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  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  Next

Comments 103451 to 103500:

  1. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Agreed CO2 intercepts some of the LWIR from the Earth, but it can only re-radiate just less than 1/2 back to the Earth which, for most of the time is warmer and therefore cannot make use of, or be affected by those low-energy photons.The effect of this gas,at 0.028% of the atmosphere is negligible. Water vapour is the greenhouse gas, except that it doesn't work like a greenhouse. The Earth is the watery planet and its climate can be fully accounted for by the density of the atmosphere and H20 and its three states. C02, were it not an essential component of life which is a special feature of the Blue Planet, could be ignored.I want my children and my children's children to have the same lifestyle as I've had.Sure there may or may not be peak oil. So what. If as many dollars had been put into battery research as have been squandered in this climate stuff, we might have been that bit further down the road to the hydrocarbonless society.
  2. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #134 Daniel Bailey, you wrote:- "Clausius guy traveled in rarified circles" Just like Bill, he just wouldn't come home.
  3. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #130 Albatross I have have a copy or have read most of the books, articles etc. etc. you refer to, I possess many more. You may have noticed that I have confined my arguments to the subject of this thread which effectively claims that GHGs in the upper troposphere can induce about 33K temperature rise above the 255K said by climatologists to be the equilibrium temperature of Earth without GHGs. This is the position of the IPCC, it is in all their assessment reports which are search-able as PDF files on my computer. What is not identified in the IPCC reports is the temperature of the upper troposphere, it is very cold about -50C at 50km altitude, about -20C at 4km. There is no way the CO2, H2O vapour and whatever other GHGs you find 'up there' will raise the temperature at 0km by anywhere from 23C to 33C. What happens is the GHGs (at -20 to -50C) absorb some of the radiation from the warmer surface (-10C to 25C) on average and a small amount of heat is added to the atmosphere in addition to the vast amount transferred by the evaporation/rainfall heat transfer cycle. All of the heat in the atmosphere is radiated to deep space by the GHGs. Some of the heat in the Earth does not get into the atmosphere because it is radiated directly to deep space. Because heat transfer can only go from a hot place to a cold one, no heat at all can be transferred from the troposphere to the surface because the troposphere is always colder than the surface and, since no heat can be transferred in this direction, there can be no warming effect; it would be like getting a ball to roll up hill completely unaided. The reason the air at altitude is colder than at the surface is fairly simple. Think of a ball thrown vertically, gravity reduces its velocity, this means its kinetic energy =1/2mv^2(KE) is reduced. There is no real difference between the thrown ball and an air molecule except the temperature of a gas is proportional to the KE of its molecules, so in the troposphere the temperature of the air drops linearly with height at 6,5C/km because the KE is transformed into potential energy (PE) = mass x gravity x height (mgh). PE is seen to increase linearly with height which means that the KE/Temperature decreases linearly with height (as observed).
  4. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Re: muoncounter (58) Thanks for the shout-out. Ice fishing is indeed getting dicier here in the UP. People with more than 30 years experience in ice fishing on the inland lakes were crashing their pickup trucks through 12+" (30+ centimeters for you metricians out there) thick ice last winter. The ice, despite the thickness, was decrepit, honeycombed with melt cavities. Like in the Barber video, to some degree. In normal years, 6-8" of ice was sufficient to pull their tip-ups or shanties out onto the ice. A bit rough on the locals when a lifetime of experience in reading ice conditions is thrown out the window. Even the big lake (Superior) was extremely warm this past summer. Normally, all one can tolerate is about 15-20 minutes exposure to the frigid waters. I spent 4 1/2 hours (single immersion) in Lake Superior on a family outing this summer; it was like bath water that day. The Yooper
  5. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    It's fine to argue about which of cooling or warming would have a more harmful effect. However, neither is desirable (beyond the normal bounds of climate variability) and only one of them is in our immediate future.
  6. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re: damorbel (125)
    "Clausius was not an ignoramus, he was almost certainly aware of refrigerators since a patent for a refrigerator was granted to Jacob Perkins in 1834, when Clausius was 12."
     Hey, that Clausius guy traveled in rarified circles: hobnobbing with Perkins (who lived in England) while Clausius was growing up in Germany. Or did he read about it in Europe Today? Fascinating, the stuff I learn here... The Yooper
  7. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Our conclusion is simple, however effective any insulation is, it can not cause the isolated body to warm unless there is a source of heat inside the insulation. There is no claim that the Greenhouse Effect warms the Earth, only that it slows the Earths emission of heat into space, this was explained to you by Riccardo @107, but you seem to have ignored this. In this sense the GHE does behave exactly like clothes or a blanket around a human body. The human body gets its energy through metabolising food, circumnavigating the insulation. The Earth gets its energy from the sun, also circumnavigating the GHE insulation because the frequencies of EM radiation from the sun do not match the emitted ones from Earth which do, sadly, lie in the CO2 absorption bands.
  8. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m, Your conclusion is indeed simple, and wrong. The solar energy is the heat source. It passes through the atmosphere in one form (visible & ultraviolet light), get absorbed by the planet and re-emitted in another form (infrared light) that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere insulate against.
  9. It's cooling
    Re: daybyday (78) I well understand the feeling of skepticism when new to climate science - I've been there. But you offer conflicting testimony: 1. On one hand you confess basically "not getting it" and that there must be "secret numbers behind the numbers" (Psst: there are no secret numbers...don't tell anyone! It's a secret!). 2. On the other hand, you say "At this point, I don't believe any of you". Which leads me to ask: Which is it? Number one or number two? If it's number one and you want to learn the truth, then click on the home link in the upper left corner, then on either/both of the "Newcomers, Start Here" and/or "the Big Picture" links in the blue boxes near the top. If it's number two or you just don't want to learn, then why are you here? "Pour the coins of your pocket into your mind and your mind will line your pockets with gold" The Yooper
  10. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Composer99, as I picked on the matter of insulation (blanket analogy) first (starting with post #15) I feel obliged to reply to your take on it. You wrote (post # 126) "In particular, your blanket analogy in #117 practically mirrors the analogy used in the original post, save that you draw what appears to be a bizarre conclusion from it." which was in reply to a posting by damorbel. As I share his opinion in this matter let me try to make things more clear. Our conclusion is simple, however effective any insulation is, it can not cause the isolated body to warm unless there is a source of heat inside the insulation. Does this contradict what is said in the lead article? Let's see. It states: "If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That's obvious too!" I fail to spot any contradiction, do you?
  11. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Damorbel @128, "Your doubts about my competence in thermodynamics" Actually, your failure to grasp a scientific theory (not hypothesis) that has been around for over 150 years seriously questions your competence in thermodynamics. Have you actually read Roy Spencer's posts on this matter which I and others have directed you to? Talking of Spencer, have you read Spencer Weart's book, The Discovery of Global Warming? I'm thinking not. But then again, why would you-- you clearly believe that you know better than Arrhenius, Fourier, Tyndall and many, many other eminent scientists who get it. Maybe you are a D-K victim after all. Given that you cannot wrap your head around this fundamental theory underlying physics of AGW, I hope not to see you arguing points on any other page. Why argue other points related to climate science and AGW if you cannot grasp the greenhouse effect? We get it, you think AGW is not real, and your behavior here has demonstrated that no one is going to be able to convince you otherwise, so please (pretty please) stop wasting everyone's time.
  12. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    "Anything that interferes with heat transfer can be an insulator of greater or lesser effectiveness." Indeed.
  13. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #126 Composer99, you wrote:- "your blanket analogy in #117 " Composer99, it isn't an analogy. A blanket is one sort of insulator. Anything that interferes with heat transfer can be an insulator of greater or lesser effectiveness. Your doubts about my competence in thermodynamics would be so much more admirable if you knew about insulation.
  14. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    "Let me jut explain these two worlds which I will just name here and there." h-j-m - what is really going on, is that you have misunderstood physics and created an invalid worldview which means you would incorrectly predict the outcome of experiments. The best approach is learn what it really correct and how they are reconciled (sit down with a text book). Making real world decisions (like voting on measures to deal with climate change) on the basis of an incorrect understanding is a bad thing.
  15. It's cooling
    I'm one of those idiot skeptics. No matter how hard I try to become alarmed about the warming earth--I simply can't. Yes, it looks like we're warming but it appears I am too dumb to understand the charts behind the charts and know the numbers behind the numbers. Naive me, I just looked up facts and figures a few years ago to see what was happening--yikes--the earth HAD NOT BEEN HEATING up, despite what alarmists said. What was everyone talking about? Then 2005, 2008, and now 2010 show some heat and gives the alarmists tingles up and down their leg...I read the reports from NASA, they wrote, "It now seems pretty certain 2010 will outpace 1998, which currently ties for fourth hottest year in the NASA dataset." So I looked at their chart. I feel left out becasue it doesn't give me tingles. There is a record high March....uh... your point is? No other months seem remarkable. So one month spikes the charts and the stats and the global warming "trend" is intact. June, July, and August were cooler than the other comparison years. So in order to try and make this look serious NASA writes: "Continuing the trend from the previous month, NOAA reports that May, the period from March to May, and from January to May all have had the hottest combined global land and ocean surface temperatures since records began in 1880. " I read the chart from NASA--they have to use the word "combined" and "since 1880" to make the stats look scary. March was the only scary month of this year, if global warming scares you. Just last week SeaTac recorded the coldest temp ever recorded for this month at the airport. Ohhh-maybe if I combine it with some other cold records I can manipulate the stats to refute NASA? But i don't take the cooling alarmists that seriously either. Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook's projected cooling for the next several decades and is based on past PDO patterns for the past century and temperature patterns for the past 500 years. Three possible scenarios are shown: (1) global cooling similar to the global cooling of 1945 to 1977, (2) global cooling similar to the cool period from 1880 to 1915, and (3) global cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1820. At this point, I don't believe any of you--not Dr. Easterbrook--not the bots at the bottom of the sea not NASA and NOAA-- Until Greenland has the green meadows and longer growing season it enjoyed in the 1400's I won't buy into the "warming" craze--and if it happens I will be happy for the planet because those warmer periods bring a cornucopia of plenty to the earth and its people (polar bears survived that period just fine). and if the glaciers return with a vengeance, I will be happy becasue it will make it harder for man to survive and that is how we advance--by overcoming adversity. On a final note: Dear Esop, you wrote, "Nature is turning all the natural drivers to Max Cool and September was still the warmest by far." Did you look at the charts by NASA? Sept was hotter than 1998, yes, but cooler than 2005 and a number of other years. and this June, July and August were cooler than all the comparison years. But like I said, I can't understand the secret numbers behind the numbers, and charts behind the charts and I am certainly way too simple to understand the cycles of nature and cooling and warming. I just read history and take the numbers at face value--how dumb is that?
  16. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I believe the substance of my criticism of your position is in a later part of my comment #122, namely:
    It would seem to me that there is not much question as to which of the below alternatives is more likely: - that all this empirical evidence (global cryosphere mass balance decline, sea level rise, changing migration patterns, pest prevalence in increasingly higher latitudes, temperature anomalies, &c &c &c) isn't really pointing to global warming via the atmospheric greenhouse effect - that you and damorbel have managed to misunderstand thermodynamics
    [Emphasis in underlines mine in this comment, not in #122.] That is, the inconsistencies are more the purview of skeptics/contrarians attempting to appeal to thermodynamics than of the scientific evidence supporting the existence of the greenhouse effect. When reviewing this thread, as a non-scientist (I am a musician by training) I have found the posts of the likes of muoncounter, Phil, et al to be clearer and more compelling than the posts of yourself or h-j-m. In particular, your blanket analogy in #117 practically mirrors the analogy used in the original post, save that you draw what appears to be a bizarre conclusion from it.
  17. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #120 muoncounter, you wrote:- "Yes, I am sure Clausius had exactly refrigerators and heat pumps in mind." Clausius was not an ignoramus, he was almost certainly aware of refrigerators since a patent for a refrigerator was granted to Jacob Perkins in 1834, when Clausius was 12. you wrote:- "Do you accept the idea that greenhouse gases absorb infrared energy radiated from the surface of the earth and oceans, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere?" Perhaps 20% of atmospheric energy gets there by radiative transfer, of which CO2 accounts for perhaps 7%, another 20% by convection from the warm surface and 60% is due to water evaporating. In contrast about 80% leaves the Earth by radiation from atmospheric gases, of which 25% is due to CO2 and the remaining 20% by direct radiation from the surface. OK? Most of these figure come from the well known diagram of of K Trenberth, (I am having difficulty with the link - here's hoping!) they are the credible part of his diagram. The 'back radiation' idea is misconceived and certainly does not change the temperature distribution. Since the presence of H2O and CO2 etc. whose weak effects cannot distort the heat distribution, a distribution which is determined by much more powerful gravitational and cosine effects, exactly how the how the Sun's energy is absorbed is not of the first relevance. It is curious to note that Svensmark's cloud hypothesis has far greater traction than the GHG one. The death knell of the GHG hypothesis really is the effect of gravity on the atmosphere. The troposphere has a vertical temperature gradient which is a uniform 6.5K/km from the equator to the poles. This corresponds to the change of gravitational potential energy with height, it leaves no room for any radiative GH effect; it can even account for the rather strange temperature profile of the Stratosphere.
  18. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    As stated in the lead post, the PDO, like other identified patterns observed in other oceans, is a measure of internal processes that provides an indication of the conditions in place at any given time during the transfer of heat between the oceans and the atmosphere. In the examination of any correlation between global temperatures and the PDO, looking for any apparent trends, in both the lead post and the subsequent discussion, all that is being considered is the magnitude of each event. Whilst that may appear the simplest means of establishing correlation, it should instead be most obvious that magnitude is not the right indicator when looking for trends if there is any understanding at all, of all the processes involved in the redistribution of heat within the system. What is relevant, and where any trends should be looked for instead is the frequency of the oscillations and the amount of time the index resides in each phase. In other words, instead of merely looking for trends in how wide the refrigerator door is being opened, it is the frequency of how often it is being opened, and how long that it is being held open, or closed, that is relevant.
  19. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    Eric(skeptic), How can one remain neutral when not only did he plagerised words but rather he used mm05's whole analysis and then tried to say he was "independently" affirming their criticisms. You can see the evidence here: http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/ Clearscience http://clearscience.wordpress.com/
  20. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #122 Composer99 wrote:- "the atmospheric greenhouse effect is well-documented, empirically " This thread is about inconsistencies in the well documented explanations of the greenhouse effect.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Just to be clear, you mean supposed "inconsistencies", with you being the supposer.
  21. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #121 h-j-m wrote:- "But to my knowledge other actions take place " A feature of this kind of discussion is the tendency not to see the bigger picture. My vision of man sized vacuum flasks was rather far fetched and any working version would probably stop any of your "other actions" so effectively that the death of the person inside would not be long delayed, thus illustrating the bodies return to equilibrium with the ambient temperature! I enjoy your contributions, you can express yourself on thermodynamics without difficulty. The trouble is few of your readers are able to appreciate what you are saying. For my part I try to explain, if I am not understood I try to work out why, because I would like to better explain these matters, especially for non experts. This is a serious ambition because there is a limited future in just talking to experts. There are plenty who will never accept that the AGW hypothesis does not hold together but others, who are genuinely interested, need to be supported by well crafted explanations, that is what I am trying to do here!
  22. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m: Given: (1) that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is well-documented, empirically, as discussed on this website, other websites, and in the peer-reviewed literature; and (2) that the consequences of enhancing this greenhouse effect via anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses - that is to say, global warming - also has a plentitude of empirical evidence to support it, as described on this website, other websites, and in the peer-reviewed literature; It would seem to me that there is not much question as to which of the below alternatives is more likely: - that all this empirical evidence (global cryosphere mass balance decline, sea level rise, changing migration patterns, pest prevalence in increasingly higher latitudes, temperature anomalies, &c &c &c) isn't really pointing to global warming via the atmospheric greenhouse effect - that you and damorbel have managed to misunderstand thermodynamics
  23. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    #56: "The warming is confirmed by glaciers all across Canada" Lakes, too. From the new NASA study, quoted here: an average warming rate of 0.81 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, with some lakes warming as much as 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. The warming trend was global, and the greatest increases were in the mid- to high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Hope The Yooper enjoys ice fishing... while it lasts.
  24. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Cynicus @92, Thanks for taking the trouble to address KL's misinformation and his misunderstandings. Not sure why KL suddenly moved the goal posts shifted to losing the global surface temperature data. Anyhow, that accusation is just another red herring. Jones was not even in charge of CRU in the eighties when their copy of the surface data were lost. This is my understanding of what happened. The CRU copy of the temperature data seems to have been lost when they moved offices several times back in the 1980s. No global surface temperature data has been lost, the original owners or proprietor of those data still have those data. And CRU now probably once again has a copy of the temperature data. If people are going to make serious accusations it sure would help, and add to their credibility, if they were to first take the trouble to do some of their own research, rather than parroting myths from contrarian sites or blogs.
  25. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel, you wrote: "If the ambient is above above 37C then you have problems because you cannot switch your metabolism off (well you can, but the problem is to switch it back on again) and, in the absence of any action to change the situation your body temperature may well rise to heatstroke levels." Of cause that is true in principle. But to my knowledge other actions take place as the body will shed water to increase the heat transport and in consequence the dehydration will lead faster to terminal conditions then the rising temperature. Anyway, I think this will be my last post here, The kind of reasoning here seems to give me headaches. I just happen to live in one world of which I assume it exists and is real. I have to confess that assuming an other world to exist and being real as well seems already too much for me. Switching between this two worlds seemingly according to which one fits the argument better makes it even worse. Let me jut explain these two worlds which I will just name here and there. Here matter absorbs radiation only at certain frequencies and is either transparent or reflects or scatters the rest due to its chemical composition. Here matter emits radiation at certain frequencies (producing something called colour at the visible range) again due to its chemical composition. Here I can feel the warmth of direct sunlight though that should be dwarfed by the earth's surface radiation not to mention back-radiation. Here temperature differences cause winds to blow, currents to flow, water to evaporate and in essence everything needed to sustain life or even to allow for its development. There all matter absorbs all incoming radiation which means that it acts effectively as a black-body. Consequently it also emits radiation where the according black-body spectrum, which only depends on the temperature of the black-body, determinates wavelength range and intensities. There temperature differences are the result of imbalanced energy flows which are caused by black-bodies emitting energy depending on the temperature of the black-body which again is caused by imbalanced energy flows etc. etc. ad infinitum. There is a world not only hard to understand but even harder to accept as real.
  26. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    #118: "Given time and a sufficiently sensitive set up, the warming of the CO2 would be detectable" Then your 'exact proportion' argument from #105 requires a very low constant of proportionality. And you accept that the gas is warmed -- please explain where this excess kinetic energy goes if the proportion emitted is so low. "I have read about the GH effect it has been the surface temperature that was the worry." Please tell us what you've been reading and what surfaces you appear to be worried about. "the reason 'sole result' is included is because heat pumps and refrigerators do transfer heat" Yes, I am sure Clausius had exactly refrigerators and heat pumps in mind. Perhaps you ought to state for the record: Do you accept the idea that greenhouse gases absorb infrared energy radiated from the surface of the earth and oceans, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere? Does CO2 play a major role in this process? If not, what are your specific objections? What published science (as opposed to vague references to individual interpretations of the 2nd Law) can you cite to support your objections?
  27. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    apeescape, thanks for your explanations of 10% and homogeneity depictions. I am optimistic based on Ljungqvist paper Marco linked to and the IPCC sentence that you quoted above, that those will result in a more objective depiction of uncertainty. Specifically that the shaded area will be shown based on the SD for each record in the verification interval and the SD between all the records as shown in fig 2A in Ljungqvist and that the records will all be independent. In contrast, reading the first link in #8, the paragraph explaining figure 6.10c lacks an explanation of the overlap of the inputs (non-independence) in the reconstructions. I disagree that SE width is arbitrary to any meaningful extent because the standard deviation can be calculated by reconstruction and across reconstructions as shown in the Ljungqvist paper Marco linked in #16. Ljungqvist states the relevant fact that 2 SD's is +/- 0.12 degrees in the verification interval. There are other uncertainties that are missing from that assessment like the verification interval applicability, measurement issues, etc, but at least that one fact is expressed in the text to justify the graph. The corresponding number in Briffa's text is +/- 0.5 degrees. That is what should have been depicted in 6.10c, not a "score" (quotes in original) or a "schematic representation of the most likely course of hemispheric mean temperature change", when in fact what was depicted was the overlap of reconstructions due to having the same inputs.
  28. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel, Solar energy arrives primary in the frequencies of visible & UV light. This passes through CO2 unimpeded. The planet absorbs the energy and re-emits it largely in the IR range (i.e. heat). CO2 and other GHG gases slow down the emission of these frequencies to outer space. This causes a increase of energy at the planet surface, and a cooling of the stratosphere since the rate of energy loss has slowed, until a new equilibrium is reached.
  29. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #116 muoncounter You wrote :- "why does the IR emitted by candle flame disappear when the CO2 is absorbing its IR?" Because the IR from the candle is from a small, high temperature source and the CO2, absorbing the IR, warms only a little because there is much more of it. Given time and a sufficiently sensitive set up, the warming of the CO2 would be detectable - because the CO2 also emits IR and this would show up on an IR imager. A suitably sensitive IR imager may be able to resolve 1/1000K, such devices detect bodies under piles of concrete rubble when looking for earthquake victims. You wrote :- "No, the GHE increases the temperature of the atmosphere." When ever I have read about the GH effect it has been the surface temperature that was the worry. Sorry if I picked you up wrong! You wrote :- " "Surely you notice this post (CBD's #83) is in complete conflict with your MIT link?" In what way? Be specific, without drifting into irrelevancies." In #83 CBDunkerson wrote :- "energy flows into all surrounding objects regardless of their relative temperatures." Whereas the MIT link (section 2) has this :- "No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body" Now the reason 'sole result' is included is because heat pumps and refrigerators do transfer heat from a low temperature to a high one but they require another source of energy over and above the 'energy' they are pumping, thus the energy transfer the bring about is not the 'sole result' or sole action if you will. Thus CBDunkerson's statement contradicts your MIT link.
  30. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    @88, KL says: Oh, OK so the divergence problem is something peculiar only to the 20th century and only after 1960?? And: So it is fine going back to say AD1560, or AD1060 or however old these trees are? And how do we know that? Oh please, KL. For instance: Wilmking, M., R. D'Arrigo, G. C. Jacoby, and G. P. Juday (2005), Increased temperature sensitivity and divergent growth trends in circumpolar boreal forests, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L15715, doi:10.1029/2005GL023331 This recent, widespread divergence in growth response seems unique over the past three centuries, and may relate to different microsite responses of individual trees to temperature-induced drought stress or other factors. Or: K. R. Briffa, T. J. Osborn and F. H. Schweingruber, Large-scale temperature inferences from tree rings: a review These ‘hemispheric’ summer series can be compared with other reconstructions of temperature changes for the Northern Hemisphere over the last millennium. (..) However, in many tree-ring chronologies, we do not observe the expected rate of ring density increases that would be compatible with observed late 20th century warming. This changing climate sensitivity may be the result of other environmental factors that have, since the 1950s, increasingly acted to reduce tree-ring density below the level expected on the basis of summer temperature changes. I found the Mann et al, 2008, Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia paper to contain thoughtful analysis and full of interesting observations. This rather fresh paper (Jesper et al, 2009, Trends and uncertainties in Siberian indicators of 20th century warming) even argues that there is no divergence problem when long term trends are carefully preserved. But there are many more, e.g. Briffa et al. 1998a, 2001, 2002a, 2004. One could go on and on about the divergence problem. So, it's clear that the divergence has been widely discussed in the literature and the papers describe the possible impacts on reconstructions and the basis on which the decision is made to truncate at 1960 instead of leaving the affected proxies out completely. A number of these papers have already been mentioned earlier in this thread and other linked threads, Google Scholar gives access to loads of relevant literature and multiple posters before have tried to point KL to relevant literature. Yet KL still insists not knowing the reasons underlying the decisions. Why, KL, if you care about this, don't you make the effort to educate yourself and read some of the articles presented to you instead of ignoring them and simply piling on more noise in the next post? KL also writes: As far as CRU 'losing' the raw data [..] If I recall correctly, Jones' "lost data" issue was about CRU's local copy of direct temperature readings maintained by other institutes and not about proxy data. It has nothing to do with this topic on proxies... Maybe you conflated those issues with McIntyre's Yamal proxy data which he had for all long time already while still complaining that Jones wouldn't give that same data to him? Although offtopic, it is worth noting that KL is also a bit inaccurate about the time period in which CRU did not backup their original temperature readings. The following quote is from CRU's website: We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data. Perhaps you can remember how much data storage did cost in the 1980's, KL?
  31. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Re: Ken Lambert (90) I too go back a ways, to the days of punch cards, when even a dummy terminal with a baud rate in kb was a pipe dream. Given that, if the "lost" data was already in digital form, I also share your credulity about the 'lack of storage space' just 20 years ago (I was working with near-Gb-sized files saved to tape even then). However, I am not informed enough on that particular aspect to then proceed into conflation & conspiracy. If you can work out some particulars on that aspect & share, I'd be interested in knowing more. Just wanted you to know I thought you had a good point there. The Yooper
  32. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #113 Phil You wrote :- "Clothes do not warm your body, but they do cause your body to warm." Um... not true. While you are alive it is your (fuel burning) metabolism that keeps you warm, your clothing is an insulator that reduces the rate of heat transfer to the ambient, should the ambient be below 37C. If the ambient is above above 37C then you have problems because you cannot switch your metabolism off (well you can, but the problem is to switch it back on again) and, in the absence of any action to change the situation your body temperature may well rise to heatstroke levels. If you cannot switch your metabolism back on, your body will slowly settle to ambient temperature, what ever that happens to be. How long it takes to reach ambient depends on how good an insulator your clothes are. If you are put in a large vacuum flask with mirrored walls to reduce the radiative heat transfer then it might take days; without the mirrored walls - a day? The point is the insulator, be it a woolly blanket, a multilayer mylar sheet or a vacuum container, can only slow down the rate of heat transfer and thus the time taken to reach ambient. Your clothes keep you warm because you are continually replacing the lost heat with your metabolic heat - until you die, of course!
  33. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Re: mspelto (56) Thanks, Mauri, for taking the time to share here. It's always nice to hear the voice of an expert armed with irrefutable evidence. Given that much of Helm (judging from the terrain map) seems to lie in a flatter, more recumbent position, does it have enough mass (thickness) to survive long under the incremental warming expected in the pipeline? How would you expect that to look: stagnation & mass wasting in situ, retreat or a combination of the two? Any thoughts on its "expiration date"? Thanks! The Yooper
  34. Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
    Thanks Albatross, The anomaly chart puts the data in much better perspective. I bookmarked those sites for the future.
  35. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    #105: "a lot of people who doubt CO2 doesn't emit infrared in exact proportion to the amount it absorbs" You accept that CO2 absorbs IR, but now posit that it re-emits in 'exact proportion'? If that were true, why does the IR emitted by candle flame disappear when the CO2 is absorbing its IR? If emission were in 'exact proportion' to absorption, where is that emitted IR in the demo? Or does the IR absorbed remain as kinetic energy in the gas, resulting in increased temperature? -- A result completely consistent with all the other grade school level science experiments showing that a bottle with CO2 attains a higher steady state temperature than a bottle of room air. "But the GHE requires that GH gases increase the temperature of the surface" No, the GHE increases the temperature of the atmosphere. Your parsing of words and inserting phrases that aren't in the question is quite tedious; it isn't contributing to the actual debate -- which is, I suspect, your actual purpose in hijacking this thread. "Surely you notice this post (CBD's #83) is in complete conflict with your MIT link?" In what way? Be specific, without drifting into irrelevancies. This isn't a course in rhetoric. #108: "CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere actually are big players in radiating heat from Earth ... the Earth wouldn't bake if there weren't any GHGs in the atmosphere. The average temperature would not be different" Please substantiate these new claims with something more than a weather satellite image -- which doesn't illustrate whatever your point is.
  36. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    The Skeptical Chymist #154 Dr Trenberth expressed private doubts about the observation system and 'lack of warming' in the Climategate emails. He does touch on the central issue of 'missing heat' on pp25 of his Aug09 paper as follows: "Possibly the heat is being sequestered in the deep ocean below the 900mm depth used for the Argo analyses...........Or the warming is not really present? In this case the blame would point to the atmosphere and cloud changes, and it should be confirmed by CERES and MODIS measurements. However, preliminary estimates for 2006 thru 2008 suggest that net radiation heating increased, which if true exacerbates the imbalance identified here" The fact is that the 'imbalance identified' (0.9W/sq.m) is based on Hansen's 2005 models. Dr Trenberth goes on: "Accordingly another much needed component is the TOA radiation, but CERES data exist only through 2005 and are not yet long or reliable enough to bear on the question" While drawing a picture of an inadequate observation system, and expressing private doubts - he has defended the 'party line' on AGW - a line dependent on Mr Hansen's models. In short he has publicly used the 'its there but we can't measure it' argument. That does not detract from the technical issues he has raised and legitimate discussion of the probability that "the warming is not really present?" (at least for the last 10 years or so)
  37. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    kdkd #89 "Hide" in this instance is a shorthand for "producing a graph that is straightforward for the reader to view and interpret". I assume you are joking with this preposterous explanation. The tree ring issue is not important enough for me to drill down into the proxies and study their methodologies. Whether the MWP was warmer or cooler than the present is not as critical as monitoring OHC, SLR and trying to work out WV-CO2 feedback interactions and the magnitude of TOA imbalances. As far as CRU 'losing' the raw data - the advantage of being 50+ is that you can remember (just) the state of computer technologies going back 30 years. Twenty years ago you could get 1.44MB onto a 3.5" floppy. A big HDD was 340MB. 250MB on a Travan tape drive. 250MB is a lot of data in a simple format of that era. You could store a helluva lot of numbers in simple text files on tapes or even floppies. Lack of storage space seems like a convenient excuse which might impress the kiddies used to GB not MB.
  38. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Phil, I am referring to your posts #98 and #110. In your post #110 you state: "The part of the body under the clothes is emitting just as much heat as the exposed areas" and ask me to comment on this. Unfortunately you fail to provide any evidence to back that assumption. To explain something on the base of pure assumptions is called speculation in contrast to science where explanations are based on facts.
  39. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m @112 If you refer to my post @98 I suggested you explain the temperature distribution, I did not suggest that you describe it. If you do not wish to try, then thats up to you, but doing so should help you with the errors you are making in your comments.
  40. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    The warming is confirmed by glaciers all across Canada it is not just some Bugaboo's. Somebody needs to be at the Helm who understands the implications or there will be few glaciers to steer around.
  41. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel @108 You need to understand the difference between GHGs warms the surface and GHGs cause a warming of the surface These statments are different. My analogy with clothes may help you. Clothes do not warm your body, but they do cause your body to warm.
  42. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Phil, I just answered to your question which was about what a picture showed. The picture itself can only show an image of the radiation that arrived at the camera. Sorry, I thought that to be obvious. To deduce from a picture what it does not show is pure speculation. I try to avoid entering that realm.
  43. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #109 Riccardo, you do not respond about the effect on the Earth's average temperature of removing all the GHGs from the atmosphere, will it go up or down?
  44. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m @101 So areas of the human body that are surrounded by clothes and hair emit less heat than those exposed ? Is that what you're saying ? I'm affraid thats not true. The part of the body under the clothes is emitting just as much heat as the exposed areas (the face, for example). But the clothes are clearly emitting less heat. Whats happened to the rest ?
  45. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    darmobel I meant exactly that. It should not come as surprise, often physics and common language share words with slightly different meaning. GHGs cause a change in the balance of the energy fluxes, but do not directly heat the surface. (Note the difference between energy and heat). It would be more correct to say that the greenhouse effect impedes cooling.
  46. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #107 Riccardo you write:- "I understand its use in common language, but it's not to be taken litterally." I do hope you don't mean this. Either the GHGs cause a warming of the surface or they don't. I have yet to read anything on the GH effect that doesn't posit an actual (literal?) warming of the surface. Since they are found in the atmosphere CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere actually are big players in radiating heat from Earth, you can see how much by looking at IR images of Earth here But the Earth wouldn't bake if there weren't any GHGs in the atmosphere. The average temperature would not be different, only the distribution of temperature would change, given the lack of heat transport from equator to poles by oceans and atmosphere.
  47. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    We often hear people say that GHG warms the surface. I understand its use in common language, but it's not to be taken litterally. Indeed they don't, they only reduce the outgoing flux. It's the unbalanced flux from the sun that makes the surface warmer.
  48. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #98 muoncounter you wrote:- "However, we know that both objects radiate, albeit at different wavelengths. Some of the cooler object's radiation is absorbed by the warmer; however, more total energy is transferred from warmer to colder." Which is fair enough, it is what your MIT link explains. And then for some bizarre reason you appear to make an exception for GHE radiative transfer :- "The 2nd Law is satisfied AND the greenhouse effect still works." (my emphasis) But the GHE requires that GH gases increase the temperature of the surface that is already hotter than the upper troposphere. (The troposphere can only get warmer than the surface in the exceptional condition of temperature inversion.) To get the surface temperature to increase the GH gases would have to cause, as you put it, 'a net transfer of total energy' from the troposphere to the surface. You also cite this post:- #83 CBD Your belief that this means energy can ONLY flow from 'hot' to 'cold' is simply nonsense, and rejected as such by all but the outermost looney fringe of modern physics. with favour. Surely you notice this post is in complete conflict with your MIT link?
  49. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #104 muoncounter you wrote:- "Anyone who still doubts that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation should see this demo..." True, I don't know anybody who thinks CO2 doesn't absorb IR radiation. But there is a large number of people who believe they exist; rather like bad fairies, somewhere out there, trying to prove there is no greenhouse effect. I also know a lot of people who doubt CO2 doesn't emit infrared in exact proportion to the amount it absorbs... Now let us all think hard where these really strange people are to be found!
  50. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    Eric, although I think you're making too much out of one comment from one author attaching it to one graph of the IPPC report, I think the paleoclimate section would be greatly improved with rigorous model intercomparisons and model averaging of the paleoclimate. This exercise is not trivial (not just in comparing the data, but the statistical methods, proxy types, spatial locations, heterogeneity in the time series, etc.; just a nasty missing data problem), and AFAIK, not even done in the literature. I thought Figure 6.10(c) provides a nice coherent picture of the heterogeneity (or homogeneity) in the model reconstructions. The overlap values are something that can be used for future reports. The 10% number was chosen because there are 10 series, and the choice of the width of the SE is always arbitrary (but necessary) to an extent. The thing about the IPCC is, it's just a summary of the current lit. So doing stuff that's not even in the literature is I think overextending the purpose of IPCC. Or maybe the IPCC reports should include them anyways.. that's the authors' to decide. But once the analysis is out there, it will/should be discussed in the IPCC report. The GCM guys are at it already, and I'm sure the paleoclimate folks will follow. Heck, they say this in the conclusions of the paleoclimate section: "Differing amplitudes and variability observed in available millennial-length NH temperature reconstructions, and the extent to which these differences relate to choice of proxy data and statistical calibration methods, need to be reconciled."

Prev  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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