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  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  Next

Comments 100901 to 100950:

  1. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    You've been shown how your math was wrong before, why do you keep repeating it? You don't get 70% of the effect from going from 300 to 380 (considering the baseline is at zero). As others have shown you, it represents just above 30%. 0.30 x 2C = 0.6C 'nuff said.
  2. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 at 09:45 AM on 20 December 2010
    "It's also inline with the sensitivity only being..."
    Not really RW1. And if you're going to use the non-argument that (paraphrasing) "anything is possible...we just don't know", why bother to attempt a (incorrect) quantitative argument in the first place!? I would have thought what you said earlier is appropriate:
    "The scientific method dictates modifying or discarding a hypothesis when it does not fit the evidence. It does not permit adding unsubstantiated things arbitrarily after the fact when the hypothesis is not in accordance with the evidence.
    Your odd hypothesis (that empirical observations are incompatible with the value of climate sensitivity that best fits the empirical evidence) is wrong (you mistakenly used faulty maths and logic). So you should "modify or discard" your hypothesis. You shouldn't "add unsubstantiated things arbitrarily after the fact". The empirical evidence simply doesn't support the unsubstantiated assertion that "...it's also just as possible it's from natural causes".
  3. It's albedo
    Re: Rovinpiper (24) Barton Paul Levenson has addressed some of Ferenc Miskolczi's misconceptions here. The Yooper
  4. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    chris (RE: post 50), All those calculations are starting with the input assumption of a 3 C rise in temperature from a doubling of CO2. Start with an assumption of a 0.6 C rise and you're going to get a completely different and much lower result. Maybe the amount of CO2 was closer to 300 ppm in 1900 instead of 280 ppm. Still 300 ppm to 380 ppm equals about 70% of the forcing from a doubling of CO2, which still should have been over a 2 C rise in temperature. There was only about a 0.6 C rise from 1900-2000, which is still less than a third of the 2+ C predicted.
  5. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    @Bob: right. This isn't about the science of AGW, but about the political opposition to the science, and the means used by powerful corporate interests to bury the truth in order to protect their bottom line.
  6. It's freaking cold!
    @Tom: what you believe is irrelevant. The fact that you are spamming worthless anecdotal evidence is the problem.
  7. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Also, be sure to read Chris' excellent rebuttal of your untenable position. Hey, you gave it a shot...
  8. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @RW1: "Vostok is in Antarctica - not the Arctic, which I know is more variable than global averages. Antarctica is considerably less variable than the Arctic. Even if you assume the global averages were only half of what Vostok depicts, that still means the amount of warming we've seen is only about average or maybe a little above." In other words, you do not have conclusive evidence that there have been other increases that were just as dramatic in the past (barring catastrophes). So, in the absence of evidence, we have to continue assuming that the current warming is unprecendented, *especially* since we can't identify other causes but for CO2. "It's also inline with the sensitivity only being about 0.6 C" Actually, it isn't, because not even all fast feedbacks have kicked in yet, let alone slow feedbacks. "or any other amount for that matter, including zero." Now you're not even making any sense. Typical of contrarians: in like a lion, out like a lamb. "Again, you're assuming virtually all the increase we have seen is from CO2." As is likely, as per the observed evidence. There is simply *no* other explanation for this warming, depsite your wishful thinking. "While that is possible, it's also just a possible it's from natural causes." There is no evidence supporting the latter. Personally, I like to go where the evidence is. Come back whenever you figure out what these mysterious natural causes are...
  9. It's albedo
    Hi Ned, For our purposes he is "skeptical" about the ability of light-reflecting aerosols to lower Global Mean Temperature. He seems to be saying that a change in the reflectance of an object in a constant electromagnetic field will not change its equilibrium temperature. This is because the emissivity of said object will increase. He says that his personal friend Ferenc Miskolczi has a paper positing this which has never been refuted. I have a link to Miskolczi's work. Unfortunately, the material is too complicated for me to read. It might as well be written in context free grammar as far as I'm concerned.
  10. It's freaking cold!
    I believe we are experiencing global warming. Who said i didn't? I also believe climate is dynamic and expecting only slow global warming could be a disastrous mistake but, if it doesn't fit what you want to believe, then, by all means, do the junk yard dog dance.
  11. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    archiesteel (RE: Post 47), It's also inline with the sensitivity only being about 0.6 C - or any other amount for that matter, including zero. Again, you're assuming virtually all the increase we have seen is from CO2. While that is possible, it's also just a possible it's from natural causes.
  12. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    I did not read "Merchants of Doubt" in it's entirety but, according to what I read, it is not a science book and Naome Oreskes does not make any scientific arguments. Or did I miss that part? Bob
  13. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 at 05:36 AM on 20 December, 2010 RW1 at 08:50 AM on 20 December, 2010 That's all incorrect RW1 (and note [***] below) You can calculate the warming expected at equilibrium from an increase in atmospheric [CO2], very simply: delta T = (ln([CO2]final/[CO2]start))*S/ln(2) where delta T is the change in temperature at equilibrium from increasing atmospheric [CO2]start to [CO2]final, for a climate sensitivity of S (oC per doubling of [CO2]). For your 280 ppm to 380 ppm, the warming at equilibrium for a climate sensitivity of 3 oC, is: 1.31 oC The temperature rise from the period when [CO2] was 280 ppm (early-mid 19th century)[***] to 2000 is around 0.9 oC. Since the Earth has a substantial inertia to warming, we certainly haven't attained equilibrium with respect to warming from the enhanced greenhouse forcing. Likewise we know that a significant amount of the warming from enhanced greenhouse forcing has been offset by anthropogenic aerosols. The solar contribution to warming is known to be small over this period (no more than 0.1 oC); note that a small part of the warming is from non-CO2 anthropogenic sources (methane, and nitrous oxides). for a climate sensitivity of 2 oC the expected temperature rise is 0.88 oC. This is a small part of the reason that climate sensitivites below around 2 oC are simply incompatible with empirical observation. In other words we've already had the warming expected from a climate sensitivity of 2 oC, without taking into account the climate inertia and the effects of aerosols. The empirical data are generally consistent with a climate sensitivity near 3 oC (per doubling of atmospheric [CO2]. [***] you have mismatched 280 ppm with 1990. In fact in 1990 atmospheric [CO2] was already near 300 ppm (297-298 ppm; see D. M. Etheridge et al (1996) "Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn J. Geophys Res. 101, 4115 -4128), and your expected temperature rise should be 1.02 oC for a climate sensitivity of 3 oC (we had around 0.75-0.8 oC of this to 2000...)
  14. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    archiesteel (RE: Post 35), Vostok is in Antarctica - not the Arctic, which I know is more variable than global averages. Antarctica is considerably less variable than the Arctic. Even if you assume the global averages were only half of what Vostok depicts, that still means the amount of warming we've seen is only about average or maybe a little above. The 0.6 C rise was from 1900-2000 (i.e. 100 years), not necessarily the total rise since we've been measuring, which I don't doubt is about 0.8 C.
  15. It's freaking cold!
    Tom,and all record November high temperature here in New Zealand. Your point? "Global" warming means look at temperature of whole globe. If you believe that AGW predicts no more record lows in every region of the world then you are sadly mistaken. Are you going to spam us with all the record high temperatures as well or do you have tunnel vision?
  16. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Can I say I am confused about what is actually being argued about here? A TOA energy imbalance implies earth is storing energy - this make future temperature rise inevitable but surely this is information about current energy imbalance. Since 1750, top of tropopause downward radiative forcing is 2.9W/m2 due to change in GHG composition. Would this be the more relevant number?
  17. It's freaking cold!
    @Tom: spamming these comments sections with irrelevant links isn't going to change reality. As this article explains, cold weather doesn't disprove global warming - but hey, I'm sure you can continue flooding this site with your worthless anecdotal evidence!
  18. It's freaking cold!
    "large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates." President and Director Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 1/27/2003
    Moderator Response: Please read comment policy and the fourth point in particular. Thank you.
  19. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @RW1: you're not sticking to the science - in fact, you have failed to provide evidence that point to climate sensitivity being lower than 3C. The 0.8C increase in temp is in line with what models predict for a 3C sensitivity.
  20. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    Fred Singer is a lot like George Costanza
  21. It's freaking cold!
    @Tom Loeber: cherry-picked anecdotal evidence = epic fail.
  22. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    #45. RW1 - I'm sorry but you are damorbel and I claim my £5! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobby_Lud)
  23. We're heading into an ice age
    @Tom Loeber: worthless anecdotal evidence. Try again.
  24. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Riccardo (RE: Post 43), I'm sticking to the science via civil discourse. And for the record, I don't believe that the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts the greenhouse effect or global warming theory at all. I don't dispute that increased CO2 likely has some warming effect - I'm just presenting empirically derived evidence and logic that suggests the magnitude of the warming predicted - 3 degrees C, is simply much too high.
  25. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    Merchants of Doubt is an excellent piece of work, well documented, transparant. I've been tracing-down some of the claims and arguments some climate change deniers here in the Netherlands put on their blogs regularly. It is exactly as analysed by Oreskes and Conway: sources are a limited (and connected) number of think-tanks and pseudo-scientific institutions, producing loads of disinformation that is continuously amplified in the blogosphere. Analyzing the skeptical arguments is as important as analyzing the denial and doubt-mongering strategies and backgrounds. Jan Paul van Soest
  26. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    Fred Singer has long been an unscientific "scientist." His credibility evaporated when he denied receiving money from ExxonMobile. He has been in the pocket of big oil for many years and I suspect that coal and other fossil fuel companies contribute to his coffers as well. We would be wise to stand up and attack this pseudoscientist for what he is; A pawn of dirty industry and a purveyer of falsehoods. He has done nothing positive with his life's work and will be remembered as the charlatan that he is. Oreskes and Conway do an excellant job of outing this guy and should be commended for their work.
  27. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Bob, generally, you have to tell people how they can use the work. The Creative Commons site: http://creativecommons.org/ I haven't used creative commons licenses, I would contact John Cook who has. Also consider discussing this on the forum??
  28. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Riccardo (RE: Post 42), Explain to me what is happening at the TOA vs. what is happening at the surface. I need some specifics. I understand that an imbalance at the surface from a increase in radiative forcing will be offset by radiating out more power at the TOA to compensate - to achieve equilibrium. Is this what you're saying?
  29. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    As I pointed out in another thread quoting Mombiot, I'm afraid that some trolling need to be taken into account. The obstinacy in certain errors and the conceitedness of having found a "significant hole in the AGW theory" with a few (wrong) back of the envelop calculations are typical; the tactics in the dicussion are also always the same. Sound familiar.
  30. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 no one addressed your question because it makes no sense. As I'm trying to explain your reasoning is wrong beacuse you mix what happens at TOA with what happens at the surface. You should work out the correct energy balance starting with a simple zero-dimensional model.
  31. It's freaking cold!
    What is the relevance in pointing to a record cold month on 0.03% of the globe when the globe has had a near record hot year in continuance of a multi-decade trend?
  32. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric and CBD, The response of incrementally more CO2 is not linear - but logarithmic, which means each additional amount added only has about half of the effect of the previous amount. This is how and why I'm getting about 75-80% when going from 280 ppm to 380ppm. What this also means is that the remaining 180 ppm to get to a doubling of 560 ppm will only have about 20-25% of the effect as the first 100 ppm
  33. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    CBD said: "ln(380/280)=0.305382, or about 31%... not 75-80%" But ln(2) is 0.693 so it should be 44%, not 31%, and not 75-80% in post 31
  34. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    The Ville - 30 Thanks for your response. Actually I do want people copying and using it for any purpose as long as my name remains on it and my words are not plagiarized. I suppose what I need is a creative commons license. How is this done? Thanks again, Bob
  35. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    VeryTallGuy (RE: Post 38), I'll break it down into a series of questions: 1. Do you agree that the infrared power at the surface is on its way up out to space when it gets absorbed by GHGs (i.e. CO2)? 2. Do you agree that when re-radiated, half of the power absorbed is directed upward out to space and the other half is directed downward toward the surface? 3. Do you agree that all infrared power at the surface that isn't absorbed goes directly out to space? 4. Do you agree, therefore, that re-radiated power that is directed up out to space is same as power that was never absorbed to begin with? 5. Do you agree that about 4 W/m^2 is the total absorbed power from a doubling of CO2? 6. Do you agree that half of 4 W/m^2 is 2 W/m^2?
  36. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    @ oamoe at 10:40 AM on 19 December, 2010 #17 "reducing the amount of surface-originated IR that stratospheric CO2 absorbs? Does this help explain the cooler stratosphere?" The radiation depends only from the temperature. The absorption and convection replaced only the emitted energy. Otherwise, the temperature profile can not be explained solely by the radiation, the convection is essential for the temperature gradient. In the troposphere, the temperature gradient follows nearly alone from moist adiabatic vertical circulation.
  37. It's freaking cold!
    Coldest December in England's history
  38. We're heading into an ice age
    Coldest December in England's history: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339149/Big-freeze-Temperatures-plummet-10C-bringing-travel-chaos-Britain.html
  39. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 "4 W/m^2 would the total that affects the surface only if all the absorbed power is directed back toward the surface, but only about half of it does because GHG infrared absorption and re-radiation is in all directions - i.e. about half goes down and other half goes up out to space in the same general direction it was already headed" I have already pointed out twice that this is simply plain wrong. The point on emissions being both up and down is irrelevant - the calculation already takes account of the fact that emission is isotropic. No amount of you baldly stating the opposite makes the fact go away. Doubling CO2, devoid of feedbacks, adds 4W/m2 to the Earth's energy budget. When you insist on quoting again and again, without references something plainly wrong, there's no point in any "debate".
  40. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Excellent work, Bob ... but my final point of confusion was cleared up by this comment from Jeff T. You might want to consider adding it to the main text: "The characteristic vibrational energies of O2 and N2 are relatively high; they are not excited by collisions in earth's atmosphere. CO2's characteristic energy is lower. Its vibrations are excited by collisions in the atmosphere." Thus the more CO2, the more energy is lost via radiation.
  41. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Riccardo (RE: Post 36), I know the feedbacks are not included in the 4 W/m^2 (2 W/m^2 net) - that is why the actual response is greater than 2 W/m^2 or about 3.2 W/m^2 (or 6.4 W/m^2 if all the absorbed power is assumed to be directed back to the surface). The point is even if all the power is directed back down, the temperature increase would still only be about 1.2 C, which is significantly less than the 3 C predicted (390 W/m^2 + 6.4 W/m^2 = 396.4 W/m^2 = 289.2K). No one has yet to really address the initial question, which is what's so special about 1 W/m^2 additional of power from CO2 that the system is all of the sudden going to treat it as being at least 5 times more powerful than 1 W/m^2 of power from the Sun?
  42. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 feedbacks are not included in the 4 W/m2 and you're still separating the whole system into two parts. It does not work this way. Try the enrgy balance of the earth as a whole.
  43. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    @muoncounter #51 I wasn't thinking in fine psychology but something in the style of The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism. For me, paragraphs like
    It's a testament to the robustness of the AGW theory that skeptics can't seem to decide what their objection to it is. If there were a flaw in the theory, then every skeptic would pounce on it and make a consistent argument, rather than the current philosophy which seems to be "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks."

    are worth a gold ingot because almost everyone can understand them. With these kind of messages, people who can't follow the arguments suddenly understands what's going on 'behind the scenes'. No wonder some 'big shot' who drives real funding to GW denialism felt the need to comment on that post.

  44. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @RW1: cherry-picking. That graph is for a single region, not a global average. It is well known certain areas see greater variability, especially near the poles. For example, the current Arctic anomalies are more than twice the global one (which is 0.8, not 0.6), putting them in the high end of what this graph shows. Never mind the fact that most of the warming has occured over the last 40 years, not century. Nice try, but this has been debunked here countless times. Perhaps you should actually learn the science on this site before arrogantly claiming to overturn decades of climate science with your old and tired talking points?
  45. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 writes: "Due to the logarithmic response of CO2, an increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm equals about 75-80% of the forcing from a doubling of CO2." Forget about learning the science... you aren't going to get anywhere until you learn math. ln(380/280)=0.305382, or about 31%... not 75-80% Also: "75% of 3 degrees C is 2.25 degrees C." Which, in addition to the incorrect starting factor, would assume that all the warming feedbacks were instantaneous... which is not what climate science projects. It will take decades after any given CO2 level is reached for all the FAST feedbacks to play out and centuries for slow feedbacks to complete. Also: "During the period from about 1900-2000, the amount of warming was only about 0.6 C" The CO2 level at 1900 was higher than 280 ppm... so you are also using different base periods for your calculations of percentage increase of CO2 vs warming purportedly caused by this percentage increase. Finally: "...less than 1/3rd of the predicted amount, and that's only if you assume all the warming was from CO2 (highly unlikely)." The figure of 3C from a doubling of CO2 you cite is the amount climate science projects from CO2 and fast feedbacks not CO2 alone. If you correct for the host of errors identified above you will find that based on the increase of CO2 levels observed so far we'd expect, and have observed, temperature increases of about 0.8 C globally since CO2 rose above 280 ppm. In short, projections of 3 C warming are right on track... which is precisely why that IS the average projection... because it is what observations thus far suggest is most likely.
  46. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @RW1: again, that has been debunked over and over again. First, most of the CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in the past 40 years. Second, it takes quite a while for the entire impact of CO2 to be felt, so some of that temperature increase is still "in the pipeline." Third, I don't believe you get 75% of the increase you'd get from doubling CO2 from a 35% increase in its concentration. I'd be curious to see where you got those figures - hope it's not from that same website. Fourth, the current temp increase is 0.8C, not 0.6C. "and that's only if you assume all the warming was from CO2 (highly unlikely)" CO2 + Feedbacks. It's not "highly unlikely", but rather very likely that the greater part of the warming is due to CO2 increase, and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. "I've never seen the fundamental science, calculations and logic presented there adequately disputed anywhere." May I suggest that you actually look at peer-reviewed litterature rather than seeking confirmation for what you already believe from random web sites on the Internet?
  47. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    archiesteel (RE: Post 31), Just look at the icecore data from Vostok, for example. The amount of warming we've experienced in the last 100 years of about 0.6 degrees C is not only within the range of natural variability - it's below average. Over the last 10,000 years the average amount of temperature change per century is roughly 1 degree C - with some 100 year periods seeing as much as 2 degrees C:
  48. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    muoncounter (RE: Post 30), The biggest piece of contradictory evidence is that the amount of expected warming is absent. Due to the logarithmic response of CO2, an increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm equals about 75-80% of the forcing from a doubling of CO2. 75% of 3 degrees C is 2.25 degrees C. During the period from about 1900-2000, the amount of warming was only about 0.6 C - less than 1/3rd of the predicted amount, and that's only if you assume all the warming was from CO2 (highly unlikely). They have tried, after the fact, to ascribe the lack of warming to be due to aerosols. Or is it ocean thermal inertia? Or something different tomorrow or next week? It seems anything but conclude the hypothesis is probably wrong, and the sensitivity is far smaller than they are still claiming it is. The scientific method dictates modifying or discarding a hypothesis when it does not fit the evidence. It does not permit adding unsubstantiated things arbitrarily after the fact when the hypothesis is not in accordance with the evidence. The site that was referenced and the empirically derived calculations of sensitivity by George White totally add up. I've never seen the fundamental science, calculations and logic presented there adequately disputed anywhere. If you believe you have clear evidence that contradicts it, present it in detail and we'll discuss and debate it.
  49. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @RW1: "The burden of proof is not on the skeptics to demonstrate what caused the warming because the amount and rate of warming we've experienced is well within the range of natural variability." Wrong. The burden of proof *is* on the skeptics to prove that similar temperature increases have happened at this rate in the past, and that similar natural forces are at play today. There is no evidence of this, nor have you provided any. "The burden of proof is on the AGW proponents to demonstrate it was caused by CO2, and all of that evidence has to be in accordance with all other existing evidence." Wrong again. The burden of proof is on the AGW proponents to demonstrate it was caused by CO2, and all of that evidence has to be in accordance with all other existing evidence. The evidence is already there supporting AGW, if only in the satellite-measured OLR or ground-measured downward LR. In other words, all lines of evidence point to the warming being caused by CO2, while there is virtually no evidence supporting your position. "It only takes one piece of contradictory evidence to disprove a hypothesis - no matter how much confirming evidence may exist." As muoncounter said, please provide this evidence. After all, the burden of proof is on you, not on AGW proponents. AGW is the currently accepted science. The burden of proof is on the challengers.
  50. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    #50: "analyzing the attitudes behind denialism and the underlying mechanisms" Here's a relevant definition: denial /de·ni·al/ (dĭ-ni´il) in psychiatry, a defense mechanism in which the existence of unpleasant internal or external realities is kept out of conscious awareness. That's a fascinating area of study, but probably not what John had in mind for this discussion.

Prev  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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