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  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  2035  2036  2037  2038  2039  2040  2041  Next

Comments 101651 to 101700:

  1. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    #38: "it's the anti-science side saying "it's not a mystery, net cloud feedbacks are negative and at a magnitude that will counteract CO2-forced warming" Wait a sec, is that really what they're saying? Has anyone called 'em on it? As in, why didn't these miraculous clouds stop the 5 Holocene warmings of 6 degrees or more?
  2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    AWoL, the answer is "false!" to your question "The downward radiation can be measured but my understanding, at present, is that has no effect, as its frequency is too low to raise the temperature of matter at a warmer temperature.....2nd Law of Thermodynamics...true or false?" Your rationale contains several misconceptions. The frequency of the downward radiation is not by itself the determinant of the resulting temperature of the matter that absorbs it. The temperature of that matter at a given moment in time is a consequence of the energy that matter contains at that time. The matter does not know or care how it got that energy. If a single photon of frequency F is absorbed by that matter, the matter's energy increases by a corresponding amount E. Imagine that instead the matter is hit by two photons each having a lower frequency such that they each have only half that energy (i.e., E/2). If those two low-energy photons both are absorbed by the matter, the matter will absorb the same energy E (i.e., 2 x E/2 = E) that it would get from absorbing the single original photon that carried energy E (i.e., 1 x E = E). The temperature of the absorbing matter is irrelevant to whether the matter absorbs any of those three photons. But even the total amount of energy absorbed is not the sole determinant of the matter's temperature. At the same time that energy is being absorbed, energy is being emitted by the matter. If every time energy E is absorbed, coincidentally that exact same amount of energy E is emitted simultaneously, then the net change in the energy contained by the matter is 0 (i.e., +E + -E = 0). If the amount of energy contained by the matter does not change, then the temperature of the matter does not change. If instead the matter is absorbing 0 energy and is emitting E energy, the matter's contained energy is reduced by E (i.e., +0 + -E = -E), which means the matter's temperature reduces. If instead the matter is absorbing E and simultaneously emitting only 70% of E, then the matter's net change in energy is an increase of 30% of E (i.e., +E - .7E = +.3E). That last sentence is why the greenhouse gas effect does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Matter on the surface absorbs some of the photons emitted by the Sun, thereby acquiring energy. The temperature of that receiving matter has no influence on whether a particular solar photon is absorbed, and therefore has no influence on whether that photon's energy is added to the energy the matter already has. Matter on the surface also absorbs some of the photons that are emitted by air molecules. The temperature of the receiving matter has no influence on whether each of those particular air-sourced photons is absorbed. The surface matter blindly absorbs photons from both sources. Does the surface matter's temperature increase when those absorptions happen? There is no way to know unless we also know how much energy the matter is losing at the same time, as I described above. One name for that is the surface "energy budget"--energy gained minus energy lost equals net energy change. If the surface matter is emitting more energy than it is gaining, its current energy content falls, so its temperature falls, despite the fact it is absorbing energy. If the surface matter is emitting less energy than it is gaining, its current energy content rises, so its temperature rises. Crucially, the gaining of energy is that total from all sources--Sun and air, radiation and conduction. The fact that the source of some of that energy is really hot (Sun) and the source of some of the energy is kind of cool (air) has played no role. Photons do not carry source credentials. It happens that the temperature of the surface matter does affect how much energy the matter emits. Starting from equilibrium (balanced budget: energy in = energy out), when extra energy comes in, the total energy content becomes higher than a moment before, which means the temperature is higher, which leads to the emission of more energy. If that extra incoming energy was just a single pulse, then the extra outgoing continues until all that pulse's energy has gone out. In the absence of an ongoing stream of "extra" incoming energy, the matter's energy then is again at equilibrium. In this pulse case, the matter's temperature only temporarily increased. The temperature affected the energy budget, but only by affecting the amount of outgoing energy, not by affecting the amount of incoming energy. If instead of a single pulse of "extra" incoming energy there is a steady stream of extra incoming energy--a step up in the incoming energy--then the temperature increase also is a step up, and the temperature stays at that higher temperature, once again at equilibrium with the new (larger amount) of incoming energy matching the new (larger amount) of outgoing energy. The energy absorbed during the step-up itself remains inside the matter; the energy gotten during the step up remains "trapped" by the matter. Still, the temperature of the matter has no influence on the amount of energy absorbed; temperature affects the energy budget's bottom line only because it affects the energy budget's outgoing part of the equation. Greenhouse gas warming of the surface works as that last paragraph describes. Where exactly in that mechanism do you see an opportunity for the 2nd law to interfere?
  3. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "it criticizes the method they used as one which can be fiddled to cherrypick convenient starting or ending points." In particular you can choose starting and ending points and get just about any result you want, and they gave no reason for the choice of their particular start/end points. Also, HR, you've only given one definition of "fiddled", there are common definitions that don't assign a malignant motive to the act, such as this one: "to touch or manipulate something, as to operate or adjust it; tinker (often fol. by with ): You may have to fiddle with the antenna to get a clear picture on the TV." Clearly saying a mathematical process can be "fiddled" uses the word in the sense of "to tinker with".
  4. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "Reading RC and Spencers own blog then this statement seems to be a misrepresentation. Spencer does not support a hypothesis that clouds cause ENSO, in fact he clearly refutes it. " No, he's said "it's an oversimplification of my argument". If you follow his argument, it's essentially what it boils down to, though Dressler's being a bit snarky. He quite clearly states that he believes that the accepted science gets causuality backwards ...
  5. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "I think the point is that people are concerned about the censorship over at RC, and feel more free to ask questions here." Tough. He's there. Ask away. Now, if you ask something like "why don't you acknowledge that your paper is fraudulent and all of climate science is a fraud?", it's not going to show up. If you ask a rationale question about the paper, nicely, I'm sure it will.
  6. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Camburn: "You are catching on. It is STILL a big mysterday." It's been a big mystery forever, and an openly acknowledged mystery. I've been aware of it for years, as has been anyone following climate science. It's not the science side saying it's not a mystery, it's the anti-science side saying "it's not a mystery, net cloud feedbacks are negative and at a magnitude that will counteract CO2-forced warming and feedbacks such as water vapor". Spencer doesn't talk about a "mystery", Spencer talks about *certainty* that his magic negative cloud feedback will save us. However, the preponderance of evidence shows that the net feedback will be slightly positive. Slightly negative's not off the table, but there is no sound evidence for the kind of magic feedback that folks like LIndzen and Spencer claim will kick in "real soon now" (i.e. as temps rise slightly) and forestall warming. Statements like this: "Thank you for posting this. You beat me too it. There are methodology problems with Dr. Dressle's paper." Are easy to make. I'll make an easy statement, too: put up or shut up. Seriously. Go show Dressler where he's wrong.
  7. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    HR #33 - the article says "...(Lindzen and Choi 2009) has been heavily criticized for using a method that can be fiddled...." It doesn't say they necessarily fiddled with the data, it criticizes the method they used as one which can be fiddled to cherrypick convenient starting or ending points.
  8. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    #13 Thanks Robert (and Daniel). It was approachable and facsinating.
  9. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    29 & 31 dhogaza That's funny. I think the point is that people are concerned about the censorship over at RC, and feel more free to ask questions here.
  10. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "Spencer has countered this by arguing that ENSO changes are caused by clouds, and thus the response of clouds to surface temperature changes cannot be inferred. Dessler argues that Spencer's hypothesis that ENSO is caused by clouds is new and untested" Reading RC and Spencers own blog then this statement seems to be a misrepresentation. Spencer does not support a hypothesis that clouds cause ENSO, in fact he clearly refutes it. This has nothing to do with a Spencer hypothesis and seems to be a mis-reading by Dessler. I think it's an important point given the way Dessler uses this point to try to isolate Spencers work from the mainstream.
  11. How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
    And what about the problems with the Milankovitch theory? Are they to be ignored? It does not match climate nearly as well as some would think.
  12. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Just one small point. It keeeps jumping out at me every time I read the above article. "fiddled" - Definition 'The act or an instance of cheating or swindling; a fraud.' SkSci Comments Policy "No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives." It seems like a poor choice of words that's breaking the sites own rules, it could do with being changed. "Lacks robustness" sound more in the spirit of scientific criticism.
  13. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    dhogaza@31: You are catching on. It is STILL a big mysterday.
  14. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel "Um, well, yes; very interesting. Tell me do you also reject the conclusions that have been drawn in consequence of the failure of the 'caloric theory' to match scientific observations, such as the 1st law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy etc.?" non sequitur "In #160 I was drawing a distinction between internal energy which causes a temperature change (heat) and internal energy that doesn't cause a temperature change, sometime (mistakenly) called 'latent' heat. How do you draw a distiction between the two?" you where not talking about this: "Let there be no doubt about it, heat is energy density where the energy is in the form of molecular motion, it is to be found in all materials above 0K. ". Please don't try to move away from what you said, it's pointless. As I alread said, check any textbook. Or you think you know better than textbooks?
  15. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Oh, I misunderstood 28, he's quoting Dr. Dressler. But serious, why not just ask him?
  16. It's albedo
    Hey Ned, What is "s" in your equation for energy emitted? Thanks, David
  17. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Or, ask him from details at http://atmo.tamu.edu/profile/ADessler
  18. The Climate Show #3: Cancun and cooling
    Daniel@5: Thank you....That was the intent.
  19. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "There is something here for a lot of people to learn from. Admittedly I'm finding it difficult to find information to look into this. Would anyone here be able to explain how Andy came to 20W/M*2." GO ASK HIM AT REAL CLIMATE. C'mon people, are you afraid that your debunkers might not really be debunking anything at all? "In our present climate, the reflection of solar energy back to space dominates, and the net effect of clouds is to reduce the net flux of incoming energy at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) by ~20W/m*2, as compared to an otherwise identical planet without clouds." If this were known to be true, then the net feedback from clouds wouldn't be the big mystery it is acknowledged to be, would it?
  20. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    On another site we are discussing Andy Desslers paper. A rather sharp guy CBACBA is challenging where Andy gets his number for this below. ##################################################################### In our present climate, the reflection of solar energy back to space dominates, and the net effect of clouds is to reduce the net flux of incoming energy at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) by ~20W/m*2, as compared to an otherwise identical planet without clouds. ###################################################################### There is something here for a lot of people to learn from. Admittedly I'm finding it difficult to find information to look into this. Would anyone here be able to explain how Andy came to 20W/M*2. How does the net effect of clouds reduce the net flux of incoming energy at the top of the atmosphere by 20w/m*2, as compared to an otherwise identical planet without clouds?
  21. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    This discussion would manage a great deal less misinterpretation if using an agreed text book on thermodynamics which includes the rigorous mathematical development. Then can be on "same page" as it were. What is you suggested reference damorbel?
  22. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    From 2010 - Global temperature and Europe's Frigid Air: We live in a world of contrasts gone wild. In producing this map the radius of influence of a given station is limited to 250 km to allow extreme temperature anomalies to be apparent. Northern Europe had negative anomalies of more than 4°C, while the Hudson Bay region of Canada had monthly mean anomalies greater than +10°C.
  23. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    MarkR, thanks for pointing out the broken link. Hopefully this will work http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/pubs/docs/Rienecker369.pdf otherwise cut and paste http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/pubs/docs/Rienecker369.pdf into your browser. This technical report is really quite good and it does list what observation data is assimilated into the model. It does not appear to include SAR data or any other terrestrial data, I assume it was created specifically for satellite data assimilation.
  24. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    #41: The map in that page is stunning and well worth showing, but I will put it in the 'extreme weather' thread.
  25. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #162 Riccardo you wrote :- "honestly I find it and the discussion on the caloric theory really pedantic." Um, well, yes; very interesting. Tell me do you also reject the conclusions that have been drawn in consequence of the failure of the 'caloric theory' to match scientific observations, such as the 1st law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy etc.? You wrote also :- "You confuse heat and internal energy. Here's the first quote I found just googling, but I urge you to check in a standard textbook:" In #160 I was drawing a distinction between internal energy which causes a temperature change (heat) and internal energy that doesn't cause a temperature change, sometime (mistakenly) called 'latent' heat. How do you draw a distiction between the two? I have seen the sort of 'stuff' in the link you give and I often wonder how the idea came about. Of course latent heat is not the only manifestation of the inadequacy of the definition in your link. What about gases with different specific heats? Equal molar quantities of He, O2 and CO2 at the same temperature possess completely different amounts of thermal energy, can you say what their temperatures would be if they had the same (molar) internal energy?
  26. How climate skeptics mislead
    > I'll never believe a word based solely on the fact it > appeared in a peer reviewed paper Wise; that's only the beginning; then look for citing papers and followup work, which always come along if the idea is interesting > until I understand it properly What if you can't? Are you as smart and well educated as _every_ publishing scientist in every field? > and I think you'd better do the same "... everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. ...." http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
  27. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    NASA GISS has a new page about the record high November global temperature and cold weather anomaly in Europe. 2010 - Global Temperature and Europe's Frigid Air
    Moderator Response: Fixed broken link
  28. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Eric, your first link is broken! I'm not familiar with data used here, but ECMWF reanalyses are extensively validated and generally speaking the use of AGCMs isn't a problem since the sets feature regular data assimilation which prevents drift and includes the effect of coupled changes. If you have the time to delve further then I'm sure there will be plenty of papers discussing validation and testing. There are some problems with certain sets (e.g. ERA40 snow mass) but in that case at least the reasons are well known and publicised. I'm not sure what you mean by no observations of wind: iirc synthetic aperture radar observations are regularly assimilated and they can give good estimates for wind speed over oceans...
  29. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Guten Tag Ebel, aber, mein Deutch ist nicht sehr gut. :-)
  30. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Mars, Joe, and TallGuy, The environmental lapse rate is not the same as the adiabatic lapse rate. There are other factors at work; one of them is the loss of energy through radiation. My take is that stratospheric cooling has two components: less radiation getting out from the troposphere and greater ability to radiate LW. The less radiation leaving bit is only until a new, higher point of equilibrium is reached. One thing I'd like to mention is that the leveling off to a new equilibrium temperature will not even start until after CO2 levels are stabilized. The leveling off of CO2 is not guaranteed to remain within our ability to affect depending on how the feedbacks play out.
  31. It's not us
    #10: "located at the upper reaches of the troposphere." That seems unlikely as the increasing concentrations are measured at surface stations with a wide variety of elevations, notably Mauna Loa at 3400 m. But it would be helpful to know where you read that, because I've seen everything from 'they are well-mixed' to 'they are at highest concentrations near the surface'.
  32. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel "So first off heat doesn't flow'; only fluids flow" honestly I find it and the discussion on the caloric theory really pedantic. You confuse heat and internal energy. Here's the first quote I found just googling, but I urge you to check in a standard textbook:
    "Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess "heat"; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy."
  33. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    VTG - I disagree based on the papers listed in the articles. Taking say the Philipona/Evans approach, you MEASURE the DLR amplitude and spectrum. To compute what it "should" be (model result), then calculate from radiative transfer equations (Ramanathan and Coatley 1978 for the maths). This is a very different calculation from the demonised GCMs - no dynamic component and insensitive to minor variations so you dont need minutely accurate picture of atmosphere for clear-sky calculation. Not only does the calculation match measurement for amplitude and spectrum, but it is very hard to see how you could obtain that measurement without the CO2 greenhouse effect. Can do essentially the same at the TOA. This doesnt tell you all about surface heating but it does tell what the radiative heating due to CO2 is. To argue about AGW, you need to look at other factors and feedbacks but I'd need a convincing explanation of those measurements from another theory to doubt the radiative component of CO2.
  34. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #160 - should have been "Re #159 Philippe Chantreau"
  35. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #153 Philippe Chantreau you wrote:- " confused between heat (in thermodynamics, that means net heat flow) and energy (which can be almost anything). Heat must comply with the 3 laws. Energy can flow ." I hope I have a good grasp of your meaning because I do think you have a good understanding of the matter. Please do not think I am just being pedantic because all matters in thermodynamics and energy are closely related therefore words must be used with a precise meaning. So first off heat doesn't flow'; only fluids flow. This was the failure of the old caloric theory; caloric was supposed to be a fluid 'filling in the spaces' between the atoms and giving it the feeling of hotness. This theory came into question when it was realised that the friction involved in boring out a cannon barrel that caused it to get hotter; the temperature rise could be directly related to the (frictional) work done. Also hotter material weighed no more than when it was cold. At the time this was powerful evidence because Lavoisier had used a similar technique to disprove the phlogiston theory of combustion. A second, more modern, confusion; the one about heat meaning 'net heat flow'; a sort of term for energy 'in transit' (somehow). Let there be no doubt about it, heat is energy density where the energy is in the form of molecular motion, it is to be found in all materials above 0K. This energy density is the material's temperature, it is only related to energy by dividing the energy by the material's specific heat K = Q/C. As you say just saying 'energy' is far too vague, e.g. for mixtures of steam and water; water contains a lot of none-thermal energy in the binding force that make its molecules a liquid - this is the energy also called the latent heat of evaporation. But the binding force has got nothing to do with molecular motion, even though the energy it implies can only be overcome by molecular motion. In regard to this last matter, the heat of a water/steam continuum dose not increase as the % steam increases because the temperature doesn't change, only the energy in the system increases. That is why a water/steam mixture can be at equilibrium i.e. the temperature in the liquid is the same as the steam, so no energy transfer (no change in entropy).
  36. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Maybe Dr. Dessler would be kind enough to also answer questions here? Other prominent and respected climate scientists (including Trenberth and Soden) agree that Dr. Dessler's methodology is sound. Certainly much more sound that that used by Lindzen and Choi (2009). From ClimateProgress: "This is a very important check of the models,” says climate researcher Qiang Fu of the University of Washington, Seattle. “It shows no evidence of a large negative cloud feedback.” But climate researcher Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, disagrees. He published one of the two papers finding evidence of a strongly negative cloud feedback. He finds in his own analyses signs that Dessler is seeing not only cloud changes caused by temperature changes but also temperature changes caused by natural cloud fluctuations. Such effects garble the true negative feedback beyond recognition, he says. Spencer’s “interpretation is wrong," says Soden, but even if Spencer were right that there’s a cause-and-effect problem, Dessler’s method of comparing observations and models "eliminates some possibilities, such as the models being egregiously wrong. It’s about as good as we can do with current data sets." Also, "Dr. Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, is one of the leading experts on cloud modeling. He had been critical of some recent studies on the cloud feedback effect, so I asked for his thoughts on this study. He replied: "The work is sound and is a very useful contribution. It is a foil to some of the misleading work that Richard Lindzen has published (and which we have shown is wrong). Kudos to Andy Dessler for trying to do this and doing it as well as it can be done." Those are some pretty glowing reviews from some very critical and discerning climate scientists. Trenberth in particular, is a stickler for details, so his support of Dessler is important.
  37. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    No saturation. Es ergibt sich folgende Kurzdarstellung des Treibhauseffektes in 5 Punkten: 1. Die Atmosphäre ist im Wesentlichen zweigeteilt: unten die konvektionsreiche Troposphäre, in der das Wetter ist und wo wir leben und oben die konvektionsarme Stratotosphäre, wobei sich die Grenze zwischen beiden Sphären verschieben kann. 2. Der Temperaturgradient in der Troposphäre ist (fast) konstant - auch wenn sich die Dicke der Troposphäre ändert. Diese Konstanz ist konvektionsbedingt. 3. Die fast konstante optische Dicke einer sich ändernden Stratosphäre. Diese Konstanz ist strahlungsbedingt und ergibt sich aus der Skalierung (Maßstabsänderung) der Strahlungstransportgleichung bei Änderung der optischen Dicke bei Konzentrationsänderung des CO2. 4. Wenn der Temperaturgradient einen bestimmten Grenzwert überschreitet kann die Luftschichtung nicht ruhig bleiben und wird instabil = Konvektion = Kennzeichen der Troposphäre 5. Im stationären Zustand (d.h. auch wenn Zeit vergeht, ändert sich der Zustand nicht) ist im Mittel die Wärmeabgabe der Erde genau so groß wie die Wärmeabsorption - andernfalls müßten sich die Temperaturen laufend ändern. Das aber widerspräche der Stationarität. Diese 5 Punkte liefern eine Grundsensitivität der durchschnittlichen Oberflächentemperatur als Folge von Konzentrationsänderungen des CO2. Ergänzung: Die dickere Tropopsphäre hat eine größere Temperaturdiffernz zwischen oben und unten, wobei diese größere Temperaturdifferenz sich als Abkühlung oben und Erwärmung unten so verteilt, daß die Gesamtabstrahlung der Erde gleich der Gesamtabsorption ist. MfG
  38. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Thanks Bodo. The study says nothing about 1.64 sensitivity. I suspect the article in question is taking this statement: "Indeed, our results suggest a global warming of 1.94°C in the RP‐case [baseline] versus 4.5°C by Betts et al. [1997] and 2.6°C by Levis et al. [2000]." and then subtracting 0.3°C from it. Which of course would make no sense whatsoever, because the 0.3 is incorporated into the 1.94. 1.94°C sensitivity for 2xCO2 would be low, but not unreasonable (the study also suggests that a lower climate sensitivity model may be realistic, which is how they get to that 1.94 with just a 0.3°C cooling effect). But the Register article is not surprisingly just riddled with errors. And like Daniel Bailey (#21) from what I've read, the results of this study are rather questionable.
  39. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    dhogaza, I've never been censored here in any way, nor subjected to any ad homs, so I prefer to ask my questions here. Someone here will point out my flaws soon enough.
  40. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Eric@16: Thank you for posting this. You beat me too it. There are methodology problems with Dr. Dressle's paper.
  41. Ice data made cooler
    michael sweet #39 It's not clear where you are trying to go with this. Is it just all about negating anything I could possibly post? I assume some oxygen would be released. Why dont you simply quantify the amount or explain how oxygen and nitrogen are somehow exceptions to Henrys Law, or in which ways CO2 is special etc. Wouldnt this be good for everyone to know?
  42. It's not us
    I read that most of the CO2 from fuel emissions is located at the upper reaches of the troposphere. Is that true? If it is true, how can claims be made that the extra CO2 is causing faster plant growth? thanks if you have any links for this. Gail
  43. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    A quick perusal of the Bounoua et al study suggests they base much of their reductions of global temps by vegetation on an increase in evapotranspiration. However, recent evidence indicates a decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due to limited moisture supply. Add in Dai et al 2010 and you have a recipe to cast into doubt much of Bounoua et al's primary hypothesis. This person's quick two cents (further reading required), The Yooper
  44. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    @dana1981: I uploaded the paper, here is it: http://rapidshare.com/files/436512358/2010GL045338.pdf
  45. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "How you get from 0.3°C cooling to 1.64°C sensitivity is beyond me, unless it's mentioned somewhere in the study." You start with a GCM that gives 1.94C sensitivity, i.e. pick a low outlier and subtract 0.3C from that.
  46. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Eric (skeptic) - if you're serious about debunking Dessler's paper, you should engage him directly at Real Climate, where he's posted and is participating in the resulting thread. If you've demolished it as thoroughly as you have apparently done, I'm sure you'll have no problem convincing him ...
  47. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    Why climate change is a big freaking deal! “Climate Scientist Warns World of Widespread Suffering If Further Climate Change Is Not Forestalled” “ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2010) — One of the world's foremost experts on climate change is warning that if humans don't moderate their use of fossil fuels, there is a real possibility that we will face the environmental, societal and economic consequences of climate change faster than we can adapt to them.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208125801.htm In this case, the foremost expert is Lonnie Thompson, distinguished university professor in the School of Earth Sciences at Ohio State University. Kudos to Dr. Thompson for telling it like it is!
  48. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    pdt #15 - I saw that article too but I have no idea where they get 1.64°C for 2xCO2, unless it's mentioned somewhere in the study (which I don't have access to). In the abstract it specifically states that their findings mean there is a 0.3°C cooling effect globally for 2xCO2 which is not accounted for. How you get from 0.3°C cooling to 1.64°C sensitivity is beyond me, unless it's mentioned somewhere in the study. There's at least one error in the article, as it says the change over land is 0.3°C when it's actually 0.6°C. So I suspect they got the 1.64°C sensitivity wrong too. Perhaps somebody could link the whole paper, but here's the abstract. http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2010GL045338.shtml
  49. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    "In Search Of"? Seriously? (-chuckles aloud-) BP, you missed your calling in life. (Guilty pleasures admission: the episodes on Mars dying from climate change [Season 1, Episode 9] and on the search for Atlantis [Season 1, Episode 10] are my favorites) For all you Leonard Nimoy fans (and you know who you are): Thanks for the chuckle, The Yooper
  50. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    I was interested in how Dessler calculated ΔRcloud in the first chart (the second is from various models). It turns out that the first chart is also from a model, documented in this tech report: http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/pubs/docs/Rienecker369.pdf The essential difference between the model used for the first chart and those used for the second is that the former is a AGCM which can only do short term predictions since it doesn't model longer term changes in ocean circulations. The latter are GCMs. As explained in the link above, they match model results from the AGCM to the satellite observations using a gradient descent with the control variables listed on page 19. They adjust those control variables in the various equations that drive the AGCM. For example the water content control variable affects the scattering albedo in both the shortwave and longwave equations. I think the primary problem with this approach is that some variables are controlled coarsely and not observed. A good example is wind which can only be indirectly validated by the match of other model parameters. But there are multiple solutions to the control variables to obtain the match from model to observations. "with four parameters I can fit an elephant and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk" http://mahalanobis.twoday.net/stories/264091/

Prev  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  2035  2036  2037  2038  2039  2040  2041  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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