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  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  Next

Comments 101051 to 101100:

  1. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 said "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." From the 2nd link in #50 (2008_Lean_Rind.pdf) the amount of added forcing for 280 to 380 is 1.5 W/m^2 So for 380 to 480 is another 0.75 (according to your formula) and for 480 to 560 is another 0.3 (80% of 0.375) for a total of 2.55 W/m^2 (not 4) for the doubling of CO2. That hinges on your statement of "half the effect of the previous amount".
  2. It's freaking cold!
    @ Tom Löber #33 Cherry wholesaler, perhaps? You are misinforming about the supposed cold snaps and cold records in South America. That is old twisted news. I make some of my students in High School to take posts like yours and all the links they offered and dig the truth about the cold developments in 'exotic' South American territories, what was easy because we are Argentine. Suffice to say that it was a cold Winter here and there, nothing "special". State of emergency? Yes, massive anti flu vaccination (remember H1N1?). People with pneumonia -almost an average year- yes. Dead fish, yes. Other animals too. Most of them from species that moved to newly warmed territories and couldn't stand temperatures normal in 1975 or 1960. Let South America alone when in a cherry picking spree. @42 What calendar did they use in England that this is the coldest December in record? From here, it looks like 40% of December is yet to come. Maybe it's the exotic Gregorian calendar we use in South America, the continent of the cold snaps on demand.
  3. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    archiesteel (RE: Post 56), I'm considering 280 ppm to be the baseline - not zero.
  4. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    No one is answering my initial question, so I'll try to break it down into a series of separate questions: Do you agree that the albedo adjust power from the Sun is "forcing" the surface? Do you agree that increased power from additional CO2 is also "forcing" the surface? Do you agree that 1 W/m^2 of albedo adjusted infrared power from the Sun is equal to 1 W/m^2 of infrared power from CO2? Do you agree that about every 1 W/m^2 of net incident solar power is amplified to 1.6 W/m^2 at the surface for gain of about 1.6 (390 W/m^2 divided by 238 W/m^2 = about 1.6)? Do you agree that the increase in radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is about 2 W/m^2 (or at least 4 W/m^2)? Do you agree that in order to get a 3 C rise in temperature (288K to 291K), the 2 W/m^2 needs to be amplified to 16 W/m^2? Do you agree that 16 W/m^2 divided by 2 W/m^2 equals a gain of 8? If not, do you agree that 16 W/m^2 divided by 4 W/m^2 equals a gain of 4? Do you agree that a gain of 8 is greater than a gain of 1.6 (or at least a gain of 4 is greater than 1.6)? Do you agree that the AGW theory is saying that the system is going to amplify each 1 W/m^2 of increased power from CO2 by a much greater amount than it amplifies each 1 W/m^2 of power from the Sun?
  5. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    Oreskes is a historian who studies science and science policy not a scientist. My short interview with Oreskes looks at her documentation of how fossil fuel Interests, Christian Evangelicals and the Media have 'collaborated' on climate.
    Response: Actually, Naomi Oreskes is a scientist - she began her career as an exploration geologist with a degree from Imperial College (that's right, working for the mining industry). She is currently Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California and an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. So she has a diverse background, both in practical science working out in the field and currently as a science historian.
  6. It's freaking cold!
    "Whether or not thinking life embraces free exchange of information..." There's nothing wrong with the free exchange of ideas, but that doesn't mean every idea is equally worthwhile. In this case, the fact that it's cold somewhere does not disprove AGW. What matters are global averages, and these aren't going down - they're going up.
  7. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 at 10:10 AM on 20 December, 2010
    "...There was only about a 0.6 C rise from 1900-2000, which is still less than a third of the 2+ C predicted"
    Nope. It's easy to do the maths RW1. Let's be very explicit. [CO2]1900 was 298 ppm. [CO2]2000 was 371 ppm.[*] The equilibrium temperature rise expected from that increase in [CO2] is 0.95 oC at equilibrium. The observed temperature rise was (1900-2000) 0.75-0.85 oC. So we're not that far off the warming expected for a 3 oC climate sensitivity already even discounting the known contributions from the inertia in the climate system and the fact that a significant amount of the warming has been offset by anthropogenic aerosols. [*]Data are from: 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 direct measurement from the Mauna Loa station from 1959
  8. It's freaking cold!
    @Tom: "I think your interpretation of spam is extreme" No, it's not. You just posted a bunch of links with no arugment at all. That's a pretty good definition of spamming. Please continue complaining about moderation, I'm sure it'll get you somewhere. "have fun with YOUR tunnel vision" You're the one wearing blinders here, friend.
  9. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    I just realized why RW1 picked 1900 as his starting point: there was a spike in temperatures that year. He could have picked 1910-2010, but that would have provided a temp increase of nearly 0.9. RW1, may I suggest you stop cherry-picking dates in order to prove your point? A linear progression from 1880 to 1920 show the trend was remarkably flat, with an average that was about 0.8C colder than the present: As I said: nice try, but no cigar.
  10. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Um, which natural cause are you postulating that can account for the change in ocean heat content? Thats a lot of energy to come from somewhere.
  11. It's freaking cold!
    Scaddenp, what was your last winter like? I understand there was some pretty unusual cold and snow. I see oscillations, winter to summer. I see extremes in both. I see it as a ship rocking on an ocean whose currents are being subjected to new factors, unprecedented factors the consequences of growing powerful thinking life within a finite space. Whether or not thinking life embraces free exchange of information to express intelligence may be a question as to whether or not that listing ship collapses out of what we can endure, Intelligence, fat chance, what with these linear presentations in control of folks with no or little testing of their responsibility and tolerance, seeing the little pieces that challenge status quo are given little space and much denigration, IMHO
  12. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    #51: "it's also just a possible it's from natural causes." That's not even a decent denial. Its possible that ... fill in the blank. You'd have some credibility if you avoided these appeals to the great unknown. #54: "Start with an assumption of a 0.6 C rise" That assumption is plainly out in left field. Here's a graphic comparing the effect of varying sensitivities to the actual temperature anomaly record: The red dots and curve are the global LOTI temperature anomaly, shifted to 0 in 1880. The curves are dt = lambda dF, for 3 values of lambda, with dF calculated from log(each year's CO2 /CO2 at start). I used CO2 values from a composite of Law Dome cores and MLO records to drive each dt function. The small number below each curve is the equivalent sensitivity = deg C/double CO2. I'm no expert at this sort of thing, but your derived sensitivity of 0.6C would fall on the lowest of the three curves. That doesn't come anywhere near close to the data.
  13. 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.
  14. 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".
  15. It's albedo
    Re: Rovinpiper (24) Barton Paul Levenson has addressed some of Ferenc Miskolczi's misconceptions here. The Yooper
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. It's freaking cold!
    @Tom: what you believe is irrelevant. The fact that you are spamming worthless anecdotal evidence is the problem.
  19. 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...
  20. 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...
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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...)
  26. 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.
  27. 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?
  28. 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?
  29. 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!
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    Fred Singer is a lot like George Costanza
  33. It's freaking cold!
    @Tom Loeber: cherry-picked anecdotal evidence = epic fail.
  34. 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)
  35. We're heading into an ice age
    @Tom Loeber: worthless anecdotal evidence. Try again.
  36. 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.
  37. 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
  38. 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.
  39. 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??
  40. 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?
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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?
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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?
  48. 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.
  49. It's freaking cold!
    Coldest December in England's history
  50. 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

Prev  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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