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  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  Next

Comments 101251 to 101300:

  1. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Joe Blog writes: [...] it raises the height that radiation can effectively escape, so its necessary for this new altitude, to heat enough that it is emitting the incoming, and next layer down must heat enough [...] Yes. That's the point I was making in this comment. KR also sums the situation up nicely. I agree with archiesteel's point that damorbel has wasted too much of everybody's time on these two threads. The physics of the greenhouse effect have been explained quite well, by many people, over and over again, in different ways. Further attempts to cure damorbel's misunderstandings are not likely to be more successful than the earlier ones.
  2. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    @ muoncounter. "I'm not understanding this ocean acidifying-ocean CO2 feedback question." As I understand it RSVP is claiming (incorrectly) that there can be no CO2 oceanic solubility feedback during northern latitude warming phases of Milenkovitch cycles because outgassing from warming oceans would have resulted in similar relative increases in CO2, N2 and O2. Summing up succinctly, RSVP fails to understand that the pool of exchangeable CO2 in the ocean is very large relative to that in the atmosphere (for a number of reasons), while the opposite is true for N2 and O2. As a consequence, outgassing from a warmer ocean affects atmospheric CO2 concentrations significantly, but it does not affect N2 and O2 concentrations in any measureable way. As far as I can tell, pH only comes into the discussion because of its effect on the relative abundance of carbonic acid, bicarbonate and carbonate ions (and protons) as temp changes the solubilty of CO2.
  3. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    scaddenp, thanks for that paper. It's going to take a while to read.
  4. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    I admit that I have not studied all the previous posts in detail. What I am interested to know is whether there is agreement that the 2nd mechanism that Bob refers is valid or not? My view at this stage is that while it true for Bob's model, it is overridden by other factors when considering the Earth's atmosphere, particularly the extra heat gained at altitude from latent heat in a warmer more humid world.
  5. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    "Radiative transfer models, the Marty et al paper and many other sources indicate that the amount of IR radiation reaching the surface is not that small." Damorel doesnt believe the radiative transfer equations, however how about direct measurement of DLR at the surface? Matching the spectrum and amplitude of the models no less. For life of me, I cant see how damorel explains that in his strange world.
  6. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    It's good to provide SVG versions of the graphs. This is the standard vector format for the Internet Age. I tried UniConvertor, http://sk1project.org/modules.php?name=Products&product=uniconvertor on the WMF file. It works, but it loses the text of the graphs. Can you export to SVG from your application?
    Response: I've added SVG format for each of the graphics. Looking at them in a browser looks a little dodgy but they come up okay in Coreldraw. Please let me know how they look for you.
  7. Philippe Chantreau at 10:45 AM on 15 December 2010
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    "I answered the question." I don't see that. How can the surface temperature not be higher when receiving extra IR photons compared to a situation in which it would not be receiving these photons? Radiative transfer models, the Marty et al paper and many other sources indicate that the amount of IR radiation reaching the surface is not that small. "The GHE says that CO2 high in the atmosphere at 255K can raise a surface to 288K" This belongs in the category of "not even wrong." As for the stratospheric temperature profile, I don't see how it is possible for GHGs to have radiative properties there and not affect it. Are you saying that the temperature profile is identical in the stratosphere to what it would be in the absence of these gases? How can the stratosphere not be colder than it would be if these photons were not radiated to space?
  8. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    RSVP, Coming in from the cool ice data thread. Three factors of ten is ten times ten times ten or one thousand times different. The pH affects the different ion distribution as Stephen Baines points out. The pH in fresh water with CO2 dissolved is around 5 and the pH in the ocean is around 8 or 1000 times less hydrogen ions. This affects the carbonate concentration and therefore the solution of CO2. N2 and O2 are not pH sensitive. That is part of why Henry's law seems to not work according to your calculations. As I said here and Alec said here, carbon dioxide is soluble in water and O2 and N2 are not. Because CO2 is soluble in water its properties are different from O2. The calculations are very difficult (I have not done them) and to get better than a qualatative answer you will have to read the peer reviewed literature. My understanding is that research continues to estimate how much CO2 the ocean can absorb before it is saturated. (Currently the ocean is absorbing CO2 as the concentration increases according to Henry's law. The warming of the ocean is not as important today as it was in the past) CO2 running out: stop speculating about processes you do not understand. We better pray that the CO2 in the ocean never outgasses enough to run out. There is an enormous amount of CO2 in the ocean and the surrounding land would start to dissolve as the CO2 outgasses. That would be Venus for sure.
  9. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    I'm not understanding this ocean acidifying-ocean CO2 feedback question. Oceans are indeed acidifying as they absorb atmospheric CO2, as the figure above shows. From Caldeira and Wickett 2005: The SRES pathways considered here produce global surface pH reductions of about 0.3 to 0.5 pH units by year 2100. ... Atmospheric emissions of 5000 Pg C and 20,000 Pg C produce global surface pH reductions of 0.8 and 1.4 pH units, respectively by year 2300. We depend on these CO2 sinks to take up to 50% of our fossil fuel waste product out of the atmosphere each year. There's evidence that ocean sinks are weakening, as in LeQuere et al 2007: Based on observed atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 petagrams of carbon per year per decade relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. We attribute this weakening to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities ... How is it possible for oceans to simultaneously absorb and emit CO2?
  10. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    @damorbel, your latest attempt at obfuscation won't work. You've been unmasked. "The part (30%) of the radiation coming from is reflected by the Earth, this is called the albedo. The same effect happens to radiation leaving the Earth, 30% of it is reflected back and doesn't escape, it is trapped." False. "Well I don't think it is irrelevant because in an atmosphere of CO2 all the molecules are absobing and emitting radiation all the time; they absorb those wavelength they emit particularly well, just where is the radiation warming the surface coming from, isn't the lapse rate warming enough?" Lol...are you really claiming what I think you're claiming here? That there wouldn't be room for the photons to reach the surface? In case you haven't noticed, at the temperatures we're talking about, CO2 is a gas. Now, a layer of liquid CO2 might act as an insulator, I don't know, but if you want to see what effect a dense CO2 atmosphere will have, I suggest you check out Venus, which is hotter than Mercury even though it is much farther from the sun. Seriously, it's obvious you're trying to make the debate run in circles. I mean, no one would take that much humiliation if he hadn't an ulterior motive in mind. Again, I call on other posters to ignore damorbel's fake science, which he makes as confusing and outlandish as possible in order to waste our times. Instead, just point him to KR's excelelnt post at 238, or to his own response to my questions at 220, where he basically agreed with the greenhouse effect.
  11. Ice data made cooler
    RSVP, If you want to continue the thread muonconter suggested is a more appropriate place. I will post a reply there.
  12. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel at 07:45 AM I can see where you are coming from, the lapse rate and convection are important to the movement of energy out of the system, its the altitude at which energy can effectively escape however, that is responsible for the T gradient, which is necessary for the transport of energy to this altitude... So the lower atmosphere is already largely opaque to some wavelengths, but the path length shortens with altitude, so by adding more opaque molecules, it raises the height that radiation can effectively escape, so its necessary for this new altitude, to heat enough that it is emitting the incoming, and next layer down must heat enough that it is able to transport this energy up to this height, etc etc... So the radiation incident on the surface, is just a product o the atmospheric T at that altitude, but the height it can escape the troposphere, effects the T gradient.
  13. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Ebel at 21:10 PM says "This is not true. The cooling does not follow from the increase in potential energy, but from the pressure decrease during rapid ascent." Yes, the decrease in potential energy, as it performs work, as i understood it that is what mars said. The pressure decreases because it expands, and displaces/pushes the air around it. The opposite is true of adiabatic heating. Tom Curtis at 03:01 AM Good post, my comment about "violating the first law" was simply saying, that if radiation wasnt moving the energy that convection was lifting, it would result in a build up of energy, raising the troposphere until it was able to shift it. So radiation, must at some stage become the dominant mover. And at equilibrium must be moving out the same amount of energy that is coming into the system. I dont disagree with anything in this post however.
  14. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    For anyone visiting this thread - a bit of clarification on what's been discussed. - The temperature of any object, including the Earth as a whole, is determined by the amount of internal energy it has, vibrating it's molecules (reflected as temperature), forming endothermic chemical bonds (physical changes), etc. - Under the conservation of energy/mass, if there is an imbalance between incoming energy and outgoing energy, the energy in the object will change. This is generally observed as a change in temperature. The rate of change is dependent on the thermal mass of the object, dynamic equilibrium is reached when incoming = outgoing again. - Outgoing energy in a vacuum (like the Earth) is via radiation. Thermal radiation scales with emissivity and with temperature T^4, meaning that a change in temperature can change outgoing energy until it balances incoming energy. - The atmosphere is quite transparent to visible light (from the sun), hence the incoming energy is fairly constant. - Outgoing energy to space leaves the Earth as thermal IR, to which the atmosphere is partially transparent. - Greenhouse gases absorb IR, re-radiating it in all directions, including back to the ground, which re-absorbs most of what hits it. This means that less IR goes to space at any particular temperature, and the Earth has a lower effective emissivity to space due to greenhouse gases. The thermal mass of the atmosphere is irrelevant. Therefore the greenhouse effect means that the Earth must have a higher temperature than it would in the absence of the greenhouse gases in order to radiate away the energy it's receiving from sunlight. Don't be misled by convoluted side-tracking arguments. As to the "2nd law violation" skeptical argument; see the topic itself and also the post here.
  15. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #227 Philippe Chantreau you wrote:- "Incidentally, the reality of the "greenhouse" effect can be verified with a relatively simple experimental set-up. The ESPERE site describes it quite well:" Philippe, what the ESPERE experiment shows is how a lamp simulating the Sun but with a temperature (probably) of 3000K (instead of 5780K) heats a box of CO2 by 30K from a starting temp. of 290K; note 290K is a lot cooler than 3000K. That is just what I would expect a heat source at 3000K to do. The GHE says that CO2 high in the atmosphere at 255K can raise a surface to 288K - not possible! The 288K surface actually send heat energy to the upper troposphere. The energy sent from the surface tends to raise the temperature of the upper troposphere but clearly has little effect.
  16. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    A not so minor note about albedo: Albedo is not constant across all wavelengths. As an example, a very pale friend of mine (who uses SPF 80 sunscreen) has a quite high albedo/reflectivity (or 1-absorptivity) at visible wavelengths. She has an albedo of perhaps 0.3-0.4 (just guessing) for visible light. However, the human skin at body temperature has a thermal IR emissivity/absorptivity of 0.99 regardless of visible light skin color - almost a perfect blackbody! Hence her albedo for IR is (1 - absorptivity) = 0.01. Average emissivity for the surface of the earth at IR wavelengths is ~0.96-0.97, meaning an albedo/reflectivity of only 0.03-0.04 at maximum, an order of magnitude less albedo than at visible wavelengths.
  17. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #226 Philippe Chantreau you wrote:- "As if it was possible to measure the temperature of something but not know what it is at all. "I measured the temperature of that object but I have no idea of its size, what it's made of and all that" Sorry you think this way. But don't thermometers work this way all the time? After all, when you put your thermometer outside to measure the air temperature you don't have to know how much air there is 'outside', do you? You wrote :- "It is well known that GHGs cool down the stratosphere. Line by line radiative transfer models show how much, with the altitudinal distribution. That has been verified by observation too (Iacono and Clough 1995 and later papers)." I don't doubt that the stratosphere loses energy to deep space through GHGs, any satellite IR image will show that. But surely know that the temperature increases with height in the troposphere, there must be something happening in the stratosphere other than energy loss through GHGs. That 'something' is the absorption of ultraviolet energy (from the Sun) that is what causes the temperature to rise. Now in my view explanations of the GHE should also show a temperature rise (In the troposphere) if there really is a GH effect. You wrote :- "In post #220 you agree that IR radiation is re-radiated to the surface. How can this happen without the surface temperature to increase if thermodynamic compliance is respected?" I answered the question. How much reaches the surface depends on the concentration of GHGs, with very low concentrations a small amount of radiation will reach the surface, as the concentration increases effectively all of the radiation from GHGs will be reabsorbed long before it reaches the surface. As for the out going radiation, the density of GHGs (and O2, N2 etc) falls steadily to about 100km. T this point the radiation mostly escapes without being reabsorbed.
  18. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Changed links to hyperlinks.
  19. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #225 you wrote:- "I never claimed 100% of the Energy was radiated. Stop putting words in other people's mouth in order to peddle your incorrect interpretation of physics, please." Sory for that. but almost every other person, including the editors writing for the IPCC on the temperature calculation and all the contributions on the NASA websites, make that claim. The you cite me and comment like this:- ""What you should realise is that the % 'trapped' by a radiating planet is exactly the same as the % of the incoming radiation reflected as albedo." Wrong. The higher the albedo, the less energy is transferred to the surface, as the visible light is mostly reflected back into space" My statement is not clear, it should read like this:- The part (30%) of the radiation coming from is reflected by the Earth, this is called the albedo. The same effect happens to radiation leaving the Earth, 30% of it is reflected back and doesn't escape, it is trapped. You wrote:- "Scattering and reflection are not equivalent," I didn't say they were. What I said was that the scattering which causes the albedo is independent of the direction of arrival of a wave, that is why scattering is as effective at reducing outgoing radiation as it is at reducing incoming radiation from the Sun. You responded to a question of mine like this:- ""In an 'Earth' atmosphere, but of pure CO2, can you tell me, on a scale of 1 to 100, what % of photons emitted at a height of 5km will reach the surface without being reabsorbed?" No, I can't, but the exact figure is irrelevant. As I said, some IR energy will escape to space, some will warm the surface," Well I don't think it is irrelevant because in an atmosphere of CO2 all the molecules are absobing and emitting radiation all the time; they absorb those wavelength they emit particularly well, just where is the radiation warming the surface coming from, isn't the lapse rate warming enough?
  20. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    Johns book is already being used by some educational institution. John's Book
  21. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Eric, I believe the process of conductive energy transfer is embodied within the solution to the RTE which model does. Had a look at Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 for the gruesome mathematical detail.
  22. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Damorbel, I think it's clear at this point your only goal is to waste people's time by constructing deliberately complex fallacious arguments. This seems to be a favored new tactic of political skeptics, and aims at making sure intelligent people waste their time debunking the same old arguments over and over instead of doing something more constructive. That's what Ken Lambert used to do, and that is now what damorbel is doing. To everyone who has patiently been responding to damorbel, just be warned that he doesn't really want to win this debate - he knows his position is ultimately untenable. Rather, his goal is likely to make sure this dead end of a thread go as long as possible. Personally, I've done my part demolishing his bizarre argument. I don't think he'll convince anyone anyway: most skeptics, deniers and contrarians don't actively argue that AGW violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (because it's too easy to demonstrate that it doesn't - one has to choose his battles, after all). I invite all of you to stop feeding this particular one...
  23. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    @damorbel: "I ceratinly said I didn't agree with archiesteel's first question:- "...they emit IR energy, as described by black body theory... " Actually it was my second question, and you were completely wrong in replying that. It's hard to me to qualify exactly how wrong without having this comment censored. What I said is: "When objects increase in temperature, they emit IR energy, as described by black body theory" This is easily provable. You can even do it yourself if you have IR goggles or something similar: Take a raw roastbeef and look at it with the IR goggles. It will be rather dark. Put some mustard on the roastbeef. You can insert litle pieces of garlic in it if you want. Put the roastbeef in the oven at 375F for about an hour. Take it out and look at it with IR goggles again. It will appear much brighter, because it is emitting a lot more infrared (IR) photons than it was before. Ergo, increasing the temperature of an object causes it to emit more IR photons. "The idea that a body that reflects 30% or more of incident light can emit 'as described by black body theory' is completely absurd." It's not. It's physics. Unless you're *really* arguing that black body theory is incorrect, but I can't believe someone would argue anything that stupid. "The measuring of emissivity (e) is difficult to do directly; it is more easily done by measuring the reflectivity (r) and calculating emissivity as e = 1 - r" So, according to what you just argued, an object that reflects 30% light (i.e. which has an albedo of 0.3) therefore has an emissivity of 0.7, right? Emissivity is the ratio of energy radiated by a particular material to energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. A true black body would have an ε = 1 while any real object would have ε < 1. In what sense is this incompatible with Black Body theory...unless you actually believe Black Body theory is only about black bodies (it isn't). "No the temperature would not be different." And yet you have agreed to the contrary in responding to my four questions. You have just contradicted yourself, even though you tried to get out of this predicament by making a blatantly false statement (i.e. that heated objects don't produce more IR radiation).
  24. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    #77, Albatross, no I am referring to the GOES-5 assimilation system called MERRA which is an AGCM. Essentially as far as radiation, cloud processes and convection goes, Dessler compared a GCM to another GCM. The difference is that the MERRA AGCM assimilates the GEOS satellite data so the model numbers match reality. But that doesn't mean that internal modeled parameters like the clouds or their feedback in warming scenarios match reality. In the top figure in the head post, there is a scatterplot resulting from an AGCM and in the next figure, a scatterplot that results from the other GCMs and AGCMs. Since they use much the same equations for their dynamics, the scatterplots should be similar.
  25. Renewable Baseload Energy
    I would think that microgeneration would be the ultimate goal of energy production. If you could get all your energy needs cost effectively from a generation unit in your home, why would you NOT want that? It may not be economically feasible now but that does not mean it won't be in the future. Maybe in the not-so-distant future. If the cost of PV continues to fall and battery technology continues to improve and also fall in price... what's to prevent microgeneration from being a reality? It just doesn't seem that far fetched to me.
  26. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Spencer's argument is basically "I'm right and Dessler is wrong because I think clouds cause ENSO, a hypothesis I'm throwing out there based on no real evidence, and contradicted by all studies on the topic to date".
  27. Renewable Baseload Energy
    As far as cost is concerned, I wonder if they include the fact that mass production of solar and wind microgenerators would continue to lower costs overtime, making it more competitive. Personally, I like the idea of renewables as part of third world development strategy. Africa has enormous solar potential (mostly in the form of concentrated solar), and the technology is easier to master for what sadly remain regions with limited technical/technological education. In this context microgeneration plays a part, especially for tribal population who do not use much (but would like some) electrical power. As I said, there is no single solution. I wish we would at least agree on that, as I've already spent too much time arguing about this. After all, that time used a significant amount of that precious electricity (I don't type with the monitor off, for example). So in the spirit of conservation I'll say no more about this, and will leave you with the last word. I know my case is strong enough to challenge yours and keep the debate open for others, and that's fine with me.
  28. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    With increase in GHGs: 1. Altitude of emission increases 2. Temperature at new altitude has to increase to maintain incoming/outgoing radiation balance 3. With constant lapse rate, surface must warm. You would learn a lot if you'd spend more time reading Science of Doom.
  29. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #224 DSL You asked for a y/n answer to this question :- "do you think the temperature of the 1) Earth's surface and/or 2) lowest ten meters of the troposphere would be different in the absence of atmospheric CO2?" No the temperature would not be different. Your response was to my statement:- "3/What is in your or anyone else's writing, that explains just how the presence of GHGs change a planets surface temperature from that in the absence of GHGs?" The temperature profile (dT/dz) of the troposphere is fixed by the lapse rate which is a function of the specific heat of the atmospheric gases. If the GHE was serious i.e. produces a 30K rise in surface temp. there is not a lot of room for it in the lapse rate calculations. NB the lapse rate would be no different without GHGs.
  30. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel - Did you see my post here? It was addressed to you - you've replied (in one fashion or another) to several other posts since that one.
  31. Ice data made cooler
    michael sweet #51 "...three factors of ten" As I know nothing, is it OK to ask what three factors of ten is? At any rate, it looks like this subject has been shut down, so you're in luck and dont have to answer that question, even though it has nothing to do with CO2 or polar caps. My last peep (if permitted) would be that as CO2 out gasses I assume there will always be less and less in the ocean, so this effect would curtail at some point, would it not, or should we assume there will always be plenty more CO2?
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] No, the subject isn't 'shut down'; all you need to do is move to the more appropriate thread. You can refer back to comments here by right-clicking the red date and time, copying the link location and inserting that as a link in your subsequent comment.
  32. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #223 Composer99 You wrote:- "You agree with four of the questions archiesteel puts to you; where agreement would seem to indicate agreement with some sort of greenhouse effect." I ceratinly said I didn't agree with archiesteel's first question:- "...they emit IR energy, as described by black body theory... " The idea that a body that reflects 30% or more of incident light can emit 'as described by black body theory' is completely absurd. The measuring of emissivity (e) is difficult to do directly; it is more easily done by measuring the reflectivity (r) and calculating emissivity as e = 1 - r Perhaps you do not realise that, by using the correct value for emissivity i.e. not making the false assumption of the Earth emittting 'like a black body', then the mean temperatute of the planet is 279K, not the 255K claimed in the opening argument for a GHE. You mention other contributors, I'll answer them on their own terms. Thanks for your interest.
  33. Ice data made cooler
    Oops...sorry about being off topic! The curse of following links to posts from recent comments section!
  34. Ice data made cooler
    Tom @52... you mispoke when you wrote " the majority of CO2 in sea water is not dissolved.." Obviously that inorganic carbon in carbonate and bicarbonate ions is dissolved. That could lead to some confusion as there are large pools of undissolved carbonate in the ocean that may also play a rol, especially in light of ocean acidification. To be clear to RSVP and others...dissolved CO2 (and carbonic acid -- the two species cannot be distinquished readily) accounts for only a small part of the total dissolved inorganic carbon pool in the ocean. This is because the current pH of the ocean (as determined by temp and cation concentrations) favors formation of bicarbonate and carbonate from CO2. But as Tom points out all of these species are in dynamic equilibrium with each other, so basically, the whole dissolved inorganic carbon pool has to be considered exchangeable with the atmosphere. Any shift in solubility of CO2 (ie., via temp) tends to result in net loss of dissolved CO2 to the atmosphere which causes dissociation of carbonate and bicarbonate. You can calculate the release that would result from warming (or acidification) using well established equations. However, because of the effects of cations and pH (which changes with dissociation of carbonate/bicarbonate) on the equilibrium, predicting the exact amount exchanged takes solving a set of equations to determine the new equilibrium points. Back of the envelope calculations won't cut it.
  35. Philippe Chantreau at 04:56 AM on 15 December 2010
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Incidentally, the reality of the "greenhouse" effect can be verified with a relatively simple experimental set-up. The ESPERE site describes it quite well: http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm It could be improved by taking into consideration the water vapor present in the air vessel, but the basic idea is there.
  36. Philippe Chantreau at 04:44 AM on 15 December 2010
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    "But if you do not specify the amount of material the temperature, for a given amount of energy, is completely unspecified." What a strange way to look at things. As if it was possible to measure the temperature of something but not know what it is at all. "I measured the temperature of that object but I have no idea of its size, what it's made of and all that" How could you then measure its temperature? I mean, what would you measure the temperature of? Does one not define an object before measuring its temperature? Of course, the exact mass will never be known to the last atom but who cares? It's enough to know it to the extent necessary to have a decent idea of the heat content. Which is the all point of measuring temperature; you have not demonstrated otherwise by this weird argument, certainly not "remotely" otherwise. You are wrong on the stratosphere. It is well known that GHGs cool down the stratosphere. Line by line radiative transfer models show how much, with the altitudinal distribution. That has been verified by observation too (Iacono and Clough 1995 and later papers). In post #220 you agree that IR radiation is re-radiated to the surface. How can this happen without the surface temperature to increase if thermodynamic compliance is respected? It is a good thing that you agree on this point, however, because it has been measured too; these measurements, once again, agree quite well with MODTRAN and LBLRTM. That was confirmed by Marty et al (2003), solidifying even more the Iacono and Clough results and MODTRAN. Heck, even Judith Curry has papers showing agreement between downward IR flux at the surface and results from a wide variety of models. "In an 'Earth' atmosphere, but of pure CO2, can you tell me, on a scale of 1 to 100, what % of photons emitted at a height of 5km will reach the surface without being reabsorbed?" I would not expect any individual here to be able to answer that question. That's what MODTRAN or other models do and they take significant computing power. But their results are very, very close to the observed reality. It is probably not the best question to ask because there are photons emitted at all altitudes anyway. A lot of words, a lot of weird ideas, nothing convincing.
  37. Ice data made cooler
    RSVP @48, one factor you are not taking into account is that the majority of CO2 in sea water is not dissolved, but rather as carbonate (6%) or bicarbonate (93%). Because these are in equilibrium with disolved CO2, a given reduction in the partial pressure of CO2 due to a warming ocean will result in the release of approximately 100 times more CO2 than your formula (if correctly calculated) would predict. Data on the ratio of dissolved CO2 to the various carbonatets can be found at the bottom of the page you mention. Of course, because so much CO2 is released, the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere will rapidly increase, establishing a new equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean. Consequently simply multiplying your values by 100 will not determine a correct value for increase in atmospheric CO2. For what it is worth, Indermuhle et al, 1999 (Warning, PDF) quote an earlier paper to the effect that for each 1 degree C increase in Sea Surface Temperature, there is a 4.2% reduction in the partial pressure of CO2 in surface waters, with a corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] This thread is about ice data (and how cool it can be). Take the ocean carbonate, bicarbonate, dissolved gas discussions et al. here. John, consider consolidating argument #89 'CO2 is coming from the ocean' with 'Ocean acidification'.
  38. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Also, microgeneration does have a significant advantage over large-scale power plants: since the energy is generated at the point where it is used, there is no loss of power during transmission. Up to 8% of electricity is wasted due to transmission over long distances. Another advantage is that you can still have power even when power grid fails. Decentralization also means less stress on the grid, and reduces maintenance costs. Is microgeneration the answer? No, it isn't, not by itself. As I said, a varied ecosystem of energy sources is the best option, even though it does mean less money for Westinghouse...
  39. Ice data made cooler
    RSVP: You have not considered pH, salinity or mixing, among many other important factors. pH alone could give as much as three factors of ten. You cannot do this calculation in the manner you propose. My post 22 and Alec's post 47 give clear qualitative results that explain your question. According to your new reference, CO2 is 5 times more concentrated than O2 and N2 combined (90 ppm vs 19.5, you are apparently unable to read your own table). Approximately 5 times as much CO2 will be released as N2 and O2 combined. The change in O2 and N2 is too small to measure. Post 47 and 22 explain this completely. It is very frustrating to provide a clear, simple answer to your question (at post 22 and 47) and have you deny that your question has been explained. This happens to you repeatedly, so I am not the cause. "The longer you go on the clearer it is that you do not know what you are talking about. You are legendary for the "waste heat" After 10 posts you are not even within an order of magnitude in your calculation. You do not know enough chemistry to correct your calculation. You have provided data that proves your argument is completely wrong. Do you imagine you will ever be able to convince me that you have done this calculation correctly? Do you realize that scientists are professionals who do this for a living? Your back of the envelope calculations (filled with obvious errors) mean nothing compared to a professionals careful, peer reviewed work. For someone who has a complete lack of basic chemistry and physics knowledge, you make a lot of posts suggesting scientists need to do better work. Get you act together!!!
  40. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @quokka: well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do believe the cost of nuclear is higher than the studies suggest, and I do believe you are too quick to dismiss the effect (and popularity) of microgeneration. Simply put, the more people reduce their energy consumption through microgeneration, the less power will be required of the grid at large. Furthermore, as long as you continue trumpeting nuclear as the only solution, you will turn people off of it. In other words, your advocacy is actually having a negative effect. You are also ignoring the political aspect, i.e. the strength of the NIMBY effect, and the geopolitical puzzle linked to nuclear energy (security and strategic issues, etc.). The fact that you can't admit a single weakness of nuclear energy is highly suspicious, in my view, but I'll refrain from saying what I really think so that my comment doesn't get deleted.
  41. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    @damorbel: "No. Just as objects like planets do not absorb 100% of the incident radiation from the Sun because a certain % (called the albedo) is reflected, neither is 100% radiated." I never claimed 100% of the Energy was radiated. Stop putting words in other people's mouth in order to peddle your incorrect interpretation of physics, please. "What you should realise is that the % 'trapped' by a radiating planet is exactly the same as the % of the incoming radiation reflected as albedo." Wrong. The higher the albedo, the less energy is transferred to the surface, as the visible light is mostly reflected back into space. Are you really that misinformed, or are you indulging in disinformation? "Do you also accept my argument that the scattering/reflection processes that cause the albedo is completely independent of the direction of arrival of the photons that are scattered?" This is rather irrelevant, isn't it? Anyway, I disagree. Scattering and reflection are not equivalent, as reflection does indeed have a directional component (think of an object with 100% albedo, i.e. a mirror). "In an 'Earth' atmosphere, but of pure CO2, can you tell me, on a scale of 1 to 100, what % of photons emitted at a height of 5km will reach the surface without being reabsorbed?" No, I can't, but the exact figure is irrelevant. As I said, some IR energy will escape to space, some will warm the surface, and others will be reabsorbed and re-emitted. The time it takes for the energy to eventually reach space or the surface is inconsequential, just like the time it takes for a photon to go from the center of the sun to its surface and beyond is inconsequential to the fact it will eventually escape. Either you have a real problem with logic, or you are using this forum as a propaganda pulpit. Either way, please stop. "What is in your or anyone else's writing, that explains just how the presence of GHGs change a planets surface temperature from that in the absence of GHGs?" I just explained it to you, and you agreed on pretty much all points, except on the one about Albedo, but that's because you don't really understand the difference between reflectivity and absorbption/emmission. Again, you've been shown to be wrong on this many, many times. The fact you continue to make false statments really make me believe you're interested in pushing an agenda, not learning the truth. So, you agreed with my points, and I showed how yours are incorrect. I guess this means you have lost the argument. Sorry.
  42. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    Follow up from here. Excellent link posted by RSVP. Ocean CO2 concentrations on the increase, as of 2006 Odd, the largest changes in the Atlantic are in the northern hemisphere, the Indian is worse in the south, but the Pacific seems even.
    Moderator Response: I take back the 'excellent link' opinion. The website has an extensive page in denial of AGW.
  43. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    HR @75, "Do those few data points have a larger impact on the slope of the graph than the pile of data points in the middle?" That is a possibility. But is hard to say without having access to the data. Dr. Dessler realizes that there is not much data here-- even thought the ECMWF-interim data go back to 1989, CERES was launched on board NASA's Terra satellite in late 1999 (apparently a CERES instrument was launched on board TRMM in late 1997, but I'm not sure why they did not use those data, maybe there were issues with the early instrument?). Given the relatively limited data (120 data pairs), Dessler has answered your question when he says: "Obviously, the correlation between DRcloud and DTs is weak (r^2 = 2%), meaning that factors other than Ts are important in regulating DRcloud. An example is the Madden-Julian Oscillation (7), which has a strong impact on DRcloud but no effect on DTs. This does not mean that DTs exerts no control on DRcloud, but rather that the influence is hard to quantify because of the influence of other factors. As a result, it may require several more decades of data to significantly reduce the uncertainty in the inferred relationship." My read of this paper is that it is a sincere and honest effort to address an important, but vexing, problem in climate science. I have to yet come across the "ideal" data set in my field, you do the best with what you have. Dessler has developed and tested a methodology which can be applied in the future as more data becomes available. That, contrary to what Dr. Spencer might believe, is a step forward for science-- something that Dessler seems genuinely concerned and passionate about. The novelty and strength of this paper lies in the fact that, unlike LC09, Dessler is looking at global data and that his approach implicitly includes clouds of all types (i.e., other studies have focused on just low clouds, for example). Finally, this paper, demonstrates that the models are (in the short-term at least) actually doing a decent job in simulating the cloud feedback the short-term, and is also further evidence that (while not discounting the possibility of a very weak feedback) that a cloud feedback is in all likelihood positive, with an approximate 95% confidence interval (equivalent to about 2 sigma) of the mean of +0.54 W/m^2/K between -0.2 and 1.3 W/m^2/K. I would also suggest reading the very last paragraph of his paper starting with "For the problem of...".
  44. Ice data made cooler
    #48: Excellent link, RSVP. But well off-topic for this thread, which is about ice data. Look down the page for the two graphics showing how much both the oceanic concentration of CO2 and ocean water pH have changed, according to measured values. Followup discussion on that subject should go here.
  45. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Eric @70, "....(the model Dessler used to get the top chart in the post) it seems like the AGCM has no mechanism to use convection and latent heat transfer to estimate the lapse rate" The top panel of the chart you refer to is based on ECMWF-interim (reanalysis) data. Are you referring to the ECHAM AOGCM? If so, why a link then to the NASA GEOS-5 assimilation model? I'm not not seeing what your thoughts have to do with Dessler's paper.
  46. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    This is a good move IMO. Florence Nightingale changed British hospitals as a result of one simple diagram (and a lot of campaigning).
  47. Ice data made cooler
    @ RSVP "Not sure if this is due to bacteria or what, ..." Your ratios are off due to bacteria !? Please, elaborate.
  48. Ice data made cooler
    michael sweet #46 "The longer you go on the clearer it is that you do not know what you are talking about. You are legendary for the "waste heat" This sounds like an ad hominem to me. (i.e. since I didnt consider atomic mass, moles etc., to do my calculation, everything I could have possibly said about waste heat is completely untrue.) ... and not being able to substantiate your argument because the blog medium is a cop out. I could understand if you were complaining about not getting paid for it. Here we go again... http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html @20 degrees solubility N2 in water = 0.0158 g/ kl solubility O2 in water = 0.045 g/ kl solubility CO2 in water= 1.5 g/ kl considering... N2 79%, atomic mass 28 O2 20%, atmoci mass 32 CO2 .04%, atomic mass 44 this yields... @20 degrees solubility N2 in water = 5.64e-4 mol/ kl solubility O2 in water = 0.0014 mol/ kl solubility CO2 in water= 0.0341 mol/ kl Normalizing this for CO2, you get @20 degrees solubility N2 in water = 0.017 solubility O2 in water = 0.041 solubility CO2 in water= 1 again, taking into account the ratio of atm. comp... N2 roughly 80% O2 20% CO2 .04 % normalizing this to CO2 you get N2 2000 O2 500 CO2 1 taking these results, you would expect to find the following ratio of gases dissolved in seawater at 20 N2 2000 x 0.017 = 34 O2 500 x 0.041 = 20 CO2 1 x 1 = 1 However, I just checked this link... http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm which contains a beautiful table in about the middle of the webpage that just happens to contain information on this. As you can see, according to the data, my ratios are off by a factor of ten. Not sure if this is due to bacteria or what, but even still, you have more O2 and N2 than CO2 in the water.
  49. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    Thanks for all your hard work! Now we need to take action. To continue arguing about whether Global Warming is human induced is a distraction, and one I am sure the fossil fuel industry loves, because it serves to delay action and thus delay their reduction in profits. You recently recommended a book showing that the fossil fuel industry was using the same people to lead their campaign against taking action as was used to 'disprove' that tabacco smoking causes lung cancer, and that HFCs do not affect the ozone layer. These people are devoid of scruples. We know the science concerning CO2 and the greenhouse effect. It matters not whether the current level of CO2 was human in origin or caused by the ravenous bug blatter beast of Traal. What really matters is that we from now on do whatever we can to reduce CO2 emissions. We could shoot the aforementioned beast, if we can find it, but even if we do, we had better cut down on our production. To not take action is akin to refusing to steer round an iceberg on the basis that we humans did not make it.
  50. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Damorbel: "3/What is in your or anyone else's writing, that explains just how the presence of GHGs change a planets surface temperature from that in the absence of GHGs?" You've been asked this before, I believe: do you think the temperature of the 1) Earth's surface and/or 2) lowest ten meters of the troposphere would be different in the absence of atmospheric CO2? Yes or No?

Prev  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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