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  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  Next

Comments 100301 to 100350:

  1. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, "RW1, you are trying to partially correct that incorrect diagram and are not succeeding. "A" in that diagram is just the portion of the 385 outgoing IR absorbed by the atmosphere. It is missing the heat transfer from incoming solar (78), thermals (17), latent transfer (80)." Show me the power in = power out calculations.
  2. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    No one has yet to answer my question: If 239 W/m^2 of the total power of 396 W/m^2 at the surface isn't coming from the post albedo power from the Sun, then where is it coming from?
  3. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, you are trying to partially correct that incorrect diagram and are not succeeding. "A" in that diagram is just the portion of the 385 outgoing IR absorbed by the atmosphere. It is missing the heat transfer from incoming solar (78), thermals (17), latent transfer (80).
  4. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, Hold on, are you thinking that solar radiation has to stay radiation as it travels through the system? If so, you are very much mistaken. Energy can and does change forms as it travels within the system. It can start as radiation, change into thermal energy, then into convective motion, then back into radiation, or any arbitrary combination of the above. The energy can also "bounce" back and forth between the atmosphere and surface multiple times, which is how the gross back radiation manages to be larger than the net solar input. It represents the "same" energy moving back and forth between atmosphere and surface.
  5. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, "RW1, unfortunately "moving energy around non-radiatively" does matter. Since the earth is moving energy into the atmosphere via latent heat and thermals, it means that "A" in the diagram in the second link in 343 is not the only source of atmospheric heat." "A" is not the only source of atmospheric heat - it's the amount of heat absorbed and re-radiated by GHGs and clouds. Why do you think energy moved thermally and convectively into the atmosphere cannot be absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere? "There is also, for example, the heat released when the evaporated water condenses. That heat is missing in that diagram. How is that heat missing? All of the energy is accounted for.
  6. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Sorry, the "recent" El Nino. Those have a shorter time scale than solar influences which are also short term compared to long term CO2 warming. So, for example, we should see an OHC rise over the next few years if the La Nina sticks around.
  7. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 - "Thermals and latent heat transfer are non-radiative components - they are conductive and convective components": Components which move energy to the upper troposphere, where atmospheric H2O and CO2 thin enough to radiate that energy to space. This is clearly shown in the atmospheric spectra (Figure 1 here), where the notches in the TOA outgoing spectra are from colder high atmosphere GHG's rather than the surface. Much of your discussion seems to be treating the climate thermodynamics as a two-body problem, rather than the three-body separation in Trenberth, and mixing terms between them (i.e., you still don't seem to understand the energy budget diagrams, 'net power', or dynamic thermal equilibrium). Again, errors where your input numbers do not match measurements will lead to erroneous conconclusions.
  8. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 >The thermals and latent heat transfer don't matter because they aren't contributing to the overall radiation budget The radiation emitted by the atmosphere is determined by its temperature, and the temperature is determined by the input of energy, which includes thermals and latent heat transfer. You cannot reason about the energy flux of the atmosphere while ignoring a significant source of that energy. If I gave you $1000, it doesn't matter if some of it was in check form and some of it was in cash, either way you have $1000 in spending power. Energy in the atmosphere works the same way, it doesn't matter how the energy got there, all that matters is that it's there.
  9. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Eric @12, Err, there is an unusually strong La Nina on the go right now, since around June 2010 in fact.
  10. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, unfortunately "moving energy around non-radiatively" does matter. Since the earth is moving energy into the atmosphere via latent heat and thermals, it means that "A" in the diagram in the second link in 343 is not the only source of atmospheric heat. There is also, for example, the heat released when the evaporated water condenses. That heat is missing in that diagram. It is not the only error in that diagram.
  11. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, "My question to you: does the earth conduct heat to the atmosphere or not?" Yes. "If yes, is that included in BB radiation or not?" No. Thermals and latent heat transfer are non-radiative components - they are conductive and convective components.
  12. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    IMO "La Nina" is just another way of saying "the ocean is storing the warmth" (see fig 2 in Robust-warming-of-the-global-upper-ocean.html) That means the current El Nino is an example of the ocean is giving up stored warmth and/or not storing the CO2+feedback warmth or even storing the cooling which some say is supposed to occur during low solar activity.
  13. 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.
  14. 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! :)
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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?
  19. 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 ?
  20. 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?
  21. 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.
  22. 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 !
  23. 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.
  24. 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?
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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).
  28. 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.
  29. 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/
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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!
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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 :)
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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'.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    archiesteel, "A simple yes or no will suffice." No.
  50. 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.

Prev  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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