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  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  2035  Next

Comments 101351 to 101400:

  1. 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.
  2. 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".
  3. 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.
  4. 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).
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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 ...
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. 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).
  16. 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.
  17. 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 ...
  18. 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 ...
  19. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    100 e I agree with you Spencer is saying (some) temperature change is initiated by clouds not that ENSO is initiated by clouds. 102 dhogaza I read the email exchange, I don't see where he says or infers "ENSO are caused by clouds". Please reproduce the quote here so I can find it in the emails. 96 Stephen Baines Stephen you fail to mention deltaT here and it seems to be the relationship between clouds and deltaT that Spencer is arguing over not ENSO. I think when it comes to "initiators" and "feedback" it's the relationship to deltaT that Spencer is concerned about. Anybody want to move on from this and talk about phase space plots?
  20. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    97 Albatross I'm not questioning the sincerity of Dessler, I'm not trying to look for angels and devils in the process. I think the reader at RC is lead down that particular path by the paragraphs following the "ENSO are caused by clouds" statement, I'm not suggesting that Dessler is consciously trying to lead us there but that is what is happening. 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. 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.
  21. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    HR: "These are Spencer's words, not Dessler's interpretation of Spencer's words. " Uh, his e-mail messages are his words, too, and Dessler presents them verbatim so we can interpret them ourselves. It is clear that Spencer's claiming that scientists have the arrow backwards regarding clouds and ENSO. He says so directly.
  22. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    88 Albatross and Riccardo It looks like in Spencer's Fig1 that he actually takes Dessler's approach to calculating radiative forcing. He uses different data sets but the methodology is the same. In that figure he seems to show that depending on exactly which data set you use (HADCRUT or satellite for temp) and how you handle the data (different averaging periods) you can get very big differences in the radiative forcing estimate (0-2.5 W m-2 K-1). I guess Dessler would counter that he shows robustness by using two data sets of his own and getting similar results. Any greater merit in either authors approach? Maybe this is not actually getting to the point of disagreement between Spencer and Dessler anyway. The curious thing is using Desslers method Spencer actually gets very similar results to Dessler only with much greater range (Spencer 0 - 2.5 and Dessler -0.2 - 1.3). The point both you (and Dessler) seem to want to emphasise could still be made with Spencer's result, that is using this method there is no evidence of large negative feedback. From what I can see though Spencer's issue isn't just about the robustness of the method but whether Dessler's method is valid at all. Even for Spencer that is not answered by the confidence in the stats but by using a different method, phase space plots. I guess what we should be focussing on is whether phase space plots are giving us the added information that shows that Dessler (and others) method for estimating feedback is invalid.
  23. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    HR @94, It sounds to me like Spencer is just nitpicking semantics. Temperature change is one of the chief characteristics of ENSO, and Spencer is clearly arguing that this temperature change is initiated by clouds. That view is indeed outside of the mainstream.
  24. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    This is somewhat OT but related to climate sensitivity. Remember the news last week about the NASA study showing negative feedbacks from plants that bring climate sensitivity down to 1.64C? Potholer54 on youtube has done a great video debunking that myth. If you haven't heard of Potholer54 for before (aka journalist Peter Hadfield) definitely check out his other videos. He's the kind of quality journalist this world is severely lacking these days.
  25. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    #92: "more importantly nothing to indicate distance. The arrows in the figure suggest vary large distances " These are schematics of the flow of materials in a dynamic system. There is no distance scale involved. This type of figure is the standard, in use for decades; for example, see figure 10 in Post et al 1990. "would like to have people acknowledg or refute my assertion that the figure is bad science" An assertion that this is 'bad science' needs some substantiation. There are far more egregious example of bad science to be found on a routine basis in the denialist sources.
  26. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Stephen @96, Interesting perspective and insights. Of course another possibility is that Spencer let the "truth" slip in his exchange with Dessler (i.e., let slip his true feelings on the issue).
  27. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    HR, I think that you might also be going off on a "flight of fancy" when you suggest "The power of that argument is to place Spencer so far outside the mainstream as to discredit everything he says". I would argue that Spencer's behavior and comments in recent years (many of which were made on his own blog) are in fact doing just that (i.e., discrediting him). Dessler strikes me as a sincere person who is not likely to engage in the tactics that you are accusing him of. Also, I do not see Dessler et al. holding a press conference the very minute a "skeptic" paper is officially released in order to try and sabotage it. It is Spencer who is playing games, not Dessler. The logic of the contentious statement that Spencer made in his email definitely suggests that for the 2007-2008 La Nina, changes in clouds preceded changes in temperature. Now in Spencer's defense, it was an email, which is a horrible medium for communicating sometimes. Maybe he was simply not clear or mis-spoke. What I do not understand is why Spencer has not spoken up to clarify his position since Dessler made his post at RC, or why he did not take the opportunity to discuss the matter further by email with Dessler. This whole ENSO fiasco is just a distraction though. Dessler's main points are that the cloud feedback in response to warming is very likely positive and that the models are doing a pretty good job in reproducing this short-term (positive) feedback. Anyone still trying to claim that climate sensitivity is low, is on incredibly thin ice-- some might even go so far as to say that they are already flailing in the water.
  28. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    The question HR is why does he clearly hold one view when talking to Dessler and another when blogging to the public. The point that Dessler is making in the emails is that if ENSO is initiated by ocean-atmosphere interactions, and if this leads to cloud formation that reinforce that change, then that is a feedback. It is the magnitude of that very feedback that Dessler is trying to measure. When confronted with that reasoning in the emails, Spencer argues that the clouds initiate ENSO by affecting surface temp so as to avoid admitting that clouds are acting as feedbacks. In the quote you provide above from his site, he seems to be talking about clouds as a feedback mechanism, which essentially means Dessler is correct in his approach. He seems to realize (and take advantage of)the fact that he is talking to an audience who is not aware of the important distinction between clouds as initiators and clouds as feedback mechanism, and therefore who won't realize that he is backing into a corner.
  29. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    To put it simply I think Dessler thinks A) ENSO causes temperature change which causes cloud changes which cause further temperature changes. A classic feedback situation While Spencer is proposing some role for B) ENSO causes circulation changes which cause cloud changes which causes temperature changes. Unforced internal variability I'm not sure Spencer is proposing the first one does not exist just that what is showing up in the data set is a mixture of both. It's this that makes Desslers (and others) methodologies different from Spencer's. Anyway I'll post this on Spencer's blog to see what he has to say.
  30. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    91 NewYorkJ 93 dhogaza You could also try this on Spencer's blog I'll even copy the relevent bit for you "To Dessler’s credit, he actually references our paper. But he then immediately discounts our interpretation of the satellite data. Why? Because, as he claims, (1) most of the climate variability during the satellite period of record (2000 to 2010) was due to El Nino and La Nina (which is largely true), and (2) no researcher has ever claimed that El Nino or La Nina are caused by clouds. This simple, blanket claim was then intended to negate all of the evidence we published. But this is not what we were claiming, nor is it a necessary condition for our interpretation to be correct. El Nino and La Nina represent a temporary change in the way the coupled atmospheric-ocean circulation system operates. And any change in the atmospheric circulation can cause a change in cloud cover, which can in turn cause a change in ocean temperatures. We even showed this behavior for the major La Nina cooling event of 2007-08 in our paper! It doesn’t mean that “clouds cause El Nino”, as Dessler suggests we are claiming, which would be too simplistic and misleading of a statement. Clouds are complicated beasts, and climate researchers ignore that complexity at their peril." These are Spencer's words, not Dessler's interpretation of Spencer's words. It can't be any clearer that he does not hold the view that Dessler assigns him. I understand what Spencer is saying here and I'm not a climate scientist. He's not arguing clouds cause ENSO, he's questioning the assumptions about the relationship between clouds and temperature. In Spencer's first email he says clouds proceed temperature, not clouds proceed ENSO. It's Dessler that seems to think that this means ENSO is caused by clouds. My reading of Spencer's work is to try to understand what he calls "internal radiative forcing" and other's call "unforced internal variability". This isn't just his theory, what's novel about Spencer's work seems to be in the understanding of how these processes affect the measurement of short term radiative forcing. While Spencer goes off on a flight of fancy about the timing of the publication, and should really hold his head in shame over that, I do think he has a point about Dessler's use of the "clouds cause ENSO" arguement. The power of that arguement is to place Spencer so far outside the mainstream as to discredit everything he says. It's no more worthy a tactic than Spencer's conspiracy theory and no better at discrediting the science.
  31. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Ebel @243, the majority of emmissions near the 15 micron band comes from CO2 in the troposphere, from about an altitude of 8 - 10 km. If you use the Modtran model linked to several times in this thread, with a look down altitude of 10 km, you will see the main part of the emmission spectrum still present (as in fig 2 above). You will not see the spike at the center, of course, because it comes from the stratosphere and hence from above 10km. If you use Modtran, and a 10km look up altitude, you will see the spike, but not the main band. Clearly, though, the spike, being an increase of outgoing energy, must be an emmission rather than an absorption.
  32. It's albedo
    Rovinpiper not sure I understood your mate's question. If referred to Kirchoff law, it is valid at each wavelength and need not be integrated. Integration, instead, is performed when computing the radiative balance.
  33. It's the sun
    Re: TheCaz (748) Short answer? In the paleo record, CO2 acted as a feedback to temperatures, with orbital factors being a primary driver of climate change (with the exception of methane burps [think PETM]). What is different today is the immense bolus, or carbon slug, of CO2 mankind has injected into the atmosphere. By doing so, we have changed the game: instead of CO2 acting as a feedback, it now acts as forcing, causing a cascade feedback reaction of warming that also drives more CO2 and CH4 release, causing further warming. The warming will continue until CO2/CH4 emissions stablize + about 40 years for the thermal lag of the oceans to catch up. Once radiative balance is then achieved, temps and resulting large and micro-scale climate patterns will stabilize. And that was the short answer. The Yooper
  34. It's the sun
    The figure (and referenced data) show a de-coupling of solar output from Earth's surface temperatures, starting in the mid 1970s. The conclusion is that there must be another causative agent that overwhelms solar influences, starting around that time (greenhouse gases). But the data's weakness is that the prior correlation only goes back a few hundred years. If the data was traced back a few thousand years, then would it show any other periods of uncoupling? Or is the recent uncoupling unique in the holocene?
  35. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    The radiation of the entire 15μm bands at 220K is from the stratosphere, which has over the entire thickness almost 220K (yellow line). The small spike in the middle is caused by a particularly strong absorption, so that the emission comes almost exclusively from the height of the ozone area. See also # 234th
  36. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Yes, it's very clear. Over at RC Dessler made it clear that it was this e-mail exchange that convinced him that Spencer really *is* arguing that clouds are driving ENSO. He speaks specifically of satellite data showing causation in a recent La Niña, and that it's clouds=>temperature.
  37. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    hfranzen I spoke about the seasonal variation and terrestrial carbon storage because you were trying to understand seasonal variation in CO2 as a function of ocean CO2 uptake, which is the wrong path to take. The reason there are large positive and negative fluxes of CO2 into the ocean is because some regions are net sources and some regions are net sinks of CO2. Those arrows indicate the sum release for the net source areas (like the equatorial Pacific), and the sum of uptake in the net uptake areas (like the subantarctic regions north of the Southern Ocean). As you can tell these areas are large. The minimal scale is essentially set by the minimum cell or pixel size of dynamic models of ocean physics and satellite observations (usually >kms) -- the in and out numbers do not refer to both gross flux terms of the net flux at one point...that would be pointless for the reasons you point out. Scientists study the spatial variability in PCO2 flux because efflux and influx can be decoupled by things like ENSO (on the short term) and ventillation (on the long term). It allows you to explicitly address the ability of the ocean to store CO2 in the future under different climate/oceanographic conditions and different time scales of exposure to increased CO2. We are discussing some of this on the acidicfication page as pointed out my muoncounter above. I think it's good science. You also have to include those arrows because they are in every global C cycle produced over the last few decades. As a consequence, you can't ignore them because cynics will say your hiding something when you're not. Ackowledging those arrows and explaining why they don't negate the importance of athropogenic CO2 is important. As for the time and mass units they are years and Gt CO2 (not C). If you go back to the original IPCC figure you can figure that out. In fact, the IPCC report covers all of what I said above pretty well. I'd read it.
  38. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel at 00:00 AM Ned has already said it, but i realize on reading what i wrote how it may be interpreted, the lapse rate, may be due to density/gravitational compression(which also effects path length), but the energy contained is due to energy in vrs path length out. As can be seen in the graphic in NEDs post. The stratosphere is an entirely different kettle o fish, it absorbs UV through O3, and is optically thick for UV, but is relatively transparent to LW, so CO2 cools it, But UV heats it from the top down, there is a thread on it here at the moment. In which there has been a bit o a discussion about the relevance of radiation to the lapse rate and convection.
  39. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Also, for what happens to the upper level photons, the graphic at jg's (meant for explaining stratospheric cooling) is useful. And dont forget DLR is measured, something damorel struggles to explain.
  40. It's albedo
    Here's a link to that paper /news.php?n=481&p=2#34079
  41. It's albedo
    #19, I recommend Climate modeling through radiative-convective models (Ramanathan 1978) equation 16 (absorption and scattering of solar radiation) which integrates over wave number, angle of incidence, etc.
  42. It's albedo
    Hi, Rovinpiper. Sorry to have missed your first question: What is "s" in your equation for energy emitted? It should be a "sigma" ... it's the Stefan-Bolzmann constant. Since it's constant, the equation tells us that emitted energy at a given wavelength is a function of just the object's temperature and its emissivity (fraction) at that wavelength. [...] he states that we must integrate over the whole spectrum. Must integrate over the whole spectrum to do what? What's he "skeptical" about? The spectral distribution of incoming solar radiation is very different than the spectral distribution of outgoing longwave radiation. The former is almost entirely at short wavelengths (probably > 99% of it is below 3 micrometers) , while the latter is almost entirely long wavelengths (definitely > 99% of it longer than 3 micrometers). The latter is why the Earth doesn't glow in visible light (lava flows and forest fires excepted...). So you don't really need to integrate across the entire spectrum (or integrate anything, really) to answer the questions you were talking about earlier in this thread. Changing the visible-wavelength albedo of an object will change how much it absorbs, without necessarily implying a corresponding change in the efficiency with which it emits longwave radiation. In that case, the object will warm up or cool down until it reaches a new equilibrium. Dunno if this helps at all.
  43. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Yep...Spencer is definitely saying clouds are initiating ENSO in that exchange. The mechanistic sequence is not really explained though. Nature paper there if he can convince anyone...
  44. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    I think I understand the basic science quite well and am familiar with the details of the Keeloing curve. I am certain without knowing the details that I can visualize what is hapeening at the ocean-atmosphere interface. One of my current interests is to try to bridge the severe communication problem between scientists and nonscientists. I have at every opportunity made myself available to speak or write about the aspects of this probelm that I think I understand well. As part of this effort I turned to the Skeptical Scientist for guidance and the first thing I came upon was this thread and the figure (7.3) from the IPCC that seems to me to undercut the effort. In this figure a cycle involving 300+ GT of CO2 to and from the ocean is "given" - nothing to indicate the time span (although one could surmise a year) but more importantly nothing to indicate distance. The arrows in the figure suggest vary large distances but in what sense does one know (or feel qualified to suggest) that 300+ GT of CO2 move from point A to point B on the earth? My point is that the quoted 300+ GT of carbon (or CO2 - not even that is clear)are meaningless and these numbers only serve to confuse an already confused situation. If you are inclined to respond please know that I know how much CO2 humans are producing, how much of it is going into the atmosphere, how much CO2 (and bicarbonate and cardonate) are dissoled in the ocean, I understand heterogeous equilibria, and etc. I just want to know why figure 7.3 was the first response of many possible to the original query, and would like to have people acknowledg or refute my assertion that the figure is bad science and therefore bad communication.
  45. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    HR, This should be obvious in their exchange: http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/emailExchange.pdf http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/feedback-on-cloud-feedback/
  46. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Here is link to an image of the CO2 flying carpet showing spatial and temporal variability combined.
  47. It's albedo
    I am facing that most intractable of global warming deniers, the old physicist. Faced with what we just discussed about Kirchoff's Law he states that we must integrate over the whole spectrum. How do you do that?
  48. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    Glad someone has the patience and time to post those images! "So anyone who says 'atmospheric CO2 increase is solely due to ocean outgassing' is all wet." On that we should be able to agree. Physical and chemical considerations as well the evidence from stable isotopes, physical measurements, times series of pH and pCO2 pattern/trends are in agreement and unequivocal.
  49. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Hfranzen "but in what way is a dynamic exchange of CO2 a cycle?" As noted, there is a lot more spatial variability implicit in that image than can be presented effectively. Also a cycle as used in earth science also implies transitions between different states (inorganic/organic, aqueous/gaseous) that can occur in a single space. That's just the usage.
  50. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    #87: "in what way is a dynamic exchange of CO2 a cycle?" To use a familiar illustration, here is a 'dynamic exchange' of CO2 in/out of the biosphere. The result is a regular 6-7 ppm peak to trough cycle each year. It is superimposed on the long-term increase of ~2ppm per year due to anthropogenic CO2. The annual peak is in April, at the start of the growing season in the northern hemisphere; the annual trough is in September-October, aka 'fall'.

Prev  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  2035  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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