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, re #208 #211 The Ps and Pc values come from the raw ISCCP data. These are converted to surface and cloud top temperatures with a lookup table implementation of SB. The ISCCP defines the surface to be an ideal BB radiator with an equivalent temperature, but since in the IR, the Earth is nearly a perfect BB radiator, this is a good approximation and SB exactly defines the relationship between radiated power and equivalent temperature. Pw is generally small, but is the power converted by the Carnot engine driving weather into the work of weather. It may actually be 0 in the steady state, where the energy driving weather nominally comes from the latent heat of evaporation. The seasonal variability of the gain has more to do with seasonally variable surface reflectivity than anything else. The 1.6 value is a yearly average, so any seasonal gain variability averages out. The bottom line is that it takes 16 W/m^2 of incremental surface power for a 3C rise in surface temperature. Of the 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental absorption from doubling CO2, 1.9 W/m^2 actually affects the surface. This requires an average amplification of over 8. While the peak at the poles can even exceed 8, the average is all that matters relative to the long term effect of doubling CO2. The only way to reconcile this discrepancy is to treat power from GHG absorption as being many times more powerful at affecting surface temperatures than power from the Sun. Obviously, I can't accept this. A view of the gain as a scatter plot is here. http://www.palisad.com/co2/gf/st_ga.png The convergence of the surface gain to 1.6 is quite clear. Some of the higher gain values at the poles are the result of accounting for power transferred from mid latitudes, which tends to push mid and lower latitude gains down. While this appears to be a criticism of L&C, from the scatter plot, the average behavior of each 2.5 degree slice of latitude (green and blue dots) shows a very consistent interpolation between the equator and the poles. Note that for display purposes only, the individual gain data points were truncated to 12.
  2. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, re 302 A is simply the radiative input from the surface to the atmosphere. The atmosphere then radiates this absorbed power up and down according to the laws of BB radiation. Is it your contention that a heated gas does not radiate as a black body? Also consider that evaporation/precipitation is a closed loop which redistributes energy from the tropics to the poles. Why is this any different than an oceanic or atmospheric circulation that does the same thing? You must keep in mind that a portion (albeit small) of the planets thermal mass is in the atmosphere and that circulation currents are what move energy around the entire thermal mass, including between the oceans and the atmosphere (actually clouds).
  3. We're heading into an ice age
    #189 The significance is that the record cold in the uk is happening with vastly increased CO2. This seems to go against the trend.
    Moderator Response: Nope. Use the Search field to find the post It's Freaking Cold.
  4. We're heading into an ice age
    #188 Are these the only years, because they have a big significance. The first three were a long time ago.
  5. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    RSVP - I posted my "box example" to illustrate greenhouse gas warming: the GHG box plate warms at some rate, while the non-GHG box plate (and gas) do not warm at all. I'll note that "I assume the top is temperature controlled and much cooler than backplate in order to approximate something like an open sky" is something I did not say - please do not introduce strawmen. In a single-plane GHG example (which the box example is, as there isn't enough room for convective lapse rates) the IR leaving the GHG layer will equal that going back to the surface. In the actual™ climate, however, by the time the greenhouse gases thin enough to emit to space, the lapse rate means that those layers are very cold, and hence emit much less than surface level GHG's. Hence there is a big difference between IR traded around at ground level and that emitted to space. Which is a big part of the Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming discussed on this topic.
  6. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, "So you believe that the S-B formula accounts for evaporative cooling and conduction?" No. "There are no applicable factors in the formula to account for those." Correct. It determines radiation only." No, the S-B formula determines the equivalent temperature at the surface from the total power at the surface (and vice versa).
  7. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    "The 396 W/m^2 power flux at the surface already accounts for the thermals and latent heat transfer - that is why the diagram shows them in the atmosphere away from the surface and not at the surface." So you believe that the S-B formula accounts for evaporative cooling and conduction? There are no applicable factors in the formula to account for those. It determines radiation only. Ok, archiesteel was right, (110, 120, 134, ...). The fact is, RW1, that you didn't show us your incorrect website until post 150. Lesson learned for me: read the offending website completely, determine the most basic errors, don't go on tangents, don't allow tangents, and keep my promise to stop responding.
  8. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, "The total power flux (or heat transfer) from the surface is the radiated power plus conducted power producing thermals, plus latent transfer from evaporated cooling. As you agreed in #346, the earth conducts heat to the atmosphere. That has to be added to the radiative transfer to get the total." Why do you think this? The 396 W/m^2 power flux at the surface already accounts for the thermals and latent heat transfer - that is why the diagram shows them in the atmosphere away from the surface and not at the surface. If there was no conduction and convection, the surface would be warmer than it is - over 30 C (396 + 17 + 80 = 493; 493 W/m^2 = 305.4K). Does this clarify things?
  9. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    KR #89 For purposes of the discussion, I think you would allow the heat source to be substituted with a heating filament. One that is embedded in the backplane. This is not necessary as the lamp will do, however, it might be helpful for illustrating what follows. I would agree that that backplane would heat faster as you say if it were covered with an ideal layer of insulation. However, it is my understanding that this GHG only insulates partially, and as the featured article explains, passes energy off to surrounding molecules in the gas mixture. This being the case, and these in turn having their own thermal interia, will in fact require an instantaneous portion of the energy coming from the source, such that the temperature of the backplane will take longer to reach its maximum, as opposed to heating faster as you say above. So it is not clear to me which of these two factors wins out. Furthermore, it would seem that the larger the cylinder (and greater its volume regardless of GHG concentration), the more it would tend to do what I say, vs what you say. The backradiation should never be greater than the GHG upward radiation, since I assume the top is temperature controlled and much cooler than backplate in order to approximate something like an open sky, a factor independent of the fact the area of heat emission is now greater than the that of the plate on its own due to radiative contributions from the "GHGs".
  10. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, Ok, you're just being obtuse, and I doubt you are here for serious conversation. If you can't be bothered to look up the definition of power, then this conversation is pointless.
  11. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 - You make a curious statement here: "There is no distinction between "thermal radiation" and power - they are one in the same" I suppose I should now junk my car (thermal expansion power from exothermic reactions, not to mention thermal conduction to convective cooling at the radiator) and electric razor (electric power), as they cannot use energy to accomplish work??? You're wandering very far afield. Power is the net movement of energy accomplishing work. Temperature is the result of energy sitting still (present in an object as molecular motion).
  12. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    e, "You asked us how power at the surface could be larger than power input from the sun, I answered your question, did you understand my explanation or not?" No, I asked how 239 W/m^2 of the surface power cannot be be from the Sun?
  13. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    e, "No total power is total power, it includes radiation as well as convective heat transfer. Stefan-Boltzmann only applies to thermal radiation not to power in general. Thus, the temperature estimate does not change, as you are deriving it only from the radiative component of total power." There is no distinction between "thermal radiation" and power - they are one in the same. Thermal radiation is measured in W/m^2, which is an equivalent power.
  14. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, You asked us how power at the surface could be larger than power input from the sun, I answered your question, did you understand my explanation or not?
  15. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    "No, 396 W/m^2 is the total power at the surface. The "total power" at the surface is same thing as the radiated power at the surface (so is the "power flux"). If it wasn't, the temperature could not be 289K" RW1, that is simply incorrect. The total power flux (or heat transfer) from the surface is the radiated power plus conducted power producing thermals, plus latent transfer from evaporated cooling. As you agreed in #346, the earth conducts heat to the atmosphere. That has to be added to the radiative transfer to get the total.
  16. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 >396 W/m^2 is the total power at the surface ... If it wasn't, the temperature could not be 289K. No total power is total power, it includes radiation as well as convective heat transfer. Stefan-Boltzmann only applies to thermal radiation not to power in general. Thus, the temperature estimate does not change, as you are deriving it only from the radiative component of total power.
  17. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    e, "I am explaining to you how the gross radiation emitted by the surface can be greater than the net input from the sun, even though there are no other sources of energy other than the sun." We all know this already.
  18. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, "RW1 (#353), the 396 in your post is not "total power at the surface" it is just the radiated power. It is missing the other transfers. KR showed the power equation in #327" No, 396 W/m^2 is the total power at the surface. The "total power" at the surface is same thing as the radiated power at the surface (so is the "power flux"). If it wasn't, the temperature could not be 289K.
  19. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @NETDR: posting about the PDO seems off-topic, but since moderators are allowing it allow me to respond. The PDO is a cycle, and as such it's overall trend curve is flat. The temperature increase, however shows a definite positive trend. Therefore, the current warming is not some sort of post-PDO bounce. In fact, the past 30 years show a strong positive trend for temperature, while the PDO index has been going down. "This periodic "failure to warm" makes the case for Catastrophic AGW look very thin !" There is no "failure to warm." "But that is just a coincidence ! RIGHT ?" Don't shout, please. It does not add to your already damaged credibility. While there is some degree of apparent correlation, it does seem it is CO2 that overrides the PDO, not the other way around. Facts simply do not agree with your interpretation of the PDO data.
    Moderator Response: You're right, rhis now has gone thoroughly off topic. Comments after this one must go on the PDO thread. No complaining that so-and-so got to post here, so you should be able to follow up here.
  20. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, I am explaining to you how the gross radiation emitted by the surface can be greater than the net input from the sun, even though there are no other sources of energy other than the sun. Did my explanation make sense or no?
  21. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    NETDR: This periodic "failure to warm" makes the case for Catastrophic AGW look very thin ! This claim makes no sense whatsoever. Please show your work.
  22. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    e, "I want to make sure this is clear: every single Watt in Trenberth's diagram comes from the sun. You cannot differentiate between what portion is or isn't from the sun, because it is all from the sun. The reason you see numbers larger than the net solar input, is because the energy can move back and forth multiple times within the system, inflating the gross internal numbers. This is the essence of the greenhouse effect." What's your point?
  23. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 (#353), the 396 in your post is not "total power at the surface" it is just the radiated power. It is missing the other transfers. KR showed the power equation in #327
  24. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    e, "Did you read my earlier post? The 396 represents the "same" power bouncing back and forth between the surface and the atmosphere. All of that energy comes from the sun. You're trying to compare gross internal exchanges with the net input at TOA, it's apples and oranges." How do you figure? Is not 239 W/m^2 from the Sun less than 396 W/m^2 at the surface?
  25. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, I want to make sure this is clear: every single Watt in Trenberth's diagram comes from the sun. You cannot differentiate between what portion is or isn't from the sun, because it is all from the sun. The reason you see numbers larger than the net solar input, is because the energy can move back and forth multiple times within the system, inflating the gross internal numbers. This is the essence of the greenhouse effect.
  26. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1>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? Did you read my earlier post? The 396 represents the "same" power bouncing back and forth between the surface and the atmosphere. All of that energy comes from the sun. You're trying to compare gross internal exchanges with the net input at TOA, it's apples and oranges.
  27. 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.
  28. 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?
  29. 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).
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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! :)
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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?
  45. 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 ?
  46. 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?
  47. 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.
  48. 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 !
  49. 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.
  50. 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?

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