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  2116  2117  2118  2119  2120  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  2126  2127  2128  2129  2130  2131  Next

Comments 106151 to 106200:

  1. CO2 lags temperature
    BTW Mistermack, it would be helpful if you could confirm you have noticed the difference in CO2 concentration between the graph above and today.
  2. The science isn't settled
    mistermack, there is a condensed list of claims with their certainties on this EPA page "State of Knowledge". If you are unhappy with the lack of detail there, then look in the IPCC Working Group I Summary for Policymakers. If you are unhappy the lack of detail there, then dig into the body of that IPCC report. You might also want to ask for a copy of the content of a poster presented at the AGU conference in 2009, by Martin Vezer, titled A Defence of the AR4's Bayesian Approach to Quantifying Uncertainty.
  3. CO2 lags temperature
    Mistermack, when you speak of models being wrong, do you mean somebody has attempted to model past glacial episodes and has failed? As to sensitivity being "guesswork," the largest ball of uncertainty remaining in the air and the one most people studying climate agree is most likely to surprise is the role of clouds. Characterizing sensitivity as guesswork is a departure into hyperbole. Specific discussion of uncertainty might better be conducted on the What is our planet's climate sensitivity?" thread.
  4. The science isn't settled
    If there was a 90% certainty, based on scientific analysis, that a given model of plane would fall out of the sky, would you board that plane? Or would you dismiss those claims because there is still quite a lot we are missing in the study of aerodynamics?
  5. The science isn't settled
    mistermack, that "90% certainty" is for a very particular claim. It's not just for the non-technical masses. Other claims have less or more certainty. I suggest you read a January 2010 article by Trenberth, "More Knowledge, Less Certainty", about the lower certainties that will come along with the IPCC's next report's projections.
  6. Tarcisio José D at 06:16 AM on 23 October 2010
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Argumentação muito fraca frente a um processo extremamente complexo como o aquecimento da atmosfera. Vejamos. O sol envia para a terra 1368 W/m2 de energia radiante. Ao penetrar na atmosfera (troposfera) esta energia encontra nuvens e as converte em vapor de agua e reflete algo de volta ao espaço. Chegam ao solo algo em torno de 965,6 W/m2. No solo aquecido encontramos; 1- Calor irradiado (IR) 595,3 W/m2 2- Calor transferido ao ar por contato 616,3 W/m2. (convecção) 3- Calor absorvido pelo solo 246,3 W/m2 Somatorio da energia no solo 1457,9 W/m2 assim distribuidos 492,3 W/m2 irradiados pela atmosfera e 965,6 W/m2 provenientes do sol. Este 492,3 W/m2 é que representa o efeito estufa aqui em Manaus. Dum total de 1457,9 W/m2 apenas 616,3 (item 2) estão sujeitos à segunda lei da termodinamica que é respeitada em sua integra. A segunda lei da termodinamoca refere-se a transferecia de calor entre os corpos pelo processo de condução e neste caso só é aplicavel à convecção (item 2) pois o restante segue a lei da irradiação. Este exemplo é de condições local entre as 14 e 15 horas, pois a transferencia por convecção requer que o solo esteja mais quente que o ar ambiente. O que não ocorre à noite. Efeito estufa em Manaus... Very weak argument against an extremely complex process like the heating of the atmosphere. Let's see. The sun sends to earth 1368 W/m2 of radiant energy. By penetrating the atmosphere (troposphere) this energy convert the clouds into water vapor and reflects something back to space. Reach the ground somewhere around 965.6 W/m2. In the soil heated encounter; 1 - Heat irradiated (IR) 595.3 W/m2 2 - Heat transferred to the air by contact 616.3 W/m2. (Convection) 3 - Heat absorbed by the soil 246.3 W/m2 Sum of the energy in the soil 1457.9 W/m2 distributed, 492,3 W/m2 irradiated by the atmosphere and 965.6 W/m2 from the sun. This 492.3 W/m2 represents the greenhouse effect here in Manaus. Of a total of 1457.9 W/m2 only 616.3 W/m2(item 2) are subject to the second law of thermodynamics and is respected in its entirety. The second law of thermodynamics concerns of transfer of heat between the bodies and the process of conducting this case is only applicable to convection (item 2) because the remainder follows the law of irradiation. This example is from local conditions between 14 and 15 hours, for transfer by convection requires that the soil is warmer than the ambient air. What does not occur at night.
  7. The science isn't settled
    This 90% certainty that the IPCC claim is hugely simplified, for the non-techincal masses. I would say it's near 100% for some effect, but as to how much warming corresponds to how much CO2, that 90% figure for most of it is just a shot in the dark by the IPCC. It assumes our understanding of climate-forcing factors is nearly complete. I think there is still quite a lot we are missing.
  8. CO2 lags temperature
    Tom, thanks for that link about the "burp from the deep". It's interesting, but tantalisingly low on detail. And I can't make out if they are talking about CO or CO2. They write CO, but talk about CO2. I'll try to find more on it. It doesn't apply to the peaks I was talking about, but could be involved in the troughs, the ending of the ice age. I would have thought though, that such an event would show clearly in the Vostok ice-cores.
  9. Are we too stupid?
    There's a nice feasibility study of converting the US (and the world) to completely renewable energy sources, Jacobson et al 2009, also Jacobson 2009. Total world power needs est. for 2030: 17 TW. Solar power in likely-to-develop locations (high insolation): 340 TW for photovoltaic, ~240 for concentrating thermal solar. Wind power in likely-to-develop locations: 70-170 TW. Likely to develop locations for wind (high wind density) include the Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada, Northern Europe, the Gobi and Sahara Deserts, much of the Australian desert areas, and parts of South Africa and Southern South America. For the US alone the Great Plains and off the East Coast would be sufficient. Slide 18 of Jacobson 2009 is particularly interesting - demonstrating the relative area required to produce sufficient electricity for all US vehicles. Both wind turbine area and area with turbine spacings (which can be dual use) are shown. This looks quite feasible.
  10. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Frank, The very name of your site is a conspiracy notion. You started the name calling with terms such as "warmies", alarmist & believers. Indignation does not trump moderation. This page is on the topic of DMI data, not on the notion of widespread malfeasance in the scientific community.
  11. CO2 lags temperature
    Doug and Tom, thanks for your comments. I of course don't dispute co2 acting as a greenhouse gas. But the amount of warming, for a specific increase, is only guesswork at the moment. (otherwise, why is the IPCC only claiming 90% certainty? That leave 10% chance that the current levels are not to blame, does it not?) The problem I'm pointing out with the graphs above, is that at the peak of previous warming, you get an 800 year period, when co2 levels are high, and rising steeply, and yet temperatures are plummeting. This is in stark contrast to todays models. And our point in the cycle now is at or near that historic maximum. I don't see any explanation why the models are so wrong, for so long, for these events. The Milankovitch cycles just don't cut it. The insolation curves are extremely gentle.
    Moderator Response: Regarding uncertainty, please read (and comment there) the Argument "The science isn’t settled". Be sure to check out both the Basic and Advanced tabbed pages there.
  12. CO2 lags temperature
    mistermack, Multiple, interrelated, not entirely synchronous factors were responsible for both the onset and offset of ice ages. They are not understood completely, to say the least. But just one example of how those factors can have sudden onsets and offsets is the recently discovered CO2 "burp" from the deep ocean.
  13. CO2 lags temperature
    mistermack, Yes, which is why feedbacks are required to account for the degree of temperature swings. The models accurately recreate these temperature swings, so your claim that the models are inconsistent with the models is wrong and nonsensical.
  14. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    The title of Lamb's paper is wholly ironic considering how it was deployed here. So, a laugh at least. :-)
  15. CO2 lags temperature
    mistermack, Amplifying e's comment about your point 2: The main evidence for CO2's warming effect is not passive observation of its historic relationship to temperature. Rather, it is fundamental physics. CO2's warming effect was postulated in the early 1800s, long before there was evidence of its historic relationship to global temperatures. The exact mechanism by which CO2 does that was discovered in the early 1900s, again before there was much historic evidence. Later the historic relationships were discovered and found to match those predictions. For a good summary of the physics see Ramanathan's paper. For a good history see Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming.
  16. CO2 lags temperature
    Mistermack, you related yesterday's behavior to today's behavior, yourself suggesting that yesterday's behavior is cause to doubt what will happen today. As has been pointed out to you, today is different. Again, look at the CO2 concentration in times you refer to, compared to today. On a side note, it's not an "assumption" that increasing concentrations of CO2 cause the atmosphere to be a more efficient insulator. If you want to argue about that, however, use the search function to find a suitable venue for chasing that topic.
  17. CO2 lags temperature
    Hi e, I have read plenty on the Milankovitch cycles, and I can assure you that there is nothing in the calculated insolation rates that could possibly cause such sudden changes. And nothing in any Milankovitch cycle that could suddenly negate 800 years of steeply rising co2 levels, if the models are correct.
  18. Stephen Baines at 04:36 AM on 23 October 2010
    Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
    Obviously, when I wrote "So the effect of temperature is indirect..." I meant "the effect of solar radiation." Basically the discussion boils down to this, so to speak. You should get more water vapor as earth's temperature warms. If that didn't happen, it would be really really interesting scientifically - a potential Nature or Science paper and fame for anyone who could prove it. However, the strength of the physics behind the expectation, the fact that most data collected to date clearly shows a response of water vapor to atmospheric temperatures, and the difficulty in accomodating for past climate change in the absence of such a relationship suggests we should look at countervailing evidence with a very critical eye, especially when we know how easy it is to misinterpretation radiosonde data.
  19. Are we too stupid?
    BP #129: "All the other alternative energy sources one by one or all together do not even come close to replace carbon based fuels, just do the math." Ok. Current world energy consumption: ~16 TW Estimated exploitable world renewable resources with current technology; Hydro: 2 TW (out of 7 total) Geothermal: 1 TW (out of 30 total) Wind: 70 TW (out of 850 total) Solar: Estimates vary widely, but 600 TW is the lowest I could find. (out of 120,000 total). Somehow I'm not seeing the problem in getting up to 16 TW. Must be 'new math'. "With solar you need storage" No, with solar you need storage, a backup power source to smooth out fluctuations, a large/efficient enough grid to always have power available somewhere from the network, OR some combination of the above. Viable options exist for all three solutions with current technology. "Present consumption could be covered using just about half a million km2 (0.3% of land surface). However, we can't go much above this level before this kind of energy supply starts to compete with plants for sunlight." What? If there are no plants where you put the solar collectors then they aren't competing with plants for sunlight. Deserts, rooftops, blacktop... each of these can provide a 'plant free' area of more than 0.3% of the planet's land surface. BTW, plant photosynthesis uses less than 0.1% of the solar energy which strikes the planet's surface each year.
  20. CO2 lags temperature
    mistermack, On point 1) You were told to read up on Milankovitch cycles. Milankovitch cycles are periodic shifts in the earths orbit. When the orbit moves closer to the sun we get the warming trend, when the orbit moves further from the sun the warming trend is reversed and we get a cooling trend. The orbital cycles drive the direction of temperature change while CO2 only acts as a feedback or amplifier of said changes. Get it? On point 2) You asked how current theory explains the temperature trends. You can't very well expect someone to explain current theory without using the theory itself. Also, Milankovitch cycles on their own have nothing to with CO2, CO2 just acts as a feedback. If your question is what evidence do we have that CO2 levels are causing GW, then that is a separate topic and is covered here.
  21. CO2 lags temperature
    Ah, sorry about the caps. I wasn't intending it as a yell, just as emphasis, like underlining.
  22. CO2 lags temperature
    I'm sorry, Tom, Doug and Biblio, but 1) that was no answer to why warming stopped before, and 2) You're using an assumption that GW is caused by CO2 levels, to argue for it. I think about the four peaks in temp. in the graph above. Just before that peak, temp was rising at an enormous rate, and so was CO2. Something stopped it suddenly, and sent it the other way, EVEN THOUGH CO2 WOULD CONTINUE RISING STEEPLY FOR ANOTHER 800 YEARS !! According to the models, 800 years of steeply rising co2 should cause at least 750 years of more temperature rises, not a steep plunge.
    Moderator Response: Please don't use all caps. It's considered yelling. See the Comments Policy.
  23. CO2 lags temperature
    mistermack, another difference between then and now is the time scale. The "sudden," "steep" rises and drops you see in those graphs of olden times are not so sudden or steep when plotted on the timescale of the recent, human-caused temperature rise of the past 150 years.
  24. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    I agree, doug_bostrom. There is more about this (and its appearance in Wegman's dodgy report, and The Great Global Warming Swindle(sic) - which is probably where so-called skeptics get it from) at Stoat, where you will also learn that the graph is for Central England only - not global. As it says at Stoat : So: just in case it isn't clear from the above: fig 7.1.c isn't useful anymore. It was vaguely useful then because there was nothing better available. It was a hurridly drawn sourceless schematic that no-one uses nowadays; and if anyone *did* use it they would be roundly criticised. You can also read about it here at Skeptical Science. Try again, please, craig.
  25. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    "If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That's obvious too!" Don't be so sure about it being obvious. I once went hiking with a fairly intelligent but non-scientist friend, and having no good "thermos" (vacuum-insulated) bottle for our cold drinking water, took a plastic bottle, filled with ice water, and wrapped it in a sweater. She asked "What are you doing?". She assumed that the insulation would warm it up, not keep it cold. I think this is fairly typical thinking among non-scientists.
  26. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    "Recent" according to Craig: H. H. LAMB, 1965, THE EARLY MEDIEVAL WARM EPOCH AND ITS SEQUEL Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
  27. CO2 lags temperature
    Mistermack, The information you are looking for is available on this site. I can't post direct links, since this is being tapped out from my phone. Read up on the Milankovitch cycles and climate sensitivity in regards to CO2 as a feedback agent. Currently, CO2 is the forcing agent rather than a feedback. This is why archiesteel's comment was spot on.
  28. CO2 lags temperature
    Further to Tom's remarks, look at the ppm levels in the graph in John's post. We're at ~386ppm today, off that chart, in a new mode. "...it's surely unjustified to claim that the warming that's happening today won't meet the same "barrier" that warming did in the past. " The present warming's not going to meet the same barrier, that barrier's efficacy won't be the same today because we've created a novel situation. "Past is prologue" arguments always face the fundamental problem that we're not living in the past, we're living in the present, us and our effluent.
  29. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    I would suggest that those who haven't seen the discussion on Spencer's site about this take the time (and you'll need a lot of it) to look it up and wade through it. Spencer and a very small number of commenters (as I recall) do a heroic job of convincing the hard core deniers how reality works. It's about as perfect an example as I can imagine of how difficult communication can be.
  30. Are we too stupid?
    There are certainly multiple renewable and non-renewable options. Nuclear options would require fast breeder reactors and/or thorium reactors; both are technically possible, although politically 'hot' due to the radionuclide and fissionable materials availability. They do require cooling water, which is a different resource issue. Solar is entirely possible with current technology (doesn't require nano-machining); it's currently still a bit too pricey to be economic, but that's dropping fairly fast. The big requirements there are (a) reliable wide-area transmission lines, (b) scattered siting to minimize regional cloud issues, and (c) the needs some solar tech have for rare elements. Covering a portion of the Saudi peninsula with panels would power the planet if we could distribute it, without competing for any food. There's some excellent work going on in terms of energy storage, including molten salt, and simple approaches such as pressurized underground reservoirs - pump air into a mine shaft, run turbines off it when needed. Wind power is plentiful, although not as large a supply as solar - it would be a good adjunct to solar systems, sharing some of the same storage/distribution framework needed. Both do require considerable excess capacity to handle low wind/light conditions. Further down the line are orbital solar (gets around clouds and some distribution problems), some interesting approaches such as fusion (not tokamaks, I suspect those will never work), like the Polywell reactor or some of the other geometries. However - all of these require infrastructure development, time to be built, investment to drop the prices to economically feasible levels, and the political will to choose low CO2 technologies over "business as usual".
  31. Stephen Baines at 03:10 AM on 23 October 2010
    Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
    JohnD, the effect of solar radiation on evaporation is not "direct." Evaporation (and water vapor content) increases when the surface waters and wet soils warm, when the air warms and when wind allows the air near air/water interfaces to be replaced quickly before it saturates with water vapor. So the effect of temperature is indirect, through it's effect on surface and air temperatures. Since climate models are built on the fact that solar radiation is the primary source of heat energy into the system, variations in solar energy are built into predictions of atmospheric water vapor. They can't be causing the apparent increase in water vapor because there has been no recent increasing trend in solar inputs. In any case the existence of the water vapor feedback is not related to whether sun or GHGs are driving the temperature change. If the sun were causing the current warming, there should still be a water vapor feedback for that warming, just like there is for warming induced by icreases in GHGs. If there were no water vapor feedback, the climate system much more insensitive as a whole than it apparently is. It would be very hard to explain past climate variations, including those that have been caused by changes in solar radiation. As for the ocean discussion, we can quibble about how deep the skin is (I think of it as much thinner than a millimeter) and what consitutes a fraction that is large (13% still seems low to me). But there are several points your graphs bring up. First, whereas on land all the visible light waverlengths would be absorbed/reflected near the surface, visible light penetrates pretty deeply into the water column. That's the point I was trying to make about the difference between the ocean and land. Second, most of the solar radiation absorbed near the ocean surface is in the infrared range. If you were to extend that x-axis out, you'd find that the contribution of downwelling thermal IR to the near surface radiation budget is actually larger than that of downwelling solar IR. That downwelling thermal IR is of course a function of air temperature not solar radiation. Finally, the point of where the radiation is absorbed is moot in the ocean because that heat gets dispersed through the water column pretty quickly, as evidenced by the fact that you don't see strong persistent gradients in temperature near the surface. Sometimes this forum makes me feel like I'm reliving my prelims all over again!
  32. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hi everyone, NOAA just posted its "Arctic report card for 2009/2010". You can view it (or download it) here Pretty sobering stuff...
  33. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    JMurphy IPCC FAR 1990 P202 Fig 7c.
  34. CO2 lags temperature
    mistermack, the past episodes lacked an ingredient that is present now: the rapid and accelerating injection of greenhouse gases by humans. If those same other factors that operated in the past to cap the warming acted now, they would be overwhelmed by the higher and increasing amounts of GHGs from this new source.
  35. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Chris, Yes, my apologies for not explicitly stating that assumption. The blanket analogy also fails in that it prevents convection, like real greenhouses and unlike the greenhouse effect.
  36. It's the sun
    Ken, Did you take a look at the post I linked? It addressed essentially exactly what you are claiming, that solar forcings have a more long term effect then currently understood. Anyways, Hansen 2005 already "ran the numbers" as you are attempting to do. The net radiation and temperature data produced as a result is consistent with the temperature record and inconsistent with the idea that solar forcing is having any significant effect on recent warming.
  37. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    The domain name "hidethedecline" does smack somehow of presupposition, true enough, Albatross. Regarding inversions, it's sort of comical that I was scratching my head over what actually might produce a cooling signal during certain times of the year in certain regions of the Arctic, while sitting in the fog we always experience during this time of year here where I live. Different kinds of fog...
  38. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hi Doug, Thanks for your clarification. I have been thinking about the inversion; I presented just one hypothesis. But there could be other factors--either acting individually, acting in combination to produce the inversion. Someone should look at sounding data from Alert (82.5 N)-- I checked this morning and the University of Wyoming site has upper-air sounding data going back to circa 1977 for Alert. Pity that we do not have long-term in-situ observations from near the pole like they do from Amundson-Scott base....but of course a Arctic counterpart is just not possible. Anyhow, I'm tiring of Frank's conspiracy theories-- sounds like he may have caved to peer-pressure and it is clear from his posts here that he does not grasp the (sometimes counter intuitive) science. For example, the difference between sea ice and land ice, the fact that it is going to be decades before the Antarctic sea ice starts to respond to AGW and that Manabe et al. did an excellent of predicting the current evolution of the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice way back in 1992. When the sea ice eventually starts melting out en mass north of 80N during the summer (next 5-10 years, although there were signs of that starting to happen this past summer as shown on Neven's site), this latest little attempted distraction that WUWT dreamed up will be completely irrelevant, just like the vast majority of their other distractions.
  39. Are we too stupid?
    PS Molten Salt is a good way to store energy...as for your "Grey Goo" doomsday scenario, that's just science-fiction. If we are going to delve in that are, orbital solar power would a much cheaper way to generate round-the-clock electricity, and nuclear fusion seems a lot more likely than out-of-control nanites...
  40. Are we too stupid?
    @BP: All the more reasons to invest heavily into renewable energy, as China is doing. "All the other alternative energy sources one by one or all together do not even come close to replace carbon based fuels, just do the math." Really? On what numbers do you base yourself to make this conclusion? Are you taking into account new PV cell technology, which have dramatically reduced cost, leading to a sharp increase in consumer-producers? What about tidal power? Ethanol (perhaps soon to be produced by cyanobacteriae)? I think that all other alternative energy sources combined would greatly reduce our use of precious hydrocarbons (which we need to make plastic, anyway). You seem to claim it's too hard to achieve this, but that is a defeatist attitude. It was once considered too hard - nay, impossible - to go to the moon, but we did. This is just another challenge for humanity, and if you're not ready to lend a hand, at least have the decency to get out of the way.
  41. CO2 lags temperature
    Thanks archiesteel, but you're using your conclusion in your argument there. Why did an obvious violent feedback mechanism suddenly stop, and go into equally violent reverse? Until you can answer that, it's surely unjustified to claim that the warming that's happening today won't meet the same "barrier" that warming did in the past.
  42. Klaus Flemløse at 02:50 AM on 23 October 2010
    DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hi, I should like to do a reconcilation of the DMI data and the data Frank Lanser has produced from reading the graphs from DMI. The next step is to understand the DMI process behind the the data. I amlooking forward links to the data. Regards Klaus Flemløse
  43. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Right you are, Chris. Thanks! Amazing that people actually -read- these comments, heh!
  44. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Another source of confusion ist "heat" and "radiation". The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, that HEAT can't go from a colder atmosphere to a warmer earth. But of course RADIATION is still possible. Heat is the net flow of radiations. You think, that's clear? Then listen zu extreme-sceptics ;-)
  45. Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
    johnd said:"On the point of confusion, a forcing is a mechanism that can exert change. It does not cease being a forcing agent because at some point in time it has a value of zero." This is so vague (confused) as to not even be wrong. Forcing in climate is something that changes the level of radiation energy on average. That is why they are expressed in Watts per square meter. Something vague like "change" could be the difference between day and night, windy or not windy, as you specifically mention as being important. That is just weather, so your point is irrelevant without any consideration of whether these important factors change on average, which would be climate changes. This article is only about climate observations (total amount of water in the air, which influences radiation at the surface), not an explanation of the basics of evaporation as a weather phenomenon. Until you realize climate changes are changes in average weather, not changes in weather, you will remain confused.
  46. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Oh, Doug, I think you mean ease of output is _decreasing_ slightly.
  47. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Bibiovermis (01:44 AM on 23 October, 2010), Umm, no. Not unless the energy source is giving off radiation that is more transparent to the blanket than it is to the dummy. I use the term energy source because it is more generic; I suppose 'heat source' might refer to an object emitting energy primarily in the infrared spectrum, but microwave through, IR, visible, UV, and beyond, is all electromagnetic energy.
  48. Berényi Péter at 02:44 AM on 23 October 2010
    Are we too stupid?
    #128 CBDunkerson at 21:35 PM on 22 October, 2010 it is NOT as you claim the ONLY viable technology... nor indeed the best Hydro power is great when suitable sites are available, but in that respect we are close to saturation. All the other alternative energy sources one by one or all together do not even come close to replace carbon based fuels, just do the math. Solar may be an exception as it is already proven as long term supplier of the biosphere, but in its present form it can't be anything but marginal. To change that one would need advanced molecular nanotechnology, the very type of gadgets life is built on (but a bit more durable, perhaps). This technology is not ready yet, it's even difficult to put a definite timeframe on its development. With solar you need storage, preferably a distributed one, with high energy density, reasonable efficiency and low environmental impact. It can hardly be anything else but an energy rich, non-toxic and not flammable chemical (like sugar). With molecular precision (also applied in chlorplasts and mithocondria for some time) self replicating desktop manufacturing systems can build micron sized solar units to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen using light, storage units of the same size and fuel cells using sugar and producing electricity on demand along with CO2 and water. A dense 2D matrix of these gadgets can supply roughly 109 J/m2 each year, either as electricity or a chemical fuel to be taken away. Present consumption could be covered using just about half a million km2 (0.3% of land surface). However, we can't go much above this level before this kind of energy supply starts to compete with plants for sunlight. There is one caveat. The technology needed to implement such a system is far more dangerous than nukes, if abused. Other than that and the fact we do not have it yet, it's marvelous.
  49. CO2 lags temperature
    @mistermack: "If temperatures stopped rising, and dropped steeply many times in the past, why should I believe that they can go higher now? You had rapidly rising CO2 in the past, but the temp. rise was unable to continue, and quickly dropped back. Why?" CO2 levels are higher now (by more than 35%) than at any time in the last 600,000 years. The last time they were this high (with similar solar output), temperatures were almost 5C warmer, IIRC. So, in fact, temps *can* go higher if CO2 levels are pushed higher. That's the essence of AGW theory.
  50. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Oh, and I would still like the data you used to generate your graph. Why have you not provided it yet?

Prev  2116  2117  2118  2119  2120  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  2126  2127  2128  2129  2130  2131  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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