability. Nowadays, there’s always an element of both." Also research has shown that anthropogenic climate disruption played a role in the European heat wave which killed about 40 000 people. And preliminary statistical analysis and has shown that the Russian heat wave (which also killed thousands) was probably also, in part, attributable to climate disruption. And there are more examples where those came from.
  10. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    Moderator I have asked politely I am unsure exactly which argument is the "Climate Time Lag" one. Please re-post the link. I was told to use the search field. I did this before asking BTW. Here are the results None look promising! Search Results Skeptic arguments matching the search 'Climate Time Lag': * CO2 lags temperature * Hockey stick is broken * It's cosmic rays * Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed * Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures * Warming causes CO2 rise * Water levels correlate with sunspots Plus about 50 blog posts !
  11. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Sorry about that last post delete it please. Quibbling about whether it warmed or cooled during the last 12 years is pointless. For all intents and purposes it did neither. Why ? Here is a graph of the PDO from U of Washington. Please http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ As Mojib Latif said over short time periods [undefined] natural cycles like the PDO over rides CO2. Notice that from 1998 to 2010 the PDO has been negative as much as it has been negative. Is it just a coincidence that the cool years were when the PDO was negative ? You can see 2001 and 2002 and 2008 quite clearly. This periodic "failure to warm" makes the case for Catastrophic AGW look very thin ! The PDO was negative from 1940 to 1975 almost continuously and by coincidence that is the date of the infamous global cooling Newsweek article. But that is just a coincidence ! RIGHT ?
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Posts using ALL CAPS tend to be deleted without warning. Also, your continual use of the word 'catastrophic' undermines whatever credibility you may be trying to establish.
  12. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @RW1: "Show me the calculations that demonstrate that 2xCO2 is distributed differently around the globe than average incident solar power?" You don't need a calculation to show that increased CO2 is distributed evenly around the globe, while solar power affects hemispheres differently depending on the season. Therefore, while both figures are averaged out to provide comparative W/m² values, in reality it's possible to differentiate the effect of the two on global climate. "You apparently do not know that the increase in radiative forcing from 2xCO2 of 3.7 W/m^2 is a globally calculated average - just like power from the Sun is." Indeed they are, but that doesn't mean we cannot differentiate between the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 and seasonal solar insolation, which you seem to be arguing from the beginning. If that is *not* what you are arguing, then can you at least sum up your argument in a concise manner, so we can clearly debate it?
  13. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    Please take the stomata-CO2 variability red herring "argument" here. And again, the spin that some faux science web sites have tried to put on the papers is nothing more than spin. And I doubt that any of the "skeptics" here have actually read the papers with a skeptical eye. Really, the incessant whining, strawmen, red herrings and other diversionary tactics employed by the contrarians and wanna-be "skeptics" is now getting highly annoying.
  14. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Dear David, It actually isn't clear whether or how increased heat will affect the intensity of the ENSO cycle, i.e., El Ninos and La Ninas. The physical oceanography community has been exploring this for two decades. Furthermore, the graphic does not support your intuition. In fact, the ~100 record indicates there has been no measurable change in ENSO. This supports what Ove H-G has been saying for 20 years: it isn't ENSO driving bleaching, it is anthropogenic ocean warming. I am working on a full post on this issue with graphics and references. Respectfully, John
  15. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, the wood stove at 200C next to me is outputting a decent amount of black body radiation warming myself, furniture and cats. But I can also visibly see the thermals above the stove (light refraction). I can also feel that heat rising. I also have a pot of water and kettle on the stove. As that water evaporates, the pot and kettle cool and cool the stove surface under them by conduction. All these heat transfers are additive, they all subtract heat from the stove and add it to the room (the water vapor is latent heat).
  16. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    BTW, I'm planning on getting to Chris's #222 and the whole issue or thermal inertia from the ocean in more detail, but I can only take one thing at a time.
  17. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    Has anyone done a critique of Syun-Ichi Akasofu's paper "On the recovery from the Little Ice Age"? At first glance it looks interesting, and provides a possible alternate to some of the warming. http://www.scirp.org/journal/NS/
  18. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Michael, "RW1, The heat from the CO2 is distributed differently around the globe from the sun's heat. They are not the same. You are mistaken when you say that they are the same. According to the global averages you use, the average increase in temperature from 1 W/m2 of forcing will be the same. The spatial distribution of the increase in temperature will be different. The distribution of warming has been measured and it is due to CO2 and not the sun. If you do not understand why the distribution of energy is different you should do the background reading and not claim that others who have done their homework are wrong." Show me the calculations that demonstrate that 2xCO2 is distributed differently around the globe than average incident solar power? You apparently do not know that the increase in radiative forcing from 2xCO2 of 3.7 W/m^2 is a globally calculated average - just like power from the Sun is.
  19. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    4 (RSVP), The fact that past climate changes have occurred without humans causing it is in no way an argument that the current climate change cannot be anthropogenic. That argument is a snake oil distraction. There are reasons why we believe (i.e. there is a consistent logic and evidence of the truth of that logic) that the current climate change is caused by human production of CO2. Study the site and Real Climate to find out why. You also need to study past climate more. For instance, the ice ages (and their termination) are caused by know changes in the earth's orbit and axial tilt. There's no magic there. And we haven't been "coming out of an ice age for the last 10,000 years." We are currently in an interglacial (a warm period amidst an ice age) and have been for about 10,000 years when the last glacial period ended. It's not a gradual thing. Within the interglacial, temperature trends can track up or down. The thing is, for the dramatic climate swings that we've seen in the past, there has always been a reason for them (often a very bad one). They've also often been associated with mass extinction events. Just because it's happened before in geologic history doesn't mean everything is okay and we shouldn't mind if it happens again.
  20. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, http://www.palisad.com/co2/div2/div2.html"RW1, in the chart that you are using, from http://www.palisad.com/co2/div2/div2.html the 396 shown is IR from the surface at a temperature of 289K." Actually, that chart is using 385 at the surface for temperature of 287K (287K = 385 W/m^2 via S-B). Where are thermals and latent heat transfer in that chart? IOW, when the surface cools by evaporation, that cooling is in addition to black body radiation. How can thermals and latent heat transfer be in addition to the black body radiation? Are you saying the surface power flux is actually 493 W/m^2? (396 + 17 + 80 = 493). From Stefan-Boltzman, a surface power of 493 W/m^2 = 305.4K, which is an average surface temperature in excess of 30 C!
  21. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @RW1: so, you refuse to acknowledge you were wrong bout the nature of the W/m² figure, and thus your earlier (seemingly abandoned) argument that the additional CO2 forcing was 2 W/m² instead of 4 (using round numbers for clarity). Yet you offered no conclusive counter-argument supporting your position. Ergo, you refuse to recognize when you're wrong, which means it is impossible to have a rational debate with you. For the record, I have been corrected quite a few times on this very web site, and have admitted I was wrong then. It's not a shameful thing to do when you're interested in finding the truth. You also never answered to chris at #222, despite his very thorough rebuttal.
  22. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, The heat from the CO2 is distributed differently around the globe from the sun's heat. They are not the same. You are mistaken when you say that they are the same. According to the global averages you use, the average increase in temperature from 1 W/m2 of forcing will be the same. The spatial distribution of the increase in temperature will be different. The distribution of warming has been measured and it is due to CO2 and not the sun. If you do not understand why the distribution of energy is different you should do the background reading and not claim that others who have done their homework are wrong. When you do not understand the basics you waste everyones time arguing.
  23. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @Turboblock. Thanks for the link. Interesting paper (the 13.12.2010 paper). It would just be nice to put a thermometer in the earts ... to get rid of all those local variations when talking to people :)
  24. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, in anticipation of a few posts with muddled terminology and "sorry I meant to say...", let me give you some choices (there are no others). 1. The 396 in your link palisad.com somehow includes surface cooling (i.e. S-B is wrong) 2. Surface cooling doesn't exist (enthalpy of evaporation does not exist) 3. Surface cooling can be placed in the atmosphere black box (because ???) and thus disregarded. Please answer with just a number, then we can move on to a new topic.
  25. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    #330: The word 'net' means sum of all input and output; surface radiation (with an up arrow) is clearly an output in this context. See #327. Do your own homework.
  26. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, in the chart that you are using, from http://www.palisad.com/co2/div2/div2.html the 396 shown is IR from the surface at a temperature of 289K. Where are thermals and latent heat transfer in that chart? IOW, when the surface cools by evaporation, that cooling is in addition to black body radiation.
  27. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    muoncounter, "The 396 W/m^2 is not the net surface flow, it's clearly labeled as 'surface radiation'." Same thing. The total power at the surface is the 'surface radiation'.
  28. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR, "RW1 - The net power at the surface [sum of all incoming minus outgoing energies] according to Trenberth 2009 is (161 solar + 333 back IR) - (17 thermals + 80 latent heat + 396 IR) = ~1.0 W/m^2" Yes, and what's the power flux at the surface? If it's not 396 W/m^2 then the temperature cannot be 289K. Where do you think the 396 W/m^2 is coming from? It's been backed into from Stefan-Boltzman where "e" equals 1 at the surface (396 W/m^2 = 289K). "Not 240 W/m^2. The gross power [sum of all energy movements as all positives] is much higher, but that's a steady state exchange with no net energy flow." Is the power coming in not the same as the power leaving? If only 161 W/m^2 are from the Sun, then the power leaving cannot be the same because the atmosphere cannot create any energy of its own.
  29. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    #325: "what is the net energy flow at the surface? It's 396 W/m^2 (according to Trenberth's diagram)" The 396 W/m^2 is not the net surface flow, it's clearly labeled as 'surface radiation'. Has all of this been due to the fact that you still can't figure out what the numbers represent in Kiehl and Trenberth's Global Energy Flows diagram? That would suggest strongly that you've never even looked at any of the links you've been given. Where I work, we call that 'doing your homework' and it does not need to be done in public. You really should take the 'work session' you've been having off line.
  30. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 - The net power at the surface [sum of all incoming minus outgoing energies] according to Trenberth 2009 is (161 solar + 333 back IR) - (17 thermals + 80 latent heat + 396 IR) = ~1.0 W/m^2 Not 240 W/m^2. The gross power [sum of all energy movements as all positives] is much higher, but that's a steady state exchange with no net energy flow.
  31. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Has anyone done a critique of Syun-Ichi Akasofu's paper "On the recovery from the Little Ice Age"? At first glance it looks interesting, and provides a possible alternate to some of the warming. http://www.scirp.org/journal/NS/
    Moderator Response: Discussion of that belongs on the thread We're Coming Out of the Little Ice Age. Find it with the Search field at the top left.
  32. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, That's fine with me, please request my email address from John Cook via the contact form so I don't have to print it out publicly." There is no reason why we can't continue to discuss this here. It is completely related to the subject, though somewhat indirectly.
  33. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR, "RW1 - You stated that "239 W/m^2 of the power at the surface has to come from the Sun, which means the back radiation can't be 333 W/m^2". Thank you, that indeed clarifies your position." What I meant was 333 W/m^2 can't be coming from the atmosphere, which Trenberth vaguely designates as "back radiation". "Power involves net energy flow - the internal interchange between atmosphere, ground, and space has a net energy flow of ~240 W/m^2; the internal dynamics and interchanges are related, but not directly, nor in a scalar fashion." And what is the net energy flow at the surface? It's 396 W/m^2 (according to Trenberth's diagram). Power equivalent temperature at the surface is calculated via Stefan-Boltzman. We can argue all you want about what the energy flows may or may not be, but this doesn't change the power flux at the surface, which is what the gain is derived from. "I suggest you then take the discussion to the appropriate thread, The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, where backradiation is clearly discussed. You are conflating power (energy going somewhere, doing work) with the energy involved in the Earth's temperature." No I'm not. All I'm doing is converting surface power to temperature via Stefan-Boltzman. "Power comes in from the sun, power goes out to space, but the internal temperature of the Earth and atmosphere is determined by the temperature required by dynamic equilibrium between these two numbers, based upon the thermal and emissive properties of surface and atmosphere, and not just a scalar value of the input/output power as you have claimed." The grey body components I think you may be referring to don't matter for the purposes of gain, because the gain is based on surface power emission and the surface is considered to be very close to perfect black body radiator where "e" equals 1.
  34. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #4: "Have'nt we been coming out of an ice age for the last 10,000 years?" If you believe that, you really must tell that to the deniers who claim 'we're going into an ice age!'. And the ones who claim 'its just warming after the LIA!'. And the ones who claim 'it's UHI!' or 'it's waste heat'. Because you can't have it both ways. A double denial = agreement. In short, no. Technically, we are still in an ice age, but the glacial stage of it ended approx 10kya. If, as some claim, we are warming on a 'ramp' of 1.2 deg/century because of the end of this glacial, that would be 120C. See Ice data made cooler for some nice graphics. But you do suggest an interesting exercise: take a graph like Fig 1 from here and plot it on a 30 year time scale. Those 'sharp slopes' disappear ... except the one that got going in the last century or so.
  35. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    That's fine with me, please request my email address from John Cook via the contact form so I don't have to print it out publicly.
  36. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    RSVP - I have to disagree with your post completely; the chamber containing GHG's in my example will show the plate and chamber temps rising faster than in the non-GHG case. Note: in the following example the actual numbers are whole cloth - but they illustrate the point, and the directions of change observed Take two insulated chambers (as before) with black plates at the back, no GHG's in the air, and a 100W bulb (visible light) shining in. At dynamic equilibrium the plates (at some temperature) will radiate 100W of thermal energy back out. Add GHG's to one chamber, keeping the pressure the same (to avoid any other effects). The plate receives 100W, radiates 100W, but now (let's say) 10W of IR get absorbed by the GHG's. They then warm and radiate 10W IR in all directions (atmospheric equilibrium). The box now receives 100W, but only emits 95W (imbalance). The plate receives 100W of visible light, plus 5W of IR backradiation. Not surprisingly, the plate warms up. The plate in the non-GHG box does not change temperature. At dynamic equilibrium the (warmer) plate will receive ~105W of radiation, lose the same 105W (mostly radiation), the atmosphere will radiate something like 10W (all directions), and the box will once again emit 100W of IR. With the plate and air in the box warmer than the non-GHG box.
  37. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    archiesteel, "A simple yes or no will suffice." No.
  38. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 - You stated that "239 W/m^2 of the power at the surface has to come from the Sun, which means the back radiation can't be 333 W/m^2". Thank you, that indeed clarifies your position. I suggest you then take the discussion to the appropriate thread, The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, where backradiation is clearly discussed. You are conflating power (energy going somewhere, doing work) with the energy involved in the Earth's temperature. Power comes in from the sun, power goes out to space, but the internal temperature of the Earth and atmosphere is determined by the temperature required by dynamic equilibrium between these two numbers, based upon the thermal and emissive properties of surface and atmosphere, and not just a scalar value of the input/output power as you have claimed. Power involves net energy flow - the internal interchange between atmosphere, ground, and space has a net energy flow of ~240 W/m^2; the internal dynamics and interchanges are related, but not directly, nor in a scalar fashion. And, as archiesteel noted, you have made no solid case for low climate sensitivity.
  39. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Have'nt we been coming out of an ice age for the last 10,000 years? And if so, how is it possible to distinguish the effects of this trend with those possibly caused by man? How different would changes in albedo be as a result of natural Artic ice receding at the "last hours" of an "end of ice age" cycle? Referring back to past climate change... http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-past-climate-change-tell-us.html Even in the interim, (as per Figure 1 of the link), huge excursions existed in the past without man...puntuated changes exhibiting sharp slopes which if plotted over a thirty year window would also give the impression of a continuous trend.
    Response: This comment is off-topic - the "we're coming out of an ice age" argument has been examined in detail (in fact, at a Basic, Intermediate and Advanced level).
  40. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ has a link to Global Maps and station data. Is an average world temperature really what you want? The anomaly is normally used as it is less sensitive to station drop out.
  41. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    The role of the sceptic is to point out the flaws in the popular comments on AGW, of which this thread is a good example. If you see a signpost pointing in the wrong direction, you perform a service by taking it down. There are several different popular theories of AGW, and like all “scientific” theories they stand or fall on the principle of falsification. As Einstein said, 20,000 observations may confirm a theory – it only takes one to refute it. Here are three: 1) One view of AGW (which I suspect caerbannog 28 favours)is that CO2 will accumulate in the cold, dry, upper atmosphere where water vapour cannot interfere with its impact. The energy absorption in this region will increase rapidly because CO2 will be the principal “greenhouse” gas. The temperature increase will then cascade through lower layers, warming the surface. You can test idea this by comparing the UAH satellite temperature trends over the last 30 years: Lower troposphere ; 1.4 degrees C per century Upper troposphere : 0.5 degrees C per century, a factor of almost three in the wrong direction 2) Another popular theory is the “back-radiation” idea. A single-slab model of the atmosphere will absorb heat from the surface, radiate half to space, and half back to warm the ground. Relative to a bare rock earth, the surface must radiate double the energy, because the output to space from the atmosphere must be the same as the solar input. To achieve this, the surface temperature must increase by a factor equal to the fourth root of 2, or 19%. From a bare rock temperature of 255 K, this theory gives an increase of 48 degrees C, which is plausible. To test this theory, RWWoods built his greenhouses. One, made of glass, absorbed outgoing radiation. The other, made of salt, did not. There was no measurable temperature difference in the interiors. 3) All CO2 based AGW theories depend on the ability of CO2 to absorb energy. If the molecules could trap and transfer heat to the atmosphere, increasing the CO2 concentration in air would generate steadily increasing temperatures. Angstrom (he of the unit) tried it. He found that, as soon as all the available energy output from a source had been absorbed, temperatures in the air ceased to rise. You can see a comparison of air (385 parts per million) and 100% CO2 here: http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_overview.htm
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Vastly off-topic, which quickly leads to deletion. All three of your 'signposts' are thoroughly discussed and dismissed in other threads. Try using the search box to find more appropriate places if you want to rehash these denial 'chestnuts'.
  42. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    In western europe (Belgium) its now very hard to keep people awake about the GW danger. We have had 53 days of snow this year (a new record). Most people don't understand the difference between weather and climate and between cold and snow. Pfff. Is there a good website where you can see the average world temperatures?
  43. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Those green and pink lines are interesting and disturbing, haven't seen that kind of analysis of the El Nino/La Nina contrasts before. The current La NIna, in Australia at least, seems to be an especially strong one, with record rainfall events and record flooding all over the place. Is this perhaps the start of another "jump" in La Nina events, to be followed, by the look of that graph, by a particular severe El Nino and a new level for those horrific (in Australia at least) events? Intuitively, more heat in the oceans and atmosphere should strengthen both La Nina and El Nino, but I had not previously seen an analysis that confirms this intuition. Oh, and Happy New Year to John Cook and all the regulars at SkS.
  44. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    KR #86 If the mixture in the chamber is observed to get warmer for containing a GHG, temperature of the back plane surface upon which the light is shining can only be taking that much longer to rise. A fair experiment would include monitoring both temperatures over time and plot comparative profiles, with and without "GHGs". In these plots, what you should find the plate surface taking that much longer to rise, owing to the GHG picking up this same "fixed sum" energy. The warmed gas should then act as a vehicle for heat transport, not unlike occurs for the convective cooling of a fluid on a solid. The cylinder's construction (or configuration) will then determine to what extent this heated gas can help cool the back plate and the gas just above it. Unless the experiment is set up with provision to replicate the equivalence of an open sky with pressure dropping as you go upward, etc., its value may be limited in "proving" anything. At least as a thought experiment it may provide some food for thought, however given what has already been said, this too is doubtful.
  45. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    @gc: "Falling temperatures are much more dangerous than rising temperatures" We're not dealing with falling temperatures.
  46. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    @Camburn: "Stoma is not perfect to detect levels of co2, and ice core samples are not perfect either." Ice cores are a lot more precise than plant stoma. "There is considerable literature showing that ice cores difuse much more than previously thought." Not really. "The error bars indicate that recent past co2 could have been as low as 195ppmv or as high as 395ppmb. This is in line with the stoma research." Do you have sources to support these affirmations?
  47. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the AGU Fall Meeting
    @HR: do you know what the AGU's official position on AGW is?
  48. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    @NETDR: "If that is what you really think I said you are simply wrong or are trying to distort my position so badly that I can't recognize it." Well, you're the one bringing up the LIA in the PDO thread, not me... As I said, it's a typical tactic for contrarians to jump from one topic to the next when they get caught in their own contradictions. (Oh, and BTW, AFAIK means "as far as I know"...)
  49. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @RW1, Eric, I suggest you exchange e-mails and take this offline, that discussion seems to be getting nowhere. In fact, the useless (and increasingly off-topic) back-and-forth seems to be only designed to waste space. RW1, why didn't you respond to my earlier request, which I made at your invitation? If you wanted to give anyone the impression that you were afraid to reply, it was a resounding success. *Nothing* you have written makes a solid case for sensitivity (with feedbacks) being lower than 3C. Why even keep up this charade?
  50. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    @anastrophe: "@archiesteel: um, that's not how science works. science needs to show that recent extreme weather events have been made worse." Science does not respond to your whim. Science tries to explain observed phenomenon. What to do about what science tells us is another matter entirely. "so far, if it seems to support the AGW theory, then AGW proponents claim that weather events have to do with changing climate." No, they don't. Weather is weather, and climate is climate. Don't use strawman arguments if you want to be taken seriously. "witness the dismissal of last winter's record snowfalls in the US, and dismissal of this winter's crippling snow in europe - all called "just weather". Indeed, because when you focus on just these events (i.e. cherry-picking) you don't get the correct picture. Climate is global, and so you must look at global temperatures. Last winter was warmer than average globally, and the coming winter probably even so. Sorry for completely destroying your argument, but is *is* pretty old. "a heatwave? why, that's not weather, that's clear and present proof of global warming!" Strawman argument. No one says this. "it's for those claiming that there is harm to show that harm has occurred." Tell that to residents of the Maldives. "Hope for the best, expect the worst" is the best survival strategy. If it were up to you, we'd wait until the whole neihborhood was ablaze before calling the fire dept.

Prev  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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