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. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    this article actually doesn't address what it claims to address. in the argument 'is it safe', this article merely addresses whether or not increased CO2 causes warming - not whether that warming is safe or unsafe. i am a skeptic. the holes in the alarmism arguments are large enough to drive a CO2 belching truck through. there has been no verified, demonstrable evidence yet presented that there have been any harmful effects due to the less than one degree C of global warming over the last century. there has been considerable anecdotal evidence suggested. much of it wrong. we here in the US were relentlessly warned after hurricane katrina that this was a sign of 'things to come'. we all know how that turned out. rising sea levels have not been empirically demonstrated to date. anecdotally yes. south sea islands going under? no. subsidence, yes. there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperature in the last *fifteen years* - all while china has increased its belchings of CO2 by many orders of magnitude. no, all i ask is that climate "science* give me something more concrete than ridiculous computer models with no basis in reality. all i ask is actual, verifiable PROOF that harm has occurred. now, does my skepticism mean i'm against reducing dependence on petroleum, that i'm against clean air? not in the slightest. it's likely that oil will run out someday. as a feedstock for a huge number of extremely important products that have made life better for all humans, i'm in favor of conserving petroleum for uses more constructive than driving about on a sunday afternoon. we need power to run our modern world - and we need to find alternatives. what i am against is extreme policies that can harm just as many people as global warming is claimed may be harmed. alarmism is harmful in itself. it does not advance the science or the argument. running about, screaming that the sky is falling, is not having the effect the promulgators desire. encourage conservation. work on creating the ultimate solar panel. be constructive, rather than alarmist, and you'll accomplish a hell of a lot more, and alienate a hell of a lot fewer people.
  2. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @RW1: I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I meant to ask why, considering you agree that CO2 is an additional forcing, do you keep trying to insinuate that the CO2 effect is not significant, when the science clearly indicates it will be, and observations confirms what the science says? This is the crux of it: we know it is warming, and we know why it's warming. That warming is within projections that indicate an increase of about 3C (including feedbacks) for a doubling of CO2. So far you have failed to clearly demonstrate *anything* that challenges this, relying on a single source that has not been peer-reviewed, and which to makes some glaring mistakes (if we are to believe your interpretation - the fault may lie there instead). Again, please stop wasting everyone's time.
  3. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    archiesteel, Also, why won't you acknowledge the fact that the seasonal change represents a cycle, while CO2 forcing represents a supplementary increase... Because I already have acknowledged it - multiple times in this thread I might add. I'm well aware of it, and I have been long before I ever posted anything here. I'm trying to now take things in a step by step basis. I'm using the information from that website because it's empirically derived from satellite data and it makes the fewest assumptions about how the climate system behaves globally or hemispherically - each of which reveals critically important characteristics. Also, the Lindzen and Choi feedback study has been criticized as only being localized in the tropics, where as this analysis is global and gets roughly the same sensitivity. If you're not interested, then don't participate and continue to believe whatever you want.
  4. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @RW1: why do you keep citing the same website as reference? Is that your only source? Also, why won't you acknowledge the fact that the seasonal change represents a cycle, while CO2 forcing represents a supplementary increase, i.e. raising the "AVG" value of those irrelevant graphs? In short, why do you keep wasting our time? You're not going to convince anyone here with marginal theories that haven't been published and/or peer-reviewed, and which run counter to actual observations. You're also not going to convince those who are still learning the science with your convuluted, purposefully confusing arguments. The only people you are going to "convince" are those who have already decided they don't believe in AGW, i.e. who seek positive reinforcement of their preconcieved opinions. This begs the question, then: why are you doing this?
  5. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    It’s probably futile to draw your attention yet again to the science that informs our understanding on these issues gallopingcamel, but in the seasonal spirit let’s have another go.
    gallopingcamel:”You don't need university researchers to tell you this kind of thing. Enhancing the CO2 in greenhouses has been a common practice for decades.”
    Sadly, that only works under conditions of optimal water and fertilization supplementation. In the real world that’s not how the vast majority of food crops are grown. If you were to properly assess the FACE experiments that aim to characterize the effects of CO2 supplementation under field conditions, the picture isn’t so rosy: S. P. Long, et al (2006) Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations Science 312, 1918-1921 abstract A. D. B. Leakey et al. (2009) Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE J. Exp. Botany 60, 2859-2876
    “More broadly, the stimulation of seed yield in response to growth in elevated [CO2] is ~50% lower in FACE experiments than in enclosure studies for the world’s four most important crops (Long et al., 2006; Ainsworth, 2008; Ainsworth et al., 2008a). With the caveat that FACE experiments have been limited in number and geographical coverage, the much lower elevated [CO2] fertilization factor on yield observed under agronomicaly relevant conditions has potentially serious implications for projections of world food supply……………. Most important though will be understanding why our major food crops fail to achieve the improved production under elevated [CO2] that can be achieved in protected environments and by some non-crop species.”
    J.A. Langley & J. P. Megonigal (2010) Ecosystem response to elevated CO2 levels limited by nitrogen-induced plant species shift Nature 466, 96–99 abstract This reiterates that any [CO2] effect requires enhanced N (nitrogen) nutrient as is well known, but the combined effects of [CO2]/N are likely to be counterproductive with respect to plant growth in natural ecosystems due to CO2/N-induced shifts in plant species. So natural ecosystems may respond poorly to enhanced [CO2] due to water and nutrient limitation and species shifts. In other words the terrestrial ecosystem is likely increasingly to falter as a sink to "mop up" large amounts of enhanced anthropogenic [CO2]. Managed agricultural production may cope with enhanced [CO2] but is likely to become more expensive to support due to nutrient and water limitations, as indicated by FACE studies (e.g. as in the first two papers above).
    gallopingcamel: ” However, you are in error to link desertification to increased temperatures. It is falling temperatures that increase desertification, while rising temperatures cause increased precipitation”
    Wrong. The predictions on changing precipitation patterns in a warming world are borne out by real world observations. The latitude band from around the equator to near 30 oN has become drier as the Earth has warmed during the 20th century, much as predicted, and will continue to do so. This latitudinal band of reduced precipitation will widen as the Earth continues to warm (and so Amazonia, for example, is expected to dry progressively towards the South as the Earth warms). The higher latitudes (especially above 50o N and below 10 o) have seen enhanced precipitation. Global warming and shifts in precipitation regimes is expected (and already observed) to lead to amplification of extreme precipitation events (one could cite more papers on this, but Allen et al. 2008 is a decent starting point). In other words those parts of the world that are water-limited are becoming more susceptible to drought as global warming proceeds…those areas of the world that don’t need more rain (higher latitudes) are getting more: X. Zhang et al. (2007) Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends Nature 448, 461-465 abstract RP Allen et al. (2008) Atmospheric warming and the amplification of precipitation extreme Science 321, 1481-1484 abstract
    Moderator Response: Since there already is a history of comments on this topic on the thread CO2 Is Not a Pollutant, how about everybody respond over there.
  6. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, "New power flux is added which causes an increase to T+delta, "gain" is much higher. That's because "gain" is not a constant as KR explained in 210." The reason I ask is because I think you are saying that the gain increases as temperature and surface power increases. Actually, the gain decreases as radiative forcing and surface power increases. This is very clear from the graphs, where the gain is out of phase with solar input: http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/g/gain.png This is true in both hemispheres as well: http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/nh/gain.png http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/sh/gain.png Do you see how/why this clearly illustrates negative feedback? That is as radiative forcing and power increases, the proportional amount of surface power increase is reduced, and as radiative forcing and power decreases, the proportional amount of surface power increases. This means that increases in radiative forcing and temperature are being opposed rather than reinforced by the climate system.
  7. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    @gallopingcamel: as others have pointed out, it's not just as simple as doubling CO2. In a greenhouse you control temperature, moisture and the amount of nutrients the plants get. You are the perfect example of the old saying, "a little knowledge is dangerous." I suggest you learn more about growing plants (I myself have spent a lot of time working in a greenhouse at my sister's farm) before pushing the myth that "increased atmospheric CO2 will have a beneficial effect on plant growth" when there is *no* indication this would be the case.
    Moderator Response: As GP perfectly well knows, there are other threads that are appropriate for his repetition of these arguments. Deletions will commence soon.
  8. Renewable Baseload Energy
    An interesting article on use of microgeneration in developing countries: African Huts Far From the Grid Glow With Renewable Power
  9. It's freaking cold!
    An interesting take on the extreme winter by a weather guy in 26 Dec NY Times: As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased. The sun’s energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere ... He goes on to explain how this forces the jet stream into a more N/S configuration, resulting in deeper, wetter cold fronts. Which is as reported here and here and shown below. Similar results published in JGR: This causes a continental-scale winter cooling reaching −1.5°C, with more than 3 times increased probability of cold winter extremes over large areas including Europe. Our results imply that several recent severe winters do not conflict the global warming picture but rather supplement it, being in qualitative agreement with the simulated large-scale atmospheric circulation realignment.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Note: original image was from intellicast and updated daily. Conditions referred to here occurred in late Dec 2010; jet stream map now shown for 12/26/10 from archive at http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/archive/jetsat_arch.html
  10. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    #53: "Enhancing the CO2 in greenhouses has been a common practice" And we are comparing the artificial, closed environment of commercial greenhouses to the open atmosphere because ...? Does it occur to you that moisture content in a commercial greenhouse is also controllable? "in error to link desertification to increased temperatures." Or not: "more arid conditions" "Increased drought frequency will likely cause major changes in vegetation cover." "An Australian study offers further confirmation of the climate change phenomenon – arid regions are indeed becoming drier and higher rainfall regions wetter" Interestingly, there seems to be reports of both extreme drought and floods. Are we up to 7 out of 10 yet?
  11. Philippe Chantreau at 02:42 AM on 27 December 2010
    Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    It's also worth mentioning that commercial greenhouses using CO2 enriching maintain between 800 to 1200 ppm CO2 content. If we have to get there to see any "benefit" we'll end up with quite an interesting geo-engineering experience, especially if it's done in just another few decades.
  12. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    Re: gallopingcamel You need to read Dai et al 2010, then. Hope your Christmas was merry, The Yooper
  13. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    archiesteel (#48), According to the FACE experiment (Nicolas School of the Environment), CO2 does make plants grow more. When CO2 concentrations are increased, plants grow faster until scarcity of some other nutrient intervenes. You don't need university researchers to tell you this kind of thing. Enhancing the CO2 in greenhouses has been a common practice for decades. If you are right, global temperatures will rise as a result of doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. However, you are in error to link desertification to increased temperatures. It is falling temperatures that increase desertification, while rising temperatures cause increased precipitation.
  14. Ice isn't melting
    Over on Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog, a reader has done an analysis of the Arctic sea ice loss, with a log-fit (R2=0.933253) showing 2011 as the last full-ice year: So much for the "recovery". The Yooper
  15. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    #46: "The plants are going to love it but nobody listens the them ... " Nice of gc to entertain with his Lorax imitation. Unfortunately, messing with Mother Nature can produce surprising results: The direct, physiological response of plants to elevated CO2 generally acts to weaken the earth’s hydrologic cycle by lowering transpiration rates across the globe. Lowering transpiration alone would tend to enhance soil moisture. However, reduced recirculation of water in the atmosphere, which lowers precipitation, leads to more arid conditions overall (simulated global soil moisture decreases by 1%), particularly in the Tropics and midlatitudes. And if altering the hydrologic cycle isn't a big enough gamble, here's evidence for another unintended consequence: Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), a consequence of anthropogenic global change, can profoundly affect the interactions between crop plants and insect pests and may promote yet another form of global change: the rapid establishment of invasive species. So that could add famine, locusts and probable cattle diseases to our list. Just how many Biblical-style plagues do the deniers consider 'safe'?
  16. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    it sounds very much like the cheapest and most reliable nightmare.
  17. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    To be fair to the skeptics, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels will be difficult. It won't be the end of civilisation as we know it, which is what skeptics think. But we do need to make the judgement, "Are the risks of global warming sufficient to justify the cost of abandoning fossil fuels?" I think it is worth it, but others may differ. It does bug me when they argue that global warming isn't happening, and our CO2 emissions aren't causing it.
  18. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @RW1: "The graph clearly shows the solar power fluctuting by about 20 W/m^2 from perihelion in January to aphelion in July" Who cares? It's a fluctuation, as you point out yourself. The additional 4 W/m³ for a doubling of CO2 is an actual increase (and raises temperatures in both seasons). Seriously, go read a book or something.
  19. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    "Small uncertainties in the conventional science are used to reinforce the notion that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide is entirely safe." Not only that, but skeptics want us to think doing something about climate change will be unsafe.
  20. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @RW1: "If this is true, then power from the Sun and power from CO2 cannot both be expressed in W/m^2 as they are." Sure they can. The fact they have different signatures doesn't mean they can't all be reduced to relative W/m² values. RW1, it's clear you have some serious issues understanding simple scientific fact. Rather than waste everyone's time here, I suggest you start taking science classes (and pay attention, this time).
  21. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    @Camburn: "This is interesting as the ice loss of present does not seem to be much different than the ice loss from the 30's and 40's." You should actually read the articles you link to. From the article: "Their evidence reinforces the belief that glaciers and other bodies of ice are exquisitely hyper-sensitive to climate change and bolsters the concern that rising temperatures will speed the demise of that island's ice fields, hastening sea level rise." "The fact that recent changes to Greenland's ice sheet mirror its behavior nearly 70 years ago is increasing researchers' confidence and alarm as to what the future holds. Recent warming around the frozen island actually lags behind the global average warming pattern by about 1-2 degrees C but if it fell into synch with global temperatures in a few years, the massive ice sheet might pass its “threshold of viability” – a tipping point where the loss of ice couldn't be stopped."
  22. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    @gallopingcamel: simply increasing CO2 won't make plants grow more. I don't think plants are too keen on increased temperatures and desertification. That's not what I heard from the grapevine. Yes, the actual grapevine.
  23. It's cooling
    @Chris: "What do you make of that?" Uh...that it's utter nonsense? Number of facts the person got wrong: 1) We are *not* in a cooling trend 2) There have been more record hot temperatures than record cold temperatures 3) There is a difference between science and how the media reports it: compounding the two is an illogical thing to do 4) Global Warming doesn't mean it's going to get warmer everywhere all the time 5) It is neither proven nor obvious that the world isn't warming 6) Other long-term factors are not currently affecting climate to a greater degree than CO2 This person you were talking to bases its entire argument on faulty assumptions and outright falsehoods.
  24. It's cooling
    In a recent debate I had with someone they offered this: "I would like to comment on Global Warming. Makes me smile when I hear Global warmer’s these days dismissing the third year of record cold temperatures as, “Just weather” and the big picture is what really counts! They are of course exactly correct in saying this, it’s what reasonable people have been saying all along, but rest assured that global warmers have been forced into the position they find themselves in. Before the record cold set in every story concerning a shortage of rainfall, lack of snow on the Iditarod trail, a heat wave anywhere, etc, etc, was all linked to the rapped and unstoppable effects of man made global warming. Before the cooling trend every story that could possibly be linked to the immediate affects of AGW, was. The fact is that the world is not warming, everyone knows this, it’s obvious AND it’s proven but let us be extremely generous in this Christmas season and say, for the sake of argument, that yes man kind’s production of CO2 gas can heat the earth. Then we would have to say at this point that there are other factors also affecting the earth’s temperature and that very likely CO2 gas is a minor factor easily made insignificant by the natural forces of nature." What do you make of that?
  25. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    Ooops! Single malt scotch can affect one's grammar. What I meant was: "The plants are going to love it but nobody listens to them for fear of being dressed in a straitjacket."
  26. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    Someone needs to speak out in favor of doubling the CO2 concentration. The plants are going to love it but nobody listens the them for fear of being dressed in a straitjacket. If I believed that doubling the CO2 concentration would cause a significant increase in global temperatures I would sell my electric car and buy a really large SUV. Here's wishing you all peace and prosperity in 2011 so that you can increase your carbon footprints.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Gratuitous cheap shots will get you nowhere.
  27. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, "Each added 1 W/m^2 of power from the sun is equivalent to each added 1 W/m^2 of power from CO2. Feedback doesn't matter in the previous statement." Do we also agree that power from the Sun and power from CO2 are both "forcing" the climate system?
  28. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    scaddenp, "However, all forcings induce feedbacks. Feedbacks are not equal however, depending on the nature of the forcing. Thus the signature for a CO2 forcing is different from the signature of a solar forcing. This is the point of several other postings. If this is true, then power from the Sun and power from CO2 cannot both be expressed in W/m^2 as they are.
  29. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    John, a really useful hi-res graphic would be to expand the Wiki graph of the 400,00 year ice-cores which plot: temperature, (Milankovich) solar insolation at 65 degree latitude, CO2 and CH4 levels, and sea-levels - by (1) adding vertical and horizontal grid-lines, and (2) expanding the horizontal axis out four-fold (either by scrolling out sideways, or printing four separate A4 graphs as one per ice-age cycle, preferably in portrait format). The correspondence between temperature and greenhouse gases levels is striking, and provides vivid evidence of the greenhouse effect. However, this is somewhat lost in the current Wiki plot. Is anybody prepared to have a go at it? See Image: Vostok 420ky 4 curves insolation.jpg
  30. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    @fydijkstra: " They have. See Lindzen, Spencer, Soon, Baliunas, Akasofu!" I guess the OP meant models that withstood scrutiny. These guys have all been shown wrong, many times. @KL: "The skeptics are not urging any such radical action." Actually, such radical action on fossil fuels is needed *whether or not* AGW theory is correct (it is, but some politically-minded commentators still want to debate it, I guess). Unless you've been living under a rock, fossil fuels are a strategic and ecological nightmare any way you cut it. The only people still pushing for oil are, well, oil people. I see that contrarians are still hard at work on Christmas. Gotta admire that dedication, even if it is completely misguided. Peace y'all, and merry Christmas if that's your thing.
  31. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, "New power flux is added which causes an increase to T+delta, "gain" is much higher. That's because "gain" is not a constant as KR explained in 210." Can you explain what you mean here? Again, I'm not sure.
  32. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    This is interesting as the ice loss of present does not seem to be much different than the ice loss from the 30's and 40's. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/grnlndice.htm
  33. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    And 1W/m2 of forcing from whatever source will induce around 0.3C of surface temperature change without considering feedbacks. However, all forcings induce feedbacks. Feedbacks are not equal however, depending on the nature of the forcing. Thus the signature for a CO2 forcing is different from the signature of a solar forcing. This is the point of several other postings.
  34. Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
    FYI, current astrophysical models put the solar constant increase at around 7% per billion years, which works out to ~40 W/m² since the Ordovician. Meanwhile 4000 ppmv of CO2 would imply about 14 to 18 W/m² without feedbacks. This is again a pretty good indication that CO2 feedbacks are strongly positive, otherwise the entire Ordovician would have been glaciated.
  35. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, yes T is temperature. Each added 1 W/m^2 of power from the sun is equivalent to each added 1 W/m^2 of power from CO2. Feedback doesn't matter in the previous statement.
  36. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, Again, I'm talking about intrinsic forcing - meaning before any potential gain or feedback (positive or negative). I just want to make sure we agree that each 1 W/m^2 of power from the Sun is equivalent to each 1 W/m^ of power from CO2.
  37. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, "Not the same, although you didn't define "same". Existing power flux is in equilibrium at T, "gain" = 1.6. New power flux is added which causes an increase to T+delta, "gain" is much higher. That's because "gain" is not a constant as KR explained in 210." I'm not sure what you mean here. I know the gain is not a constant. Is the "T" you're refering to temperature or something else?
  38. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 asked "2 W/m^2 of power from the Sun (existing or hyothetically added) is the same as 2 W/m^2 from increased CO2?" Not the same, although you didn't define "same". Existing power flux is in equilibrium at T, "gain" = 1.6. New power flux is added which causes an increase to T+delta, "gain" is much higher. That's because "gain" is not a constant as KR explained in 210. If instead you asked "2 W/m^2 of power from the Sun (hypothetically added) is the same as 2 W/m^2 from increased CO2?", the answer is yes.
  39. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    fydijkstra @ 42... "'Is it safe to double atmospheric CO2 over a 200 year period?' We don't know. Possibly not..." Possibly not? A very, very small possibility. Virtually all the evidence coming out, and that has come out over the past 30 years, suggests that it is not safe. A very small amount of evidence suggests that it might not be a problem. Personally, in a situation like this, my inclination is to err on the side of caution. "With the present state of technology there is no way to avoid doubling CO2 in the next century." We certainly won't avoid it with the attitude that we can't avoid it. Technology is not the problem. The technology is there. It's ready. The only thing lacking is sufficient will.
  40. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, I mean at least as far as intrinsic forcing is concerned.
  41. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, BTW, I'm not trying to entrap you with that last question. I'm just attempting to establing that a W/m^2 of power is a W/m^2 of power, independent of where it originates from.
  42. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    "Why have the skeptics never developed their own climate models and performed their own model experiments? They have. See Lindzen, Spencer, Soon, Baliunas, Akasofu!" Cool. Where are their models? Can you show us the code to the GCM that, say, Soon and Baliunas wrote? Lindzen? Where's the source code to his GCM? Spencer? Same question. Oh, can't find the source ... OK, how about some model output from the GCMs these various people have written ... I'll settle for that.
  43. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, At last, I think you now understand what the gain is representing, and you're asking the right question - it is the basis of the argument I've put forth. Before I answer the question, do we also agree that additional forcing from CO2 is the same as solar forcing? In other words, 2 W/m^2 of power from the Sun (existing or hyothetically added) is the same as 2 W/m^2 from increased CO2?
  44. CO2 is not increasing
    #14: "we will get there... " You missed the part about 'and that rate is increasing'? So the bets are in as to when 560 ppm will happen. In the words of that great American philosopher, Dirty Harry: "You gotta ask yourself one question, do I feel lucky?"
  45. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Ok, so the sun "forces" the climate. After albedo that "forcing" is 238 W/m^2. The "response" is 390 W/m^2. Therefore the "gain" is 1.6 Now add a permanent (hypothetical) 1 W/m^2 to the sun (forcing change by the consensus definition). What is the "response"? 391.6? Thus the temperature response is about 0.3 degrees higher according to your "gain" formula. Now, please show the evidence that a permanent 1W increase in effective solar forcing will only increase earth by only 0.3 degrees.
  46. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, The graph clearly shows the solar power fluctuting by about 20 W/m^2 from perihelion in January to aphelion in July: http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/g/flux.png
  47. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric, "Regardless, as I showed in 208 the "gain" term in the paper in #150 does not use the aphelion to perihelion cycle." It's included in the solar input (Psun), which varies according to perihelion/aphelion. 'Psun' is the total power from the Sun and varies - it's not a constant. "The cyclical solar change is not considered in calculating gain." This isn't correct. It's automatically considered because the post albedo power is the incoming solar power minus the albedo and each varies. The gain is based on the aggregate measure of the two, which includes the increased and decreased solar power at perihelion/aphelion, as well as the changes in the albedo. "To put it another way, the gain is not being used to calculate earth's response to the solar change that you and I call forcing." Yes it is. That is in fact precisely what the gain is calculating, albeit albedo adjusted.
  48. CO2 is not increasing
    15 dhogaza Yes I do claim it will be slow and not a problem. The maximum warming with ADO PDO and a monster El Nino and sunspots the largest in recorded history only made the 1978 to 1998 warming rate 1.2 ° C per century. I am underwhelmed. Mother nature did everything she could to help your puny CO2 and that is the best it can do ? No wonder when the ADO and PDO go negative the rate of warming goes flat or negative !
    Moderator Response: You are incorrect that solar activity since 1978 contributed to warming. See "It's the Sun" and especially "Climate Time Lag."
  49. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    In the absence of power from the Sun, the climate would change; therefore, by definition, power from the Sun is forcing the climate. Whether a particular forcing is constant or variable, doesn't make it any less of (or something other than) a forcing.
  50. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, my and your use of the term "forcing" is different from the others following us. Their definition excludes cyclical forcing like the solar aphelion to perihelion change. Regardless, as I showed in 208 the "gain" term in the paper in #150 does not use the aphelion to perihelion cycle. The gain is simply the solar power that makes it into the earth/atmosphere divided by the surface flux determine from surface temperature. The cyclical solar change is not considered in calculating gain. To put it another way, the gain is not being used to calculate earth's response to the solar change that you and I call forcing. Thus, even using our definition, the gain is not applicable to CO2 forcing or any other forcing other than the average annual solar input.

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