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  2120  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  2126  2127  2128  2129  2130  2131  2132  2133  2134  2135  Next

Comments 106351 to 106400:

  1. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    #97: "a strong historic correlation between cosmic rays and tropical monsoon, glacier retreat and temperatures." What correlation is this? Provide some evidence, rather than just a claim. We've gone through this in detail here. No such correlation stands up to scrutiny. "the sun has an ability to control the coulds so that more TSI will be let in. This theory is also being tested on the CLOUD project in CERN." No, CLOUD is testing the effect of cosmic ray flux on cloud formation; that doesn't measure TSI in any way.
  2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Probably so obvious I'm foolish to say it, but I think where a lot of folks go off the rails on this has to do w/the conversion of wavelength of energy in versus energy out. We're looking at a situation where the ease of input is staying relatively the same versus the ease of output, which is increasing slightly. It stands to reason that Earth will have to become slightly warmer to account for this. Easy unless, that is, some folks go to a lot of trouble to confuse the issue. Just a few more hours of science education in middle school and we'd be able to skip this entire impediment.
  3. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Putting a blanket on a tailor's dummy will cause it to heat up more than its surroundings when there is a nearby heat source.
  4. It's the sun
    archiesteel #712 "Even after all these messages I still don't get what you're driving at. Talk about a colossal waste of time... " Your failure to understand might not be within my power to explain archiesteel.
  5. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    I don't know if this gets beyond a "basic" version, but when you are talking about heat exchange by radiation, the 2nd law really states that there can be no spontaneous NET flow of heat from a cold place to a hot. The cold air in the atmosphere helps keep us warm because it emits infrared radiation back to ground. It's less than what the ground radiates up, but more than would be radiated down from space alone. The blanket analogy is really that you have a heat flow: warm body -> colder blanket -> cold room On earth you have a heat flow: warm surface -> colder air -> really cold space
  6. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, The connection you are attempting to portray with your lake analogy is just as flawed as the train & orange grove analogies were. More water in means more out. Increasing the input will only cause a level rise if the output is restricted.
  7. It's the sun
    e #711 I covered this point about areas under curves viz: KL : "This only represents the available positive (warming) forcings. The main negative forcings are cloud and aerosol albedo, and S-B radiative cooling. I shall run some numbers on these and try for a net forcing since say AD1750 in 50 year tranches." There will be a S-B negative curve and cloud albdo and aerosol negative curves - with the sum of all being the net energy added or lost to the Earth system. According to Hansen the thermal lag of the system is about 25 - 50 years, so we should see a temperature response which follows the net energy balance - lagging by some similar time period. Certainly if you take decadal sections of the post AD1850 temperature curves there are flat periods or slightly cooling periods - just like the one we have had for the last 10 years. This is consistent with the net area of Total forcing curves shown here : http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/GISS_forcings.gif PROVIDED you add the correct Solar forcing of about +0.1 - 0.2/sq.m on the positive side which has been wrongly set to zero in this Total forcing chart. ie: The period 1850 - 1915 should be cooling because all the area under the Total Forcing chart is negative -but the temperature record shows flat (or very slight cooling) which indicates that positive Solar forcing at was offsetting the negative area.
  8. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Would it be too complicated for this bit to say that the person in the "blanket analogy" also gets warmed because the blanket is like a one way valve. Light and short wave radiation passes through and warms ones skin but the blanket acts to slow down the re-radiation of long wave heat - put another blanket on and it slows down even more
  9. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Sorry FLansner, I won't be increasing the traffic to your site. Please provide the original sources for your claims and state what you think they are claiming - or hiding/not claiming, according to you.
  10. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    craig, please provide some examples not involving Wiki, if you wish. I don't mind where they come from, as long as they are from the original sources and mainstream, i.e. not filtered via other websites/blogs.
  11. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP >You are obviously saying that more energy is escaping due to waste heat, while less energy is escaping due to GHGs. e > Nope, that's not at all what KR was saying, you are just misunderstanding the definition of the terms. Decreasing the emissive spectra of the earth does not mean less energy escaping to space. Actually, decreasing the emission spectra of the Earth will decrease the amount of energy escaping to space at that temperature, until conditions change. Given the time constants for ocean warming and the like, it will take ~40-50 years for the temperatures to increase (with energy accumulating on Earth) to finally reach a new equilibrium, where integrated thermal emission once again equals integrated solar input. Of course, if GHG forcings continue to change, the climate will follow along, short term feedbacks (water vapor, clouds) first, longer term changes (ground cover, ice, ocean temps) lagging behind.
  12. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP - I'm responding because you apparently, in this posting, did not understand what I said about two alternative theories for global warming. Sections (1) and (2) of that post indicate distinct alternatives for the major cause of warming - AHF or GHG's. (1) If AHF dominates, top of atmosphere radiative imbalance will become positive (more energy leaving than arriving from the sun, some fraction of the energy added at the surface), with that amount increasing as the Earth approaches equilibrium, ending up at solar input + AHF and a warmer Earth. (2) If GHG's dominate (and the 2 orders of magnitude difference in energy involved should point that direction), TOA imbalance will be quite negative due to the GHG spectral reduction, with that imbalance decreasing as the Earth warms and approaches equilibrium. At equilibrium, the TOA imbalance should be zero, with outgoing radiation again equaling solar input (albeit with a somewhat different emission spectra). What's the actual situation? Well, read Harries 2001 on Is the CO2 effect saturated; also Griggs 2004 and Chen 2007. The TOA imbalance is negative. This is scenario (2), and this means that GHG's dominate warming. I expect that AHF reduce the imbalance by, say, 1%, but I don't think that will even show in the noise. It's not waste heat, RSVP. You seem to have come to a conclusion you're happy with, and continue making poor analogies and quite frankly making up non-physical effects (not cherry picking - there isn't enough evidence for your view to pick) to support that. You've long since left the realm of scientific discussion.
  13. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    craig wrote : "As a sceptic, I believe that the mainstream science, up until recently. considered the MWP to be warmer than today and global." Perhaps you could give some examples of the "mainstream science" which "until recently" considered any of that as being true ?
  14. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, You still have not explained how AHF radiates just like SHF and yet accumulates. Yes, you are using logic. However, you aren't using it to arrive at your conclusion. You start at a conclusion and deduce a path that will arrive there, disregarding any basic extant knowledge on the matter.
  15. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Cracking closing line Tony - nice work all round.
  16. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP #272: "Hard to diagram isnt it?" Not at all. Heat goes up. Heat disperses. Heat leaves the atmosphere. I've seen dozens of diagrams of this... all those radiation balance diagrams on this site for instance. "If you think being wrong about this detail is sufficient to discount my theory or me, that is the ad hominem approach" Discounting your theory because the details of it are wrong is an ad hominem approach? Fascinating. "Now some sanity (as you say)... Urban heat doesnt rise." We have different definitions of sanity. Heat rises. Urban heat. Rural heat. Waste heat. Solar heat. Magma in the Earth's core which is hotter than the surrounding magma. You name it. Any portion of a fluid substance which becomes heated rises above the surrounding matter. This is a fundamental property of convection. Something which you go on about quite a bit, but apparently know nothing about. "Air that has been warmed by convection rises." That statement is an oxymoron. Convection causes air warmed by other sources (e.g. 'urban heat', 'sunlight', et cetera) to rise and COOL.
  17. Are we too stupid?
    BP #127: "Unfortunately the very same people promoting fast decarbonization tend to reject the only technologically mature solution, fast breeder reactors." In my experience 'radiation fear' and NIMBYism are widespread, rather than being limited to people in favor of decarbonization. There is some dispute whether nuclear fission could provide us with electrical power for "the projected lifetime of Earth" or 'merely' several thousand years, but either way I agree it is a viable technology. However, it is NOT as you claim the ONLY viable technology... nor indeed the best. While problems with radioactive waste disposal (which would still be an issue with fast breeder reactors, just reduced) and possible 'meltdown' scenarios can be managed to remove most of the risk... there is also the issue of nuclear proliferation. If the whole world ran on fast breeder reactors then the whole world would have nuclear detonation capability. To me that's a rather daunting proposition... to the point that I'd actually prefer the use of 'once through' reactors to burn up uranium supplies quickly. That would make a great 'interim solution' while decarbonizing. You had previously dismissed renewables because of 'land use' issues, which is fairly obviously nonsense. Even setting aside possible future developments like space based solar and high altitude wind, more than enough power can be generated by 'dual purposing' land. The difference in food yield between a large cornfield and a large cornfield with wind turbines in it is minimal. The difference in parking capacity between a parking lot and a parking lot with solar panels shading all the parking spaces is zero. If we took full advantage of that kind of dual purposing in every viable location we'd have far more electrical power than we need. There are also of course off-shore wind farms, tidal power, geothermal (do alot of people live on top of active volcanoes?), ocean heat flux, traditional hydropower, et cetera. More than enough fully developed modern renewable power options. One 'future technology' that would be a real game changer is the 'solar road' concept. Basically, instead of driving on standard asphalt you drive on a solar power generating surface. The surface area of the world's roadways and other 'blacktop' surfaces is many many times greater than would be needed to cover world power needs even at low efficiencies which might be needed for a viable driving surface. Nifty things about this would be that it takes the whole battery problem out of electric cars... you could get a continual charge directly from the road itself via induction charging. The roads would also serve as a super grid providing electrical power everywhere there are roads AND localized generation worldwide - reducing transmission losses. Potentially heating elements could be incorporated to clear snow and ice in winter. Et cetera. Isn't production ready, but people are working on it and nothing about the concept seems at all implausible. Possibly just that we wouldn't bother building out EVERY road that way when a fraction of them would provide sufficient power.
  18. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    #80 @ Ned: Provide us evidence, that clouds are only a feedback. Please, explain an oscillating climate with positive feedbacks with TSI and CO2 as driving components. How can temperatures fall on any occasion? Only if TSI dominates over CO2? How is this possible on either scenarios, either positive or negative feedbacks? The problem with positive feedbacks is that it would lead in to unending loop of warming. Since CO2 concentration in the atmosphere used to be controlled by sea surface temperatures. If CO2 is also driving the temperatures it would definitely need a forcing on a larger scale to turn it into cooling. The problem with negative feedbacks would be the overall variation, since they would also compensate any warming effect but also compensate any cooling effect. And here comes my thought: the feedbacks on sun variations are actually positive, since the sun has an ability to control the coulds so that more TSI will be let in. This theory is also being tested on the CLOUD project in CERN. But feedbacks to any radiative forcing would be negative, while increasing humidity thus increasing clouds. Unfortunately we dont have the data to prove either case from the history. We just dont. Therefore we cant understan the present either. Only thing we have, is a strong historic correlation between cosmic rays and tropical monsoon, glacier retreat and temperatures. This suggest, there very well might be an effect, thus the feedbacks being "measured" from the radiative budget are being biased being positive when actually the change is natural while negative feedback is occuring (R. Spencers cause vs effect problem).
    Moderator Response: You'll need to use the search box at upper left to find an appropriate thread for discussing forcing, which is not the topic of this thread.
  19. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Dana: "This post sums up perhaps one of the worst skeptic contradictions. They love to say the MWP was hot, and they love to say the climate isn't sensitive. You can't have it both ways." I don't think that makes sense. As a sceptic, I believe that the mainstream science, up until recently. considered the MWP to be warmer than today and global. On the point of sensitivity, I thought everyone more or less agreed than climate sensitivity is around 1 to 1.5 C, without feedbacks. The real question (and unknown) is the magnitude and direction of the feedback.
  20. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    To CBDunkerson The lake analogy has to do with your remark about heat, "magically hanging around in the climate system for decades." If you cant make the connection here, there is no point in going on.
  21. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    It is arrogant to claim, that we know the climate forcins since 1000 years. It is actually very arrogant. You simply dont have the required data to sort it out. Surely, to some extent, we know the TSI and CO2 forcings on the past, with at least some accuracy. But we have no information at all, about the decaedal and even possibly centennial cycles on ocean dynamis, for example. If climate modelers cant explain MWP they are definitely also unable to explain the modern maximum. Only thing they can explain with the models is a hockey stick with a flat handle. It is absolutely impossible to replicate an oscillating climate with CO2 as a driving component - as we know fisrst rise the temperatures and then CO2 - it has been definitely a secondary factor, since the unknown forcings X could turn the events in to global cooling, even when CO2 ppm was at the highest. You just cant understand the future before understanding the history. And history is something that is definitely not well understoond. And for those people who praise the (in)famous Hockey Stick and its blade I suggest you open McShane & Wyner pg. 3 and read what they write about adding thermometer temps on proxy records. The overall variation in proxies is necessarily a lot smoother, and placing thermometers on top of the proxy reconstructions it gives an illusion that the proxies are more accurate than they really are. So please. Treat proxy data as proxy data and thermometer as thermometer data. They are not comparable and in common statistics it is not allowed to combine differently measuret datasets together.
  22. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    e #268 You need to start seeing the Earth as an active rather than a passive element. Outward radiation does not have to be constant. e #270 Here you are blaming me for forgetting something that someone else omitted in their statement.
  23. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    "The irony of this line of thinking is that if the Medieval Warm Period did turn out to be much warmer than currently thought, this doesn't prove that humans aren't causing global warming. On the contrary, it would mean the danger from man-made global warming is greater than expected." Surely this is circular reasoning? It's like saying that previou ice ages and interglacials, where average temperatures swung by more than 8 C also makes the danger from AGW greater. Flawed logic in my book.
  24. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hi Jmurphy! If you look at my site www.hidethedecline.eu, the A-Z, then you will see that i am of course interested in long term trends. Here in a little blog, i just gave you a few examples, hope you understand this. Antarctica is one just of endless examples of how data and results are changed more and more in line with the global warming hypothesis: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/antarctic%20air%20temperature%20at%20lower/aag.jpg The individual modification of data (temperatures, tree proxy data, ice areas etc.etc.), change in viewpoints etc. coming from the "alarmist" site may very well be 100% correct. Just like the one you link to now. The problem is, that statistically all the many many modifications has far too much a trend, a trend toward supporting global warming hypothesis. This is one of tha main problems that creates skeptics. But speaking of "long term trend and Antarctica, Look: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/antarctic%20air%20temperature%20at%20lower/aaf.jpg and http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/antarctic-ice-melt-95.php K.R. Frank Lansner
    Moderator Response: If your own hypothesis to account for global warming diverges from science and relies instead on conspiracy theories, you'll need to find another thread to carry on the discussion. Use the search box at upper left. Similarly, if the topic you choose to discuss is now Antarctica, use the search box, find a thread discussing the particular feature of Antarctica you have in mind, then carry on there.
  25. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    CBDunkerson #271 Ironically, you have produced three two-dimensional figures, and then correctly describe the problem as involving three dimensions. Hard to diagram isnt it? and more difficult to imagine the heat spreading in all directions when the wind starts blowing, which was the context of my statement. And whether the shape is a tear drop or a mushroom cloud is neither here or there in terms of the discussion. If you think being wrong about this detail is sufficient to discount my theory or me, that is the ad hominem approach, which you are free to take, as I am not the moderator. You say, "urban heat (which is mostly due to albedo change rather than waste heat to begin with) rises due to convection, heated air then spreads out - forcing colder air downwards on all sides" Now some sanity (as you say)... Urban heat doesnt rise. Air that has been warmed by convection rises. Air that has been warmed by heating systems, car engines, and as you say asphalt, concrete, warmed by the Sun, etc. And yes, some of this heat escapes into infinity, but given the fact that there is a finite amount of heat emitters (IR radiators such as the asphalt and buildings themselves, CO2, H2O, steel highway girders, basically all grey bodies on Earth), some heat will accumulate. And YES, you get more radiation as temperature increases; but this is no different from what can be said about possible contributions coming from GHGs. There seems to be one more hitch. Imagine a lake whose level is seen to rise 3 inches in the course of 150 years due to a new spring breaking ground up stream. Perhaps after 5 years the original water in the lake has been completely replenished, and yet the level is steadily rising. After 150 years, the top three inches of the lake are not just from this new river.
  26. Berényi Péter at 20:43 PM on 22 October 2010
    Are we too stupid?
    A lot of comments discussing alternative energy sources got deleted recently. As there is no appropriate thread at this site with such a topic, I give it a try here. I believe in the short term neither atmospheric carbon dioxide nor fossil fuel depletion are among the twenty most important problems of the world, but on longer timescales (from several centuries up to a billion years) they certainly are. Others believe it is an immediate problem requiring drastic measures as soon as practicable. Anyway, it is a problem begging for a solution (sooner or later). If we don't want to go entirely stupid, we should cooperate. However, cooperation needs trust. Unfortunately the very same people promoting fast decarbonization tend to reject the only technologically mature solution, fast breeder reactors. As it is actually a smart attitude not to trust people promoting a non-solution to a problem raised by them while a perfectly reasonable one is available, no wonder cooperation is somewhat hampered. You don't need fancy game theory to explain this, simple common sense suffices. Re: Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? #241 Roger A. Wehage at 01:40 AM on 22 October, 2010 Uranium is not sustainable when consumed. That is why handling radioactive wastes is such a world problem. And Uranium is finite, which means that it also past peak and becoming more difficult and expensive to obtain. Have you read the paper I've provided a link to? Has the physics changed that much during the past 27 years? American Journal of Physics, Jan. 1983 Vol. 51, Issue 1, pp. 75 Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source Bernard L. Cohen Cost of fuel with fast breeder reactors is a non-issue, as you need very small amounts of the stuff. Even at an inflated price exceeding that of gold it would contribute less than 0.1% to cost of power generation. Therefore as the leanest ores are getting economic, the resource can't be exhausted in the projected lifetime of Earth. You may also be interested in this paper: EIC Climate Change Technology, 2006 IEEE 10-12 May 2006, pp. 1. doi: 10.1109/EICCCC.2006.277268 Nuclear Fission Fuel is Inexhaustible Lightfoot, H.D.; Manheimer, W.; Meneley, D.A.; Pendergast, D. & Stanford, G.S. Present day radioactive wastes are a problem because current technology was developed with military applications in mind, that is, to produce as much plutonium as possible. It resulted in a meager fuel efficiency, barely 1% of what is already achieved by proven technology in experimental fast breeder reactors. With the proper technology waste deposits are more like a resource than a problem. If we started to burn the stuff now, we could go on for decades with no further mining whatsoever. An additional benefit is the volume of radioactive spent fuel left over at the end of the cycle is two orders of magnitude smaller, what is more, it would not contain radionuclides with long halflives, so it would not need reliable sequestration for hundreds of thousand years, just centuries.
  27. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    FLansner wrote : "I think i was overwhelmed by the low Arctic ice extend sep 2007. And i just trusted in the "consensus". But then i found out that in the same period the Antarctic ice extend anomaly (around 2007-8) not only set a max record of around +2 mio sq km, but this record war almost TWICE the anomaly ever measured since 1979." It sounds like you were someone in search of something to believe in : first it was the low Arctic extent which convinced you to believe one thing, then a low Antarctic (sea-ice ?) extent convinced you to believe something opposite. That doesn't make sense to me, because I think it best to look at long-term trends and to look at all the evidence as a whole - not just one piece in isolation. Perhaps you were unsure of what you actually believed before Jan 2008 (as you stated previously), and will go back to believing something else in a few years time ? As I suggested, look at the long-term trends of all the evidence. I would also suggest a read of this thread (Is Antarctica Losing or Gaining Ice) from Skeptical Science, where you will see the difference between land and sea ice, and how the big picture looks.
  28. Increasing southern sea ice: a basic rebuttal
    FIRST of all, according to the latest study Antarcticas land ice loss was cut in HALF. Secondly, its ONLY a measurement since 8 years. It requires serious cheerry picking and hasty conclusions to say anything about accelerating there. Thirdly, UAH and RSS show antarctica cooling since 30 years. Thermometers cover only a fraction. Fourthly, the SST has been decreasing since 1980. This was also Cooks misconception. I dont know where his claim was coming from (maybe Currys latest study???), but the data clearly shows cooling.
  29. Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
    t_p_hamilton at 06:40 AM, the point I was making is that the energy that is transferred directly from sunlight to water vapour through the evaporation process is no different in terms of the effect it exerts once in the atmosphere, to that energy that is absorbed directly into the atmosphere from incoming solar radiation. 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. What perhaps does confuse the issue is that the values that are subscribed to the various forcings are anomalies, with the base year I believe being 1750. This is all very well in the case of CO2, but I feel, given the poor understanding of the state of the climate at that time and the relatively inadequate measurements of all the other factors driving it, anomalies may not allow the weight of each forcing mechanism to be fully appreciated when being worked into models. Would it not be better if absolute values were to be used instead?
  30. Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
    And John, do you have ANY evidence at all that water wapor never acts as a forcing? It seems evident, that the earths temperature anomalies match quite a bit with the tropospheric humidity. This correlation also includes the flattening on the GW trend during the last decade. No net warming since 1998 and also no net humidity increase since 1998. Which is the cause and which is the effect? Also one crucial point about water wapur feedback is the increase in the upper troposphere. Some evidence sugggest, that there is no increase. Also according to the latest McKitrick et al and Christy et al, no tropospheric hotspot is also to be found, on any of the datasets. You also point out, that humidity increases during El Nino events. It also means, during La ninas it will decrease. And according to history, the next 30 years or so will be the times of La Nina. That could also mean decreasing in humidity for the same period. The most critical question is... where do trade winds come from. As far as I understand, clouds drive them through condensation (models do not take in accoutn the pressure loss through condensation, this was pointed out by Jeff Id lately), and solar activity with planetary rotating parameters is driving the clouds. If you just compare the detrended global thermometer data and compare it to PDO and AMO indexes you will see that all of the 30 year variation must be driven by those events. This also suggest cooling for the next 30 years (and 30yrs of warming after that), thus a total of 1C increase temperatures for the next 90 years.
  31. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, what you wrote was; "So instead of the effect you describe, as seen from a map, there is typically a large smudge or plume that emerges around an urban center that tapers eastward... heat that is gradually dispersed but never lost" You have stated that this is the typical situation. The norm. Thus, surely you can show some evidence of it. Otherwise you'd have made a claim about something being 'typical' with no basis. I was able to find the 'anomalous' images below showing NO 'long downwind tail' without much effort. Surely finding images of the TYPICAL situation must be MUCH easier. Either that or the laws of physics still hold, urban heat (which is mostly due to albedo change rather than waste heat to begin with) rises due to convection, heated air then spreads out - forcing colder air downwards on all sides, and thus you get an extremely localized heat ISLAND. With that heat then dissipated higher up in the atmosphere it quickly escapes to space like all other heat rather than magically hanging around in the climate system for decades. But that's just physics and sanity talking. Please, show me a 'typical' map to the contrary.
  32. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Jmurphy: I think i was overwhelmed by the low Arctic ice extend sep 2007. And i just trusted in the "consensus". But then i found out that in the same period the Antarctic ice extend anomaly (around 2007-8) not only set a max record of around +2 mio sq km, but this record war almost TWICE the anomaly ever measured since 1979. And I noticed that the medias was quiet about this. Then I had to dig down in things. Another thing: I was going "bla bla bla" about my global warming opninion at a party Eastern Europe, and then it turned out that NO ONE else shared my opnions that global warming was very real. It turned out that people thought western countries where acting like embarresing fools! So I was a little shocked, and had to check things out. K.R. Frank
  33. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    FLansner wrote : "I was believing "Alarmist" until around jan 2008." What's your definition of an "alarmist" ? I ask because perhaps you were the only one who believed in things the way you claimed to before Jan 2008 - a definition would help determine your beliefs. What did you believe and what evidence can you show that gives an idea of what your beliefs were before Jan 2008 ?
  34. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Archiesteel, you write: "You clearly seem to indicate that the "cooling trend" is general in that comment. Perhaps you should consider publishing a retraction on your blog? " ??? I should retract... a comment?? (that was a new one...!) Heres the comment again: "The end of the global warming movement seems to take more than good arguments and data - first when temperatures (due to the ongoing Solar low activity) reach temperatures so low than no adjustments can hide it, when the ice grows massively, then this night mare of pseudo science will pass away." To me this is a general comment, and yes my impression is, that too much of the alarmist foundation is based on pseodu-science and pseudo data. In this context I have shown you GISS pseudo data by projecting temperature from land over sea and ice. Its grotesk. We have seen how UHI has been "measured" from London and suburbs. Grotesk. we have seen how Cryosphere ice has been adjusted massively in the year 2000. What happened in year 2000? And when these drops of weak science just keep coming in thousands, then one day even I got sceptic. I was believing "Alarmist" until around jan 2008. K.R. Frank
  35. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    "Bibliovermis at 14:16 PM on 22 October, 2010 I don't find a trend of melt season cooling during an annual warming trend surprising either. The "missing" heat can reasonably be concluded to be going into the enthalpy of fusion of the increased melting rate. " I agree totally! It has been one of the possible explanations, and its nice that we now can take a more scientific look at these thing in stead of just ignoring data. My original purpose was to show descrepancy with GISS data 80N-90N that comes from their land based data projected 1200 km over water and ice. And then of course my aim was simply to show the DMI data for people to know and considder. I personally did not expect a cooling trend incentral Arctic while in the melting season at the same time the bulk of the Arctic lost a great amount of ice. For me it was surpricing, but not impossible. K.R. Frank
  36. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP>If this were true, the ambient temperatures would never get over 0 Kelvin. I think you need to reword that sentence. As KR pointed out, you are forgetting that there is a delay between when the input increases and when the output grows to eventually match the input. It is during this delay that temperatures increase. Once the output has had time to match the input, then we are at equilibrium and the temperature does not increase any further. Again, no accumulation beyond this point.
  37. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP >You are obviously saying that more energy is escaping due to waste heat, while less energy is escaping due to GHGs. Nope, that's not at all what KR was saying, you are just misunderstanding the definition of the terms. Decreasing the emissive spectra of the earth does not mean less energy escaping to space. What it means is the earth has to get hotter to equal the same output, which as I pointed out, it MUST do otherwise it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In other words, the total radiation escaping to space is identical whether GHG's are present or not, the difference is the earth has to get a lot hotter to generate the same rate of emissions. This is the basic principle behind global warming.
  38. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    archiesteel #266 "Oh, and where are those UHI maps? Are you sure they exist?" My words were, "as seen from a map" to depict the perspective as in "top view". You need to improve your basic reading skills.
  39. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    KR #242 "radiation increases since we're now warmer than solar equilibrium... Greenhouse gases accumulate, decreasing the emissive spectra of the Earth." I have put these to clauses side by side to illustrate a "minor" inconsistency. You are obviously saying that more energy is escaping due to waste heat, while less energy is escaping due to GHGs. You mentioned I am not rational when in fact my entire approach is based on deductive reasoning. The Evans paper for instance is just the opposite in that it documents measurements made for the sole purpose of upholding a theory. I was going to say there are two schools of thought, empiricism and reason, however now that I THINK about it there is only ONE school of thought, and that is the school of reason.
  40. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    @FLansner, how do you explain what you wrote in the comments section of that blog post: "The end of the global warming movement seems to take more than good arguments and data - first when temperatures (due to the ongoing Solar low activity) reach temperatures so low than no adjustments can hide it, when the ice grows massively, then this night mare of pseudo science will pass away. What a relief, and as you say, then we have to fight with many decades of colder times when we will remember the good old warm days. Thanks for your words!" You clearly seem to indicate that the "cooling trend" is general in that comment. Perhaps you should consider publishing a retraction on your blog?
  41. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    @RSVP: "If this were true, the ambient temperatures would never get over 0 Kelvin. I think you need to reword that sentence." No. *You* need to learn basic physics. Hint: heat transfer is not instantaneous (nor did e's post claim it was, hence the use of the term "grow"). Oh, and where are those UHI maps? Are you sure they exist?
  42. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Albatross, ok the title has been shortened and it does compromise the content - until one reads the article. Heres how I wrote: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/colder-arctic-temperatures-in-the-melt-season-vs.-giss-temperatures-188.php Ha! now I better understand this fuzz :-) K.R. Frank
  43. Do 500 scientists refute anthropogenic global warming?
    @oxymoron: I responded to you in the It's the sun thread. Needless to say, you are wrong in your assessment, as that article demonstrates.
  44. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    e #262 "The rate of output will always grow to exactly match the rate of input. Not some of the input, ALL of it. " If this were true, the ambient temperatures would never get over 0 Kelvin. I think you need to reword that sentence.
  45. It's the sun
    Responding to oxymoron, who in another thread argued that "Certainly before 2000 the correlation between TSI and temperature is obvious" Well, as this article shows, it's not 2000, it's 1980. Also, note that temperatures actually *lead* TSI from about 1925 to 1950. So, what can we conclude? Solar forcing does have an impact, but in the past 30-35 years it has been completely overpowered by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
  46. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    @FLansner: "Archiesteel, in the article I dont just write "the Arctic is cooling" as you imply." Well, that's the implication, isn't it? That DMI shows cooling while GISS shows warming? Isn't that the entire point of your blog post? The name of your blog directly refers to a contrarian mantra - now are you saying that all this time you really agreed that the Arctic, overall, has been warming at a rate greater than the rest of the world? Are you going to do a blog post about that as well? "And if i somewhere in the comments did so(???), im sure most peoble here knows by now that we are talking about DMI summer melt season 80N-90N trends (!)" Well, since we all agree that this is about melt season only, and does not change the fact that, overall, the Arctic is warming, then what was the point of coming here to argue about it? "But im happy you dont think the ½ degree cooling trend 1991-2010 summermelt 80N-90N is surpricing." [...] "correction: "is not surpricing" I'm confused now. You're happy I don't think the cooling is not surprising? That a double negative. Am I suprised by the cooling? Well, it's certainly interesting, but others here have provided some interesting hypotheses as to why this could be. Others dispute the cooling, so there's clearly no consensus about this. So, interested? Sure. Surprised? Not really. Concerned this could be an argument against AGW? Not in the least.
  47. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Joe> Im not saying this is driving climate at the present, im saying this is one physical mechanism capable of driving unforced climate oscillations. Fair enough, but I think this (a change to our knowledge of the physics in action today) is exactly what skeptics imply when they focus on the MWP, when that conclusion really does not follow.
  48. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Still waiting on those 'typical' maps showing UHI effects stretching out far from their urban sources.
  49. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    As a matter of fact, the "clipping effect" ought to be nicely amplified or highlighted in a regime undergoing a shift to exaggerated inversions. "Cooling," yes, but a case of being careful of what we wish for.
  50. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Not at all, Albatross. If this is about temperature inversions then this is much ado about nothing, or worse if one is a selective skeptic. The bottoms of inversions are little worlds all of their own, and of course such a beast is going to neatly reflect the "clipping effect" alluded to earlier. If anything, hardened, more persistent or more frequent inversions could well be seen as confirmatory of change, unless somebody can explain why upper air is warming for natural reasons.

Prev  2120  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  2126  2127  2128  2129  2130  2131  2132  2133  2134  2135  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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