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  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  2079  2080  2081  2082  2083  2084  Next

Comments 103801 to 103850:

  1. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m writes: Ned, thanks, that sounds better. Thanks! It is not the terminology that confuses me but your use of it. As I understand it infra-red is rather large radiation spectrum that then had been subdivided for more precise meaning (near infra-red and thermal infra-red being two of them). Sorry, I work with this stuff every day in my job, so I may be a bit casual in how I talk about it. The term "infrared" is ambiguous, because it is used to refer to a very broad range of the EM spectrum ... but there are hugely important differences in the origins and behavior of "infrared" radiation within the Earth's atmosphere. You asked a very natural question -- if greenhouse gases warm the Earth by blocking outgoing (emitted) radiation, shouldn't they also correspondingly cool the Earth by blocking incoming (solar) radiation? The answer to that question is one of the key principles of the greenhouse effect: given the current composition of the atmosphere, adding greenhouse gases has little direct effect on the wavelengths that comprise 99% of the downwelling solar radiation (visible, near-infrared, and shortwave infrared ... i.e., everything below 3 micrometers). However, it does have a significant direct effect on the wavelength range that comprises > 99% of the outgoing emitted radiation from the Earth (longwave infrared). So, to first order, adding CO2 to the existing atmosphere directly reduces outgoing radiation but doesn't directly reduce incoming radiation. That produces the warming effect. Notice all those "directs" and "directlys" in there? That's because the indirect effects of greenhouse gases include some feedbacks (involving water vapor and changes to cloud-albedo) that do influence incoming short-wavelength irradiance. This is the largest source of uncertainty in IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity. But these feedbacks are secondary effects and are almost certainly not large enough to counter the effects of CO2 warming. See here for a discussion of water vapor and here for a comparison of the magnitude of different forcings such as CO2 vs clouds.
  2. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Phila writes: But I do think we're at the point where conspiracy theories could simply be deleted (or edited out of otherwise substantive comments). Normally this site takes a pretty firm line against conspiracy theories of any stripe ("All skeptics are in the pay of Big Oil", "Climate scientists are faking the data"). The problem is that the entire UEA emails brouhaha was basically one nonstop conspiracy theory. So in the current series of posts about the emails, it's hard to enforce the normal rules banning discussion of conspiracy theories -- that's what these threads are about! I do hope that once we've worked through all these UEA emails threads and are back on discussion of the science, people can act like grownups and drop the conspiracy-mongering. IMHO it's like junk food for skeptics -- it tastes sweet, so they gobble it up, but there's no nutritional content.
  3. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Also -- Thanks, Robert. Part of my haste in posting this was that I knew that you, or someone else, would beat me to it if I delayed! :-) As for rates of warming, the current 30-year trend is obviously much steeper than the century-scale trend. But you could probably cherry-pick a 30-year period during the 1920s-1940s with a slope almost as steep as this one ... maybe. I know some people will seize on the idea that this somehow casts doubt on the anthropogenic origins of the current warming, but hopefully most people here will see the logical fallacy in that line of reasoning.
  4. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    muoncounter writes: So that's where all the 'missing heat' has gone! Ned, you've done it again. Heh. Not me! I'm just publicizing some work by CCC that I thought SkS-ers would find interesting. HumanityRules writes: I see the whole Canada station number has doubled but there is no mention in the station number change for the Arctic. Yes, that's true. At the CCC site they have links to the data and the Python code. It would be interesting to see maps of the two distributions of stations.
  5. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    I have a question for anyone regarding the mechanism by which greenhouse gases slow down the radiative cooling process. Am I correct in the following scenario: 1) Outgoing infrared radiation from the surface (oceans, atmosphere, land?)is absorbed at characteristic frequencies by greenhouse gases, promoting them to higher energy excited states. 2) Inelastic collisions between N2 and O2 in the atmosphere and excited greenhouse gases results in energy being transferred to the diatomic molecules as kinetic energy, raising the temperature of the atmosphere and resulting in a net loss of outgoing radiation. 3) The higher temperature in the atmosphere creates a reduced thermal gradient, resulting in slower heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere. 4) Additionally, excited state greenhouse return to ground state by emission of IR radiation in all directions, including downward. Please let me know where I am right or wrong. Thanks.
  6. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Albatross@46: It was not intentional, but a re-read of what I said earlier could be easily interpreted in a much too general a sense, and I can see why some might object to what I said. So let me clarify. I wasn't objecting, by any means. I think we're basically in "violent agreement," as the saying is. KL @47 kdkd and I debated elsewhere that Prof Jones actually 'lost' the original data upon which the main global temperature reconstructions were based - HADCRUT etc. "The original raw data are not “lost.” I could reconstruct what we had from U.S. Department of Energy reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would start with the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete waste of time, though....The documentation of what we’ve done is all in the literature." Apropos of what Albatross was saying above, the armchair psychoanalysis that follows KL's HADCRUT question is a very good example of how "the 'skeptics' have been deviating more and more from the science."
  7. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Moderator, "Prof Jones was subjected to extreme pressure by the media and it no doubt affected his mental state. Such is the lot of someone who provides the scientific basis for a massive global effort to rapidly change from our main source of energy (fossil fuels) to something else." Please, do we really need to entertain these ideological rants? In fact, that quote above could be construed as a veiled threat against anyone working in the field of climate science who supports the theory of AGW.
  8. How significance tests are misused in climate science
    I believe that BP is deeply confused between the difference between sceintific laws, which can be proven in the same way that mathematical theories can be proven, and scientific theories which sometimes rely on scientific laws, but usually rely on chains of induction. Induction, by definition is based on evidence. I suspect his misunderstanding comes from being from an engineering background where consideration of these matters is relatively unimportant. It's worth noting that a lot of the basis of modern computer programming comes from Whitehead and Russel's (1911) theory of logical types, which itself in parts is not amenable to deductive proof, but provides much of the basis for modern functional computer programming (without which we would not have this forum :]). Again the selective ignoring of comments by the so-called sceptic contingent here is instructive, in that BP has chosen to ignore the detailed critique of anti-induction reasoning provided by the very famous statistician Fisher in my comment #77
  9. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Quite right Arkadiusz Semczyszak - you dogged reversion to actual quotations is key to this debate. “His colleagues said that keeping a paper trail was not one of Professor Jones' strong points. Professor Jones told BBC News: "There is some truth in that.” kdkd and I debated elsewhere that Prof Jones actually 'lost' the original data upon which the main global temperature reconstructions were based - HADCRUT etc. Could someone update us on this? Prof Jones was subjected to extreme pressure by the media and it no doubt affected his mental state. Such is the lot of someone who provides the scientific basis for a massive global effort to rapidly change from our main source of energy (fossil fuels) to something else. A rude awakening to the real world of great economies and massive interests indeed - but something inevitable and difficult to handle for a shy academic used to the gentler punch-ups of the academic world.
  10. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    There is a slight disconnect in the CCC work. The station number graph is for the whole of Canada while the temp record is for just Arctic Canada. I see the whole Canada station number has doubled but there is no mention in the station number change for the Arctic.
  11. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Phila @45, Thanks. Good points. It was not intentional, but a re-read of what I said earlier could be easily interpreted in a much too general a sense, and I can see why some might object to what I said. So let me clarify. Of course, like many here, I welcome different points of view which are grounded in science, and also welcome posters genuinely wanting to learn and understand what is going on. Challenging the science is a good thing, but IMHO, it has to be done with sincerity, an open mid (i.e., one must be open to new ideas and willing to change your position) and arguments (from both sides) need to be supported by facts from reputable/trustworthy sources. On the other hand, I think it is not constructive to address comments which are clearly baiting people, or which allude to conspiracies etc., especially when unsupported and when said myth has been refuted over-and-over again. Can the 'skeptics' please check their conspiracies at the door, and leave that sort of nonsense for the tabloids? FWIW, I have learnt much by observing from the side lines here, and have only recently plucked up the courage to actually post on certain topics to which I think I can add some value. SS is one of the very few web sites where one can come and discuss climate science without it spiraling into a food fight and yelling match, and where one can avoid threads being hi-jacked or spammed with unsupported conspiracy theories. John and the moderators have done an incredible job in that regard-- it must require a lot of work and diligence to achieve that. That said, I have noticed in the last few weeks that the 'skeptics' have been deviating more and more from the science, and while that might simply be a sign that they are becoming increasingly desperate, it spoils the experience for others and detracts from the science. Hopefully things will get back on track once the anniversary of SwiftHack passes.
  12. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Albatross: I think it is time to start ignoring KL and the other 'skeptics' here...really what is the point? They are not making any substantive contributions to these threads, but just parroting myths and fallacious contrarian speaking points. I hope it's not out of line to say that I currently can't take any of the regular "skeptics" here very seriously, or see them as adequately honest or coherent in their approach to the evidence for AGW. That said, arguments that have some basis in fact or logic do deserve a response, IMO. As do disagreements, honest or otherwise, about the correct course of action. But I do think we're at the point where conspiracy theories could simply be deleted (or edited out of otherwise substantive comments). And I'd interpret "conspiracy theory" pretty broadly, to include (for instance) darmorbel's attempt at mind-reading in #23. There's really nothing constructive or interesting about this sort of slanderous, evidence-free rhetoric. It's very easy for me to say this, of course. I don't have to do the work or make the decisions!
  13. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    darmorbel wrote : "The Muir Russell inquiry was bending over backwards not to cause damage to fellow academics by giving them as much benefit of the doubt as possible but they could not in conscience fail to note the glaring inconsistencies in the work of CRU and by extension the reports of the IPCC. The inquiry members knew full well that the consequences of such an omission would have destroyed their own reputations, they were only too aware of what would happen if the did not cover all aspects of the affair should their report be examined in detail like I am doing now." Ah, the crux of the matter, as far as you're concerned : it was all a big conspiracy (along with all those other enquiries, which came to the same result), but you have exposed the hidden truth by your dogged determination. Of course.
  14. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Yocta @41, Thanks. It does get awfully tiresome playing at whack-a-mole though. Fortunately this site is frequented by many informed and dedicated people/scientists, so we all share the burden. Anyhow, it is encouraging that the efforts of people like JMurphy and others are not going unnoticed. Here is a Google search for those wanting to read up on the alleged "hidden" divergence problem.
  15. Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
    Thank you for the interesting site. My question is related to the effectiveness of the current proposals to limit/reduce CO2 emissions, I hope this is the right thread. My concern is that Global Warming is a serious threat to the earth and there is very little being done about it. I am skeptical that the various proposed measures will have any material effect on carbon emissions. These mechanisms seem to be based on imposing extra costs onto the various methods of producing atmospheric CO2. 1. The price elasticity of demand of energy does not appear to be linear. Increased energy costs are simply passed on and resources are diverted away from other areas. In New Zealand the price of petrol has doubled in the past two years with no drop off in demand. The price increases have just diverted spending away from other areas. Also none of the extra tax collected has gone to helping develop alternatives or even cycle lanes. 2. For the developing countries it seems reasonable to assume that they will just not comply with international demands for capping CO2. If trade sanctions are imposed it will create a black market for exports from these countries similar to what happens with the sale of prohibited goods in other markets [ie through intermediaries]. It would appear that the current proposed measures will have the following effects: 1. Allow for the imposition of trade barriers from non-compliant low cost producers ie the developing world 2. Allow governments to impose additional taxes 3. Allow traders and exchanges to profit from carbon trading IMO none of these measures will help reduce carbon. I understand that increasing price is supposed to encourage innovation. But as energy costs have been increasing dramatically in the absence of any new carbon taxes and scientists have been trying to develop low cost alternatives to fossil fuels for some time. It would seem unlikely that the incremental costs will not spur any additional research in the area. While I am not opposed to protectionism, increased government taxes, and greater profits for large banks, [per se], in my opinion these will do little to effect carbon emissions. Summary It really doesn't matter what the cause of global warming is. The important thing is "that" the earths surface temperature is increasing. The dominant strategy for man is to find practical ways that the earths surface temperature can be reduced. If less CO2 reduces warming we should reduce CO2 [although this is probably easier said than done]. If there are other things we can do to promote cooling we should do them as well. Rather than arguing about what the cause of warming is, scientists should be devoting all their resources to finding alternative methods of global cooling rather than just focusing on carbon.
  16. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    darmorbel wrote : "In order to maintain this dendrochronological fiction, the instrumental records were substituted for the dendrochronological ones in the 20thC part without identifying that they were quite different since the method and location of the measurements were different; like was not being compared with like." This is quite a confusing sentence. To make yourself clearer, could you answer the following questions : Do you believe all "dendrochronological" data is fiction, or are you referring to a particular set of data ? Do you believe that "dendrochronological" data (i.e. temperature reconstruction) gives a more accurate reading for temperature in the 20th Century than thermometers ? Have you ever heard of the Divergence Problem ? What are you referring to when you write "the method and location of the measurements were different" ?
  17. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    RE# 24 Albatros and others: I would hate you guys to give up. I don't have enough time to contribute much to SS but I always make time to read through the comments. So whilst trying to appeal directly to contrarians might seem to be in vain, it is the casual fence sitters that your comments will reach out too. Time and time again by reading through the comments one can easily deduce that the 'skeptics' are not in the business of trying to educate the reader. It is one thing to cry out and disagree with data, methods or 3 or 4 lines of an email but another thing to give evidence based reasons. The best comments on this site always link to peer reviewed papers or other relevant information (Something the skeptics can't seem to do). Don't let the mariner shoot you down! At length did cross an Albatross, Thorough the fog it came;
  18. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    JMurphy @ 25: I think this website should be more aware of such tactics (maybe you are ?) and not allow false and baseless assertions be made time and again by the same posters. I tend to agree. Although to be fair, I can see how it might be too much work to go back and check whether "skeptic" A already made assertion X in a previous thread. I do think all comments that rant about "hiding the decline" could be deleted with no ill effect. The facts here are easily accessible to laypeople, and there's no excuse for getting them wrong at this point. IMO, complaining about this "trick" should be treated as a willful, baseless accusation of dishonesty, and deleted accordingly. If we can't move beyond an argument that's so obviously absurd, it's hard to see how we can make any progress on more complex topics.
  19. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    DavidCOG... Once a word like this is in the vernacular it's almost impossible to remove. It's there, we have to accept it. BUT what we can do is turn that word's meaning around. With time I believe "climategate" is going to become synonymous with "manufactured scandal."
  20. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Can someone please remove post 43 and change the posting software so that the comment field returns blank after a post is submitted. Thanks. KR, I just saw your post stating: Currently the difference between incoming and outgoing is something like +0.9 W/m^2, hence the observed global warming. I don't know what the correct numbers would be, but don't you think that we might need some of that energy to drive the climate system (winds, ocean currents, rainfall etc.). A lot of chemical processes need energy. Last, but not least is the biosphere of this planet depending on energy. All these energies won't show up at outgoing radiation. I'm not sure but there might be even more to be added to that difference due to the entropy implied in thermodynamics.
  21. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-h, see this Global Heat Flows" diagram.
  22. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Clearly you didn't understand my previous damorbel, or are willfully misreading it. My point is that Dendrochronology alone should *never* be used as a substitute for *real* temperature data, where it is available, & this divergence issue proves it. As I said, there is strong evidence to suggest that sustained drought can result in a significant reduction in tree-ring size. To claim that Satellite & Ground Based temperature readings are less reliable than tree-rings, though, is arrant contrarian *nonsense*. After *years* of trying to debunk ground-based measurements using the UHI effect, all that the contrarians have succeeded in doing is proving how similar the temperature anomalies at rural & city-based measurements are. That the greatest amounts of warming being detected-in space & on the ground-are actually in areas devoid of cities just further reveals the nonsense of claiming the temperature data to be unreliable. Strange, though, how direct temperature measurements become the Holy Grail for contrarians the moment they think it will "prove" cooling. Can't have it both ways guys!
  23. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    David @35, I agree. Personally, I think that "SwiftHack" is a far better description of what actually transpired.
  24. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Damorbel @32, For goodness' sakes please stop playing games--you have commented on the dendro data. Please read JMurphy's post @29 made in response to your post @23. Your post @23 set off alarm bells for me too (see my post @26)--JMurphy provided a very eloquent deconstruction of your 'argument'. Interesting that you chose to ignore Murphy's post @29.....
  25. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Ned, thanks, that sounds better. It is not the terminology that confuses me but your use of it. As I understand it infra-red is rather large radiation spectrum that then had been subdivided for more precise meaning (near infra-red and thermal infra-red being two of them). Of cause you are right, I should have written "If incoming and outgoing radiation is (more or less) equally effected by the insulation it is quite hard to see how the result could be a warming of the earth." But unfortunately so far I have not found any comment about the green house effect on incoming radiation. Sorry, but you are wrong, take a closer look a the solar spectrum diagrams and you will see there is an effect on incoming radiation as well for H2O and CO2. More prominent with H2O but it is there.
  26. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    "slope of the 30-year trend in this region is 5 to 6 C/century" So that's where all the 'missing heat' has gone! Ned, you've done it again.
  27. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel - In regards to energy magnitudes of IR, evaporation, and convection, you are unfortunately incorrect. It's a common misconception, though. Please take a look at Trenberth 2009, "Earth's Global Energy Budget", in particular Figure 1. Surface IR runs at about 396 W/m^2, evaporation/latent heat at 80 W/m^2, thermals at 17 W/m^2, averaged over the globe. IR is the primary avenue of energy leaving the surface. Now, 333 W/m^2 comes back down from the atmosphere as backradiation, along with 161 W/m^2 from the sun, but given that all incoming energy becomes surface temperature, you can't just difference the IR flows. Currently the difference between incoming and outgoing is something like +0.9 W/m^2, hence the observed global warming.
  28. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    I really wish an editorial decision to not use the word 'climategate' was made. It implies malfeasance and therefore primes the reader to assume the worst. It plays in to the Deniers' hands. 'Stolen CRU emails' - not 'climategate'.
    Moderator Response: The first post in the series was called "The Fake Scandal of Climategate", but I decided that was too long to repeat in all the titles. I guess what I was getting at was that the true scandal is the unfounded attacks on climate scientists and their credulous repetition by the media. - James
  29. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    #50: "WE have the tools at hand do we not? Let's use those tools." Here's the use of some of those tools from Gossard et al 1999: The authors show that if the total integrated humidity is independently available [for example, from the Global Positioning System (GPS)] and if the surface value of humidity is known, the profiles of humidity are retrievable with good accuracy. Those profiles, shown below, provide evidence that humidity (middle set of curves) decreases sharply with altitude. So I have to wonder: Averaged over the entire atmospheric column to the height of the troposphere, how much of a contribution to total heat content can a few hundred meters of surface humidity represent? I note further from my local weather reports that relative humidity does indeed rise in the evenings, but each morning my car's windows are covered with condensation. That suggests to me that water goes into the air and comes out of the air, with an overall equilibrium around the cycle. So why should there be any net heat gain?
  30. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Link to the paper that John McManus has referenced: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GB003699.shtml
  31. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    John McManus@30. The issue you raise as Phil says, is different to temperature. Actually what you have pointed out is that CO2 isn't 'plant food' for many species. Which contradicts another skeptic meme.
  32. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m, forget about the terminology, which is just confusing you. Here's what you originally wrote: "As incoming and outgoing radiation is (more or less) equally effected by the insulation it is quite hard to see how the result could be a warming of the earth. " But incoming and outgoing radiation are in completely different wavelength ranges. CO2 absorption affects one of these ranges, but not the other. Thus, your assumption that they must be "equally affected" is understandable but wrong. OK?
  33. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Re #26 Albatross "You completely misunderstand the role of the dendro data, what it constitutes, and what is represents." Interesting comment since I have not made any comment on the dendro data, only on the remarks in the Russell report about the CRU presentation where they 1/combine the data from different locations 2/using different methods 3/without explanation. The Russell Review said that 1/ and 2/ were perfectly feasible but they could not support 3/
  34. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #36 "Are you attempting to be funny?" Give the guy in #34 a break! Perhaps he is thinking of a candle in a deep freeze, you might find a candle in a deep freeze was too hard to get it lit!
  35. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #31 #32 KR "Thermal IR, on the other hand (5-30 micrometers) does not pass through the atmosphere very well, due to greenhouse gases." In a sense you are correct. Very little heat gets into the atmosphere by radiation from the surface because the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere is not very great, not only that, transfer of heat into gasses by radiation depends not only on temperature difference but the type of gas (all gasses absorb and emit some radiation) but the density is important also, more gas, more absorption and emission. Most heat gets into the atmosphere by evaporation from the sea, a lesser amount by convection over land and sea. Once in the atmosphere most heat is radiated into deep space by CO2 and H2O. Some heat is radiated directly from the surface into deep space via the 'windows' in the combined spectra of CO2 and H2O. All the heat leaving the planet goes by these 'radiation into deep space' processes, there is no other way! The temperature difference between the atmosphere of planet Earth and deep space is very large, about 200K and given that the heat tranfer is proportional to T^4 then radiation becomes very effective.
  36. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    KR, thank you for mentioning the energy level, it just comes in handy. Ned, if you don't agree to the widely accepted definition of IR radiation then I don't know how talk to you. Now, if you look at the Science of Doom page you will find: As a proportion of total solar irradiance # Total energy from 0 – 0.75μm 54% – all energy up to infra-red # Total energy from 0 – 4μm 99% – all “shortwave” Now that leaves us 99% - 54% = 45% of total solar irradiance in the infra-red range. I would hardly call that minuscule. If you think that you can not compare radiation in this range with that of thermal infra-red then you are perfectly right. The main difference is, as KR has pointed out that the energy of a particle gets higher the shorter the wavelength. So you can figure out what's the difference between a infra-red photon at 1500 nm trapped by water vapour and one at 10000 nm trapped by CO2.
  37. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    John McManus @30 The dendrochronology records are used as proxies for temperature, not CO2 levels.
  38. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Are you attempting to be funny or do you honestly think that there are some lights that you can't see because of the temperature surrounding the bulb?
  39. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #34 Daniel Bailey. "the energy from the lights coming from the cold interior". Nice try! What kind of lights? Oil lamps, LEDs, lasers, gas discharge, gas incandescent, electric incandescent, fluorescent, quartz halogen? You will have to be a bit more specific!
  40. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Ned, I would like to say I was just about to post in the forum on this subject and opened the page and there it was haha. Yeah it's really interesting and i've looked at some of this sort of stuff in the FAR past but what I find most prominent is that the rates of warming between the two warm periods are significantly different. It really supports the conclusions identified by glaciologists about how quick ice cap and glacier recession have been in the Canadian Arctic. Great on clear climate code to have recognized this. I imagine this won't be in the newspapers back home though...
  41. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re damorbel: On the cell right now, so I'll leave you with this to chew on for now: How then, when in the freezer section of a grocery store, can one see the energy from the lights coming from the cold interior of the display cases? Also, Google back radiation (Hint: Science of Doom website or over at Chris Colosse's place).
  42. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    More reply to h-j-m, who wrote: Are you saying that solar IR radiation does not heat the earth? If so, then why should visible light be able to do so? The very, very small amount of solar IR radiation does heat the Earth. But it's dwarfed by the much larger amount of visible light. Let's put some numbers to this. Assume we have 100 units of incoming solar radiation, distributed as follows: * 99 units of visible, near-IR, and shortwave IR * 1 unit of longwave IR Outgoing radiation from the Earth is also 100 units (because it's in balance with the incoming radiation from the sun), but distributed as follows: * 0 units of visible, near-IR, and shortwave IR * 100 units of longwave IR Now, let's say you introduce some substance into the atmosphere that absorbs longwave IR but transmits visible, near-IR, and shortwave IR. That will slightly reduce the 1 unit of downwelling solar irradiance, producing a tiny cooling effect. On the other hand, it will also reduce the 100 units of emitted terrestrial longwave radiation, producing a much larger warming effect (about 100 times larger, in fact).
  43. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel - Excellent post, very correct in all respects. And at equilibrium the energy radiated to space equals the energy received from the sun. In reference to greenhouse gases - these slow the transport of energy from the surface to space. They effectively reduce the emissivity of the Earth, meaning that for the same energy radiated the Earth has to be at a higher temperature, as per the Stefan–Boltzmann law, where power radiated scales with emissivity (e) and T^4. Power = emissivity * SB constant * area * T^4
  44. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m - Visible light has more energy per photon than IR does. UV has even more. There's plenty of energy in the visible portion of sunlight to heat the earth. And the atmosphere is almost totally transparent to visible light. Thermal IR, on the other hand (5-30 micrometers) does not pass through the atmosphere very well, due to greenhouse gases.
  45. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #19 Daniel Bailey. Energy can only flow from a high temperature place to a lower temperature place. The surface of Earth is always hotter than the atmosphere above. As you say there is a net transfer of energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere, that is to say the upper atmosphere, which loses energy to deep space at 2.7K, is a net gainer of energy from the surface. The energy the upper atmosphere gains energy (net) from the surface preventing the (upper atmosphere) temperature from dropping to the (2.7K) temperature of deep space. The surface, as you may now realise, is a net radiater of heat to the atmosphere via longwwave IR radiation; the surface loses a lot more heat by convection of air and evaporation/condensation of water. To keep the surface temperature (more or less) stable the surface gets heat from the Sun via many different routes. The tropics are where most of the Sun's heat comes in, heating the atmosphere and sea water. This tropical heat is transported to the poles by air and water currents. Some of this heat is radiated directly from the tropics and some at intermediate distances on the way to the poles. Of course some heat also arrives from the Sun away from the tropics. The whole business of heat transport is governed by local and global temperature differences, starting with the 5780K of the Sun and finishing in deep space at 2.7K. There are a number of curiosities; it is posible using a magnifying glass or a mirror to make a local concentration of the Sun's energy on a spot but the maximum temperature you will get is 5780K. If you use an arc lamp with a temperature >5780K to boost this spot and your lens is still focussed on the Sun, the Sun will now be heated, just a little, by your lamp.
  46. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    The point is that there pretty much is no solar IR radiation. It's minuscule compared to the visible / near-IR range. Look at the graph from SoD I posted in the previous comment. To go back to the beginning of this discussion, you said "As incoming and outgoing radiation is (more or less) equally effected by the insulation it is quite hard to see how the result could be a warming of the earth. " The point is that incoming and outgoing radiation are in completely different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and thus they aren't equally affected by greenhouse gases. Does that explanation help?
  47. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I don't get it! Are you saying that solar IR radiation does not heat the earth? If so, then why should visible light be able to do so? Or do you mean that incoming IR radiation does not get absorbed by green house gases? Then the diagrams both of wikipedia as well as from Science of Doom show that as well. So, what's your point guys?
  48. Dikran Marsupial at 06:11 AM on 23 November 2010
    How significance tests are misused in climate science
    Berényi Péter wrote "Problems arose not because of hasty induction, but some vagueness and much hand waving in its deductive structure..." Yes, because Darwin's theory of evolution is almost entirely inductive in nature (which was, rather obviously, the whole point in using it an example) it is hardly surprising that the deductive structure is rather lacking. Given that it rests almost entirely on inductive foundations, is it science or not?
  49. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    CBC's Quirks and Quarks had an interesting segment Saturday. The paper is, Tree Ring Evidence for limited direct C02 fertilization of forests over the 20th century, by Ze'ev Gedalof, in Global Biochemical Cycles. The finding that world wide, only 20% of trees showed changes with C02 level rises. Further, the growth differences were unprdictable for species and location. This randomness makes one think that not using suspect data may be good science.
  50. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m, you should definitely check out the post that DSL links to. Note, in particular, this graph: Courtesy Science of Doom What that shows is that there's almost no overlap between the spectral ranges of downwelling solar irradiance and upwelling terrestrial thermal IR radiance. Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the transparency of the atmosphere to longwave radiation, but not to shortwave radiation. This is how the greenhouse effect works, in a nutshell.

Prev  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  2079  2080  2081  2082  2083  2084  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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