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. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    #98: "a forcing level of 1,4 K per century is a scientific reality." Indeed! However, we see average rates of change that are higher: 0.16 deg C/decade is a commonly quoted linear trend for the global temperature record. When one looks 'only' at the last 50 years, rates of twice that are not uncommon - and may in fact be the new norm. The pdf on your website takes CO2 up to 688ppm (100 years from now) from a starting point of 386ppm (now); not quite a doubling. So your 1.4 degrees per century implies a low sensitivity (approx 1.6 degrees per doubling of CO2). Unfortunately, this seemingly low rate would warm even a denier's stone-cold heart. I suggest that you contact John Cook directly using the 'Contact us' link at the bottom of every SkS page regarding the newer version.
  2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel - Did you read the rest of my post here? Demonstrating (using your formulation of energy flow) that outgoing energy from the ground is decreased by the presence of greenhouse gases? And that (as you agreed here) temperature will change until outgoing energy again equals incoming energy, in this case increasing to match decreased outgoing energy at any particular temperature? GHG's -> decreased outgoing energy -> temperature rise -> outgoing equals incoming - > Greenhouse effect, Q.E.D. You've agreed to all the components of greenhouse heating, yet still disagree with the conclusions. You insist that textbook fundamentals are incorrect without proof. I cannot consider those reasonable positions to take, and hence not worth my while discussing. As to my tone, I must admit to a bit of sarcasm after 262 comments on the topic of bad piece of science writing published in an off-topic journal.
  3. It's cooling
    If Greenland was covered in meadows in 1400 where did all the run off go? Surely it would have mostly been under water along with many other places!
  4. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #261 KR you wrote:- "You have not responded (or, apparently, read) my posts " And you linked to your #250 where you wrote:- "By George, I think you've got it! Even if you don't recognize it." Is there something about these posts that needs a reply? I have the impression you were making an effect rather than an argument. I have made a number of relevant arguments about the direction of heat transfer (hotter to colder) and the standard response comes 'back radiation' which is only half the matter it is the difference of radiation 'in' and 'out' that determines temperature change. Now surely that is something for such discussion such as this? You wrote "I consider this discussion at an end." I'm sorry but when you make remarks such as "your postings are simply noise" then I begin to understand what your real problem is, and its nothing to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    Moderator Response: Please avoid arguments about who did or did not respond, as they are off-topic to the scientific content of this post. Your comments regarding direction of heat transfer have been addressed multiple times in this thread. If you have specific rebuttals to these comments then please address the points directly.
  5. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    The ionic equilibria are independent of any organic phenomena. The carbonate, bicarbonate, CO2, and water will equibrate regardless of what else is going on. The numbers relating the equilibrium concentrations of these specis are essetntally independentof dissoled or suspended or living organic matter (the only way the ionic equilibria could be altered by organic matter is through activity coefficients. and I cannot imagine these being altered in any substantial way by the presence of organic matter at the concentrations in the ocean) Your statement that organic matter can pose problems for analytical solutions is correct only if the organic matter is affecting the concentration of disolved CO2 faster than the ionic eqilibrations can respond which is vary hard for me to believe. The upshot is that regardless of the organic processes, which do, I agree. have a large effect on the amount of CO2 ultimately taken up in the oceans. The ionic equilibria give the equilibrium relations between the concentrations of the species, which is all that I am relying on. What you say about the southern latitudes having "to see that higher partial pressures occur" is wrong. All that is needed is for the atmosphere to circulate, which as I am sure you know it does, carrying the CO2-rich air to the CO2-poor region. Actually that statement is not exactly correct for if their were no circulation there would still be a chemical potential gradient and the CO2 would diffuse. This would occur even if there were do air, i.e., if the atmosphere were CO2 only. Of course diffusion would be a lot slower thn the circulation but this idea about "seeing" has no physical basis. I cannot imagine how you envision the CO2 in the carbon cycle being transported if not by circulation of the air. And, for the reasons given immediately aobve, it will not dissolve when it gets there unless the partial pressure exceeds that given by Henry's law for the temperature and concentration at the lower temperature.
  6. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel - You have not responded (or, apparently, read) my posts here (re: your post which actually confirms the greenhouse effect) or here (on albedo). Let alone the this restatement of the actual topic of the thread. You've agreed with every component of greenhouse gas heating, yet continue to insist that the result of those physics does not occur. If you "require the fundamentals to be re-examined", and feel the textbooks are wrong, then write a paper proving that, and get the textbooks changed. Insisting on your mis-interpretation of physics and rejection of established science with no evidence is not going to convince anyone. You've been pointed to appropriate references time and again, and appear to just reject them where they conflict with your pre-conceived notions. At this point your postings are simply noise - if you have questions, then pay at least some attention to the answers. I don't know if you are genuinely confused as to the physics or trolling - at this point there is no difference from my point of view. I consider this discussion at an end.
  7. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    A correction...the sentence about upwelling should read... If it comes to the surface and warms (and phytoplankton don't take up the CO2), large amounts of CO2 can evade(as in the Equatorial Pacific).
  8. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    hpfranzen "Thus a transport of the CO2 is "driven" by the seaonal temperature changes. The process is reversed when the seanon changes back to the starting point." That model doesn't work so well for a number of reasons. First, lower warmer less seasonal latitudes would have to "see" that CO2 that was evaded in warming high latitude oceans. In other words, the evasion of CO2 would have to have significant effects on the ppm of CO2 above less seasonal waters for the mechanism you suggest to occur. But CO2 is a fairly well mixed gas, so mixing through the atmosphere greatly dilutes any effect of seasonal evasion on atmopsheric CO2 above tropical waters (you can see in that flying carpet diagram that seasonal variations in CO2 are relatively small as one approaches the tropics). Second, you are treating this as a solely physicochemical phenomenon when biology plays a huge role by altering the aquoeus pCO2 concentration (and thus the saturation displayed by CO2) through photosynthetic uptake of CO2 and subsequent export of organic matter to depth. This is particularly important in the spring when nutrients are abundant, light is increasing and waters are warming. The depression in pCO2 associated with photosynthesis offsets the seasonal evasion effect you are describing. Third, the process you describe should cancel out over a year (as long as one ignores phytoplankton)...which may be the point you are trying to make. For that reason and the ones I gave above, it is not considered that important from the point of view of understanding the carbon cycle. It's a bit of a red herring. Focusing on it misrepresents what modelers are doing. Oceanographic processes are more important. Deep water has high CO2 because it is 1) cold and 2) has been accumulating CO2 released by respiration over a long period of time (as in the Equatorial Pacific. If it comes to the surface and warms (and phytoplankton don't take up the CO2), large amounts of CO2 can evade. Also important is the downwelling of water that was warm, but has subsequently cooled (as in the north Atlantic). CO2 is not only a function of the solubility pump. Organic matter produced by phytoplankton represents trapped atmospheric CO2. The downwelling of water that has experienced massive phytoplankton blooms, as occurs in high latitudes and above south of thesubantarctic front, traps CO2 in organic form. Phytoplankton growth also drives aqueous pCO2 lower, which drives invasion of CO2. "Why is the condition of elecrical neutralty not brought into the discussion. " Charge balance is absolutely required to solve chemical equilibrium problems in the ocean - although the presence of organic matter can pose problems for analytical solutions. This statement tells me that you need desperately need to absorb quite a bit more marine chemistry before proceding.
  9. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    My power point does not include the feedbacks because it involves only Physical Chamistry and no Climatology. I am not trying to provide a counter to the Climatologists -in fact my ppt is built on their ideas. However it seems to me that many have got caught up in debating the feedbacks - a highly important debate in my opiniom - but have lost sight of the fact that there is a simple (at least to a P. Chemist)fact based, no iffy assumptions, no dependence on statistics argument that says in quantitative terms that there is a forcing and that we should therefore be taking the climatologists thoughts about the feedbacks very seriosly. The power point depends upon an understanding at the undergraduate level of the Keeling curve of the rotationl-vibration levels of CO2, of how these relate to the spectral observations, an awareness of Planck's law, a familiarty with undergraduate calculus, and an ability to understand the concept of a flux. In my ppt all of these are combined to show in a no nonsens, no wiggle room fashion that global warming at a forcing level of 1,4 K per century is a scientific reality. We do not need the earth's temperature record, observations of melting glaciers and ice caps, unusual frequencies of weather phenomens,(all of which are important and must be discussed in the proper context!) to conclude that we humans are the major cause of a serious problem having to do with the energy balance here on earth. Unless there are deniers reading this I am sure you all know this. What I am saying is in my power point there is a logical, if-then proof as sound as science can make it that global warming is real. I am not sure how to proceed, If someone says yes I want it I will post my e-mail address (unless someone warns me that this is not safe) and folks can e-mail requesting a copy. I could also give my snail mail address and, if people trust me. they could send their e-mail addresses and I will would the power point as an attachment.I have a web site with an early version of the power point (hfranzen.org if I remember correctly) and it gives the gist of the argument, which may be enough to see whether you want the latest version in which i have corrected many erros and improved the notationl I think I should also look into getting the web site updated, but I need to consult my web guru to get that done and that may not be so easy because he lives 1000 miles from my home. On the other hand a simple e-mail to him might suffice. Please let mo know what I should do.
  10. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #258 archiesteel you wrote:- "CO2 is largely transparent to visible light." I think the albedo is also to be found in both the IR and UV bands.
  11. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re 257 Riccardo I am interested in your own ideas on climate matters. I have read plenty of posts anI am also very familiar with the arguments put forward for a 'GH' effect so I am basically only looking for new insights, blogs 'explaining the fndamentals' are of little use to me. What probaly upsets you is that I require the fundamentals to be re-examined. Typically the 'fundamentals' explain that 'The Earth emits like a black body' possibly with 'in the infrared'. A statement like this is nonsense because nothing that reflects like the Earth, with its albedo, can ever emit like a black body; such a statement breaks just about everything known and long established about electromagnetic radiation. And when a VIP of the IPCC writes in his book on Atmospheric Physics that he 'assumes that Earth radiates like a black body', then I am certain there is something deeply wrong with his 'climate theory'. I do think that the climate change hypothesis needs very careful examination and it this 'black body' type of assumptions, making nonsense of both 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics, that concerns me the most.
  12. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    @damorbel: "Now what is the effect of CO2, does it decrease the albedo" CO2 is largely transparent to visible light. You've been called on to stop your misinformation. Why won't you?
  13. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Regarding what drives the CO2: the temperature at point A rises seasonally. As a result the solubiity of CO2 in the ocean decreases at A and therefore some CO2 comes out of solution increasing the partial pressure (proceeding in the direction of the new equilibrium at the higher temperature). This increased partial pressure is swept by moving air masses to point B where the temperature does not increase as much, remains the same, or even decreases. At point B the CO2 spontaneously dissolves because the partial pressure exceeds the equilirium value for that temperature and concentration. Thus a transport of the CO2 is "driven" by the seaonal temperature changes. The process is reversed when the seanon changes back to the starting point. I have another, I think more important, question: Why is the condition of elecrical neutralty not brought into the discussion. All solutions, including the ocean, are to a very, vary close approximation electrically neutral. By my calculation of the total carbon dioxide 93.3% is present as bicaronate and carbonate. If 300 plus GT of carbon dioxide moves from A to B that amounts to about 7 times 10 to the 14th moles. The concentration of the major CO2 containing species in the ocean (bicarbonate) is about 0.0025 molal but that is not free to exchange without some negative charge increase or positive charge decrease. It seems to me possible that raises a serious problem for the 300 GT of supposed transport. I can do the following calculations: 1. assume equilibrium at point A (all CO2 bearing aqueous species, hydrogen and hydroxide ions, water and CO2 gas)at 288K, 2. assume a similar equilibrium at point B at 298K, 3 find the difference beyween the equilibrium CO2 partial pressures at A and B,3. find the mass of air required to move 300 GT of excess (at 288K) CO2. Does anyone want me to do that? I am now going to start a new thread to answer the questions about my ppt. So the two topics don't become confused.
  14. How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
    Schnorkel. Those papers you mention were published barely 2 months before the Thorne review was published. There are often journal rules about making substantial changes to papers late in the production process. It's likely those papers appeared too late to be included. It's not as if Thorne doesn't quote Christy. I count 31 citations of papers with Christy as coauthor. I think you can (and should) do better.
  15. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    VeryTallGuy, thanks! The figure in your comment here is the exact one I had in mind when composing this comment in the other thread. I couldn't remember where I'd seen that figure (from Soden & Held, 2000), spent a lot of time looking for it, and finally ran across the similar (but not quite as good) version at Chris Colose's website.
  16. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Fred> Assume that the sink is capable of absorbing all the energy radiated by the source. This is an incorrect assumption for your simple model, and it invalidates your conclusions. Instead of absorbing all the energy, picture your sink absorbing a fraction of the energy emitted by the source, with that fraction increasing as the absorptivity of the sink increases. You will find that your simple model does indeed predict warming with increasing absorptivity of your sink.
  17. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel as you may have noticed, I didn't continue the discussion with you before. Also, from my last comment it should be clear that I don't think you have any real interest in the science. Many people here spent a lot of time highlighting your errors and providing solid scientific ground. At a point you even said that you know better than textbooks on basic science. In response, you kept moving the goalpost, as it should be clear looking back at the discussion. There ìs a wealth of good informations out there, if your interest in the science was genuine your first step would have been to check your claims or accept the suggestions given here. My conclusion is that you're just trying to hijack the discussion and it's not my wish to provide more fuel.
  18. How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
    Ricardo and Mouncounter Took your advice on board and re-read Thorne et al again. But was puzzled not to see any reference to relevant literature in this meta-review, i.e. no mention of Christy et al ("What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?") in Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148. Nor could I see any reference within to McKitrick et al's paper "Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series" in Atmospheric Science Letters. Or should we just say Christy and McKitrick don't count? That doesn't look good. Surely we can engage the sceptics on their own ground. We risk being seen as too timid to robustly confront contrary arguments. I mean, its sort of like Thorne et al just ignored people saying stuff they didn't like and focussed on the work of people who agreed with them, like Santer. It makes me think the Thorne meta-review paper you referred me to risks being seen as an attempt to get around the problem that the warming in the upper troposphere which the computer models tell us should be there, is really not there. Also I think that sceptics could see the use of the 'adiabatic' term and the "adjustments" terms as just another way to wriggle out of what they would say is the fact that human-induced climate change's hot spot is away on vacation. Surely we can do better than this.
  19. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "The explanation for El Nino and La Nina involves a circular argument. Changes in sea surface temperature are both the cause and consequence of wind fluctuations." I don't like that phrasing. It's not really a circular "argument" (which implies logical fallacy), but an argument for reinforcing system of mechanisms. Those reinforcing mechanisms form feedbacks, which are what gives the system enough momentum to create the large shift in heat distribution, winds and ocean currents observed during El Nino and La Nina.
  20. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Fred Staples - "Would you agree, Ned, that there is ample scope here for rational scepticism about the impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere?" I would say that there is not. Greenhouse gases reduce the efficiency of emission (emissivity), as is clearly seen by satellite spectra of the Earth. Given the P = e * s * A * T^4 relationship of Power to emissivity, Stephen-Boltzmann constant, Area, and Temperature, if the emissivity goes down temperature must rise to radiate the same power.
  21. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Fred Staples "Woods tried to test it by building two greenhouses – one radiative (ie OLR absorbent) and one non-radiative. Their internal temperatures were the same." Which proves very nicely that greenhouses work by limiting convection rather than by absorbing radiation. It tells us nothing about the atmospheric greenhouse effect other than that it's poorly named. "And if we do believe it, ignoring Woods, what will happen if we increase the absorption of the atmosphere? Its temperature cannot increase because it must continue to radiate W to space. The source to sink temperature difference must also remain the same. So nothing will happen." You're very nearly correct. The effective radiating temperature does indeed stay the same, but it moves upwards in the atmosphere. The result is that the surface temperature must rise This is the best simple explanation I've ever seen of it and may clarify for you (thanks to Science of Doom): Soden & Held, 2000
  22. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Fred Staples wrote "if we increase the absorption of the atmosphere? Its temperature cannot increase because it must continue to radiate W to space. The source to sink temperature difference must also remain the same. So nothing will happen." Fred, you are using only the rules for equilibrium, but by increasing the absorption of the sink you've pushed it out of equilibrium. While the sink moves toward a new equilibrium, additional rules apply. Increased absorption by definition means that the sink retains some of the energy W that hits it. There is no rule insisting that the retained energy instantly be radiated. Instead, the rule about how much energy is radiated depends on the temperature of the sink. The temperature of the sink does not rise enough to cause all of the newly retained energy to be radiated.
  23. It's the sun
    Although that is interesting, it does not actually anser the question about the correlation between solar activity and surface temperatures.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] I addressed everything in your original comment that had a question mark attached. As to your question in this comment, did you read the original post? How about the Intermediate version? Or the Advanced version?
  24. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #255 Riccardo, you wrote:- "One more bit of misinformation added by....." And the correct version is....(?)
  25. Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    Ian Howat of Ohio State and Ian Joughin from the U Washington have published so many fine papers it is easy to refer to the wrong one. The correct paper for the 32 glaciers is Howat et al (2008)
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thanks for the update on that; fixed texts.
  26. Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    Daniel having quickly scanned (hence I might I have missed something) the Howat paper you link to, it looks like HR @ 2 is correct. The paper you refer to investigates 6 glaciers. Can you clarify the research you are refering to?? Are you just referencing that one paper or were there others that make up the 32 glaciers you state. Quote: "We examine data from six glaciers with ice fronts wider than 3 km."
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed per Mauri's comment below. Thanks for the heads-up!
  27. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    “The net heat flux is from the surface to the atmosphere; it's just a smaller flux than it would have been if the atmosphere weren't there (or didn't contain greenhouse gases)”. “This is all completely uncontroversial among physicists, earth and planetary scientists, and others who deal with radiation balances in their work. There is no fertile ground for AGW-skepticism here” In your post, Ned, there remains a failure to differentiate between heat and energy which is at the heart of the confusion in most of the AGW blogs. Heat (the ability to do work or raise temperature) is, by definition, the net transfer of energy between two bodies. It is wrong to consider source to sink, and sink to source, energy flows in isolation. That way madness (and perpetual motion) lies. That is why the revised Trenberth diagram is vastly superior to its misleading predecessor. Whether or not energy can do anything at all depends on its surroundings. That is why there are cooling towers on power station sites. The backward radiation on which SOD harps at inordinate length is the negative term in the Stefan-Bolzmann equation. Given that, with a few simplifying assumptions, it is very easy to calculate the greenhouse effect. Assume a spherical, heated, source in a vacuum, in direct contact with the absolute (more or less) zero of space. If the temperature of the source is Tsource, it will radiate energy, W, at a rate proportional to the fourth power of Tsource. Now surround the source with a spherical sink, close enough for us to neglect surface area corrections and (this is a thought experiment) with zero resistance to thermal energy, so that we can ignore temperature gradients. Assume that the sink is capable of absorbing all the energy radiated by the source. The sink will warm until, at equilibrium, it radiates to space the original source energy. In other words, to Tsink will rise to equal Tsource. Meanwhile, the source must warm to Tsource1 so that it can radiate the original input energy to the sink. That energy output, W, will now be proportional to the difference between the fourth power of the new source temperature, Tsource1 and the sink temperature, Tsink which will have risen to Tsource. In other words, Tsource1 to the fourth – Tsink to the fourth = Tsink to the fourth, because the sink is radiating the original energy, W, to space. But Tsink = T Source, the original source temperature, so : The new source temperature (to the fourth) = 2 * the original source temperature (to the fourth). So, finally, Tsource 1/Tsource = fourth root of 2 = 1.19 Since the moon is at 255K, we arrive at a plausible explanation of the greenhouse effect (0.19*255= 48.5K). The atmosphere does not warm the earth directly in a second law violating way; instead it acts as a radiative insulating blanket. Do we believe this explanation, Ned? Woods tried to test it by building two greenhouses – one radiative (ie OLR absorbent) and one non-radiative. Their internal temperatures were the same. And if we do believe it, ignoring Woods, what will happen if we increase the absorption of the atmosphere? Its temperature cannot increase because it must continue to radiate W to space. The source to sink temperature difference must also remain the same. So nothing will happen. Would you agree, Ned, that there is ample scope here for rational scepticism about the impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere?
  28. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    #105 dhogaza, "Dessler (and everyone except Spencer) is saying that ENSO causes temperature changes which lead to cloud changes which lead to feedback. Not *all* cloud changes, as Spencer is implying..." Dessler says average cloud changes cause positive feedback. He doesn't know which, so it could be "all" cloud changes although that is unlikely. Some cloud changes also cause SST gradients which cause wind which will enhance or detract from El Nino or La Nina. That effect may be minor and it is likely not to be a "cause" in the most basic sense since no research I have seen shows that any particular patterns of clouds precede El Nino. For La Nina, there are the clouds, rain, pressure gradient and other effects of El Nino that play a role. Saying clouds cause La Nina and ignoring the rest is not supported. Here's a paper http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.144.83&rep=rep1&type=pdf that states: "The explanation for El Nino and La Nina involves a circular argument. Changes in sea surface temperature are both the cause and consequence of wind fluctuations."
  29. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    "The thing about the lapse rate is that it is substantially constant at 6.5K/km over the whole planet" One more bit of misinformation added by our hero. Yes, misinformation; given the huge amount of errors thrown here, it can not simply be a lack of knowledge. A bit offtopic but interesting reading from Monbiot.
  30. Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    #3, Bart, the Wu et al. paper has been discussed in detail here.
  31. Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    What's the source of Fig 1? It seems a continuation of the numbers as presented in Velicogna (2009), without accounting for the criticism of Wu et al (2010). That's not to say that Wu et al should be regarded as 'the truth and nothing but the truth', but I guess neither should Velicogna.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] That is just now being presented by John Wahr at AGU.
  32. Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    I've only read the Howat 2010 paper so far but you seem to have got a few details wrong. This is what you say "Howat and others (2010) examined changes in terminus position, surface elevation and flow on 32 glaciers along the southeast coast of Greenland from 2000-2006. They affirmed that speedup results from loss of resistive stress at the front during retreat. Many retreats began with an increase in thinning rates near the front in the summer of 2003, a year of record high coastal-air and sea-surface temperatures." In fact it only studied 6 glaciers (2000-2009). Speedup is associated with reduced sea ice/melange conditions, not glacier thinning, and is correlated only with SST not with air temperature.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed per Mauri's comment below. Thanks for the heads-up!
  33. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #252 Joe Blog you wrote:- "the energy contained is due to energy in vrs path length out. As can be seen in the graphic in NEDs post." The diagram in Ned's post shows the temperature of the surface and atmosphere changing without the height of the tropopause changing, this is absurd; check the gas laws, PV = RT. Further you wrote:- "The stratosphere is an entirely different ...UV through O3, ... But UV heats it from the top down." Which is a very important point since this 'downward' (actually incoming) radiation is absorbed (by O2 as well as O3, the O2 absorption creates the O3) raising the temperature and causing an inversion. If the back radiation of the GHE hypothesis was warming the surface it would also warm the other GHGs on its way down, just like the solar UV warms in the troposphere, also causing an inversion.
  34. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    Muoncounter @ 49 - Notice the trend in the NOAA graphic around Antarctica. Consistent with the upwelling of warmer deep ocean water around the "citadel of ice".
  35. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #249 Ned you wrote:- "(due to GHGs), and keeping the lapse rate constant (not due to GHGs), implies warming of the surface. " Implies? isn't this a scientific matter, better please! I first saw this in John Houghton's book 'Raising altitude of emission'. You should look at the evidence. The height of the tropopause , which you are saying is changed with GHG concentration, also follows the mean surface temperature as it varies with latitude, so it is clear that the height of the troposphere is also a function of the local planetary temperature which, according to GH theory, is also a function of the albedo. Now what is the effect of CO2, does it decrease the albedo, thus raising the planetary temperature, does it change the lapse rate (as compared with raising the tropopause) or does it warm the surface without affecting either the height of the troposphere or the lapse rate, this last being the 'backradiation' model. Can you say wchich it is? The thing about the lapse rate is that it is substantially constant at 6.5K/km over the whole planet, independent of the local temperature and the height of the tropopause.
  36. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    Hey Ken, I know OHC is a pet subject of yours, have you seen this?: ANTARCTIC MELTING AS DEEP OCEAN HEAT RISES It'll be an interesting read when it makes it's way into the peer-reviewed literature.
    Moderator Response: Let's please try to keep discussion of science topics consolidated in threads where people will be able to find it. Discussion of ocean heat content should be moved to the appropriate thread (probably Oceans are cooling).
  37. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Yes...that's the problem. How to move that much heat by some extrinsically driven cloud forcing for long enough to generate the massive heat imbalance one gets with ENSO. Maybe if there was some positive feedback, but that would of course be a feedback and Dessler would still be right. I think he's in a corner.
  38. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    HR: "I don't see the necessary logical jump that says because Spencer is talking about the relationship between deltaT and clouds, and the potential for cause and effect to be reversed here, that he's talking about the relationship between ENSO and cloud" edited: "Spencer is talking about the relationship between deltaT and clouds, and the potential for cause and effect to be reversed here" So reversing the causality arrow between deltaT and clouds when analyzing ENSO data means what, then? Look up "reverse" and "causality" in the dictionary. You essentially saying "just because Spencer claims that clouds cause deltaT (previously thought to be due to ENSO) doesn't mean that Spencer is saying that this causes ENSO". So, then, in what direction does Spencer say the arrow points? Obviously, not from ENSO to temps/clouds ... reversing means that clouds/temps => ENSO.
  39. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Albatross: "Why has no-one applied a Granger causality test to these data?" Because no one serious disputes the broad outlines of the current understanding of ENSO? Dessler hints that Spencer's explanation is unphysical because of the vast amount of energy that must be transferred to the oceans to make Spencer's claims true. The standard explanation ... well, it falls within understood science. Like so many denialist arguments, if Spencer is right, a WHOLE LOT of science must be overturned that's essentially unrelated to climate science.
  40. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "I don't see the necessary logical jump that says because Spencer is talking about the relationship between deltaT and clouds, and the potential for cause and effect to be reversed here, that he's talking about the relationship between ENSO and clouds" As Dessler points out, essentially Spencer rejects the standard explanation of ENSO by simply leaving it out of his lead-lag analysis. He presumes his conclusion, in simple terms.
  41. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "I don't see the necessary logical jump that says because Spencer is talking about the relationship between deltaT and clouds, and the potential for cause and effect to be reversed here, that he's talking about the relationship between ENSO and clouds. The reversal Spencer mentions I think is this" He could have, of course, refuted this strongly in his e-mail exchange with Dessler. He chose not to. Rather, he disambiguated his position in a way not congruent with your interpertation. I appreciate why you want to be his water-carrier here ... but I won't say why, because Cook will delete my post if I do. Oh, BTW, if "Humanity Rules", why are you so dogged in your refutation of the ability of humanity to alter climate? Maybe it's because we don't insist that humanity rules climate, but only affects it ...
  42. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    HR, Pardon the pun, but we are arguing in circles here. I really do not know about this stuff to pass judgement on Spencer's or Dessler's method. Murphy and Forster were less than kind in their critique of SB08, so that doesn't instill much confidence in me that Spencer has gotten this right. The phase space plots are new to me. Maybe someone else here is more familiar with them. Let us not focus too much on the cause of the warming or on ENSO for now-- the question is, regardless of the initial cause, do cloud behave in a way which acts to enhance the initial warming or offset it? Dessler has made a very compelling case that the clouds very likely enhance that warming slightly. And let us not forget that even if negative feedback is operating, it is only very small, and certainly not sufficient to argue that climate sensitivity is low. Why has no-one applied a Granger causality test to these data? I think BPL over at RC has offered, I hope that Dessler takes him up on the offer and that they publish the results.
  43. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    From Spencer 2010 "Evidence for this process was shown by Spencer et al. [2007] in their analysis of a composite of 15 strong tropical intraseasonal oscillations, where strong warming events in the tropical troposphere [el Nino] were accompanied by weak SST cooling. This process was driven by stronger surface winds temporarily enhancing the heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere." Clouds cause ENSO???? It's far easier to see what these scientists think when you read their science.
  44. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    Original Post Perhaps John Cook could explain how it is possible for the temperature record to be broadly flat between 1950 and 1975 and the OHC content to rise to 80E21 Joules aro 1958 and disappear without trace by 1970 only to pop back to 80E21 by 1980? Given the huge thermal mass of the oceans - such rates of transfer are well nigh impossible - and do not fit with the generally increasing theoretical forcings from CO2GHG and elevated solar irradiance (since 1920 at least). If your answer is the 'Clean Air Act' please then explain why the IPCC charts show cooling from sulphates steadily increasing up to aro 1970 and then flatlining up to the present.
  45. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    #95: "the forces driving CO2 from point A to point B because of a temperature increase at A are reversed when point B warms" CO2 is not driven from one point to another by temperature; rather it is driven by atmospheric circulation. Fisher 2010 presents several good examples; the diagrams in that paper have both physical scale and a time context. "... when the perturbation (i,e the the seasonal remperaure chage) is removed the system returns ti its original state." Unless the system oscillates, as your spring/mass example (and some parts of the climate system) would. "I calculate the forced (no feedbacks) temperature change. I get 1.4 K degrees in the next 100 years. " I don't know how to evaluate that statement without further information: such as what do you assume for climate sensitivity (often expressed as degC/CO2 doubling), what emissions scenario do you use and why no feedbacks? If you would care to share those key assumptions, certainly some of the folks around here more knowledgeable than I would have some helpful input.
  46. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    dhogaza I don't see the necessary logical jump that says because Spencer is talking about the relationship between deltaT and clouds, and the potential for cause and effect to be reversed here, that he's talking about the relationship between ENSO and clouds. The reversal Spencer mentions I think is this ENSO>clouds>temperature (internal forcing) ENSO>temperature>clouds (feedback) that seems to be the content of his publication anyway. As Spencer says there is no need to put clouds before ENSO. I actually think in the email exchange that in large parts they talking at odds to each other which as our discussion suggests is more likely to generate heat than light. It wouldn't be surprising given that both believe the other is missing the important point. But let's agree there is greater precision in the language used in the peer-reviewed papers and focus on what they say. Phase space plots anybody?
  47. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    P.S. I just read my submission above and noticed all the typos. I am afraid I am not much of a typist (or proofreader for that matter).
  48. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    The fact that I believe it to be bad science is simply that the figure provided none of the information which is given above concerning the distances and times involved. To simply cite a quantity like 332 GT and call it a flux is counterproductive. If it had been said that the arrows correspond to so many GT traveling so many kms during the course of a year I would have had no problem with the figure. As you say, the deniers want to use these numbers to obfuscate the role of human production and the fact that they do not negate the conclusion that human production is the primary cause of GW, it seems to me, depends fundamentally on the fact that the fluxes travel back and forth i.e. the temperature changes that drive them reverse with the seasons so that "what goes around comes around". In other words, I would say that the forces driving CO2 from point A to point B because of a temperature increase at A are reversed when point B warms and the oppositely directed flux is driven by the by the (almost) exacty oppposing forces to return the system to (nearly)its original state. In fact i would liken the situation to streching a spring - it is an essential physcal requirment that when the perturbation (i,e the the seasonal remperaure chage) is removed the system returns ti its original state. At any rate this works for me. But a vague arrow going off into heaven knows where destroys the coherence of the picture. With the imagery of Fig. 7.3 it looks as though the CO2 leaves the ocean randomly (that's the way the deniers really like to think of it) and goes off to any old place. It seems to me that the figure, when used, would benefit enormously from some elements of Stephen Baines comments given above. To calibrate where i am coming from, I taught and did research in Physical Chemistry for nearly forty years and decided when I retired in 2000 to see if I could bring P. Chem. to bear on my understanding of GW. I have developed a ppt that generalizes Beer's Law to the case of braodband, diffuse transmittance and then, using spectroscopic data determined nearly 50 years ago I calculate the forced (no feedbacks) temperature change. I get 1.4 K degrees in the next 100 years.
  49. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    I don't think HR's bothered to read the Dessler/Spencer exchange. Dessler's last post points out the logical flaw in Spencer's reasoning ...
  50. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "It's difficult to know where to take this particular arguement when Spencer has explicitly stated on his blog that he does not support the idea that ENSO are caused by clouds." Yet he explicitly states the opposite in his e-mails to Dessler. And he says things in his blog that are explicitly incorrect and misleading: "Dessler’s claim (and the IPCC party line) is that cloud changes are caused by temperature changes, and not the other way around. Causation only occurs in one direction, not the other." No, Dessler says no such thing. Dessler (and everyone except Spencer) is saying that ENSO causes temperature changes which lead to cloud changes which lead to feedback. Not *all* cloud changes, as Spencer is implying. He then measures that feedback. Spencer says no, this is wrong, the arrow of causation is backwards. He is more explicit in his reference to ENSO in his e-mail. "But what if the warming was caused by fewer clouds, rather than the fewer clouds being caused by warming? In other words, what if previous researchers have simply mixed up cause and effect when estimating cloud feedback?" Remember, we're speaking of ENSO. This is why Dessler asked Spencer explicitly about it. Spencer's answer is there for all to see. "What we demonstrated in our JGR paper earlier this year is that when cloud changes cause temperature changes, it gives the illusion of positive cloud feedback – even if strongly negative cloud feedback is really operating!" This can not be relevant to Dessler's measuring of cloud changes and feedback during ENSO *unless* Spencer believes that cloud changes are causing ENSO. Again, he's been asked explicitly by Dessler, and he has answered explicitly. "It doesn’t mean that “clouds cause El Nino”, as Dessler suggests we are claiming, which would be too simplistic..." "too simplistic" doesn't mean "wrong", HR. Spencer does some handwaving to try to convince people he's not saying something quite as stupid as "cloud changes cause ENSO", but remove the handwaving, and that's all he's got. As his e-mails to Dessler make clear. HR: "Albatross this is again getting away from the science, I should have ignored NewYorkJ and dhogaza's lead. There is actually lots of science in both authors papers that is being ignored by this narrow focus. Hopefully you'll ignore this post and focus on what I raised earlier." Sorry. ENSO-is-forced-by-cloud-changes is an epic fail too great to be ignored. Spencer's claim has to be true, because if not, then the "illusion of positive cloud feedback" is false and his argument implodes. In the physical world, you can't ignore the arrow of causality, and as Dessler makes clear, no one other than Spencer believes that ENSO is caused by cloud changes. Flip the arrow of causality in the direction that every other than Spencer accepts, then his "negative feedbacks replace the illusion of positive feedbacks" goes away. "There is actually lots of science in both authors papers..." And Dessler acknowledges this, and makes clear that Spencer's done some interesting things, if you ignore his claims regarding what causes ENSO. And Spencer? Does he acknowledge that there's lots of science in both papers, i.e. in Dessler's? No, he calls a press conference to claim that it's bogus and writes a blog post claiming it's a "step back for science". Actually, that negative step is really an illusion and in reality it's a step forward ...

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