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  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  Next

Comments 100951 to 101000:

  1. It's freaking cold!
    Mike H - if AGW theory predicted that there would be no more record lows, then you would have a point, but it does not. For a discussion on what the science does and does not expect, I suggest reading the papers discussed at Cold Winter in a world of Warming. Or look at some individual models runs.
  2. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, Regarding your questions in #61 above, can you ask them in terms of the diagram shown here Has-the-greenhouse-effect-been-falsified.html#14266? Or specifically I am wondering where the numbers in "390 divided by 238" come from?
  3. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    archiesteel (RE: Post 120), I think VeryTallGuy can respond for himself.
  4. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    So your correspondent believes "the real reason for global warming (ie. increased surface temperatures) is that the earth's orbit around the sun is slowly decaying". And the reason he knows the earth's orbit is decaying is [increased] "surface temperature". That's circular reasoning in keeping with typical skeptic logic. False logic is a barrier to establishing the facts, but is no barrier at all to a skeptic confirming what he wants to believe. To the extent that political will in the US is subject to ignorance of ordinary Americans, I fear we the planet is doomed!
  5. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    I don't think the Singers (or those like him) can understand when someone destroys their argument any more, neither do they appear able to comprehend exactly what other people are arguing. They appear to be sealed off in their own universe where their ideas make sense to them... and other people's don't. The problem with extreme contrarians, pathological sceptics or whatever (not using the D word in this post!) is that they no longer seem to possess the ability to realise when they are wrong.
  6. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @RW1: "I think I have an idea what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure." Strange, because he was quite clear. In fact, many people here have offered solid rebuttals to your wild theories, and the fact you are not offering counter-arguments but simply restating your original position is telling. "I'm getting the impression you're repeating things you've read or been told without fully understanding them." I believe this is a textbook case of psychological projection. In fact, there is nothing wrong with VTG's argument - it is yours that seems to betray a profound misunderstanding of the science. Whether this is on purpose or not remains to be seen...
  7. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    VeryTallGuy (RE: Post 111), I think I have an idea what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure. I'm getting the impression you're repeating things you've read or been told without fully understanding them. Can you take me through step by step how a doubling of CO2 will increase the surface temperature by solely the intrinsic amount (before any feedbacks)? And/or present a series of separate "Do you agree...." questions and break it down like I did.
  8. Arctic sea ice has recovered
    Ok, here's some 'good news': Polar bears: On thin ice? Extinction can be averted, scientists say ... new Nature paper indicates that if greenhouse gas emissions were reduced substantially in the near future, rapid ice losses would be followed by substantial retention of the remaining ice through this century--and partial recovery of the ice that disappeared during the rapid ice loss. --emphasis added That's a fairly balanced way to report this new study. The same group (University of Washington) ran a model in 2007 forecasting that sea ice would reach a tipping point and polar bears would go down the drain by the end of century. One of the authors did a writeup in RC contrasting what the study actually said vs. what was said about it. That is an interesting read of its own. The full size graph is available there. But the new study has already generated headlines proclaiming the 'good news', even before the Nature issue comes out: Arctic ice cap safe from runaway melting No tipping point for Arctic icecap melting How fast will the actual message -- that substantial GHG mitigation must happen and soon (emphasized in the quote above) -- get lost as the deniersphere spins this one?
  9. It's freaking cold!
    It seems to me that we need to differentiate between climate change and anthropogenic global warming.The temperature trends appear to indicate a warming, but that alone does nothing to identify the cause. I would argue that if we observe record low temperatures with CO2 at a supposedly 'all-time' high this tends to indicate that CO2 is by no means the major contributor to warming.
    Moderator Response: See the posts "CO2 is not the only driver of climate" and then "It’s not us."
  10. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    @Phil #21 No, #17 was just an run-of-the-mill innuendo, with a basic formulation. Thanks for that link, very interesting!
  11. An online resource for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report
    Absolutely brilliant! Congratulations. And thanks.
  12. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    #61 danielbacon at 04:45 AM on 21 December, 2010 "With Kirchhoff’s law and no molecule collision the frequency absorbed and re-emitted ..." There is no re-emission, but only an emission according to the temperature. Absorption and convective heat transfer only replace the emitted energy, so that the gas temperature remains approximately constant.
  13. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    danielbacon at 04:45 AM on 21 December, 2010 says Its more a question of opacity, a molecule will emit proportional to its T^4, so at higher altitudes, CO2 is still emitting at 15 micron, but much less intensely than at the surface(and also, just because something can absorb a wavelength, dosnt mean it emits it, if its T is not sufficient, take O3, absorbs UV, emits 9-10 micron , Kirchhoff's law is really just saying you cant heat something above the T o the source radiation.) The reason being, that at just above the surface, the atmosphere is extremely opaque to 15 micron, so even though it is emitting much more intensely than at the tropopause, what is emitted is absorbed within 3m. So it doesn't loose energy through radiation in this wavelength at these path lengths. Where as when you rise through the atmosphere, and it becomes more rarefied, the amount of energy moved through radiation increases, just because the probability of what it emits being reabsorbed in close proximity to it decreases. The path length shortens. So the vast majority of the energy emitted from just below the tropopause in 15micron escapes directly to space, some is absorbed in transit, and re emitted, and this emission can be seen as a spike in the center of the 15micron band looking down from space. Because its more intense than what is emitted from the tropopause(around 220K). I think Ebel and Tom Curtis both posted graphs of this in the other thread. Truth is, the net flow of energy is from the stratosphere to the troposphere, and this is a result of the transparency to LW in the stratosphere, but opacity to UV, so it emits more to the troposphere than it absorbs coming up from the troposphere. Good paper on stratospheric tropospheric radiative interaction that im going to post yet again, because it does give some great insights. Quantum mechanics is not my thing however, but emission is T dependent.
  14. citizenschallenge at 07:08 AM on 21 December 2010
    An online resource for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report
    hope you don't mind me doing a cut and paste of something I just posted at the CFI discussion Forum. The way I see it Miloslav Nic site deserves to be trumpeted around a little. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lookie what just hit cyberspace. A clear, easy, searchable database to the Fourth Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its hundreds of reports. You can do searches under contents, authors, or journals. The presentation of the pages is beautifully simple and clear. The typo is a clear crisp Ariel (or something close) so it's readable, even with them fading eyes. I played around for a while and all the cascading links worked fine and dandy. NO unnecessary bells’n whistles that only serve to distract and delay download time…. meaning when you click a link it comes up fast and clear - very very nice touch. It will be great fun watching this site develop. I recall when SkepticalScience.com was taking its first baby steps and see what a valuable and formidable site that has evolved into. It would be wonderful to see this site flourish. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pssst pass it* on {*that is: Zvon.org Guide to IPCC AR4 } cheers PM
  15. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    I still don't understand why the Register gets it so wrong on Climate Science. I used to enjoy reading that site back in 2000, but along the way they just lost their relevance - and now this.
  16. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    I wonder whether the "Observations indicate global warming less than the low end scenario," @17 is a mis-statement of this misinformation
  17. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    RSVP: "As the context is electromagnetic radiation, and the exchange of heat from solids on the ground to CO2 molecules that make up the atmosphere, it is hard to understand where the obscurity lies." You assume that everyone knows what level of understanding you have. I generally assume denialists have a poor understanding of science. Hence coming from such a person, a packet can mean anything. You clearly do not explain yourself clearly in order to disrupt and play games. That isn't clever and is considered to be morally corrupt by some.
  18. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Xplain: "Shame RSVP has scrawled graffiti all over the comments..." Indeed.
  19. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    #17: "Observations indicate global warming less than ..." Really? I hadn't heard. What observations are you referring to? Subsequent comments should go to It's not bad or IPCC is alarmist or It's not happening.
  20. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    @CW: "Observations indicate global warming less than the low end scenario" Actually, they don't. They're right in line with a 2-4.5C. Except now we have another problem: oceans are soaking up more heat that we originally thought, and they are acidifying. That's a double whammy on marine life, with potentially devastating results on many aquatic ecosystems. But yeah, let's continue raising CO2 concentrations to levels not seen for millions of years. That sounds like a swell idea... Any more doubt to sell?
  21. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    ClimateWatcher - Can you point to where "Observations indicate global warming less than the low end scenario..." is demonstrated? It was my understanding that we're tracking right along the mid-level IPCC projections, matching the modeled response to what we are actually emitting, although with much higher ice melt rates than projected (as the IPCC did not include melt feedbacks in their estimates). I do not think your claim is correct.
  22. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    i have posted a power point on charge balancing and buffering in aqueous solutions on my website, hfranzen.org. This web post, "CB with Buffering", provides a rather complete, explicit treatment of the reactions involved in the dissolution of carbon dioxide in the absence of buffers and a general treatment providing the fundamental equation for determining the pH of a solution containing any number of weak acids and weak acid anions and in equilibrium with gaseous carbon dioxide.
  23. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    The IPCC peddles the first doubt. Observations indicate global warming less than the low end scenario, yet the public discourse is: 'yeah, yeah, but it could be really bad.' The longer the observations converge to a mild rate of change, the more we must question the IPCC range of doubt.
  24. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Good article. Very educational. Shame RSVP has scrawled graffiti all over the comments section by denying the very principle that we all know from merely getting under a duvet when we go to bed. Or perhaps I'm still dreaming...
  25. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    danielbacon - Collisions will dominate energy transfer down to <1 Torr, or about 1 millibar (0.75 Torr/millibar). That means any part of the atmosphere below about 48km, the top of the stratosphere: As the current topic is discussing tropospheric and stratospheric radiative states, not mesospheric or thermospheric, we can consider collisional effects dominant. As to which particular energy states, I can't speak to the statistical distribution between various vibrational/electron states. - perhaps someone else can. Is it relevant?
  26. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    Humanity Rules #11 When you accuse people of circular reasoning, it's kind of an obligation to present actual evidence of their circular reasoning. That way, we can see that you're not simply being frivolous. wingding #47 the simplest counterargument (one that everyone can understand the logic to) Well, maybe not everyone. Apparently, some people just know when a scientific argument is "flawed," just as some people can reportedly sense Magnetic North. Personally, I like the idea of a luminiferous aether. It's a shame that modern physics is conspiring to suppress an idea that really deserves to be true. muoncounter #48 #40: Yooper, you and I apparently misspent our youth in much the same way. Although The Hollow Earth (fact or fiction?) would explain why the Arctic ice is melting -- heat from the internal sun! Close, but no cigar. The warming actually comes from the underground UFO bases at New Swabia.
  27. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    I am the one unclear here sorry. With Kirchhoff’s law and no molecule collision the frequency absorbed and re-emitted are the same correct (or am I making a mistake here). Now as we move up now adding collision you are saying that the emitting of IR is more due to molecules collision creating one of three vibration states then emitting, is more dominate then ad-reemit? As the collision drop off absorbed and re-emitted would be stronger. Now are both collision and the major absorbed are both dominate on one particular vibration state and if so which a-sync or one of the two bending states.
  28. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 writes: "logarithmic, which means each additional amount added only has about half of the effect of the previous amount" The man has his own (false) definition of 'logarithmic'. What more need be said?
  29. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    danielbacon to elaborate a little bit on what KR said, once excited, the molecule have two possible paths to jump back to the fundametal state, emit the excess energy at the same frequency or give it away as kinetic energy to other molecules by collision. The first proces is radiative, the second is not because the vast majority of mouecules in the atmosphere is IR inactive. In principle, higher order processes may occur, but they can be safely neglected. Having said this, I think the best way to understand it is look at an emission spectrum.
  30. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    @TOP: referring to a man's past record is completely legitimate when one tries to ascertain his credibility. Singer has a history of twisting science to serve powerful corporate interests. He's a shill, pure and simple. You wouldn't take the time to defend him if you didn't share his politically-motivated opposition to AGW theory.
  31. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    @RSVP: "Let's see. If an IR "photon", energy packet, (however you want to call it) is emitted from a roof's slate shingle, and is captured by a CO2 molecule two feet away, has not the roof lost the energy, and the air gained the energy? And in losing this energy, has not the roof effectively "cooled"?" Indeed. However, without the GHG molecule, the IR photon would be more likely to escape into space, while here it is being captured by a CO2 molecule and re-radiated, possibly back to that rock, re-warming it. Eventually the Earth will reach temperature equilibrium, but all this extra time the IR photons spend in the atmosphere and back to the ground means higher temperatures overall. You know this already. Please stop wasting everyone's time.
  32. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Ebel - Sorry if I was unclear. The energy of the CO2 molecule will vary greatly over time, including both quantum effects (electron orbital states), vibrational energy, and the more continuously variable rotational values. By continuous I meant over time, not total energy. Due to the frequent collisions and energy exchanges emission energies of any particular CO2 molecule will have at most a very weak correlation with previous absorption energies.
  33. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    #56 KR at 02:59 AM on 21 December, 2010 "The energy state of the CO2 molecule will be changing continuously due to collisional interactions," The energy state of the CO2 molecule will be changing not continuously, but in quantum. See also Milne, Edward Arthur: The effect of collisions on monochromatic radiative equilibrium ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1928MNRAS..88..493M ) Atoms in Milne = molecules in the atmosphere
  34. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    danielbacon - That depends a bit on altitude and pressure. At surface pressures a CO2 molecule will collide with ~1000 other molecules before it has time to transition down and emit a photon. This means that an individual absorption is unlikely to directly result in an emission, but rather emission is driven by the air mass average temperature of thermally (re)excited CO2. The energy state of the CO2 molecule will be changing continuously due to collisional interactions, not just absorption events, and the emission spectra will reflect that. At stratospheric pressures/temperatures, of course, collision frequency will drop, but there should be >>1 collisions before emission down to roughly single Torr pressures.
  35. An online resource for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report
    I gave it a few tries. Unbelievable. Congrats Miloslav Nic.
  36. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    A few questions about the different vibration states (3 IR ones) and the frequency of the IR packet? What I understand that CO2 will not (~90%) transition between the different oscillations so is the energy frequency absorbed and re-emitted the same (as in the same band) or is it on one of the other two bands? If this is so would it not change the shape of the spectrum (frequency absorbed and re-emitted) with altitude? I understand band winging etc. But I have heard both answers (Same and not the same frequency) from people in the field. I know it is more of a quantum mechanics but I have not been able to get an answer or a better undemanding of the changing frequency in the oscillations states. I know what the answer would be if it was the electron changing states but not with vibration states. If you have a reference would be nice. My last quantum mechanics class was late 70s so sorry for a basic question. Thanks
  37. Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    #25: A document that turns against one's intended use is the digital petard. As for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, "They are not near my conscience; their defeat Does by their own insinuation grow"
  38. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    Actually, TOP, while it does appear that rockytom is attacking the man and not the ideas, Singer has consistently produced the same ideas, even in the face of perfectly understandable criticism. It could be said, then, that Singer has become ideologically driven--no longer capable of dialectical engagement with his field of expertise. Is rockytom, then, pulling a typical "ad hominem" case, like attacking based on skin or hair color, or the brand of Singer's cologne? No. Everything rockytom says is related to the man's professional life and its apparent ideological solidification.
  39. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    Oreskes and Conway simply cite in their paragraph this text (notes 97 and 98 to chapter 1 in Merchants of Doubt): Presentation to Operating Committee. R.J. Reynolds Industries, Inc. by F. Seitz "There is much talk these days about the effects of the environment in causing cancer. This is often coupled with an attempt to lay much of the blame for cancer upon industrialization. While there's no doubt that certain industrial occupations carry special hazards, it seems quite fair to say that under the best circumstances the natural environment is not carcinogen free. Among other things we know that the oxygen in the air we breathe and which is essential for life plays a role in radiation-induced cancer". and they add "(Oxygen, like most elements, has a radioactive version -- oxygen 15 -- although it is not naturally occurring.)" and refer to note 99 Michel Ter-Pogossian et al, "Radioactive Oxygen 15 in Studies of Kinetics of Oxygen of Respiration," American Journal of Physiology 201 (1961) So Oreskes and Conway know well what they are saying. Seitz is making a blurry statement which contains an induced inference about oxygen being related with radiation-induced cancer ('plays a role' is the blurry statement that happily produces the expected inference), so the authors only can cite a proper text saying that Oxygen 15 in not naturally available and let the reader to infer Seitz' intentions. That is, nothing to blame on O. and C. It's a pity that Dr. Singer hasn't followed the same protocol and quoted "Merchants of Doubts" properly. I only can add two things: 1) Intentionally blurry pseudo-assertions are common in any debatable topic. Singer, Seitz and a few people hanging comments here are good evidence of that. We can't let them misguide us nor we can answer their tricky ways with impatience and using their methods. 2) Let Singer do all the hating. Criticizing Singer morals and abilities is following his steps.
  40. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    TOP are you a lawyer? That's my impression judging from your comment. The fact is that Singer, in the one example cited, was wrong. That's it. We'll wait for the many others he possibly found.
  41. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    It sure looks like Oreskes and Conway took a misleading comment from Seitz and plunked it down in their book. Singer calls them on this by saying, "...To cite just one example...and apparently, they assume that the burning of tobacco creates isotopes." In order to point out that Singer is mis-characterizing Oreskes and Conway you need to show that the one example is uncharacteristic of other examples and statements that Singer could have quoted regarding oxygen or other naturally occurring substances and that O&C called Seitz on using a straw man or mis-characterization themselves. Not having read either book I could be wrong about both, I have to go by what facts the OP has included and assume that he is taking both comments in context. And of course the first comment on the article by rockytom has to be an ad hominem argument against Singer. Whether it is true or not, it is still an ad hominem argument.
  42. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Without ozone heating would be no inversion - but the temperature gradient would still fall to nearly 0. The ozone mass is very little (lower 5 mbar). Stratosphere lower 200 mbar. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=5&t=245&&n=468 #234
  43. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 01:16 AM on 21 December 2010
    An online resource for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report
    Can only echo shdwsnlite - wow. I've only had a quick look but that looks like a phenomenal resource. Thank you.
  44. Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    Re: muoncounter (24) Does being done-in by one's own furnished link constitute being hoist by one's own petard? Re: Arkadiusz (23) If you're going to dig into the paleo record, by all means let us do so. You do realize, by doing so, the inevitable comp to today's warming/GHG concentrations is the PETM...(I can see a need to write up a piece on this one, too...sigh; always more work to do and never enough time in the day). The Yooper
  45. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Ebel I don't think so. Indeed, ozone is one of the main factor affecting our troposphere/stratosphere structure. As far as I know, we'd not have a temperature inversion in the stratosphere without ozone; this has been recognized around the 1930s of last century and never changed. But sure I won't fall into the mistake of thinking that only one factor matters.
  46. Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    #23: "an example of a decisive influence: direct and indirect - of solar activity." Please substantiate this claim. It is neither in the Arctic Report Card you linked to, nor in the Overland et al paper. However, this is: Referring to 2009, ... there were still extensive regions of open water in the Chukchi, East Siberian Laptev, and Kara Seas ... which allowed extra solar and longwave radiation to be absorbed by the ocean ... . The heat accumulated in the ocean can be released back to the atmosphere the following autumn That is clearly a reference to reradiated IR, the source for IR trapped by the greenhouse effect. So you've actually substantiated the case for greenhouse warming. Thanks!
  47. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    #115: Thank you, Eric. Figure 4 in Antonov 2004 shows the nearly sinusoidal annual variation, which averages over the year to very nearly 0. Taken over the long term, oscillations don't add anything. That would also be the case for +/- orbital heat flux differences. However, we have other ongoing discussions of OHC here and here.
  48. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    @RSVP #40 Again, what makes you think that B relates to A, being: A = "The interaction of IR radiation with CO2 is a two way street in that IR radiation can interact with unexcited CO2 molecules and cause them to vibrate and become excited and excited CO2 molecules can become unexcited by releasing IR radiation." B = "How does a packet of energy that raises the troposphere's temperature, also raise the temperature of the Earth's surface or ocean waters? Afterall, hasnt it been said that all this extra energy is accumulating in the oceans and raising water temperature? If that little bit more of IR gets absorbed at a lower altitude due to the extra CO2, this should raise its kinetic energy or that of the gases around it,... in which case the work is done and accounted for... end of story. How can it then do "double-time", going off and warming other things? " [SIC] You took a simple dynamic process (A) yet one you don't understand and cast it into The Brothers Menaechmus (B). Basically you are saying "something I have no clue violates the law of conservation of energy! What about that!?!?". I was tempted to answer that and explain it to you, as many patiently do here daily. But I think that you, as any learner, must do your effort, and as I am sure you are not here because of control issues or 'being a playa, yo' or 'I'm making them mad with my observations because they have no clue' or 'There's no AGW because I have no clue but still I get them in a swamp trying to explain it to me' or anything like that, God forbid, I suggest you to start by explaining what "unexcited" means in A.
  49. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    #45 VeryTallGuy at 19:42 PM on 20 December, 2010 "what's the difference in heat capacity for an atmosphere with 560 vs 280 ppm CO2?" Almost no difference The difference is the height of the tropopause It results in the following outline of the greenhouse effect in 5 points: 1. The atmosphere is divided into two parts, in essence, bottom the troposphere with a lot of convection, where the weather is and where we live, and top the stratosphere without convection, with a possible move the border between the two spheres. 2. The temperature gradient in the troposphere is (almost) constant - even when changing the thickness of the troposphere. This consistency is result of convection. 3. The almost constant optical thickness of a changing stratosphere. This constancy is due to radiation and is due to the scaling (scaling) of the radiation transport equation for change in optical thickness with change in concentration of CO2. 4. If the temperature gradient exceeds a certain threshold, the air can not stay calm and stratification becomes unstable - and the convection is the characteristics of the troposphere 5. In the steady state (ie, even though time passes, the state no changes) does mean the heat of the earth just as great as the heat absorption - would otherwise be the temperatures change constantly. But this would contradict the stationarity. These 5 points provide a basic sensitivity of the average surface temperature as a result of changes in concentrations of CO2. Addition: The thicker troposphere has a greater temperature difference between top and bottom, and this greater temperature difference is so distributed to warming bottom and cooling top, that the total radiation of the Earth is equal to the total absorption.
  50. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    #49 @ Riccardo auf 22.04 Uhr am 20. Dezember 2010 "stratosppheric ozone influences stratospheric temperature." - But only very little

Prev  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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