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  2039  2040  2041  2042  2043  2044  2045  2046  2047  2048  2049  2050  2051  2052  2053  2054  Next

Comments 102301 to 102350:

  1. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    I remain curious as to why coral are so temperature sensitive, considering that they have evolved during millions of years of the glacial cycle? As of 1950, we were still 4.5C short of the temperature high achieved during the previous warming phase. The glacial cycle causes large climate changes. Why have coral not evolved to be more flexible about temperature? Chris Shaker
  2. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    Muoncounter: you might want to read replies from Rob Painting. Coral is a symbiotic organism, basically an algae inside the animal. The algae provides energy for the coral from photosynthesis. Chris Shaker
  3. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Re: Camburn Once upon a time, warmer seems to have been better. Let's look at that graphically, shall we? But with what we know of the radiative forcing of CO2 and its status as the Chief Control Knob of Temperatures, consider this graph carefully: At some point we may have to update the top graph with an arrow with this legend:
    "Agriculture ends"
     Let the good times roll... The Yooper
  4. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Camburn #39 Possibly warmer might be better in the long run once the climate has settled down to the new equilibrium but there might be horrendous instabilities in the interim period. Do you feel lucky?
  5. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    dhogaza@36: Past temp proxies and the advancement of mankind indicate that warmer is better. The Golden Age of the Holocene happened at the optimum. Back to clouds tho.
  6. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    I don't know enough about the physics of clouds to be certain, so I might sound a bit naive by saying the following. Isn't the Lindzen/Spencer scenario that the small increase in planetary average temperature from increasing CO2 will cause the relative humidity to increase, primarily in the troposphere - extra water vapour will be present and will lead to the formation of larger, or more numerous, clouds, which will reflect back sunlight thus cooling us back down in a negative feedback? Where I might be naive is that, as a hang glider pilot, I know, because I have felt it (we're right out in the air flow) that in the gaps between the clouds there is plenty of water vapour too. If Lindzen et al speculate that the feedback from increasing water vapour is negative because of the increase in planetary albedo due to more clouds, have they fully taken into account the increased greenhouse effect from the un-condensed water vapour in the space between the clouds, the area of which is usually much greater than that of the clouds themselves... Comments?
  7. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    dana1981@34 Thank you. I am thinking on a global scale in regard to studies. I have read papers that go both plus and minus as far as sensativity. With that in mind, I have to think that the sensativity issue is still wide open. I agree. Uncertainty goes both ways. I acknowledge the upper end and the lower end when reading.
  8. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "And of course there's always the 'warmer is better' mentality - I'm not sure if the Lindzens and Spencers subscribe to that, but many skeptics do." I don't know about Spencer, but his co-worker and co-religionist John Christy has definitely argued that warmer will be advantageous anyway.
  9. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    #9: "Overall, I bet the so-called skeptics are drooling at the possibility of this coming to pass," JMurphy, you called it. Little did we know just how much drooling is going on. Here is RC reporting this story was a fraud: Coldest Winter in 1000 Years Cometh – not This claim circulates in the internet and in many mainstream media as well: Scientists have allegedly predicted the coldest winter in 1,000 years for Europe. What is behind it? Nothing – no scientist has predicted anything like it. A Polish tabloid made up the story. ... The “climate sceptics” website WUWT, noted for their false reports, takes up the RT piece, presents it together with The Voice of Russia and mentions „Mikhail Kovalevski“. Watts seems to be the bridge for the story´s crossing into the western media. And the stampede was led by the drooler-in-chief. Makes you wonder about just how the so-called 'Climategate' propagated so quickly, too.
  10. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    Oops. Here is the working link to the Kiehl/Trenberth paper.
  11. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @quokka: don't take the expression "sales pitch" negatively. You *are* engaged in pro-nuclear advocacy, so it fact you are selling nuclear energy to this audience. Also, you don't get to determine if you are right or not. That's not the nature of a debate - otherwise everyone would be right, as no one would claim to be incorrect. So you didn't "set the record straight," you argued for your position. Nothing less, nothing more. The "wasteful" arugment simply means you are using a finite resource (radioactive material) when not needed, while neither wind nor solar is finite (at least not for billions of years). Sure, some radioactive elements may be plentiful, but they still require a very complex (and thus expensive) process before they can be used (mining, refining, trasport, security, etc.). All of this adds up. Again, you fall in the same rhetorical trap as Peter Lang: by arguing that Nuclear is the *only* solution, you actually make it harder to sell. Think about it.
  12. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Tim the Toolman #11 Er Tim, the stakes are our future. If clouds will save us, a lot of scientists will have egg on their faces. If clouds don't save us then vaya con Dios civilisation. Do you feel lucky?
  13. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Camburn - you need to be more careful with your terminology. You said in comment #13 "There is really no evidence one way or another as of yet as to cloud feedback". That is flat-out wrong. In this article alone I discussed 4 studies providing evidence for a positive cloud feedback. You may not be convinced by this evidence, and I'm sure there have been a couple of studies providing some evidence for a small positive or negative cloud feedback, but there is most certainly evidence. And nobody is claiming the issue is settled. As Pete noted in comment #19, the article ends by saying "...much more research of the cloud-climate feedback is needed..." And of course a problem with the "don't regulate CO2 because the uncertainty is too large" argument is that uncertainty goes both ways. There's just as much likelihood that AGW will be majorly catastrophic as there is that it will be benign. Is it possible that a negative cloud feedback will save us from catastrophic warming in the near-term? Certainly. But it's also possible that a positive cloud feedback will drive us toward catastrophic warming in the near-term. Failing to act on the possibility of the latter in the hope that the former is true is extremely poor risk management. It's like driving around without auto insurance because you don't think you'll get into a car accident. Uncertainty is not the friend of the skeptic. The only reason not to act to reduce CO2 emissions would be if we are certain that their effects will be benign. As you clearly agree, we don't have that certainty.
  14. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    @RSVP: By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are: water vapor, 36–70% carbon dioxide, 9–26% methane, 4–9% ozone, 3–7% Sources: Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget Water vapour: feedback or forcing?
  15. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    66 (muoncounter), You seem to have tangled everything in knots as artfully as the most adept "skeptic." I suspect I introduced some of the confusion by using the phrase "initial forcing," which is redundant, and implies that a forcing is like a quick push. It's not. My intent was merely to distinguish the forcing from the feedback. A forcing is any change that alters the steady state of the system, changing (in this case raising) the equilibrium temperature. A feedback is a change to the system which results from the change in equilibrium temperature, but itself changes the temperature. A positive feedback is a feedback which enhances the initial change (i.e. changes the temperature in the same direction as the forcing). A negative feedback is a feedback which counteracts the initial change (i.e. changes the temperature in the opposite direction of the forcing). Our understanding of the climate system is that regardless of the forcing, there will be positive albedo, CO2 and H2O feedbacks. There may or may not also be cloud feedbacks, which could be positive or negative (we don't know yet). For a solar forcing to raise temperatures, TSI from the sun would need to have increased, and remain increased, just as CO2 levels must increase and remain increased. In no situation is there an "event" or "switch" or "restart" involved. The problem is merely, given a forcing, any forcing which is continuous and as such elevates temperatures, that forcing will be accompanied by strong GHG feedbacks (CO2, H2O) which will carry with them the same signature as a GHG forcing, and those feedbacks are roughly double the size of the initial forcing. This makes the statement that "a TSI forcing would not exhibit warmer winters and nights" false. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's just not a valid argument.
  16. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    @Camburn: "Yes Pete. And since then we still havne't figured out clouds." Look at it this way: clouds may or may not lessen the impact of CO2 on warming. This does not put into dispute the actual CO2 impact, which is well-known. In other words, the uncertainty here is whether or not clouds will mitigate the warming, not if the warming will take place. To take a gamble on clouds that way isn't a rational position, it's wishful thinking (especially when the science tends to indicate they won't). To take my russian roulette example again, betting that clouds *might* mitigate AGW is like hoping that the gun should jam if you pull the trigger and get the bullet.
  17. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    @Camburn: "I am not possessed with uncertainty." Your posts tell a different story. To you, "uncertainty" seems to be reason for you to think the science is immature. It isn't, and uncertainty wouldn't be a sign it is either. "Does co2 play a factor in climate. Yes, to a small extent." Actually, CO2 is the main control knob of climate. There is ample evidence suggesting this is the case, and very little evidence supporting the idea that CO2 only has a small effect on climate. Or, to put it in a way you will understand, there is much greater uncertainty about CO2 having only a small effect than to the contrary. "Should we use CAGW as the reason to stop burning fossil fuels? Naw....the error bars with the models etc are not up to snuff to do so." That is your opinion, but it is not supported by the overwhelming evidence in favor of AGW. "I look at the science for what is has shown. I see the AGW science as infant and subject to an enormous amount of factors, some known, a lot to be learned. That is why you don't see the public engaged." Actually, the science is far from being in infancy, and the majority of factors are known. Again, you exaggerate how much we don't know. Furthermore, that is not why the public is not engaged. Mostly, the propaganda efforts of Big Oil, who tries to either deny the science, or muddy the issue so much it confuses people about the actual state of the science. As for the Carbon Tax, I think you are confusing this with Cap and Trade. The two are very different. Please explain to me how Goldman Sachs would make money with a Carbon Tax? At least you agree that we should transition away from fossil fuels, but that doesn't mean you are right about the state of the science. It's pretty clear to me that you're not.
  18. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Yes Pete. And since then we still havne't figured out clouds.
  19. Pete Dunkelberg at 04:39 AM on 6 December 2010
    A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Camburn # 27 You found a 1997 paper: Zender, C. S., B. Bush, S. K. Pope, A. Bucholtz, W. D. Collins, J. T. Kiehl, F. P. J. Valero, and J. Vitko, Jr. 1997. "This article contributed by NASA's Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs.)"
  20. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Archiesteel@24: I am not possessed with uncertainty. I read the papers for what they propose. This is a bit on and a bit off topic now: 1. Does co2 play a factor in climate. Yes, to a small extent. 2. Do we need to stop burning fossil fuels? Yes, emphatically. They are a finite resource that can't be replaced. 3. Should we use CAGW as the reason to stop burning fossil fuels? Naw....the error bars with the models etc are not up to snuff to do so. Should we use our heads and stop because fossil fuels are finite?.....YES....it is very easy to see that to any person with an ounce of brains. I look at the science for what is has shown. I see the AGW science as infant and subject to an enormous amount of factors, some known, a lot to be learned. That is why you don't see the public engaged. I have found this forum to be an interesting forum. I also see that some refuse to acknowledge how much we do NOT know. Just as the link I posted from NASA shows. Forget the carbon tax, that is foolish. Even Mr. Hansen thinks that is foolish. Investigate the origin of that idea. Goldman Sachs should come to mind. A money tree for them. There are solutions with proven tech to stop using so much fossil fuels. It is time to impliment them for the right reason: Fossil fuel is finite!
  21. Renewable Baseload Energy
    360 archiesteel I will repeat what I said above - If I think an argument is nonsense I will say so. If you think that is a "sales pitch" that's up to you.
  22. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    archiesteel@24: I hit the wrong key...it should have been: CAGW. Catastrophic AGW.
  23. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    We can play "what if" to our hearts content. I have stated that we don't know a lot about clouds. NASA seems to agree. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BlanketClouds/
  24. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    #24: "Coral bleaching is a vivid sign of corals responding to stress," Let's walk down your stress list point by point: a. increased (most commonly), or reduced water temperatures -- emphasis added b. increased solar irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation and ultraviolet band light) -- not happening, unless you live under an ozone hole c. changes in water chemistry (in particular acidification) -- yes, that happens when CO2 concentration increases and is the point of this thread c. starvation caused by a decline in zooplankton -- do they die due to lowered pH? d. increased sedimentation (due to silt runoff) -- local effects only e. pathogen infections -- chicken and egg here, increased stress leads to greater susceptibility to infection f. changes in salinity -- most likely local (we'd notice it globally) g. wind -- random, at best h. low tide air exposure -- sea level is rising i. cyanide fishing -- whatever that means So the winner is ... most commonly temperature, acidification "CO2 appears to be essential for coral photosynthesis?" Corals are Cnidaria ... (animals). We don't do photosynthesis.
  25. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    muoncounter #76 "Presumably you exclude heat that would otherwise be radiated " CO2 at best translates (skyward) the location of heat departure, but does not "retain" any more heat than its specific heat capacity allows. Here, two links to compare these values. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html Given that water vapor has double the heat capacity of CO2, and abounds in excess of 100 times the anthropogenic contribution in CO2, this retained "energy" you are talking about represents at most 0.5% of the total ambient. I suppose that is energy, but it doesnt seem like much.
  26. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    #77: "HR's point is... " If this: "either a solar or CO2 initial forcing will be accompanied by a strong H2O GHG positive feedback" was HR's point, it remains irrelevant until someone can explain the objections raised in #66. You cannot claim a point is valid if that point depends on a mechanism that is nonsensical.
  27. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    #22: "GCRs always reverse. But what if they don't?" GCR occurrence on earth is moderated by the interplanetary magnetic field; to a lesser degree by the earth's magnetic field. Thus the frequency of GCRs observed on earth is a 'magnetic field proxy,' which can be correlated with solar intensity. GCR intensity ended 2009 at a record setting peak and "early in 2010 the intensity decreased to 1997-1998 levels," where it remains through October 2010 (date of the report cited). The moral of that story: a solar min corresponds with a GCR max. We measure these things. For GCRs not to reverse (whatever that means) suggests that the sun will no longer cycle? And yet there are already signs of such a 'reverse'. "But if the solar factors align differently in the next 30 years," We can all play 'what if' ... if you like.
  28. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    65 (Actually thoughtful)
    we KNOW there is no notable solar input
    This is very true, but beside the point. The question is whether or not this particular argument is further evidence of a lack of solar input, and it's not. Any warming, of any sort, will be accompanied by roughly 2C of GHG positive feedback in addition to the initial forcing. That means that any warming will have these same signatures (although to differing degrees). The fact that part of the warming could come from a non-GHG forcing will only be evident in relative degrees of these effects, and there's no way to break it down (without a few hundred earths on which to experiment). HR's point is valid. It doesn't disprove AGW, but this particular argument for proving GHG forced warming fails.
  29. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    @Eric: GCRs aren't caused by the sun. You make a lot of long-term suppositions, which is fine, however we have to rely on the current data we have in order to speculate about the future, and the current data doesn't suggest anything but continued warming due to human activity, with a possible increase over that due to increased solar activity. I think skeptics are beggining to grasp at straws. That's the feeling I get reading these comment sections, anyway.
  30. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    @Camburn: why are you obsessed with uncertainty? The fact uncertainty exists is no reason for complacency. Say you are playing russian roulette: there is a lot of uncertainty as to whether or not the next shot will be the bullet. Does that diminish the risk in any way? The whole insurace industry is built on managing risk and uncertainty. The life of a professional poker player as well. You have to realize that uncertainty is no reason to dismiss the threat posed by AGW. (Oh, and by the way, what does GAGW stand for? It doesn't seem to be a popular acronym, as I couldn't find much when I googled it. Did you invent it?)
  31. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @quokka: "You can discount whatever you wish. That's your problem not mine." Actually, it's your problem, as you are the one engaged in advocacy. If people challenge your sales pitch, you have to take it into account, otherwise I and others who believe nuclear should be part of the solution are bound to re-evaluate their position. Your problem is the same as Peter Lang's (minus the insults, thanks for that): in your rush to dismiss renewables in favor of nuclear, you are actually doing a disservice to the latter.
  32. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    It's interesting to note but I did a search on a forum that I am a member of and now realize that I have been fighting this problem for almost four months. The thread is here: Original Thread But don't bother reading it. It's not necessary. Bob
  33. Pete Dunkelberg at 02:28 AM on 6 December 2010
    A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Denialism has been mentioned, and the "deny harder" response noted. But often and by no means only here, I get the impression that people in the climate area think of it largely in 19th century terms. To grasp this modern world one must be acutely aware of denialism as a set of rhetorical tactics. If you bring your concept of denialism up to date it becomes easier to see that we are dealing with industrial strength denialism.
  34. Eric (skeptic) at 02:26 AM on 6 December 2010
    A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    In the Clement et al abstract: "This observational analysis further indicated that clouds act as a positive feedback in this region on decadal time scales." The observational analysis they refer to is a link from clouds to temperature and changes in large scale circulation. If we call the latter, X, it is obvious that X controls clouds which control temperature over the short run. In Lauer et al, they say "iRAM simulates mean clouds and interannual cloud variations that are quite similar to those observed in this region." How similar is "quite similar"? What about diurnal? And like the other paper, they are not considering X as a control on clouds which control SSTs and temperature in general. To be clear, my statements are about the short run, theirs are about the long run. But if the short run causation is circulation -> clouds -> temperature, then I don't think that a different causation is supported over the long run either. In a-detailed-look-at-galactic-cosmic-rays.html, Dana shows a "minor" influence of GCR on clouds, but shows that GCR doesn't explain warming, both correct conclusions for recent warming. The problem is that GCR can also have a major effect on the clouds in the short run which is always reversed because GCRs always reverse. But what if they don't? Obviously other long term factors can compensate, one of which is GHG. In How-we-know-the-sun-isnt-causing-global-warming.html Dana takes a "divide and conquer" approach to solar influences. That works for recent 30 years or so for which we have good data, but doesn't help for example for explaining the MWP. In short, a variety of natural factors plus CO2 warming explains the past 30 years. But if the solar factors align differently in the next 30 years, we could be looking at a situation in which a combination of solar factors negates or overtakes the GHG warming (e.g. increased GCR causing increased clouds, decreased UV causing more blocking, etc).
  35. Pete Dunkelberg at 02:17 AM on 6 December 2010
    A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Some people underestimate what climate models can do. But check comment 20 here.
  36. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    J Murphy@18: Thank you for the link. Again, I will state that the level of certainty in the models concerning clouds is not there. If you want to read papers that agree with your ideas as gospel, even tho the papers are 100% honest in their assesment of what has been learned, that is your perogative. After all, GAGW is still in the hypothosis stage and has not advanced to theory stage. There is a huge amount to learn about how clouds act/interact. On a global scale, there is nothing deffinitive as of yet.
  37. Pete Dunkelberg at 02:02 AM on 6 December 2010
    A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    TimTheToolMan, This is a Model Intercomparison study, linked as usual to the appropriate data.
    Figure 1: Annual average TOA shortwave cloud forcing for present-day conditions from 16 IPCC AR4 models and iRAM (bottom center) compared with CERES satellite observations (bottom right)
    and not presented as definitive. Look at the last line:
    ...while much more research of the cloud-climate feedback is needed, he evidence is stacking up against those who argue that climate sensitivity is low due to a strongly negative cloud feedback.
    No study indicating sensitivity somewhat above 3 rather than below is a LOL unless you just don't care about the next generation, and Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs) seriously contribute to our understanding of climate. These studies lead the various modeling teams to dig into the internals of their models and keep improving their physics of one climate process after another. I don't see any LOL in this picture.
  38. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Camburn wrote : "There is really no evidence one way or another as of yet as to cloud feedback. There are suggestions going in both directions." Except there is far more evidence going one way than the other, as you can see at AGW OBSERVER : Papers on Cloud Feedback observations Papers on the Iris Hypothesis of Lindzen Anti-AGW papers debunked (including Spencer) But so-called skeptics prefer to stick with the lone voices, don't they ? Why IS that ?
  39. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Daniel Bailey@15: 1. We all know that GCMs do not handle the h20 cycle well at all. 2. When I read a paper, I read the error bars and the certainty of the paper. 3. There are papers on both sides of the cloud sensativity scenerio. Non of the papers show, with a credible certainty, that clouds are well modeled yet. Hence the results are uncertain. Show me this evidence that is verifiable and not modeled, but observed. A small area of the world is a start, but we all know regional variances do NOT make climate.
  40. Renewable Baseload Energy
    356 michael sweet You can discount whatever you wish. That's your problem not mine. It is a fact that "nuclear does not do load following" myth crops up frequently. What I said was technically correct and setting the record straight. I also pointed out that grid specific modeling would be needed to determine at what proportion of total capacity nuclear would become uneconomic. It is clearly not minimum system demand. What is your problem with this? How come wind is less 'wasteful' than nuclear (whatever 'wasteful' means)? If wind has excess capacity that cannot be utilized because there is insufficient demand when the wind happens to be blowing, then without subsidy it is in exactly the same position as nuclear run at a low capacity factor - high capital investment being under utilized. Except that nuclear has the outstanding advantage of being dispatchable and reliable and able to perform the very important role of stabilizing the grid. As I said the 'wasteful' argument makes no sense to me and seems to be based on assumptions about how demand can be manipulated to match unreliable supply. You could make exactly the same arguments for reliable supply where demand is managed to a limited extent by off peak rates. I make no apology for the word 'bamboozled'. If I think an argument is nonsense, I will say so.
  41. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    It's interesting how these posts help illuminate the broader context. On this thread (and others), water vapor is the dominant GHG and its warming effect is far more significant than any possible effects of CO2. Here, water vapor (a prime component of clouds) will keep us cool and comfortable as that irrelevant CO2 continues to build for years to come. Note to skeptics: Read some of your own stuff in context. Then make an attempt to be internally consistent every once in a while!
  42. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Re: Camburn (13) The obligatory "we-don't-know-anything-for-sure" drive-by. Despite your baseless assertion, evidence does exist. Unless you have something that shows what we've figured out thus far fails to meet some definition of evidence that you are operating under? The Yooper
  43. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    #75: "Heat as opposed to a redistrubution of temperature are very different things." Presumably you exclude heat that would otherwise be radiated to space from your 'redistribution' concept. But the 300-comments-and-still-growing 2nd Law thread has hashed that out.
  44. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Interestingly, this paper: Deep ocean heat uptake as a major source of spread in transient climate change simulations (found from here) indicates that model climate sensitivity is correlated with the model's depth of mixing in the polar oceans. Taking the two together it seems like modelled tropical cloud cover is correlated with modelled polar ocean mixing depth. Does anybody else find this a bit surprising?
  45. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Hi All, I've finished a rough cut of my writeup and offer it to you for comment. I apologize for the roughness of it but you will not have any trouble understanding what I'm saying. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised Again, nobody has emailed me to tell me who they are and if they would like to be aknowledged. I do feel that I should give credit where credit is due. Bob
  46. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    There is really no evidence one way or another as of yet as to cloud feedback. There are suggestions going in both directions.
  47. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    #28: "Archer's estimate of the total amount of methane hydrates is on the low end of current estimates." As I said above, its the rate of release that's critical. Since clathrates are so well-distributed around the world's oceans, their volume is quite significant. But a methane release from an Arctic source may occur independently of one in the Gulf of Mexico. "information about it from sources with no known connection to ExxonMobil." Fair point. I note that Maier-Reimer was with the Max Planck Institute when those papers were written. Kheshgi also co-authored a paper with Bert Bolin, who I believe was Chair of the IPCC.
  48. macwithoutfries at 01:13 AM on 6 December 2010
    A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    The other thing to remember is that some of the theories and 'preliminary models' from Spencer and Lindzen are 'almost working' on the descendant part of the solar cycle, however will seriously break correlation during the next 5 years on the ascendant part of the TSI curve.
  49. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Camburn, Think it through. Charging electric cars is fungible. People will charge when the electricity is cheapest. The reason people do not charge up during the day is that it is more expensive (nuclear plants run cheaply at 100% all night:). If solar power was cheaper during the day people would just plug in at work. Then you car could go twice as far with the same battery! Load shifting can substantially change the baseload and reduce the need to store energy.
  50. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    Daniel Bailey #25 "if you feel you have something to add that shows waste heat amounts to more than 1% of GHG forcings, go back to that thread and comment on it there. " This comment (feel free to correct me if I am mistaken) implies that GHG's increases net heat (i.e. raising the energy level). Heat as opposed to a redistrubution of temperature are very different things. Even Arrhenius did not intend this. At the bottom of page 268 (the paper cited), it says, "The geographical annual and diurnal ranges of temperature would be partly smoothed away, if the quantity of carbonic acid was augmented." In the paper, the author is very specific about how the GHG affect latitudes differently, and especially poles and glaciers. Using these arguments to explain global warming is a distortion. The entire point of Arrheniu's paper is to explain a theory of how Nature modulates the coming and going of ice ages (not global warming), and in fact alludes to northern civilizations emerging as a consequence of naturally receding ice and not the other way around.

Prev  2039  2040  2041  2042  2043  2044  2045  2046  2047  2048  2049  2050  2051  2052  2053  2054  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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