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  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  2035  2036  2037  Next

Comments 101451 to 101500:

  1. Ice data made cooler
    RSVP: You do not need to tell me about the solubility of gases. I teach chemistry, including Henry's Law. The solubility of CO2 is a complicated function related to the pH, atmospheric pressure, salinity, temperature and the ambient pressure, which changes at depth. You have no idea how to calculate the solubility of CO2 in the ocean and are using "skeptic logic" to make absurd claims. Scientists have measured the changes of CO2 and oxygen in the ocean. Your claim in 3 that O2 would be outgassed in significant amounts by a warming ocean is absurd. Provide a link to a peer reviewed paper (or even a skeptic web site) to support your wild, unscientific claims. Moderator: CO2 and O2 solubility should be declared off topic on this thread to prevent another "waste heat" thread.
  2. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Argus @ 5: We have provided links to both the prior work and the subsequent critiques of L&C, as requested by our skeptic friend HR. You are most welcome to criticize them - scientifically. Please leave any insinuations of suspicious activities by "good guys" or "bad guys" where they belong: in the gutter.
  3. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Argus @5 You have it the wrong way round. The guys who are wrong (because they have errors in their papers) are bad. If Lindzen et al stopped making stupid errors they would become good guys.
  4. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    - And are there no "major flaws" in the criticism? How come the 'good guys' are always right on this web site, and 'the bad guys' are always wrong? It looks suspicious...
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please see my response to you in comment #12 below. Also, please adhere more closely to the Comments Policy in the future, as comments containing insinuations of malfeasance or questioning motives will be deleted. Thanks in advance for your understanding on this point!
  5. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "Is there any peer-reviewed criticism of Lindzen and Choi 2009?" Beyond Trenberth et al. 2010, there is Murphy 2010: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml And in effect Chung et al. 2010: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043051.shtml Also, Lindzen and Choi came to the exact opposite conclusion of two previous studies ([1] and [2]) without discussing why their results differed so greatly. I can only assume this either means that Lindzen knew about these papers, but couldn't explain such conflicting results given the same data, or no longer feels like doing his homework when publishing potentially groundbreaking results. [1] Forster & Gregory (2006) http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3611.1 [2] Tsushima et al. (2005) http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/GRC/Papers/tsushima-etal-05.pdf
  6. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Composer99@154, Yes... "my instinct"=my best guess based on current experience and knowledge. If you have got precise data,rather than a best guess, then I do hope you will reveal it to all on this website which I think is the purpose of this website. Is an understanding of quantum physics and relativity necessary for understanding of climate models? If so what books would you recommend for a beginner to get up to speed?
  7. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    mars, Joe, on the adiabatic lapse rate point Science of Doom has a new post setting this out very well: http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/07/things-climate-science-has-totally-missed-convection/
  8. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Trenbath et al (2010): http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2009GL042314-pip.pdf Discussed in detail here. There are several major flaws in the L&C paper.
  9. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Is there any peer-reviewed criticism of Lindzen and Choi 2009?
  10. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    Glenn Tamblyn, "refine" sounds a little too sophisticated. What I actually do is look up my argument in the long list of contradicted skeptic arguments, and I don't use it if it is there. Then I present my own theories on the cosmic ray thread for example. The ability of posters here to quickly point out flaws is exceptional. If my flaw is repetitious or obvious then someone will point that out also. If those theories seem to cohere with everything else I read, then I use those. (N.B. I am not trying to "avoid" CO2 warming theory, just imminent catastrophic CO2 warming theory). In the solutions threads in particular, the real world takes top priority and I agree with the consensus opinion in those threads. I think the difference is that it is much easier in the real world to test a solution than to test a model.
  11. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    @36 Eric(skeptic) Interesting concept Eric! That you 'refine' your arguments to make them harder to debunk. Surely the point of 'debunking' in this context is to illustrate faulty logic,reasoning and evidence, not just less artful 'arguments'. Since we are discussing physical phenomena in the real world, 'refinements to the argument' won't tip the physics in or against your favour. This isn't a debating club where we 'win' if our sophistry is cleverer. This is the real world.
  12. Ice data made cooler
    michael sweet #35 "The amount of gas released relates to the change in the solubility of the gas, not its concentration in the atmosphere. " Solubility is the propensity of absorption, not an amount. If I put a dry sponge on a dry surface, it isnt going to absorb a whole lot of water. The water needs to actually be there first. So concentration or partial pressure of gases determines the amount. I suggest you go here and see what it says about "Henry´s Law". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_pressure "Gases will dissolve in liquids to an extent that is determined by the equilibrium between the undissolved gas and the gas that has dissolved in the liquid (called the solvent)....The form of the equilibrium constant shows that the concentration of a solute gas in a solution is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the solution."
  13. actually thoughtful at 17:53 PM on 12 December 2010
    An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    From Hansen's paper in 1988 (and really just looking at the data) we have empirical evidence of 3.4C for the sensitivity. Nothing has seriously challenged that figure.
  14. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Joe at 227 The way I understand it, is the work that is done, is internal to the parcel of air. Work is done when the air parcel expands and the temperature falls. During compression the work energy is in effect returned as an increase in temperature. Here I may be misunderstanding what you are saying. I was under the impression that you are saying that heat from the parcel of air is being lost to its surroundings. My understanding is that is not the case. My simplistic understanding is that a parcel of dry air cools at a rate of 9.8 Deg C per 1 Km of altitude but the atmosphere on average is cooler by 6.8 Deg C for every 1 Km of altitude. For example if the surface temperature is 16 Deg C and a parcel is heated an extra 6 degs C to 22 Deg C At 1 Km air parcel cools to 12.2 Deg C local temp is 9.2 C At 2 Km air parcel cools to 2.4 Deg C local Temp is also 2.4 C Here equilibrium is reached and and convection stops.
  15. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    AWoL comments @ 151:
    (C) "Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will reduce the flux of outgoing longwave radiation within their absorption bands." [Quoted by AWoL from Ned @223).] True, bearing in mind that only 1 in 2,500 molecules is involved and only a tiny part of the IR outgoing spectrum is involved.Is this a significant effect in comparison to much more obvious transfers of heat, such as conduction/convection from the surface and the very obvious role of water vapour in heat transfer? My instinct says no. [Emphasis mine.]
    Your instinct? You surely realize that relying on instinct is a sub-optimal manner of assessing scientific data, especially in the era of quantum physics & relativity.
  16. Ice data made cooler
    jimvj: I meant to say that crust is a very good insulator, and I shouldn't have implied that it was solely responsible for Earth's internal heat. I'll fix that. I'll look at the link too. Thank you, jg
  17. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    mars at 10:15 AM Read here the section on adiabatic heating and cooling, and if you still think im wrong get back to me and i shall try to clarify.
  18. Ice data made cooler
    Hi jg: Great work! Thanks very much. On one of the Energy Budget pages it says "Internal heat loss is negligible. Crust is a good insulator, keeping the core hot for 4.5 billion years." I don't think that is correct. Heat released by radioactive isotopes decaying keeps the Earth's interior hot. Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay "False Premise, Good Science" in his book "The Flamingo's Smile" that discusses this issue. (http://tinyurl.com/28utjjx)
  19. Philippe Chantreau at 12:58 PM on 12 December 2010
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Michele @ 147. Every prediction of quantum theory that could be tested by experiment thus far has proved true. Physicists have been very busy proving it's true, in other words. How does Claes Johnson theory fare? The way I see it, according to his theory, a multiple mirrors type concentrating solar plant can not work. However, they do. Perhaps I misinterpret the "energy is transferred only from warmer to cooler" bit. Does it mean energy or heat? Awol, do you have any evidence backing up your assertion that downgoing IR radiation is too small to be measurable? Did you check whether it has been measured or not?
  20. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    I don't know if this has already been covered but I wondered whether we can even say diagnostically this is a GHG fingerprint (forget human fingerprint). What about clouds? It seems changes in cloud cover would have a very similar fingerprint both in the summer/winter and day/night trends. Briefly, low clouds play two roles 1) Reflecting solar radiation out to space at the cloud top. (Cooling effect) 2) Reflecting longwave radiation back down to the surface at the cloud bottom. (warming effect) The magnitude of these two effects will alter the rate of warming. Summer/Winter - Solar irradiance in summer is higher than in winter. The cooling effect will be greater in summer than winter while the downward radiation effect remains the same for both seasons. So in a warming world with more cloud the effect is winters warm at a faster rate than summers. Day/Night - In a similar way solar irradiance is greater during the day than the night. More clouds would reflect more longwave radiation down both day and night but would only have an increased cooling effect during the day. Overall effect is a greater warming trend at night in a warming world with more cloud. Both these observations could be described as cloud fingerprints. I realise clouds are a feedback not a forcing. But I'm not sure these sorts of observations can distinguish between the two. My point isn't "this is clouds" or "this is solar" but why is this specificly a GHG fingerprint or a human fingerprint, I still don't get that. Do these studies distinguish between a forcing effect and a feedback effect? What is specifically GHG or human about these sorts of observations? (I'm talking about summer/winter trends and day/night trends). How do these observations go beyond just being consistent with GHG warming? And what warming trend in the past several hundred million years didn't involve a GHG component anyway? The more I try thinking about these observations the less I see any importance to them (beyond we live in a warming world).
  21. actually thoughtful at 11:35 AM on 12 December 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    It is not "Being developed" - it is done. Here now. Ready to go. You too can save money and the environment by acting now. Failure to act puts you in the denier crowd by actions, if not by words. I don't mean to be inflammatory, but there is a tendency to wait for "someone" else to do this. We are witnessing government failure in the United States - people are choosing to stay ignorant, and democracies require an informed electorate. The only possible solution is individual action. The fact that you will save money and be more comfortable is gravy.
  22. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    162 muoncounter OK I'll ignore the RSVP stuff but..... "question seems like either a silly one or a trick" Muon I thought the silliness was contained in your statement "if greenhouse gases are causing global warming" So I replied with a somewhat silly question in #159 (which you skillfully avoided). But the point isn't just that GHGs exist in the atmosphere but that any primary source of warming (Human CO2, solar whatever) will always contain a GHG component because of the condensable GHG in the system. Why us "if' when we all know GHGs are always playing a role? This is my issue here I don't get the importance of this work. I don't get what this work is revealing to us. All I see is that we can say we live in a warming world and I think there are more straightforward ways of doing that. Attributing these observation to a primary cause, which seems to be the intention here, seems problematic. 164 archiesteel Wow, I'm always being accused of seeing conspiritorial behaviour here, nice of you to join me. Maybe mail to John might be able to confirm me and RSVP are in fact two separate minds. I'm guessing RSVP's spelling isn't quite as bad as mine.
  23. Ice data made cooler
    RSCP, When you do not know what you are doing you look stupid when you tell me I am wrong. According to your data, for a change of temperature from 0C to 10C there is approximately 100 times as much CO2 released as O2. The amount of gas released relates to the change in the solubility of the gas, not its concentration in the atmosphere. If you do not understand this basic fact you need to stop posting nonsense. Is your "skeptical logic" (from 16) to do the math incorrectly and then berate others for trying to show you the correct math? Making up absurd stories and than claiming scientists might be wrong since they have not addressed them does not amount to "logic", it just wastes everyone elses time.
  24. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    AWoL "only 1 in 2,500 molecules is involved" Check this quote from Waste heat vs greenhouse warming "Given that air molecules at surface pressure collide with other molecules 10^9 times per second, this energy is rapidly distributed to all the molecules in the air mass - N2, O2, CO2, Ar, H2O, etc. And once the GHG's in the air mass reach the higher temperature, they will radiate IR at the appropriate rate for that temperature."
  25. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Joe 255 at Para 3 There is a problem here as the process is adiabatic that means no heat is added or subtracted from the system and that in turn implies no energy has either. So what did the work ?
  26. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    @36 Eric(skeptic): "To each his own."
  27. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Replying to Ned, post number323 (I like your step by step approach.Much appreciated) For me everything is fine until we get to step C and D and it's substeps D2, D3, D4. (C) "Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will reduce the flux of outgoing longwave radiation within their absorption bands." True, bearing in mind that only 1 in 2,500 molecules is involved and only a tiny part of the IR outgoing spectrum is involved.Is this a significant effect in comparison to much more obvious transfers of heat, such as conduction/convection from the surface and the very obvious role of water vapour in heat transfer? My instinct says no. D)"The reduction in OLR cause the temp of the planet to rise." Logically yes , but only if the proportion of IR intercepted by CO2 is high. I think it is low...very low, so low that it cannot be directly measured. So to that I would say that any theoretical rise in temperature will be so small as to be immeasurable. E)"As the temperature rises, more OLR is emitted outside the greenhouse gas absorption bands." Let's accept a small temperature rise, for the sake of argument. All that happens then is that a greater fraction of OLR by passes CO2,zooms out into space and reduces further what little significant effect(if any) CO2 had on planetary warming. F) Agreed ,as F follows from E (D.2) "Some of this radiation goes outward to space, and is lost to the planet's system. Some of it goes inward towards the surface." Yes a lot, more than 1/2, goes out to space,consequently less than 1/2 returns earthwards but produces no effect as the frequency is too low to raise the temperature of molecules in a higher state of excitation. (D.3) "This downwelling longwave radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the planet's surface." Problems here. It may be absorbed,if it gets there. But most of the time the surface will be hotter and nothing will happen. Or if it is cooler, most of the time a blanket of fog/mist will form. The only place where it might have an effect is in dry cold deserts.....but that, at any one time, will be but a tiny proportion of the earth's surface. So, once again theoretically possible, but in practice, relatively seldom will the requisite conditions be met for any significant heat transfer to take place from atmosphere to the surface.I can't help but feel that the height of the troposphere is one of the principal regulators of the earth's temperature. High troposphere.... lot of heat loss(Tropics). Low troposphere..... low heat loss(high latitudes). What I'm saying is that there is a high degree of autoregulation/homeostasis built in to our atmosphere and water and water vapour are the big players.The atmosphere's principal function is to provide a conduit for water vapour and water(clouds).The difference between us is that you say there is a significant heat transfer involving CO2, while I say that while it is theoretically possible that CO2 might raise the temperature of the atmosphere, the very low density and the minor quantity of energy involved, in comparison to conduction/convection/evaporation/condensation, make it difficult to accept the model that you propose. And there we have to leave it, unless new evidence or a better explanation come to pass. However if nothing else, the sticking point has been identified. (D.4) "The absorption of this downwelling radiation reduces the magnitude of the net flux of longwave radiation leaving the surface, making the surface warmer than it would have been if it were not surrounded by an atmosphere that includes greenhouse gases." Couldn't that be tested experimentally? Take a hemisphere of red hot iron. Note the cool down time. Exactly the same conditions, and place a wire mesh hemisphere(radius say 2-3ft) over the heated iron hemisphere. Will it affect the rate of cooling or not? Surely the wire mesh would act or interact with the hemisphere in a similar way to that which you say happens between the Earth's surface and atmospheric CO2? Or try the same thing in a room of air and then do the same thing in a room of 100%CO2. My instinct says that in neither case will there be a measurable increase in cool-down time. The wire mesh will simply act as a relaystation of radiation outwards,and CO2perhaps functions in much the same way.According to you the downwelling radiation from the wire will reduce the netflux of longwave radiation leaving the surface....hence lengthening the cooling time. Maybe more information could be gained if there was some way of heating the wire in a controlled manner and finding out just what temperature it had to reach to produce a readily detectable difference in rate of cooling of the hemisphere.If you have to add a considerable amount of energy then my interpretation is correct. If the addition of little or no energy still slows the rate of cooling appreciably then you are correct.If a lot of energy has to be added then you are very wrong. If none or very little then you are correct. In other words , this would not just prove that you were right or wrong ,but supply a figure as to how much you are wrong....or right.
    Moderator Response: Regarding your response to (C): The proportion of CO2 molecules relative to other molecules is irrelevant. What matters is the number of CO2 molecules in a volume of space. Many people are confused on this point because the typical way of referring to the amount of CO2 is as PPM air molecules. But that way of referring is merely a convenience to avoid the complication that the number of air molecules differs across parts of the atmosphere. If you want to continue to discuss that, probably the thread "Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions" is more relevant than this thread.

    Regarding your belief that the effect of CO2's interception of "outgoing" IR is not significant "in comparison to" conduction and convection, again you need to realize that its relative effect is not relevant; what matters is the absolute size of the effect. Secondly and more importantly, "outgoing" means "on the way to space," and what counts is whether that energy makes it all the way to space. Convection and conduction do not change the amount of energy that goes out of the Earth's whole system (land + water + air). They do not intercept energy on its way out, because they do not operate on radiation, which is the only way energy can escape the whole system.

    Regarding your response to (D), you are incorrect that the proportion of IR intercepted by CO2 is so low that it "cannot be directly measured." Actual empirical measurements can be seen in, just for example, the post "CO2 effect is weak." Also note that the "proportion of IR does not matter; what matters is the absolute amount of energy intercepted, which does map to absolute amount of IR. You might also want to read "CO2 is not increasing" and "CO2 effect is saturated." If you want to further discuss that, one of those threads probably is more relevant than this one.
  28. Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass
    cjshaker it's the opposite. The news is that that part of Greenland didn't melt during the LIG. You should care about the crude dating because you wrote about periodicity; no periodicity whatsoever is claimed by the authors nor could they.
  29. Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass
    Err, at least once. I seem to misinterpreted what I read in the first article. "With over 80% of Greenland a massive ice cap, it seems unlikely but a Danish scientist has discovered that between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago Greenland was the home to a green forest full of plants, trees, and insects." I do not have access to the original article from Science. Chris Shaker
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] A free copy of the Willerslev et al study can be found here. Google Scholar is a useful reference to find alternative sources for paywalled studies. Always refer to the study itself whenever possible. Newspaper accounts are frought with misunderstandings of things.
  30. Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass
    The point is that Greenland has had green growing plants on it at least twice during the time covered by our ice cores. Why should I care that the dating is crude? The claim that CO2 is driving the climate would seem to belong in another thread? Chris Shaker
  31. Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass
    cjshaker your reporting of the news is incorrect and I guess you did not read the paper; nowhere they say something about cycles. Their dating is really crude (between 450 and 800 Kyrs) and they "cannot rule out the possibility of a LIG age for the Dye 3 basal ice". You also missed the important point of that paper, the ice at the site of drilling survived several interglacials and the LIG in particular. If true, this poses the important question of where the water that produced 6 m of sea level rise came from.
  32. Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass
    Re: cjshaker (4) That would be a natural glacial cycle having no similarity to the CO2-driven warming of the present. The Yooper
  33. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #149 archiesteel you wrote:- "I don't understand your question. I think you're confusing the "greenhouse" effect of GHGs with the capacity that every molecule has to be heated by an influx of radiated energy." Surely the important characteristic of GHGs is that they absorb (and emit) photons (EM energy) much more readily than other molecules such as O2 & N2? GHGs are uniformly mixed in the atmosphere until about 80km up, except for water. The point being, if GHGs absorb and emit radiation they will do that with local GHG molecules first, rather than travel all the way to the Earth's surface to add energy there. GHGs are at the same temperature as (local) O2 & N2; any warming effect of surface radiation heats the whole atmosphere at the height where it is absorbed. Further gases tend to have a uniform temperature because the molecules exchange energy by collision. In the atmosphere, at atmospheric temperatures, this energy exchange by collision exceeds the exchange by photons, simply because the mechanical momentum of a molecule exceeds the photon momentum by far. Also the density of atmospheric gases (including GHGs) gets smaller with altitude thus the energy density, even if the temperature did not fall with height, gets progressively lower with altitude; is there really going to be enough energy at altitude to raise the temperature of gases at the surface by the claimed 33C?
  34. Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass
    The ice cores seem to suggest that Greenland periodically warms enough to grow green plants, as a natural part of the glacial cycle http://www.itwire.com/science-news/climate/13352-ancient-dna-finds-greenlands-past-a-land-of-trees-and-butterflies http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-oldest-dna.html Chris Shaker
  35. Ice data made cooler
    If I may derail the discussion around RSVP for a moment, I made a small update to the Vostok viewer. Prompted by comments, I added mean yearly insolation, which is nearly a flat line. You can now see that (according to Laskar et al) total yearly insolation intercepted by Earth over the Vostok timespan changes little. Other updates on labels and usability will take more time. jg
  36. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    #35 Badgersouth, such a comment on capitalweathergroup (a DC area site now owned by the Washington Post) brought me here. As a result I have refined my arguments so that they are no longer so easy to debunk. But I do honestly appreciate the feedback I get here, especially negative feedback. I happen to like negative feedback.
  37. Ice data made cooler
    Marco #32 Thanks for pointing that out. Therefore the decimal point needs to be moved over. Instead of 0.0401%, it should be .041%. archisteel #31 "Why would anyone trust anything you say " No one should. Everyone needs to think for themselves.
  38. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    Everyone: I'm now posting the following note on comment threads to media articles that address climate change and encourage you to do follow suit. "All of the anti-AGW poppycock posted on this comment thread is thoroughly debunked on the SkepticalScience website: http://www.skepticalscience.co.../ "
  39. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    John: Kudos to you and your colleagues on a job well done! I recommend that you switch the color of the primary text from blue to black. I just printed the document and the blue text is not easy to read. In addition, it would be less costly for everyone to print the docuemnt if the primary text were black.
  40. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    My mistake. That's what I get for reading SkS at 6am local, prior to coffee kicking in. HR, ignore the RSVP part of my reply if you like. RSVP, no harm intended; feel free to chime in with waste heat if you like.
  41. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    @Michele: that's your rebuttal? Ouch. I think you need to learn more about the actual science before trying to present such arguments here. This isn't WUWT - most people commenting here actually know what they're talking about. @damorbel: I can answer the first two points. 1) Yes, I believe that's the whole point of the greenhouse effect: GHG molecules absorb IR and re-release it in a random direction. 2) Sure. Radiation is radiation. How would a CO2 molecule know where the IR is coming from? 3) I don't understand your question. I think you're confusing the "greenhouse" effect of GHGs with the capacity that every molecule has to be heated by an influx of radiated energy. Seriously, for someone who barged in here claiming the GHE violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you seem to understand very little about the actual physics involved.
  42. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    @muon: you were responding to HR, not RSVP, but I agree there's a chance the two are the same person. They use pretty much the same arguments, formulated with similar writing patterns. That said, it's not constructive to theorize about the secret identity of trolls. The best is to ignore the obvious ones, and carefully rebut the more subtle ones, as you are doing.
  43. Ice data made cooler
    RSVP, solubility of CO2 in water is not a factor 4, but 40 higher than that of oxygen. Similarly, for nitrogen it is not a factor 8, but 100. Data from the same link you provided. If you cannot even read a simple graph... Also note that there is a question whether the oceans are saturated with oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide (go ahead, do the calculation).
  44. Ice data made cooler
    @RSVP: you suck at math. "O2 in the atmosphere percentage-wise is around 500x that of CO2. For a 1 degree increase in water temperature you should have 125x the amount of O2 released. This means for every CO2 molecule you have 125 O2 molecules, which means the ppm CO2 goes down, not up." Let's say you have 1 CO2 molecule for every 500 O2 molecule. That's a relative concentration of 1/500. Now, we add 500 O2 molecules more. According to your ration, that means that 4 CO2 molecules are added (1 per 125 O2 molecule). The new relative concentration is thus 5 CO2 molecules (1+4) for 1000 O2 molecules (500+500), for a value of 5/1000, or 1/200. This means that relative concentration has more than doubled, and not decreased as you suggested. Why would anyone trust anything you say about science when you make such basic mistakes. Oh, right: nobody dose anyway. Please keep wasting your time trying to challenge good science with your very approximate knowledge.
  45. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    @Norman (#161) You may find interesting this resource: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ and about ice anomalies in the Arctic: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png (Check also the parent directory seaice_index/) http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
  46. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    "Psst skywatcher, dooon't mennntion theeeee ashhhhhessssss"
  47. Ice data made cooler
    @RSVP (#29) You keep changing your numbers, but no, you still have partial pressures out and even though you now have roughly included the important factor you left out before (atmosphere composition), you still have severe problems with your arithmetics (+,-,x,/ and %), as they became worse. Check that out. As you should make a total rebuilt of your background here, I suggest you to include detecting a difference when speaking of carbonate and dioxygen, dinitrogen and any di- form of a gas. And as a matter of epistemology, I think that trial and error should be strictly prohibited in the Comments Policy.
  48. Ice data made cooler
    Alec Cowan #28 Its not about "knowing the subject" as simply going to the table. You can check the data for yourself. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html The same kind of thing holds for N2, where CO2 solubility at 20 degrees (say) is 8x, but since N2 in the atmosphere is 2000x the amount of CO2, for every C02 molecule coming out of the water you will get 250 N2 molecules. That makes 375 O2 and N2 vs 1 CO2. As the ratio of CO2 is higher than 2500:1 you are right, it looks like CO2 ppm will increase. How much? It should increase in the order of 1:375 or 0.26% per degree increase in ocean's waters. Since CO2 is currenly around 0.04 percent, it would therefore go up to around 0.0401% for a one degree change. This doesnt seem very significant.
  49. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    #159: "when has the earth warmed and part of that trend did not include the effect of a GHG?" #160: "Are you implying that "all warming processes are made equal"?" As Alec Cowan notes, RSVP's question seems like either a silly one or a trick, a bit like 'do you walk to school or carry your books?' Isn't there always an 'effect of a GHG'? Its the GHE that "keeps the surface temperature of the Earth approximately 30 degrees C warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." But I'm assuming you are the same RSVP who posited this not that long ago: the result for "waste heat" could be 0.1 C. So the only way it could be GHG is if all the waste heat magically goes away, which is what the "non contrarians" are going to have to say. From the vigorous defense of the 'its waste heat' position that either you or your twin RSVP mounted, I concluded you (or the twin) would answer your current question as 'the effect of GHGs is not at all significant' -- because you both think its all waste heat. So maybe you or the twin should be the one(s) answering your own question. And be sure to explain the observed asymmetry between winter warming and summer warming rates, both for the early-20th century warming and the current warming. 'To make it easier' for you(se): I assumed you would answer that its because of all the 'waste heat' we use to heat our homes in the winter. So I checked the monthly data from the USEIA, which show that (at least in the US), there's not really much difference in total energy consumption between JJA and DJF (we may be energy-hogs over here, but at least we're consistent).
  50. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    Sorry John! But everything goes in cycles, doesn't it? (yikes! :) ) Well, cricket perhaps, though I'd never write off any Aussie cricket team. I wasn't meaning WACCo for the next edition of the Guide, but as a future article on SkepticalScience, unless of course the pattern verifies so strongly in the next few years that there is little argument about its anthropogenic cause! At present, I think I'd just class it as an hypothesis that needs more data to be verified, but maybe there are some folk out there with a better grasp of atmospheric circulation that might be able to shed some light on it. Best of luck for Perth!

Prev  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  2035  2036  2037  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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