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  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  Next

Comments 103501 to 103550:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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/
  5. 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.
  6. 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!
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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?
  16. 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
  17. 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!
  18. 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
  19. Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
    Thanks Albatross, The anomaly chart puts the data in much better perspective. I bookmarked those sites for the future.
  20. 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.
  21. 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)
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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?
  29. 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 ?
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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?
  34. 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!
  35. 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."
  36. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    Eric, Phila, yes while "factual" is neutral, my charge of "politically motivated" is not neutral. Actually, the claim that it's factual isn't neutral either. It's a positive opinion, and it's increasingly contradicted by straightforward evidence that you clearly have the ability, if not the will, to read and understand. You're free to believe whatever you want. But please don't pretend you're being neutral while you're taking a position of advocacy. And please don't request neutrality from us while making scattershot accusations of a "politically motivated" attack on Wegmen.
  37. actually thoughtful at 16:00 PM on 25 November 2010
    Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    #2 fydijkstra - the better analogy is this: You get a chest x-ray and it shows a fuzzy mass . One doctor says it is an artifact of the equipment, one says it is lung cancer. You now have a fact with two different interpretations. The interpretation you choose has serious repercussions for how you live your life, and how long that life is. You get a 2nd opinion (all the other scientists who are telling us AGW is real and needs to be dealt with). You wonder if their process is valid - you go to yet other Doctors (in different fields) to review the process (the 6 reviews that showed Mann et. al. were simply doing good science). So you now have 2 opinions that tell you the exact same thing and a team of trusted Doctors in other fields telling you the process is robust. Now you can talk about skeptics and pro-cancerists (aka warmists). The skeptics choose to believe there is no cancer - it could be a bad x-ray (even though you have now had 3 different x-rays, from 3 different machines, and an MRI to boot - all showing the identical lump (well, actually, the lump has grown in the time you have been studying it)). And, your body is producing the exact same chemicals it would IF you had cancer. And you have the pro-cancerists. These crazy coots believe you actually have cancer! It must be politically motivated. Or they just want your money. Or something. So - it is your life. Do you "believe" the skeptics or the pro-cancerists? That is a much better analogy then some "gee-the-truth-is-in-the-middle" pablum. There are real, verified facts as the basis of AGW claims. And the more you look, the more clear their conclusions become.
  38. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Daniel Bailey (#52), The Christidis, N., Donaldson, G.C. and Stott, P.A. 2010 paper says: "The decrease in CRM [Cold Related Mortality] far outweighs the moderate increase in HRM [Heat Related Mortality] after 1976." This is what CO2Science is saying and it is contrary to the IPCC position. The quote you cited as a refutation relates to causation. Is the observed effect (CRM >> HRM) a result of temperature alone or is adaptation an important factor?
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Read the Christidis paper for that answer.
  39. Philippe Chantreau at 15:56 PM on 25 November 2010
    Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    I wonder how Wegman would respond to a barrage of FOIA requests akin to that used against UEA...
  40. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    It might be instructive to read Atmoz' take on PDO: On the Relationship between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Global Average Mean Temperature. [Edit: After much searching, I finally was able to resurrect a cached copy of this post on PDO by Tamino: Exclamation Points !!! as well as this one: PDO: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. End edit] The Yooper
  41. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    52: "CO2Science should change its name" The principals behind CO2Science have a rap sheet at sourcewatch, including a name on the good ol' Oregon Petition. At Arizona State, they did some early research into urban CO2 domes -- Phoenix had 200ppm more than Mauna Loa back in 2000 -- and they maintain a nice collection of urban CO2 dome papers. See the human fingerprints thread for some examples.
  42. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Daniel Bailey (#52), You said, "PS: My understanding is that we're in an interglacial of an ongoing ice age. Kinda like remission from cancer (with CO2 being the "cure")." Are you saying that changing CO2 concentrations caused the glaciers to recede?
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] My comment was half-based in fact (technically we are still in an ice age; see here) and half-throwoff-humor. However, mankind does have it within its power to keep the return of the glaciated portion of the ice ages at bay by (in the absence of changes in other forcings) keeping atmospheric CO2 levels elevated. And no, I'm not saying that changing CO2 concentrations caused the glaciers to recede; that one was you.
  43. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Re: gallopingcamel (51) Thanks for the link to CO2Science's take on Christidis, N., Donaldson, G.C. and Stott, P.A. 2010. This is CO2Science's position on the paper:
    "Warming is highly beneficial to human health, even without any overt adaptation to it. And when adaptations are made, warming is incredibly beneficial in terms of lengthening human life span."
     Cross-referencing back to Christidis, N., Donaldson, G.C. and Stott, P.A. 2010, this is what they have to say:
    "The need for a formal statistical tool when one attempts to make attribution statements that link impacts of climate change to possible causes is clear. A less stringent approach could be very misleading. For example, it would be easy to compare the recent decrease in cold-related mortality with the increase in temperature and make the seemingly logical assumption that fewer people have died because of milder winters. Our work, however, shows that this is not the case.
     Underlining and bolding added. I think it's quite clear that we have a "skeptical" spin on an attribution study that is at odds with its conclusions from those of the authors of the study. Based on CO2Science's miss-take of the attribution study in question (which doesn't conclude what CO2Science says it does, according to the study itself), CO2Science then states, based on one study, that:
    "Clearly, the IPCC's "very-high-confidence" conclusion is woefully wrong.
     The conclusion I draw is clear: CO2Science should change its name to CO2CrapScience. PS: My understanding is that we're in an interglacial of an ongoing ice age. Kinda like remission from cancer (with CO2 being the "cure"). The Yooper
  44. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    WDWK #21 I've done this type of regression analysis on a range of variables (solar variation, volcanic activity, ENSO and CO2 from memory. I found the only statisticaly significant predictors were CO2 and solar variation for annual mean temperature data. The effect of ENSO was miserably small, even in the context that it was not statistically significant, indicating that it's involved in the redistribution of heat, not a sink/store phenomenon. In the early 20th century, solar accounted for the majority of variance, and in the late 20th century, CO2 did. There were also some interesting non-linearities in the system indicating poorer predictive power (underestimating anomaly) with increasing CO2 concentration. Happy. Feel free to replicate it. The data and some of the R code I used for analysis is here. Disclaimer: I used the methods I'm used to as a social scientist rather than more 'correct' (or convention bound to your taste) methods that an earth scientist would use, so my results, while in good agreement with the peer reviewed literature, are only really worthwhile as an impressionistic analysis. However, given that limitation, they are in good agreement with the published literature.
  45. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    KL #88 "So it is fine going back to say AD1560, or AD1060 or however old these trees are? And how do we know that?" Good agreement with ice core data and other proxies. More recently (pre-1960) you can show that the thermometer record and the tree ring proxies are in good agreement, but after that there's a decline in reliability of the proxies. So hiding the decline refers to this. "Hide" in this instance is a shorthand for "producing a graph that is straightforward for the reader to view and interpret". I suspect that given that there is good independent validation with other records, reverse engineering the original raw data would be seen as an ineffective use of limited resources. If the CRU had realised that the data set was going to be so important, they would have curated is better in the early days (I hit that problem from time to time with my work too, although these days I have a very effective process).
  46. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Daniel Bailey (#36), Thanks for the welcome! I have been too busy to blog lately even though my visit to NOAA was very informative with regard to what is going on at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere. Yes, I did read all the links on this thread but was not persuaded. The weighing of extreme cold vs. extreme heat depends on who is doing the weighing. Taking the big picture, by which I mean "Ice Age" vs. "Interglacial" there is nothing to debate. North America was a very inhospitable place during the last ice age owing to the extent of the Laurentide glacier. Looking at the present day things are not so clear cut as there are plenty of studies that support Ned's thesis. However, for a contrary point of view take a look at this: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N46/B1.php
  47. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Albatros #85 "Nothing nefarious is going on here; really there isn't. And the data were not "simply" discarded as you claim. As you and others have been told multiple times, several papers have been written on the "divergence problem" going back to 1998." Oh, OK so the divergence problem is something peculiar only to the 20th century and only after 1960?? So it is fine going back to say AD1560, or AD1060 or however old these trees are? And how do we know that? Furthermore - we all seem to agree that Jones 'lost' the original raw data - and we could reconstruct it by taking CRU's reconstruction and 'back-winding' it using Jones' documented correction methods in the published literature? Has anyone done that in order to verify what the raw data was, and whether it had been 'corrected' correctly?
    Moderator Response: The divergence from temperatures since the 1960s is seen in only some tree ring series, in particular those at high northern latitudes. However, both the diverging and non-diverging tree rings are in good agreement back to the Medieval Warm Period. – James
  48. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    Warming only since 1970... You can't simply draw a straight regression line through any data that has a trend... you need to detrend it first! 1) First of all you need to de-trend the global temp since it has a has an annual cycle. 2) you then need to de-trend it based on the PDO and ENSO long term cycles (which are multiple cycles in it self and by it self) 3) after that you need to do a trend-reversal analsys to make sure that your data isn't experiencing different signs of slope for certain periods of time. 4) Finally, you can then do simple linerar regression through all the data with the same slopes (so if global temperatures have changes of sign-of-slope, then you can't run linear regression through the entire data set. That's just plain wrong, but done so frequently it's amazing. 5) Now please go and do that and please then come back and tell me how much of the increase in temp since ~1970 can be explained by any and each of the variables: PDO, ENSO, CO2 etc. ps: even the oceanic heat content has a cycle. Can you calculate it? All the data is freely available and all these statistics are relatively easy to perform for an expert. It will take some data transformation, blood, sweat and tears, but only by doing it yourself can you trust your own analysis. Please note that I've never said that there is no global warming/climate change (due to excess anthropogenic CO2 emissions). I am only conveying the importance of oceanic long term cycles on the little over a hundred year of direct observations. These cycles should not be dismissed and in fact can only help in explaining the observations. The better we understand our observations, the better we can act if necessary. Any of the trends in ENSO, PDO and global temperatures I've presented so far are solid and a fact! Still they don't say there is no human induced global warming, that's a deducted PERCEPTION. See the difference?
  49. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    WDWK #18 The PDO merely redistributes heat. It is not a heat input into the earth's atmosphere. It's action is complex and/or chaotic. With the state of our current knowledge of the PDO it's very difficult to say what it's behaviour will be as a consequence of climate change, but it does seem to help create temperature extremes (high and low), so is an important noise component in the system. When I looked at the statistical behaviour of the PDO compared to temperature anomaly, I could not draw any conclusions from the simple methodology I employed.
  50. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    I'd like to see a post on the general CRU hack incident that simply states what should be obvious to anyone that takes a step back: if ANYONE had most of the emails that they wrote (presuming they use email regularly) over the past 10+ years stolen and placed in the hands of individuals badly wanting to embarass them, those individuals would almost surely find something. Aside from being able to easily take things out of context, forming a "greatest hits" to support a certain narrative, I doubt that many of us who use email regularly can honestly say we've never written anything via email that we at least moderately regret or believe could have been worded differently or more clearly. Eric (#30), "BTW, it appears that Wegman has been instructed to not comment" He had been. No longer I guess. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned_N.htm His email correspondence related to the Wegman Report have mysteriously disappeared at GMU. What happened to that transparency he claimed to advocate?

Prev  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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