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  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  2035  2036  2037  2038  Next

Comments 101501 to 101550:

  1. Pete Dunkelberg at 14:23 PM on 14 December 2010
    An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Eric (skeptic) #71 My broader question is is GHG warming of the rest of the atmosphere in any model? Eric, any day now I expect to read that you are skeptical of whether climate scientists remember to put their pants on in the morning. But seriously, why not ask some of these questions over at RC?
  2. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    A brief followup: the pdf indicates that the lapse rate is used as one of the predictors for the linear calculation of satellite sensor bias parameters. I take that to mean that lapse rate (derived from the model?) is used as an independent variable in a linear equation which calibrates the sensor.
  3. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    #72, scaddenp, I'm trying to find the answer to my general question myself, it has something to do with optical depth or thickness I think. For that particular AGCM my understanding is that the model is used to assimilate satellite measurements so they can be used for broader climate and weather studies such as Dessler's. That means it assimilates just the satellite measurements (radiation) and I'm not sure that lapse rate can be derived directly from those measurements (I could be wrong). But looking at the convection system equations, I guess the idea is that because the temperatures are calculated at each layer in the model, that temperature gradient does in fact represent the lapse rate in discrete steps. So I guess it is calculated within the model after all.
  4. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    Now that John has mentioned the graphics would look good on a billboard, I think it's time to see if getting a SkS graph on a billboard can be done.
  5. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    I hope Kooti will respond with some authority here but quickly looking at the pdf, I dont follow you. If lapse rate is an input (no sign of this being the case), how can lapse rate be used for quality check? Convection system is described.
  6. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    John, are you familiar with the Rimfrost website? Java applet with monthly and seasonal temp selection, CO2 concentrations from multiple sites, sunspots, linear and curve fits, etc. Fun!
  7. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    #102: "As for the cooling that is supposed to happen," No guarantees there. We came through the quietest sun in decades and we warmed. See the thread Its (not) the sun.
  8. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    #100: "always just a few years away... " All will be well once the magic clouds arrive. Just keep saying, "there's no place like home" and it will happen. Wonder who will play the wizard?
  9. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    I take it we can use them when arguing on message boards without having to mither you for every occasion, provided we also provide the link to you as well? I wouldn't want to burden you with too much to answer to!
    Response: Absolutely, do please use the graphics elsewhere and no need to ask (that was the point of the Creative Commons licence). Now that you bring it up, it might be helpful if I also include the most relevant link for people to link to if using the graphic in a forum. Eg - for the solar activity graphic, a good link is:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
  10. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    Thankyou.I used to cringe at the thought of looking at a simple graph.I have caught on and wish to move on..I think your work will be Very helpful Jean M
  11. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    In http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/pubs/docs/Rienecker369.pdf (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. Instead the lapse rate seems to be an input to the model. It seems to me that lapse rate is the most direct determiner of cloud amounts and cloud feedback lapse rate controls convection. My broader question is is GHG warming of the rest of the atmosphere in any model? This question came to mind reading the explanation of GHG warming on the other thread which didn't take into conduction from the GHG to the non-GHG. My understanding is that this happens much more often than the GHG re-emitting radiation that it just received. The equations in the model above don't appear to have that conduction, hence the need to input lapse rate. I don't know how any model can calculate lapse rate without conduction.
  12. Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
    I think the question (108) has better answer. "Competent" to my mind means working in the field and publishing in proper peer-reviewed journals on climate(ie not E&E). Wikipedia has this list. Now some of those on list, certainly dont fit my category of "competent". Some are industry shills. However, most in fact have a nuanced position. Acceptance of physical reality but alternative theories for PARTS of climate - eg the value of climate sensitivity, relative role of GHG to other natural factors etc. Mostly they are in different class from the denialists who will simultaneously hold "its not happening, its not us, its good for us" - ie "I'll believe anything that support no change in policy". Note the number of "emeritus" class people - now that's a warning. I'd say Spenser, Lindzen (when talking to other scientists), Christy, maybe Chylek as credible people. I would read published papers on the subject from them with some respect. Many of the others are also people I would read when publishing in their respective fields as they are certainly competent there.
  13. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Here is an interesting idea for getting rid of coal - Coal2Nuclear. Briefly put, the idea is to retain the turbines, switch yards etc of existing coal plants and replace the coal boilers with small modular reactors. I don't know how feasible the idea is and it depends on the commercial availability of small modular reactors which are 7 - 10 years off. Nevertheless it certainly presents an interesting possibility for very economically giving coal the flick. It is just a thought, and I do not present it as a solution at this time as is commonly done for technologies such as enhanced geothermal which in reality is at least as far, and very possibly further away as a commercial proposition.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed link
  14. Philippe Chantreau at 12:25 PM on 14 December 2010
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    You could have answered the first question, I thought it was made clear enough. As for this: "The tiniest particle has a temperature, its 'heat content' may be microscopic while its temperature can make it glow any colour you like." I do not understand how that shows that temperature is not a measure of heat content. Or perhaps you'd prefer energy content? In any case, what does temperature measure then? Abut the second question, your answer is a little strange. Why only "thermal processes" (whatever that means) and IR radiation? There is a number of good questions also in post 218. Let me just add this one: If no thermal energy can be transfered by IR radiation from a cooler object to a warmer one, how does a radiant barrier work in a vacuum (they do work, and have engineering applications)?
  15. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    Great idea John. This should help us all. Bob
  16. Pete Dunkelberg at 12:18 PM on 14 December 2010
    An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Phila # 65 What's even more surprising is how quickly people return to their errors after being corrected. Sometimes it's almost like the discussion never happened, and everyone has to go back to square one. It's not just sometimes, and that's the real problem. The same debunked arguments are repeated endlessly across the internet, in the press, on talk radio and even in the halls of Congress.
  17. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @408 archiesteel My "opinion" that nuclear is cheaper than renewables is supported by the most recent estimates of the LCOE of the various generation technologies by IEA and EIA which I provided references to earlier in this thread. It is also supported by this The arithmetic adds up to nuclear metastudy surveying the authoritative literature. Micro generation will NOT reduce the cost of the "mix". The experience of feed in tariffs for PV should make that abundantly obvious. But if you think otherwise please present some evidence. Nuclear is the only economically viable replacement for coal in baseload generation. As Hansen and others have repeatedly pointed out getting rid of coal is the highest priority in emissions reduction. It we do not push for the elimination of coal and push hard, then we might as well give up on the notion of a safe climate. Cut the waffle about "mixes" and cut to the chase.
  18. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    99, muoncounter, I was very unfamiliar with most of the material in that paper. They didn't get into the effects of solar minimums because they probably specialize in the solar cycles themselves, but there are a lot of other people looking for effects that match those solar cycles (without very good matches to the record IMO). As for the cooling that is supposed to happen, first I don't think it is a forcing (per my previous comment) or alternatively, I would say only somewhat tongue in cheek that the ocean is storing the cooling.
  19. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @quokka: why are you talking about Joe Romm? I didn't. Now, if you are claiming I believe "The only possible solution is individual action", then you are using a strawman argument. I certainly do *not* think that the only possible solution is individual (considering that many see me as a Socialist, that'd be suprising). I do think that our Energy problem is so severe we must both act individually *and* through our governments for large-scale projects. The economy will profit either way. "when the cost of other low emissions technologies would almost certainly be higher." That is opinion, not fact, and it clearly ignores any participation of microgeneration in the mix. "Such a proposal should be wholeheartedly supported." Right. That's a pipe dream, and you know it - it would take considerable effort to deal with the NIMBY effect for so many stations. Again, it will be easier to sell nuclear along with renewables than instead of them. "It is not I who is being "illogical"." A strawman argument is a logical fallacy. You can deduce the rest.
  20. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    @damorbel: the question was quite clear, actually. "the hard thermodynamic fact that destroys the AGW/GHE" Stop acting as if you've made that case, because you haven't. It's quite simple, really. Let's try to break it down in yes/no questions, shall we? Photons from the sun heat the surface of the Earth through thermal radiation. Do you agree with this? Assuming you agree: when object increase in temperature, they emit IR energy, as described by black body theory. Do you agree with this? Note that "the surface" as an object is a bit of an oversimplification (see sensible heat and latent heat transport), but you get the idea, right? Assuming you agree: this IR radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules, who are mostly "transparent" to visible light (i.e. they absorb photons in the IR range more than they do those in the visible light range); similarly, non-greenhouse gases such as O2 and N2 are mostly transparent to IR-range photons. Do you agree with this? Assuming you do: in order to maintain thermal equilibrium, greenhouse gas molecules re-radiates the IR energy in a random direction (i.e. in every direction, when considering large amounts of molecules). Do you agree with this? Assuming you do: some of the re-radiated IR energy will escape to space, some will get back down to the surface, and some will be captured by other greenhouse gas molecules, continuing the absorbtion/re-radiation cycle. Do you agree with this? There you go: five simple yes or no questions. Be forewarned that any attempt to circumvent the questions, divert the debate or start playing silly semantics will be met with the scorn and/or ridicule it deserves.
  21. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    In reference to my previous post, the Fallacy Of Division in the G&T paper is completely clear in their Figure 32, page 78, where they draw an incorrect heat transfer diagram - and claim it to disprove thermal radiation. This is both a strawman argument and a Fallacy Of Division. Completely bogus, sad to say.
  22. Renewable Baseload Energy
    406 archiesteel I would remind you that I am NOT the one posting here who has a financial interest in making a sales pitch. "absolutist" assertions that
    The only possible solution is individual action. The fact that you will save money and be more comfortable is gravy.
    can reasonably be interpreted in only one way - micro generation. The assertion is nonsense, not based on evidence and intellectually indefensible. Let me repeat, I am NOT the one making a sales pitch here and I am NOT ascribing to others positions that they do not hold - read what was posted before making accusations. The whole "argument" about a mix of generation technologies is facile. There has been a mix in the past, there is currently a mix and without a shadow of a doubt there will be a mix in the future. As always, the devil is in the detail and the composition of the mix is the crunch point - it much be reliable from an engineering point of view and it must not be too expensive, otherwise it will never happen. Joe Romm is one who pushes this mix of technologies argument ad infinitum and states that nuclear will be part of his mix. But when a republican senator proposes 100 new nuclear power plants for the US Romm launches a broadside by reproducing a piece blathering on about jobs, college places and most astonishingly cost when the cost of other low emissions technologies would almost certainly be higher. Not once are CO2 emissions and the fact that the proposal, if realized, would make another 20% of US generation capacity very low emission mentioned. Those nukes would displace baseload coal and reduce US emissions from electricity generation by 30% or more. Such a proposal should be wholeheartedly supported. It is not I who is being "illogical".
  23. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    "Trapping heat needs an insulator, material with a relatively low thermal conductivity, such as an expanded polystyrene container or a vacuum flask. This insulating material slows the rate of heat transfer in or out of the container. If your flask is made of transparent material, heat will also transfer out of (or into) the flask by radiative process. This radiative process can be reduced by coating the flask surfaces with a highly reflective material." More wierdness. "Insulator" in terms of GHE is more of conceptual term and I dont like it. GHGs are NOT a conductive insulator, never have been postulated to be and far as I can see, you are the only one insisting on this understanding of the word "insulator". In the more general sense of an impediment to energy transfer, then GHG are insulators but the mechanism of impediment has nothing whatsoever to do with the conductive properties of the atmosphere. But this has been explained to you before... You are persisting with idea that textbook thermodymanics postulates that GHE is due to conductive-like heat transfer from bodies of different temperatures. This is also not true. If your notions cannot explain the results of a laboratory experiment and yet textbook thermodynamics, dont you think its time to start reading?
  24. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    A few minutes reading the framework would dispel that notion" The framework has this:- No it is not. You are jumping around. The framework I referred to is the way that "heat flow"/"heat transfer" is introduced in thermodynamics theory. Reading that would dispel the idea that modern thermodynamics is trapped in caloric theory. Instead of jumping around, do you that an experiment is arbitor between textbook physics and your odd ideas? There is no further point to this discussion unless you do.
  25. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    It would be a gift to have a very low solar activity for the next decade. Though it would just be a delay, after that warming would kick in again, only faster.
  26. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    I suggest the text "This climate sensitivity of an additional 1°C warming" should be reworded "This minimum climate sensitivity of 2.2°C warming", as the term "climate sensitivity" refers to both direct and indirect effects of a doubling of CO2. I still worry that we may be underestimating the climate sensitivity. For example, as far as I know the models do not factor in the release of methane from deposits of methyl hydrate. Also, ice core data reveals spikes in temperature between ice ages and interglacials averaging more than 10 degrees C, even though the spike in CO2 between ice ages and interglacials is less than 100%.
  27. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Ron Crouch #64 But who am I to question Roy's science, after all, as he states, everybody else is wrong and only he is right. The last time I paid any attention to Spencer, he was scolding other climate scientists for treating his claims about an 0.5 percent change in cloud cover over the last 30 years as speculative. He actually complained that his colleagues wanted to know what might cause such a change. He really doesn't seem to get that the burden of proof is on him, and that people who make commonplace requests for evidence are not modern-day Inquisitors. Roy is quite aware of this. I wonder if he is. It's amazing what people can forget or overlook when they need to.
  28. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel, everyone else - Lets, just for a moment, return to the topic of this thread. Critics (exemplified by G&T, as linked in the initial topic) have argued that the atmospheric greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They have argued this claiming that "heat cannot flow from colder to warmer" (correct, where 'heat' is the sum of energy flows), while blatantly ignoring the fact that thermal radiation from a colder atmosphere can reduce the sum energy flowing from the warmer ground/water, causing the surface to heat until it's thermal radiation once again equals the incoming visible radiation. This conflation of 'heat flow' with basic radiative dynamics is the basis of the entire "2nd law objection" error. They claim the part (thermal IR from cold to warm) is the whole (summed energy flow, or 'heat flow'), and in this they are sadly incorrect. This is the Fallacy Of Division. Greenhouse gases, by absorbing/re-radiating thermal IR at various frequencies, redirect just under 50% of that IR back to the ground (backradiation, easily measured, and quite well established over 50 years ago), which means that the amount of radiation from the surface to space is reduced at any particular temperature, as per the previous paragraph. Heat transfer (defined as sum of energy) is from the warmer ground to the atmosphere and to space. But it's less efficient when greenhouse gases are present, requiring the ground to be warmer, to radiate more, to be in equilibrium with incoming visible light. This is entirely in line with the first and second laws of thermodynamics - there is no contradiction, the greenhouse effect follows the laws of physics. damorbel - You've jumped around (intentionally or otherwise) from red herring to red herring. You too are guilty of the Fallacy Of Division. However, you have correctly noted that objects absorb photons within their absorption spectra, regardless of the source. Therefore an object (of any temperature) can receive energy from another object (of any temperature), with the 'heat flow' determined by the summation of those energies. The GHE changes the summation at the surface of the Earth, and balance can only be maintained with a higher surface temperature than would be present otherwise - it's really no more complicated than that. If you have issues with anything I have said in this post, please say so - I can point you to where each part of this has been measured and demonstrated repeatedly over the last few centuries. Note, however, that I will call out strawman arguments or red herrings.
  29. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel: You were asked two questions in Philippe's post #208. Both of them are quite clear - if you wanted you could answer both of them with just 'yes' or 'no'. One of them appears to be a request that you clarify your central position on this thread. You answered neither of them in your post #209. Indeed, your answer reads like a diversion rather than an attempt to address the question. As has been put to you on several previous occasions, the hard fact is that backradiation and other greenhouse-effect features can be, and have been, empirically measured. So to be frank, it appears that the issue at hand continues to be your misunderstanding of thermodynamics. All the more so since you insist (on this comment thread, at least) on arguing at a purely conceptual level, with no evidence to support your claim other than assertion. If you can provide either (A) some empirical measurements, preferably published in peer-reviewed journals, showing that the empirical measurements demonstrating a greenhouse effect are false, or (B) documents, preferably also published in peer-reviewed journals, showing that the methods used to collect the empirical measurements demonstrating a greenhouse effect are fatally flawed, then perhaps you will make some progress here.
  30. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #210 Philippe Chantreau You wrote:- "Since you're a stickler for words, let's kepp it tight. Heat content is what is measured by temperature" Not remotely. The tiniest particle has a temperature, its 'heat content' may be microscopic while its temperature can make it glow any colour you like. You wrote also:- "The other question is this: Do you argue that there can be no energy (any and all kinds) transfer between the atmosphere and the surface because the atmosphere is colder than the surface?" That is far too general ('any and all kinds'!) but if you confine the transfer to thermal processes (including radiation) the answer is yes, I do argue that, it's what the 2nd law is all about.
  31. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re 207 scaddenp You wrote:- "A few minutes reading the framework would dispel that notion" The framework has this:- "Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth's surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. Trapping heat needs an insulator, material with a relatively low thermal conductivity, such as an expanded polystyrene container or a vacuum flask. This insulating material slows the rate of heat transfer in or out of the container. If your flask is made of transparent material, heat will also transfer out of (or into) the flask by radiative process. This radiative process can be reduced by coating the flask surfaces with a highly reflective material. The critical factor in this matter is that reflection 'traps' heat, not absorption/emission; GHGs do not reflect radiation to any measurable extent, certainly no more than O2 and N2. If you are interested in highly effective 'trapping' of radiation, you only have to check optical fibres used to transmit data accross oceans, some are able to contain (trap) IR radiation for 100s of kilometers before a repeater is needed.
  32. Philippe Chantreau at 09:32 AM on 14 December 2010
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Since you're a stickler for words, let's kepp it tight. Heat content is what is measured by temperature. The question is very clear, let me rephrase it: do you dispute that these gases absorb and emit IR in the stratosphere and that their radiative properties affect the temperature of the stratosphere? The other question is this: Do you argue that there can be no energy (any and all kinds) transfer between the atmosphere and the surface because the atmosphere is colder than the surface?
  33. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re 208 Philippe Chantreau You wrote:- "CH4, H2O and CO2 are present in the stratosphere where thay absorb and radiate IR. Their radiative effects are part of the total stratospheric heat budget. Do you dispute that?" I suggest your question is unclear. Heat is measured by temperature, the basic rule of 2nd law of thermodynamics. A heat budget would just say that heat transfer is from the hotter location to the colder, the hard thermodynamic fact that destroys the AGW/GHE.
  34. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    @muoncounter: it seems the cooling trend that is supposed to disprove AGW is always just a few years away...
  35. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    #98: Eric, thanks for that link. Its actually not a bad paper, but it makes no mention of clouds or cooling. They do forecast that the next sunspot max (in 2014-15) will be roughly 1/3 of the sunspot peak in 2000, ie, that we have entered a 'grand solar minimum' in 2008. Let the cooling begin! Oh, wait, it should have started already. Ironic that this paper by Russians was given at a cosmic ray meeting in the hot summer of August 2010.
  36. Philippe Chantreau at 08:04 AM on 14 December 2010
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    CH4, H2O and CO2 are present in the stratosphere where thay absorb and radiate IR. Their radiative effects are part of the total stratospheric heat budget. Do you dispute that? Between the claims on historical elements and all the rest, it seems that your argument is that the atmosphere can not radiate any energy toward the surface because it is colder, is that what you are actually trying to defend here?
  37. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Re: stefaan (24) Thanks; I'd known that, but didn't want to prejudice you in any way. Makes one wonder, tho... The Yooper
  38. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    Henry justice, that paper is here: http://ecrs2010.utu.fi/done/posters/session1/1.62_Stozhkov.pdf IMO it is an oversimplification to equate solar activity with a particular cooling from low clouds. The way I see it (in the cosmic ray thread) is that the extra cosmic rays reduce warming amplification whatever the warming sources might be. They do this by creating more atmospheric blocking, by clouds, and probably other effects. So IMO what will happen is CO2 warming will be less amplified, or not amplified at all. I'm not so sure that there will be cooling.
  39. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    #24: All well-known deniers. Nice work on the Phoenix CO2 dome, though.
  40. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    Whether the authors are right are not (wonder if they are friends of the other russian solar scientists losing the bet with Annan on global warming), the article shows effect of such a minimum will be small compared to GHG forcings. And of course when such a minimum ends...
  41. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Besides, its probably a bit off topic, but you have a look at this co2science organisation : chairman : craig d. Idso president : sherwood b. Idso vice-president : Keith e Idso a nice family business :)
  42. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    #94: "Cosmic ray flux will increase and lead to more clouds. further cooling ..." That is still highly unsubstantiated; some would say, debunked, here. Cosmic ray flux was at a high during the most recent solar minimum through end 2009; where were the clouds? Where was the cooling? As for the rest, are you reading Landscheidt?
  43. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    @Henry Justice: "The trigger for the initiation of sunspots is the falling of celestial bodies (comets, asteroids and others) from the Oort cloud and Koiper belt onto the Sun." There is no indication whatsoever that a comet falling into the sun will trigger sunspots. I don't think you realize what the size difference between a comet and the sun is. Also, it is unlikely a comet would ever get through the ultra-hot corona to reach the sun's(relatively) cooler surface. There is also no solid evidence we are heading to a new Maunder minimum, and that this will somehow offset the current warming trend. Was the article in question peer-reviewed? (I saw there was a reference to a Willie Soon, which makes it highly suspect in my view.) After all, we should expect to be as skeptical of such claims as you seem to be about established science
  44. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    @RickG: I get posts deleted here regularly because I get off-topic sparring with tro..."skeptics". I don't mind, those are the rules and I admit I do tend to be combative when confronted with the same debunked argument over and over again (that, and "skeptics" who hide their pseudo-science behind a wall of jargon, formulas and appeals to sources that do not actually support their views). The moderators here do a great job, even if I'm sometimes on the receiving end of their moderation stick. I'm completely fine with that.
  45. Climate's changed before
    @tobyw: interesting study, but right now we haven't seen any increase in vegetation due to additional CO2 in the atmosphere (so far, it's been the opposite), so I'm a bit skeptical about this expected negative feedback.
  46. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorel - the idea that text book use of heat flow (you can call it heat transfer or whatever) implies that the text book writer is confused about the historical "fluid" theory is ridiculous in the extreme. A few minutes reading the framework would dispel that notion. The standard, textbook theory of thermodynamics gives us a predictive framework. If your eccentric ideas fail to predict the outcome of an experiment and the textbook method does, then do you accept that you need to change your ideas? At the moment you are clinging to a false notion of GHE based as far as I can see on an incoherent thermodynamic framework. The argument can progress if we can discuss an experiment where your notions produce a different an answer to standard textbook ones.
  47. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    I also would like damorbel to answer the counter-arguments presented to him rather than dismiss them off-hand. So far, he has failed to make a compelling case to support his bizarre interpretation of accepted science.
  48. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    We are now in a repeat Dalton Minimum. There is a very good chance that afterwards by 2020, a grand Maunder like minimum will begin. Cosmic ray flux will increase and lead to more clouds, further cooling the Earth. Long term solar activity minimums have occurred in the past when the center of mass of the solar system (the Sun and external planets without Jupiter) was outside of the Sun. The trigger for the initiation of sunspots is the falling of celestial bodies (comets, asteroids and others) from the Oort cloud and Koiper belt onto the Sun. The gravitation of fields of the Sun and planets govern the motions of these bodies and direct these celestial bodies to the Sun's surface. When the center of mass of the solar system is outside of the Sun most of these celestial bodies do not fall on the Sun and a long-term solar activity minimum begins. The maximum value of Rz is predicted not to exceed 50. See ref: New Maunder Minimum in Solar Activity and Cosmic Ray Fluxes in the Nearest Future, Stozhkov and Okhlopkov, 3-6 August, 2010, 22d European Cosmic Ray Symposium, Turku, Findland.
    Moderator Response: A duplicate copy of this comment was deleted from the thread "Are we heading into a new Little Ice Age?" Please do not post multiple copies of the same comment. Thanks!
  49. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    @damorbel: "I am intrigued to know how contributions based on the scientific arguments presented by the IPCC or their lead authors for preventing AGW can be described as political." Simple, it was because of your unsupported claim that any energy alternative leads to financial catastrophe (ignoring the fact that inaction will lead to much bigger financial woes. In particular, these words: "much more expensive 'wild (or supposedly renewable) energy sources, all of which will have a devastating effect on the environment." There is no evidence that alternative energy sources (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro, etc.) have "devastating effects" on the environment, especially when use of fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas, etc.) *already* has a deleterious impact on the environment. What you said was not a scientific statement, but a political one that has no basis on objective reality. Perhaps it's time for you to re-evaluate your motivations and start understanding the science rather than spout off incorrect arguments in an arrogant assault on established science.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Archiesteel - Well put!
  50. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Oops, I should note that contra my comment #203 greenhouse gas distribution is not exclusively limited to the troposphere. Mea culpa.

Prev  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  2035  2036  2037  2038  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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