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  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  2079  2080  2081  2082  2083  2084  2085  2086  Next

Comments 103901 to 103950:

  1. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @Peter Lang You quote me not completely: my point was that of 500 GWp renewable (which is 30% of the estimated need for China in 2020 if you read the report i linked to), 200GWp is non-hydro. So the 200 GWp is already over your artificial 10% threshold you are willing to neglect. I say the 200 GWp is large enough in order that baseload-ability has to be considered. Also, I am looking forward to the rest of my points in #207 and not only the first 5 lines.
  2. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    79 muoncounter "This is akin to the 'it hasn't warmed since 1998' nonsense." Are you suggesting it's my argument that's akin to this? Because I thought I was trying to argue the opposite. I was trying to argue that generating trends on the back of short term data sets was dangerous. I specifically asked you if you were happy with fitting short term trends because I am not. If anything, because we have so little data, this is even more susceptible to false interpretation than the global temperature record. We actuall have no idea how interannual variability in the antarctic ice mass balance. So my worry still continues that V09 can make such strong assertions about the rate of ice mass loss doubling over the past decade is suspect. It really all does hinge on the anomalous 2006 data and the fact the author choose to start and end her trends on that year. That is not a matter of opinion, that's a fact. This is not just a problem with V09, Chen 09 comes to the same conclusion by ending and starting her/his trend around the same year. 2006 seems to be the important period for generating these trends. I wonder how you think the 2006 data should be interpreted and handled? Or whether these papers should acknowledge the problem of inter-annual variability?
  3. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Swieder, "200 GWp are non-hydro. I am reluctant to agree to your point that that qualifies to be "off-topic" when we talk about baseload." Please explain how 200GWp power has anything to do with baseload power. Do you understand what baseload means? I think you don't. Can I urge you (and others) to read "The Case for Baseload" to assist you to understand what baseload means in the electricity industry (as opposed to the way renewable energy advocates are trying to re define it)
  4. We're heading into an ice age
    Re: NQuestofApollo (126) To summarize: You have taken issue with this statement I made earlier:
    "We have known about the GHG effect of CO2 for nearly two centuries - this is well-understood and not seriously questioned by any competent scientist anywhere. Google Tyndall, Arrhenius or Fourier sometime."
     Am I correct? Proceeding as if so; granted its been some 25 years since my college days, but it's my understanding that the GHE is basic physics, taught in high-schools these days. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. It doesn't change the fact that the GHE is basic physics; numerous videos are available on Youtube attesting to and demonstrating that fact that you can replicate in your home by you, if so inclined.
    "It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." ~ Albert Einstein
     I think I'll go out right now to ascertain how performable this is for the GHE; wish me luck... PS: To make the moderators life here a little easier, please keep in mind the topic of the thread you post questions on. For example, this thread is about "Are we heading into a new Ice Age?". For question other than the focus of this thread, such as your references to the Oregon Petition or Climategate, please use the search function in the upper left of each page to find a more appropriate thread to post those concerns on. Comments deemed off-topic will be deleted. Thanks in advance! The Yooper
  5. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Just some comments about land/resource use: 1. Hydro will almost always have negative impact on landscape, but used in conjunction with solar/wind/biomass, with pumping, it can be rather non-invasive, considered its effect. Huge dams and small heights is something entirely different, and not distinguishing the different forms for utilization seems rather unserious to me. 2. It is rather incredible for me to have discussions about wind power without any reference to possible optimizations of stable output whatsoever. A system-wide optimization will almost always lead to very different design from local optimizations (for example operators maximizing their total production, with small or no regard to total supply situation, and subject to existing grid/transmission constraints). And the whole transmission system may have to be changed a lot. Which may require huge initial investments, but total costs over system lifetime are not necessarily very high. 3. It is impossible to discuss future energy systems on the basis of simple system changes, like phasing in PV, "everything else being equal". Even with no introduction of renewables at all, everything else will _not_ be equal over the course of some decades, which is the actual planning horizon for energy systems. I have to repeat it: "Baseload" is _not_ a well defined quantity, and with sufficiently strong incentives, renewables will _per definition_ be able to cover baseload. (As they have done in human history until fossil fuels came into widespread use.)
  6. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Awareness about the cost of renewables is spreading in Australia. Here are some recent examples: 1. "The Great Wind Rush" An excellent article in the 'Weekend Australian' about wind energy (and reference to the emission avoidance costs from my 2009 paper): http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-great-wind-rush/story-fn59niix-1225961297137 2. "Emission Reductions are not Blowin' in the Wind" - Another excellent article in Monday’s 'Australian' comparing the costs of low emissions generation technologies and dismissing wind and solar. This is a good article ands well worth reading (unfortunately the chart is not shown in the article) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/emission-reductions-are-not-blowin-in-the-wind/story-fn59niix-1225962376534 You can see the chart here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/11/28/nuclear-is-the-least-cost-low-carbon-baseload-power-source/ 4. About three weeks ago, the NSW state government cut its feed in tariff for solar PV from 60c/kWh to 20c/kWh 5. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government (A Labor-Green alliance), about two weeks ago, admitted its solar power program will increase the cost of electricity for users by about 25%. This has come as a shock and wake up call to the ACT residents (the greenest of all Australian State and Territory governments) 6. Yesterday the federal government cut its subsidies to the up front costs of solar panels from $6300 to $5000 per 1.5kW. It also announced the subsidies would be cut further each year and would be phased out a year earlier than previously planned. They also announced that cutting the subsidy from $6300 to $5000 would save the average householder $12 per year. So the Federal subsidy alone costs the average householder about $60 per year. The Feed in tariffs cost far more. To put this in perspective, solar power generates about 0.1% of Australia’s electricity. Imagine what the subsidies would be if solar generated 10%, 20% or 50% of our electricity. Playing with numbers: 50% / 0.1% x ($60 + $225) pa = $142,500 pa per household subsidy. Sure, you can pick at details about the numbers, but try to understand the scale of just how ludicrous is what we’ve been doing trying to promote solar and wind power.
  7. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    I'm looking for it, but in the interim, the key to the molecules behaving differently comes from two basic factors. The first is that energy can be gained or lost through one of two mechanisms (in this model); absorption/emission of radiation, or through a collision. The second is the fact that the density of the atmosphere dramatically changes the relative probabilities and likely timings of the two events. In the more dense troposphere, collisions are more likely, and so likely that they will probably occur before a CO2 molecule gets a chance to emit its vibrational energy as radiation (but not always, and the reverse can happen, too). In the less dense stratosphere, collisions are highly unlikely, and so a CO2 molecule is more likely to emit its vibrational energy as radiation before colliding with another molecule. But I'll keep looking for the source. All I remember right now was that it included a fairly effective flash animation of CO2 and O2/N2 molecules (close up, so to speak). I think it was put together by a major MSM news corporation, but that part is fuzzy in my addled mind.
  8. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    cjshaker, number 7 in your list states : A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next sevem thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation. Does William Connelly interpret this paper a different way ?
  9. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Peter... Also, I would hold that commenting on China's 20% renewables is exactly on topic. You're saying that anything over 10% is not feasible. China quite obviously does not agree with you. Please see the following: Large-scale baseload wind power in China Debra J. Lew, Robert H. Williams, Xie Shaoxiong, Zhang Shihui 2009.
  10. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @Peter Lang "Most of China's renewables are hydro. [...]So the comment about China targeting 20% renewables is off topic." The argument from Chu was probably more referring to something like the Martinot report [1]. So for 2020, the goal is 500 GWp renewable energy in China of which 200 GWp are non-hydro. I am reluctant to agree to your point that that qualifies to be "off-topic"when we talk about baseload. You repeatedly state "[...] renewables cannot provide baseload generation" but i actually have the impression your argument is more about "If we ignore cost, I guess anything is "possible"." as you said in #202. I strongly propose we distinguish between those two: a couple of posters (including me) linked studies which show that technically, renewables can provide baseload power as a reliable power source to the energy mix. Regarding cost of these renewable baseload solutons I admit that i have no data regarding the cost but my guess is that they are higher than established solutions. However, this does not quaify for not being considered at all. The question then is: are all externalized costs accounted for when talking about cost of established solutions of baseload? And second: how fast can cost for renewable baseload power decrease? Third: is the society willing to accept the (lets say) "activtion cost" for this change to happen? Of course the final solution must be an economicaly viable under given boundary conditions (which might change by the way: politically and economically). I am not questioning the ability of society to bear it, but the willingness is a different thing. How could something like the bold race to the moon actually work out if you look at economics only? #225 "adelady, You link didn't work." copy it manually and remove the last slash "\", then it works fine. [1] http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_FEP4_prepub.pdf
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed that link per your tip; thanks!
  11. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Peter... I don't believe Dr. Chu is talking about hydro or nuclear. I think he's only talking about wind and solar. Here is what I find: "In 2009, the rumored energy targets for China for 2020 were 300 GW Hydro, 75GW nuclear, 150GW from renewable if targets are reached. 46% of power would be from non-coal sources if natural gas usage is increased as projected." Link. So, China is looking at 46% carbon-free electricity by 2020. So, I still hold your statement that anything over 10% renewables (wind and solar) is not feasible to be inaccurate. If you will notice as well, China is putting in twice as much wind/solar as they are nuclear. Why would that be? It's certainly not because of protesters or onerous regulation. Could it be that wind and solar have other big advantages? Exportable technologies. Improving efficiencies. Low hazards (failures). No hazardous materials.
  12. We're heading into an ice age
    More for NQuestofApollo to read, this time concerning CO2/temperature correlation : Go here, an external website for a change. Very technical, though, so be warned.
  13. We're heading into an ice age
    More for NQuestofApollo to read, this time concerning mid-century cooling : Go here. There are three different versions there, so pick the one you feel most comfortable with.
  14. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Sphaerica - 39 I can't say that I understand the mechanism that you describe. Could you provide the source. It does seem odd that in a situation where you have two types of molecules all at the same temperature, one type of molecule is going to lose energy while the other gains energy. It seems to defy some fundamental law such as heat energy can only be transferred from a hot to a cold body and not from a cold to a hot body. Also, Gavin basically told me that I was correct in my explanation. Bob
  15. We're heading into an ice age
    More for NQuestofApollo to read, this time concerning the Arctic : Go here, here, here, here, and here.
  16. Renewable Baseload Energy
    adelady, You link didn't work. Can you provide a link showing how much of Australia's electricity is supplied by geothermal? Since you probably wont, I'll answer the question for other readers. The answer is nil! Furthermore, the hot dry/fractured rock type of geoothermal Australia is trying to develop has never been successful anywhere in the world despite almost 40 years of attempts. Sure, we will get a little from demonstration plants in time, at huge cost to the tax payer, but it is insignificant. It is another massive waste of time, effort and a diversion of resources from solutions that have proved they can actually cut emissions significantly - in fact, theese solutions could cut emissions from electricity generation by nearly 100% in about 30 years, and do so in an economically rational way.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed adelady's link per swieder's guidance; works now.
  17. We're heading into an ice age
    126: "I've been told to look at the sea ice extent. So, I have - it has increase for the last three years." Sorry, but that's just flat wrong. Someone has been feeding you some bogus information. See SkS articles here, here and here, among others; also Arctic sea ice falls to third-lowest extent; downward trend persists
  18. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Michael Sweet, “I am tired of the unsupported claims from nuclear proponents” Likewise, I am tired of the unsupported claims about non-hydro renewables being able to provide baseload power. If non-hydro renewables can provide baseload generation, in significant quantities, show me where it is being done. I am not interested in theoretical studies by the advocates who are being fed almost entirely by tax payers’ money. Show me actual output from solar thermal and wind generation that demonstrate they can provide baseload generation. I am looking for charts like Figure 6 and 7 here which shows the actual output from a solar PV station at 30 minute intervals for two years. Note that the capacity factor on the worst days in winter is 0.75%. Some baseload! So, please, for a start, show me two years of output from a solar thermal station with capacity factor around 85% and availability over 90%. If you are going to argue that if you throw enough renewable technologies into the mix, then provide the costs. I’ll advise that you can add as many technologies as you like, you will still not have reliable power and the capital cost is the sum of all the technologies – that is orders of magnitude more costly than with fossil fuel and baseload generators. France shows the proven, low cost way to generate near-zero emission electricity.
  19. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel - You should really read that article again. Carefully. Sunlight (like the electric heater in Spencers blog) passes through the atmosphere essentially unaffected by greenhouse gases, due to its spectra (primarily visible light). Thermal IR from the Earth, on the other hand, is strongly affected by greenhouse gas presence, which act as the 'blanket'. GHG's change the rate of loss, while input energy remains almost unchanged by them. Hence the atmosphere acts as a true "one-way mirror". Note that most sunlight passes through the atmosphere (affected mostly by Rayleigh scatter), while most IR does not (from Barrett Bellamy Climate) You've been pointed to this information multiple times, by multiple posters, yet you insist that your grasp of the physics is superior to the other contributors. I suggest you go read some of the very informative links you've been pointed to.
  20. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Geothermal not in Australia? Check out page 7 of this report and compare the geothermal numbers to any of the others.
  21. We're heading into an ice age
    More for NQuestofApollo to read, this time concerning the IPCC : Go here and you will see links to the 831 authors and the membership of the task groups. Wasn't difficult to find.
  22. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    In the above post, I responded to the wrong person. I meant to respond to damorbel
  23. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel, If you're contesting Dr Roy's very basic physics, you need to go back there, read his post again, skip all the comments but read all Dr Roy's responses to those comments. Your argument about insulating heat being "in" the container already is irrelevant. What matters is that the earth has constant input of heat / radiation. It just happens to be from the sun. KRs reference @251 really is a fantastic one. Even if it takes you all day or longer, read it, reread it, copy it by hand, rewrite it - leave it for a while and then read it again. Whatever. If study techniques need to be applied, apply them. Dr Roy is a good teacher.
  24. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Sphaerica 39 I have added a footnote explaining that the fictitious planet that I am using is a physical impossibility. I stated further that it would be difficult to explain this basic concept with a more realistic and complex model. Bob
  25. We're heading into an ice age
    More for NQuestofApollo to read, this time concerning Himalayan glaciers : Go here, here, and here.
  26. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Bob, I remember seeing a completely different explanation for stratospheric cooling, and one which is easier to understand and makes more sense to me (as long as one understands what heat really is, and how energy is transferred between molecules in a gas). The gist of it was that in the more dense troposphere, a CO2 molecule is likely to absorb IR (in the appropriate band), and it is particularly likely to then collide with the more numerous O2 and N2 molecules (before simply re-radiating the energy away in the same band). In the collision, it transfers the energy (gained through IR) to the O2/N2 as translational kinetic energy, and in so doing heats the atmosphere. In the more rarefied stratosphere, CO2 is more likely to do the opposite, colliding with an O2 or N2 molecule, becoming excited by the collision (gaining vibrational energy), and then emitting the energy gained away as IR. Thus, increased amounts of CO2 warm the troposphere while cooling the stratosphere; they cause IR to primarily be an absorption mechanism in the troposphere, and an emission mechanism in the stratosphere. In this explanation, it's not merely the blocking of the CO2 IR band in the troposphere which causes the cooling, but rather an active effect of CO2 within the stratosphere itself. Can you reconcile the differences in the explanations? Is this description wrong? Or are they both accurate and true?
  27. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Rob Honeycutt, "Did you miss the part where Steven Chu just stated that China is going to be 20% renewables by 2020?" Most of China's renewables are hydro. I stated in some posts, and obviusly need to say it in every post, that I am referring to non-hydro renewables when I say renewables cannot provide baseload generation. I should also say that biomass and geothermal, in volcanic areas but not Australia, can provide baseload generation but in insignificantly small quantities. The thread is about baseload. So the comment about China targeting 20% renewables is off topic.
  28. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel as I said and you apparently did not read, part of the spectrum. My impression is that you're not much confident with these simple physical concepts but you presume you know better.
  29. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #251 you wrote:- " I would strongly suggest that you read the following, by Dr. Roy Spencer, climate skeptic, which directly addresses this topic:" I've read Roy Spencer on this matter, he's wrong. He uses the 'insulation' argument for CO2 etc. keeping heat 'in' (the atmosphere). This insulation/blanket argument is invalid because insulators only contain heat when it is in the container already, either because it was put there from outside, like putting hot soup in a flask, or there is a source of heat like combustion or radioactivity 'contained' by the insulation. Heat that arrives from outside the container, like the Sun/Earth arrangement is just as effecively kept out of a container (flask etc.) as it is kept inside. Eventually the contents of an insulated container revert to ambient temperature, your soup or coffee gets cold and your ice cream melts. What a shame!
  30. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Peter Lang #215 I've asked you questions about things like synergisic effects, distributed generation, efficiency gains in the past, but you have not answered any of these questions. They're important issues which need to be considered when assessing electricity generation resources, but you don't seem to want to do so. I haven't actually expressed any opinion on nuclear energy, so attacking my position as ideologically driven kneejerk anti-nuclear seems a bit of a stretch. However, from the fact that you haven't answered my perfectly reasonable questions, I can only assume that you won't because you have something to hide.
  31. Renewable Baseload Energy
    The issue is "can baseload power come from renewables". The nuclear issue is separate from "can baseload come from renewables". Nuclear proponents have already hijacked several threads with their claims. Everyone agrees that nuclear can generate baseload energy if it can overcome its other problems. I am tired of the unsupported claims from nuclear proponents, see the linked thread. I have seen their claims more than once and do not need to see them repeated again here. I am agnostic about how much nuclear will end up being best, but it is tiring to have these wild claims repeated again and again.
  32. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Re OP It says:- "a fictitious planet with an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide and an inert gas such as nitrogen at pressures equivalent to those on earth. This atmosphere will have a troposphere and a stratosphere" The stratosphere is caused by the warming effect of UV energy absorbed by O2 & O3; this couldn't happen in an atmosphere free of O2; no other atmospheric gas absorbs UV in the same way. This warming due to UV absorption produces a classical temperature inversion, suppressing convection; the result is the well known absence of storms etc. in the stratosphere. The absence of storms is one of the reasons why airliners fly there.
  33. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel - Your physics are so far off it is difficult to know where to start. But I would strongly suggest that you read the following, by Dr. Roy Spencer, climate skeptic, which directly addresses this topic: Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still A quote from this, involving heated plates as a thought experiment: "Since the temperature of an object is a function of both energy gain AND energy loss, the temperature of the plate (or anything else) can be raised in 2 basic ways: (1) increase the rate of energy gain, or (2) decrease the rate of energy loss. The temperature of everything is determined by energy flows in and out, and one needs to know both to determine whether the temperature will go up or down. This is a consequence of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics involving conservation of energy."
  34. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Andy - 35 It wouldn't be difficult for Gavin to explain if he was explaining it to a college sophmore Physics major. He would talk about the absorption spectrum as I have done. In my opinion, you cannot explain it without talking about the absorption spectrum which is what Gavin is trying to do in the referenced link.
  35. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #248 CBDunkerson you wrote:- "damorbel #247: "Tom they would be absorbed by any 'target'." That's a yes. Ergo, global warming theory does not violate the second law of thermodynamics." You are going too fast. Since emitting (GH) gases absorb also there is no chance that any imbalance in thermal energy transfer will arise as described by 'back radiation' (i.e. W/m^2, J/s/m^2) as claimed by Trenberth. Not just 'insufficient' to cause 33K increase in surface temperature but none at all., the thermal energy transfer is going from the surface to the troposphere, cooling the surface as it goes. You must realise that with a full transparent atmosphere (no GHGs) the cooling radiation would all come from the surface, so what's the big deal? The surface would have just the same temperature it has now.
  36. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    This 1950s video is fascinating, from the days when people knew how to explain things using animation: http://lasp.colorado.edu/igy_nas/flash_videos/theInconstantAir.html I think I got the link from Grumbines blog a few months ago.
  37. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #240 Riccardo you wrote:- "any body may behave like a blackbody in a frequency range and not in others. In particular, the earth surface is very near a blackbody in the IR range of interest." Not so. IR is just a colour the same as red, yellow, green etc. and there is an albedo (reflection) in the IR also. The IR emissions from H20, CO2 etc. do not follow the smooth black body emission spectrum, instead the spectrum is highly irregular meaning that, for substantial parts of Earth's emission spectrum there is no radiation from the GHGs. Now you could argue that radiation from Earth 'fills in the gaps' but you will also have to explain why the material that reflects the sunlight to give Earth an albedo doesn't also reflect radiation originating in coming from Earth. There is no real 'one way' reflection effect, what you have for the ladies changing room is a cunning lighting effect that gives the impression of a 'one way' mirror. The cause of Earth's 30% albedo also causes a reflection of 30% (inwards) of the radiation coming out from the planet. That is why the temperature of a planet like Earth is independent of the albedo.
  38. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel #247: "Tom they would be absorbed by any 'target'." That's a yes. Ergo, global warming theory does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Now you are just quibbling about the magnitude of the effect. Which, as various people have pointed out, is a measured fact. Heck, Fourier made a pretty good stab at estimating it nearly two hundred years ago when he discovered the temperature discrepancy and first proposed what we now call the greenhouse effect as a possible explanation.
  39. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #245 Tom Dayton, you wrote:- " I am pleased to see your agreement that photons from a cooler source are indeed absorbed by a warmer target" Tom they would be absorbed by any 'target'. But do you agree that they are absorbed by adjacent CO2 (H2O, CH4 etc.) more or less at the altitude where they are emitted? Or do they make it to the Earth's surface as 'backradiation', as in Trenberth's diagram? Further, do you think the cold photons raise the surface temperature 33K from 255K to 288K? And finally, what would be the average surface temperature without the H2O & CO2 etc.?
  40. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Some further RealClimate articles worth reading Why does the stratosphere cool when the troposphere warms? (In which Gavin Schmidt shows that explaining this effect is not simple, even for him.) The sky IS falling (Which includes a link to the ESPERE article that I referenced in post #5 above) The wisdom of Solomon. (Discussing, among other things, the role of the small quantities of water vapour in the stratosphere.)
  41. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    If you want to read the Shackleton paper yourself, instead of taking what William Connelly says at face value, you can read the abstract here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17790893 "Science. 1976 Dec 10;194(4270):1121-32. Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages. Hays JD, Imbrie J, Shackleton NJ. Abstract 1) Three indices of global climate have been monitored in the record of the past 450,000 years in Southern Hemisphere ocean-floor sediments. 2) Over the frequency range 10(-4) to 10(-5) cycle per year, climatic variance of these records is concentrated in three discrete spectral peaks at periods of 23,000, 42,000, and approximately 100,000 years. These peaks correspond to the dominant periods of the earth's solar orbit, and contain respectively about 10, 25, and 50 percent of the climatic variance. 3) The 42,000-year climatic component has the same period as variations in the obliquity of the earth's axis and retains a constant phase relationship with it. 4) The 23,000-year portion of the variance displays the same periods (about 23,000 and 19,000 years) as the quasi-periodic precession index. 5) The dominant, 100,000-year climatic [See table in the PDF file] component has an average period close to, and is in phase with, orbital eccentricity. Unlike the correlations between climate and the higher-frequency orbital variations (which can be explained on the assumption that the climate system responds linearly to orbital forcing), an explanation of the correlation between climate and eccentricity probably requires an assumption of nonlinearity. 6) It is concluded that changes in the earth's orbital geometry are the fundamental cause of the succession of Quaternary ice ages. 7) A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next sevem thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation. PMID: 17790893 [PubMed] LinkOut - more resources "
  42. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    dhogaza @ 77 No clarification required as far as I am concerned. Your meaning was quite clear. I will add that the ICO has ruled out an investigation into an offence under R19/S77. What remains are the Decision Notices(DN). These are findings of any appeal to the ICO. Decision Notices may require the public authority to release information or may state that they did not fulfil their legal obligations under FoIA/EIR, or even endorse the response of the public authority. The public authority can appeal to a Tribunal (court) or comply with the DN. DNs are not findings of any felony. However, ignoring a DN could lead to contempt of court. Anyone who tries to argue that it is or wiill be a "whitewash" is merely demonstrating ignorance of the legislation.
  43. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Bob #26 Yes, it does help. Thanks. I think I can put the pieces together a bit better, now, putting you post in the context, btw. It was a good basic explanation. Thanks Spaceman Spiff too.
  44. We're heading into an ice age
    NQuestofApollo says... "why should I assume that CO2 CAUSES global warming?" Because it's basic physics? Actually, the globe has not been warming for the past 10,000 years. If you look at the Holocene optimum we've been slightly cooling over that period. It's only in the past 100 years that we've reversed that trend. Honestly, this site provides information that responds to everything you've said here much better than I can in a short post. I would urge you to take some time to read some of the articles and follow the cited sources.
  45. We're heading into an ice age
    NQuestofApollo, your post gives lots of opportunity for everyone here to point out your misunderstandings, but I would like to start with your first assertion : "Remember Michael Mann's "hockey stick graph" - the one trotted out by Al Gore and the IPCC as proof positive that AGW exists? If in fact the Earth is warming - why did Mann feel the need to concatenate two different data sets?" You should read further on this website (by using the 'Search' box in the top left) but I will start you out : Go here, here, here and here. If no-one else can be bothered to point you in the right direction for your other misinformed points (and I wouldn't blame anyone else for not wanting to go over all this again), I will return to this later.
  46. We're heading into an ice age
    NQuestofApollo... You've posted such a long list of baseless information that it's a little hard to respond. Let me take the "31,000 scientists" issue first. We are all aware of the Oregon Petition. What you are ignoring about it is that figure requires a denominator to have any meaning at all. The petition defines "scientist" as anyone with a BS or equivalent. That encompasses nearly 30,000,000 people in the US alone. You can likely double that number or more looking outside the US. So, even at best you are presenting a figure that is about 1/10th of one percent. If you poll actual working climate scientist who are currently working in this field you get quite the opposite number. Doran 2009 shows that 97% of climate scientists believe that climate change is real.
  47. Spaceman Spiff at 04:27 AM on 2 December 2010
    Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Bob Guercio @28: It is possible that the following may be an important consideration here: most of the stratosphere, unlike most of the troposphere, is not in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE). i.e., the rates of collisional processes do not exceed greatly spontaneous decay rates of energetically excited molecules, as they do within gases for which LTE is an excellent approximation. The heating rate within the stratosphere should be dominated by ozone dissociation via solar photons from above. However, by increasing the CO2 content of the stratosphere, you mostly increase the rate of that gas' ability to radiate energy away via collisional excitation followed by spontaneous photon emission. This tips the heating-cooling balance to lower temperatures. I know I've a few technical papers on the subject sitting on my laptop at home, and I'll try to remember to read them tonight.
  48. NQuestofApollo at 04:18 AM on 2 December 2010
    We're heading into an ice age
    scaddenp - obliviously diamonds are not emissions, but then neither is Carbon. I was being sarcastic to make the point that any reference to "Carbon" emissions is disingenuous. Unfortunately, this short hand is causing (otherwise intelligent people) to claim that "carbon emissions from cars are combining with ozone and causing a depletion in the ozone layer". Daniel, I appreciate all of the information you provided here and would like to challenge you on your definition of a "competent scientist". Remember Michael Mann's "hockey stick graph" - the one trotted out by Al Gore and the IPCC as proof positive that AGW exists? If in fact the Earth is warming - why did Mann feel the need to concatenate two different data sets? If I wanted to prove that sports scores have been increasing over the last 100 years and I take baseball scores for the first sixty years and plot them - then I take basketball scores for the last 40 years and tack them on the end of my graph, would my graph be taken seriously? Supporting articles here and here. Distressingly, this is the same IPCC that "misread" the year the Himalayan glaciers were "likely to disappear" due to global warming: Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and "misread 2350 as 2035". IPCC error Equally distressing is the suggestion that they may have done so on purpose. IPCC error intentional Here's a question I literally cannot find an answer to: How many scientist work for the IPCC and what are their names? I've heard 1000, I've heard 2000 - yet, I cannot find a comprehensive list of the people involved in promoting AGW. On the other hand, here is a list of over 31,000 scientist that think AGW is a bunch of bunk. All their names are listed - right there. (I know, I know - they were ALL bought off by Big Oil.) Petition Project There has been some chatter on this site about not looking at thermometer reading to assess the global warming situation (too bad nobody mentioned that to Michael Mann) - I've been told to look at the sea ice extent. So, I have - it has increase for the last three years. The counter to this point is that the ice is thin - but, of course young ice is thin. The point is that the extent has NOT receded in the last three years. Now, how can that be with all of that accumulated, globe warming carbon? Sea Ice Extent Also, if accumulated CO2 definitively causes the globe to warm, why did they think the globe was cooling for the 30 years prior to the 1970s? But, this, I think, is the primary question: since CO2 will increase as the globe warms (due to melting, CO2 containing glaciers), why should I assume that CO2 CAUSES global warming? Sure the globe has been warming (for the last 10,000 years), sure there is more CO2, but what if you have your cause and effect relationship inversed?
  49. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Albatross - 30 That's a fantastic writeup from RealClimate which is the cadillac of Climatology sites. If it's there, you can believe it. In any case, it's going to take me at least another reading to digest that. Did you look at Part II! It gets very heavy. Thanks for that recommendation. Bob
  50. Spaceman Spiff at 04:00 AM on 2 December 2010
    Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Bob Guercio @27: Of course, it wasn't my intent not to add something substantial to understanding. However, the concept of an increasing emissivity of the stratosphere hadn't been mentioned in the above discussion. My post did not ignore the role of the absorption bands (or the complementary atmospheric window in your example) -- in fact they are key in describing the spectrum of radiation emerging from the troposphere and thereby the means by which the heating rate within the stratosphere changes. However, I should have clarified my point that the tropospheric emission diminishes within the C02 absorption band region center on 667 cm^{-1}. And, apparently, the increased emission arising from below the stratosphere over wavelengths corresponding to the ozone absorption band (centered on 1050 cm^{-1}) doesn't add enough to the heating rate budget of the stratosphere to offset the decreased heating rate there due to the diminished intensity of radiation within the main C02 band emerging from below. But it looks as though your example didn't want to consider this complication (?). In any case, I do appreciate your efforts!

Prev  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  2079  2080  2081  2082  2083  2084  2085  2086  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2026 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us