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. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    @Philippe Chantreau: don't you know that underhanded tactics, such as harassing scientists and hacking e-mail accoutns, are A-OK when done by Koch-founded deniers? That's the double standards our contrarian friends here are applying. All's fair in trying to delay action on climate change, it seems...
  2. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    @Camburn: so you have no opinion on the harassment of legitimate scientists by political activists? Should the CRU have been quicker in responding to FoI requests? Probably. Does this affect the science in *any* way? No, it doesn't. AGW is real, and happening.
  3. Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
    Interesting item on the BBC website today : This year is heading to be the hottest or second hottest on record, according to the Met Office. But I imagine the so-called skeptics in the UK will be more fascinated with the cold, snowy weather some parts are experiencing here at the moment. The earliest and most widespread snow showers in, um, 17 years...
  4. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    You can't blame CRU for the way they acted over the release of data to so-called skeptics : they obviously doubted that the requests were made in good faith or with the intention to progress good science. And they were right - what has been done with any of the data released (by CRU or NASA) then and since, except by people involved with sites like ClearClimateCode ? Has any so-called skeptic come up with anything useful or worthwhile ? It doesn't excuse the treatment of FOI requests but it is obvious that any organisation not used to such requests would not be adept at handling them, especially the numbers involved. And CRU acknowledge their failings so things will be better from now on, won't they ? End of story.
  5. It's not bad
    Nice article in 25 Nov NYT: Front-Line City in Virginia Tackles Rise in Sea Like many other cities, Norfolk was built on filled-in marsh. Now that fill is settling and compacting. In addition, the city is in an area where significant natural sinking of land is occurring. The result is that Norfolk has experienced the highest relative increase in sea level on the East Coast — 14.5 inches since 1930, according to readings by the Sewells Point naval station here. Nah, its not bad.
  6. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Philippe Chantreau #156 "which if true exacerbates the imbalance identified here" There is your answer. If the real imbalance is higher than 0.9W/sq.m and we can only account for 0.55W/sq.m by OHC measurements then this "exacerbates the imbalance identified here". It seems that there are huge problems with the absolute accuracy of satellite measurements and only relative month-month or year-year differences (precision) is useful.
  7. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Re: mspelto Michigan Tech, eh? Thought your name fit in with all da udder Yoopers. :) Thanks for that new image of Helm. Horribly clear the changes time hath wrought. The gap between the existing glacier and the former ice-line shows the massive amount of newly-revealed rock exposed by the demise of Helm. Clearly, not long for this world. I must stress that the weather we experienced this summer was just that: weather. It tie in with the other markers of warming in evidence throughout the world and in my small corner of it. But it is a sample size of one. But a clear result of: little winter ice w/ daily temp anomalies running 6-10 degrees F above historical, coupled with little snowfall and an early spring followed by an early summer (believe it or not, 70s & 80s typical in mid-April to mid-May followed by 90s in May with 70s & 80s throughout the end of August, when I did the "Yoop". There must be some positives in a warming world, eh? Thanks, for all you do, A Yooper
  8. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Seems we had contrarian parties ignoring the spirit of FOI rules on one side and CRU doing the same on the other side in response to those requests. This is understandable though unadvisable.
  9. Philippe Chantreau at 00:09 AM on 27 November 2010
    Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    The requests were sent in bad faith as part of an organized campaign of harassment by an individual with a track record of misusing and distorting data. It was damn if you do, damn if you don't. If they had released all the data, it would have been misused and distorted. "Skeptics" have only demonstrated with this stupid fake scandal that anything goes, and they have all the freedom they want, since they are not held to the standards that scientists have to follow. This miserable anti-science campaign bears no resemblance whatsoever with a true scientific debate.
  10. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    In my years at Michigan Tech, I am sure I never managed even 4 minutes, and I am pretty cold tolerant. Your question motivated me to find a new image for Helm Glacier and add to that discussion. The additional explanation is near the bottom of the post. The bottom line Helm Glacier does not have a consistent accumulation zone and cannot survive without it.
  11. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    The topic is FOI requests and thier fulfillment. The fulfillment was not done properly. CRU was wrong by not doing so. Yes, it is really that plain and simple.
  12. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    After you've finished this series, it would be great if you stopped playing to the deniers' game by referring to the stolen CRU emails as 'climategate'. It suggests malfeasance in the name. You're basically helping to spread the propaganda.
  13. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    "It is that plain and simple." Perhaps; I'm not sure. The question, though, is is it relevant? Would you consider that it invalidates a scientific paper given at a conference if the researcher's car is getting a parking ticket while they're speaking? Or, as a better analogy to the situation here, it appears that the speaker's car was parked on a yellow line a couple of years ago while some of the measurements now being reported were being done but it's now too late for a prosecution to legally determine the facts of the matter properly?
  14. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:22 PM on 26 November 2010
    Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    I agree, but ... since the last post on this subject, I would like to summarize: I. "Practices" used in line: the CRU - the IPCC; has been criticized not only by the scientists global warming skeptics. II. They have undermined confidence in other than a hockey stick - the MWP, the findings of the IPCC. For example, many here (by the way) said of the independent lines of evidence that climate sensitivity to changes p.CO2. Skeptics immediately after Climategate - in January - March 2010, once again, as the main argument against AGW (which is still interesting, "literally" lack of it on the list Sc. S., unless it indirectly, 33 and 88) “raised” objections to the ice core : Does Algae Reduce the Ice Core CO2?, Ice Core CO2 Records - Ancient Atmospheres Or Geophysical Artifacts ?
  15. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Freedom of the press is different from freedom of information, which in turn is quite different from an invasion of privacy.
  16. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #139 Albatross Yes a typo, -50C at 10km, more strength to my argument, it puts -60C to -80C between the the bottom and top of the troposphere, where then is this GHG warming effect coming from? Your link to Rabbet is very informative, of high altitude GHG emissions (CO2 etc), he says:- "Below that level, energy emitted by a greenhouse gas molecule is soon absorbed by another relatively nearby one. Thus the energy simply cannot be radiated to space to balance the incoming solar energy." which satisfies all observations of molecular absorption and emission. But don't you notice that this kills off the 'back radiation' nonsense? There are plenty of gases, the so-called greenhouse gases, that emit and absorb radiation; Rabbet is acknowledging that adjacent GHG molecules will absorb GHG emitted photons. To a non-climatologist this means that the thermal equilibrium of a gas is not disturbed by the phenomenon of molecular emission/absorption; a climatologist does not notice the absorption part of the phenomenon and claims that the emitted photons are not absorbed in the atmosphere but somehow, contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, bunch together to form a radiative flux downwards to Earth's surface. Thank you for the link. This phenomenon was explained by Einstein in his 1917 paper on emission and absorption, Rabbet is the first person I have come across who recognises this reality in popular literature. Re #142 muoncounter, you also link to Rabbet and further to Jelbring on how heat is distributed in a gravitationally retained atmosphere. In your link to Rabbet you will find a further link to Steve Goddard's thread on the matter of atmospheres, gravitation and temperatures, there are currently over 400 postings and they make interesting reading. Given the vigorous discussion, your claim that "Rabbett took it down" is just absurd. Would you care to say what Rabbet wrote that convinced you? I am not interested who writes something, I need to know the argument used. Please tell me which part of Rabbet's post convinced you, I would like to check it out. The same with Jelbring.
  17. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    My opinion on the apparent coordinated harassment via staged FOI requests isn't the issue. The issue is that CRU did not follow FOI requests. It is that plain and simple.
  18. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    What is your opinion on the apparent coordinated harassment via staged FoI requests? Were they right - were the FoI requests for the purpose of distorting & misusing the information? e.g. "The warmest year on record was 1934, not 1998!" - Steve McIntyre How does the impropriety of not following FoI requests properly affect the past 150 years of published scientific research, of which the CRU is a small segment?
  19. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    The main thing that can't be glossed over is that CRU didn't follow FOI requests. It is that plain and simple.
  20. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    #60: "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." For having once dared to enter the waters of Lake Superior in the summer (1986 to be precise), I have to say that is a dramatic development indeed.
  21. Philippe Chantreau at 16:15 PM on 26 November 2010
    The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    "the probability that "the warming is not really present?" If you stick to Trenberth' own opinion, that bit is unlikely per your own quote: "However, preliminary estimates for 2006 thru 2008 suggest that net radiation heating increased" We've touched before on how measurement data must be treated when used with a physics based model, the problems with UAH data demonstrated how that goes.
  22. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    A reminder to those floating red herrings about alleged lost data: "No off topic comments. Stick to the subject at hand. If you have something to say about an unrelated topic, use the Search form in the left margin to find the appropriate page."
  23. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    @KL: "The AGW case argues that massive changes to global energy use is urgently required. This involves huge economic and political challenge for all countries." Actually, transitioning away from fossil fuels is not only an imperative from the point of view of AGW theory (which you have yet to successfully challenge in all these months spent here), but it is also a strategic necessity. Oh, and AGW theory isn't based on lost data, but on sound, verified science. The fact that the original, non-normalized data (still available from national weather services) is or isn't in CRU's possession is completely irrelevant. It's a red herring, just like pretty much your entire contribution to this site. One year later, it's clear to anyone who knows anything about the science that Climategate was a fake scandal. The fact that it has pretty much disappeared from public consciousness - replaced by damning ties between climate denialist billionnaires and the Tea Party - is clear testimony that this particular act of disinformation by unscrupulous political activists has been relegated to the dustbin of history.
  24. How does global warming affect polar bears?
    The headlines one reads these days... Polar Bears Unlikely to Survive in Warmer World, Biologists Say. (Source study available here) In a hundred years the headlines will say: The Last Polar Bear Died Today In The San Diego Zoo; Cause Of Death = Air-Conditioning Failure Story Subheading: Now They Exist Only In Our Memories The Yooper
  25. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Re: muoncounter (61) Thanks for the links. Dunno the next time I'll get to complete a "Yoop" (I was picking rocks to be used in keepsake necklaces for the participants in the 1st Annual Marquette Marathon held over Labor Day Weekend this year - my wife was the organizer and Race Director). Neat video. Strange that it was just back in June of '96 we still had chunks of ice floating in the bay... The Yooper
  26. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    #60: "I spent 4 1/2 hours (single immersion) in Lake Superior on a family outing" Hey, a new unit to measure climate change: 4 1/2 hours on a bath water day in The Big Lake = one Yoop. Interesting article from the Science Museum of Minne-sodahere, including time lapse satellite photos of the lack of winter ice. Temperature ranges on Superior have been recorded for more than three decades. In recent years, the normal average surface temperature for Lake Superior during the month of August has been only 55°, so this dramatic rise [68° F in the second week of August] in the average is unusual.
  27. It's cooling
    daybyday wrote : "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." What expertise do you believe that this geologist has that makes him relevant to your opinion ? I believe he stated it would be cooling by now - compare that with the NASA data above, and you might be interested in this review of his work. daybyday wrote : "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." Do you have any evidence for those "green meadows" and that "longer growing season" ? You should read further on this website, particularly : Positives and negatives of global warming Greenland used to be green PDO daybyday wrote : "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?" There are no secrets but you do need to know how to look at the data, how to use it and how not to use it. It is also best if you avoid some of the more dodgy AGW denial sites out there, and check anything that you use in your posts, to make sure that you are posting information that can be backed-up or confirmed, especially by yourself.
  28. It's cooling
    daybyday wrote : "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." Not been warming up ? Since when ? What were the "facts and figures" you looked up ? Can you give more detail ? daybyday wrote : "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." Are you just looking at the data for individual months and determining a trend from that ? Not good. A month, while more interesting than a week, day, hour, etc. is too short a time period to be comparing temperature data if you want to make assertions of any value. A collection of months is better; a number of years is better; 30 years is even better. The reason why months are "combined" is because they eventually add up to a year - combine years and you get a decade, etc. The more the better. The reason why NASA mention 1880 is because 1880 is the year their temperature records start from. Nothing to do with scaring anyone. If their records started in 1780, they would then say 'since 1780'. Simple as that. You should also notice that the temperature trend has been up since that time. Here is their latest monthly statement : For January–October 2010, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.4°F) and tied with 1998 as the warmest January–October period on record. That's why it is also worthless to highlight records for any particular spot on the planet. Records are always being set in individual places but, as in the way you highlighted months above, it is more relevant to look at records which encompass more than one place, state, country, region, etc., and records which follow a pattern, rather than being one-offs, etc.
  29. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    #125: "The death knell of the GHG hypothesis really is the effect of gravity on the atmosphere." Had you disclosed that you were a devotee of that idea sooner, this wouldn't have gone on this long. Rabbett took it down back in May. Are you a student of Jelbring? If so, why didn't you say so -- at least that was a published reference. "Svensmark's cloud hypothesis has far greater traction" Another idea shot down in flames. #135: "no real difference between the thrown ball and an air molecule" Ah, the heat at the surface is due to all that liberated gravitational potential energy, just like a ball that fell to the ground... Except the air molecules in question have not fallen from the top of the atmosphere. Or did you mean that since PV=nRT, the higher surface pressure results in higher temperature? Someone kicked that around here not that long ago, but I don't have the thread handy. So we must choose: Perhaps Clausius knew of a patent issued for an evaporative refrigerator (which depended on reducing the 'caloric' content of fluids -- it's online) and was thus motivated to include the words 'sole result' in thermodynamic theory. And Damorbel is the only one who knows this... but that renders the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics kind of trivial. Or perhaps 'sole result' refers to net energy transfer, elevating the work of Clausius to that of the key discoveries of science. Just like the words net force occupy the central place in Newton's 2nd Law, elevating that to the level of Law. #123: "I try to explain, if I am not understood I try to work out why" Here's a suggestion: Try to listen to what other people are saying and digest what they are asking. Then avoid repeating the same explanation without offering any substantiation.
  30. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    KL #94 #90 I see you're still exclusively interested in the temperature/heat data. It is possible to take the analysis from a different viewpoint. Why don't we look at all non-temperature/heat content data comprising evidence for anthropogenic warming. In this comment I indicated a few variables which are completely 100% independent of the temperature/heat content record which are also evidence for anthropogenic climate change. So the way to test your hypotheses that the temperature record is unreliable, and that the OHC/TOA data contradicts the theory of anthrpogenic warming) is to ascertain whether these independent lines of evidence contradict the temperature data provide support for your hypothesis. I strongly suspect that they do not. This way we dodge the uncertainties inherrent in the various temperature/heat content records, but still retain a rigorous approach to understanding the evidence. At the moment your analysis lacks sufficient rigour.
  31. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    cynicus #92 A thoughtful and detailed comment cynicus. I started running computers in my business in 1981. 8" floppies and Winchester HDD existed which I would suggest would easily have held all the time series temperature data CRU worked with in that era right up to the present. A station, date, time and temperature in simple format would occupy a very small amount of electronic space. 5" floppies could hold 1.2MB (from memory). A large piece of software in the late 1980's would load from 6 x 5" floppies. I did not say that CRU lost data on the proxies. "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" I thought Jones was quoted as saying that they did not have the resources to reconstruct that data. Nothing about 'once again has a copy'. Has it been confirmed that someobody else had a copy which could be restored to CRU?? If no, what this means is that someone has to re-assemble all the data from the 'original proprietors or sources' which would be national weather services etc. I would have thought that was a pretty big job. The AGW case argues that massive changes to global energy use is urgently required. This involves huge economic and political challenge for all countries. You are arguing that key raw data upon which this case was constructed was lost due to 'moving offices'. I can read Captain Cook's 'raw' log from his voyage of discovery of Australia (1769-70), Darwin's 'raw' account of the voyage of the Beagle, Elizabeth 1's 'raw' latin lessons and letters to her father - but not Phil Jones' 'raw' data from 25 years ago. Hello??
  32. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    All, Here is an online MODTRAN applet maintained by Dr. Archer. Have fun.
  33. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Bibliovermis and Phil, Are you really saying that incoming radiation from the sun is not effected by greenhouse gases? Want to bet?
  34. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Damorbel, "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." I'm not going to argue with you. Maybe it was a typo or maybe it was a very revealing slip-- but the troposphere doesn't extend to 50 km. The mid troposphere is typically deemed to be around 500 mb or around 5.5 km where temps. are typically near -20 C. Temperatures are -55 C or so between 11 km and 20 km. At 50 km you are in the stratopause where temps are a balmy -5 C or so. Surely you read that in the many books that you claim to have read. Maybe the wise rabbet can explain all this to you.
  35. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RE# 137 AWoL The effect of this gas,at 0.028% of the atmosphere is negligible. Please offer a citation in peer reviewed literature that claims this is the case. For if it is you would need to explain to the reader how Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation are incorrect.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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).
  39. 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
  40. 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.
  41. 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
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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
  45. 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?
  46. 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.
  47. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    "Anything that interferes with heat transfer can be an insulator of greater or lesser effectiveness." Indeed.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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?

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