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  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  2126  2127  2128  2129  2130  2131  2132  2133  2134  2135  2136  Next

Comments 106401 to 106450:

  1. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hi Doug, Perhaps it is b/c it is late and I'm tired, but could you please elaborate on this: "This is beginning to sound entirely mundane." Thanks. So sorry to be dim.
  2. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Albatross: ...it is evident in their Fig. 1c. that the strongest warming during the summer (JJA) is not at the surface but concentrated between 850 and 950 hPa... Now that's interesting. I've been puzzling over what might forestall or even reverse an increase in temperature at the surface. Bearing in mind the clipping effect which seems pretty obvious from graphs, what could also help drive down statistics would be more frequent, deep or persistent temperature inversions. Superficially at least, it seems that warming above the surface would help drive an inversion process. Albatross continues: Given the stable stratification of the low-levels, it is difficult for the warmer air to mix down, thereby resulting in a slower rate of warming immediately at and above the surface during the summer. This is beginning to sound entirely mundane. Another smoking gun?
  3. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Franks says @97, "in the article I dont just write "the Arctic is cooling" as you imply." Really? This is what the title of Frank's post is at WUWT (and that sets the stage in the reader's mind): "DMI polar data shows cooler Arctic temperature since 1958" Nowhere in the title does he mention that he is only discussing melt season temperatures, or that he is focusing only north of 80 N. He uses the word "Arctic", that technically means north of ~66.56 N. The title is misleading. Yes, and I know what the first sentence says, but many people do not get beyond the title, and if they do, the title pre-conditions them as to how they will interpret the content. "But im happy you dont think the ½ degree cooling trend 1991-2010 summermelt 80N-90N is surpricing." As I have cited previously (and as John Cook has discussed here on SS ), the ERA-interim data (a continuous record with no splicing issues) analysis presented by Screen and Simmonds (2010) shows statistically significant warming north of 80 N during the summer (JJA) over the lower troposphere between 1989 and 2008. Interestingly, it is evident in their Fig. 1c. that the strongest warming during the summer (JJA) is not at the surface but concentrated between 850 and 950 hPa; a small region of statistically significant warming does, however, extend to the surface. One possible explanation for this warming signature/feature is that warmer (less dense) air from surrounding areas having much more open water is overrunning a shallow and relatively cooler (more dense) dome of air which is present above the more persistent ice. Given the stable stratification of the low-levels, it is difficult for the warmer air to mix down, thereby resulting in a slower rate of warming immediately at and above the surface during the summer. Additionally, as others have noted here, Screen and Simmonds (2010)state: "The near-surface warming is modest in summer [JJA] because energy is used to melt remaining sea ice and warm the upper ocean" So, I remain unconvinced that summertime temperatures north of 80 N have cooled since circa 1990-- the ERA-interim data (which is the best currently available) just do not support that assertion. I'm beginning to suspect that the "cooling" trend is an artifact of the analysis method used by Frank, for example, using the melt season (noting also that melt seasons differ from year-to-year). As I suggested to Peter earlier, it is more appropriate to look at all the data within a certain area for a fixed window of time each year. The "skeptics" are rapidly running out of ways and data sets to show cooling in the Arctic.
  4. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Going a little further than "e," it doesn't really seem as though the MWP-- whatever its extent and magnitude-- addresses the current physics problem at all. That's something that leaves me not really caring about the MWP, except as a more abstract puzzle. The MWP seems just a specific case of "the climate's changed before." So what?
  5. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    e at 14:58 PM As to the science, this is part of it, the extreme swings during glaciations would be evident of it. The younger dryas is "generally" accepted as an extreme case of this scenario, where ice dams breaking, causing a sudden massive flux of fresh water stalled the THC. It would be evident with greater lower water anomalies than atmospheric(during times o greater THC export), it could potentially i suppose show a reduction in hurricane intensity in the tropics during times o greatest increase in THC(just due reduced depth o warm water, greater export of energy from tropics), changing the opacity o the atmosphere changes things o course. It would mean a more rapid build up of energy, and slower decline than during pre industrial times. Im not saying this is driving climate at the present, im saying this is one physical mechanism capable of driving unforced climate oscillations. And is certainly a contender for the likes o the MWP/LIA It would also cause outgasing at times of warming(increasing co2) and reduce co2 during cooling phases. Although no where on the scale o anthropogenic contributions.
  6. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Joe, So how would an extra warm MWP be evidence for this particular hypothesis over existing theory? That's the core issue I see with skeptic claims regarding the MWP. When I say I've seen no specific theory offered by skeptics, I mean at a level of detail that makes specific testable claims. An implication of the hypothesis you described is that whatever oscillation caused the MWP may have a role in warming today. So how do you prove it? What evidence would tell you that this particular hypothesis may be true and existing theory flawed or mistaken? Another thing I consider: if this hypothesis is true and the current understanding of climate is significantly flawed, why does it work so well? Why do current models recreate historical temperatures as well as they do? How do millenia of climate data just happen to synch up with an incorrect theory? Any theory that rewrites the explanation of the MWP needs to square itself with the remaining bulk of evidence. If robust evidence arises to the contrary I'd be happy to change my mind, but at present I see no reason why the MWP - whether it is warmer or not - should cast doubt on the mainstream science.
  7. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    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.
  8. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    e at 12:58 Its possible that long term ocean/THC oscillations are driven by the gradual build up of energy in the north Atlantic, and its effect on arctic melt and salinity. A strong THC will build up energy over time in the north atlantic(increasing sst, increasing evaporation/GHE), leading to increasing arctic melt, resulting in reducing salinity in the arctic regions, reulting in a slowing of the thc, which will lead to reduced energy transport(reduced SST/evaporation/GHE), which leads to increased ice cover, and reducing salinity, increasing density of the colder waters leading to increasing the energy export through the THC. etc This isnt really an unknown, and it would be capable of considerably influencing climate, without a need for a change in forcings, but oscillate around a mean, driven by a greater differential in energy, and slowed as the differential across latitudes reduces. The fact is we dont have enough high resolution data to say why, its all speculation... but this would fit what i have read on the MWP, being more noticable in the NH, with less ocean/more land, less thermal capacity than the SH.
  9. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Joe Blog, I never claimed that internal energy distribution plays no role. What I said was that no skeptic has come forward with a specific physical theory on how exactly the MWP and LIA came about, if not by the existing known processes and forcings. I also pointed out that a warmer than currently accepted MWP in no way implies that there must be some sort of additional unknown process at play, as many skeptics seem to assume. Since the overall shape of the temperature trend reflects the effect of known forcings, then a higher climate sensitivity would be consistent with the observation of a warmer than expected MWP. I see no reason to assume some unknown process. If skeptics believe there is a natural oscillation at play, they need to explain the physics and provide evidence why their theory is true and prevailing theory is false. Otherwise its nothing more than a guessing game.
  10. Do 500 scientists refute anthropogenic global warming?
    archiesteel: Certainly before 2000 the correlation between TSI and temperature is obvious. Ned: Thanks for the references. I will take a look. I do not see any correlation between CO2 and temperature.
    Moderator Response: Wrong thread for that conversation. Please look through the list of "Arguments" to find a more relevant one on which to post your next comment on that topic.
  11. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    correction: "is not surpricing"
  12. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Archiesteel, in the article I dont just write "the Arctic is cooling" as you imply. 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 (!) But im happy you dont think the ½ degree cooling trend 1991-2010 summermelt 80N-90N is surpricing.
  13. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    @FLansner: "I agree with everyone that a strong cooling in the 80N-90N is surpricing," It's not surprising, because it's not a strong cooling. It's about half a degree, and might be due (as others have suggested) to more open water bringing down averages. As we've noted before, however, it is disingenuous to say "the Arctic is cooling" when what you're really talking about is the relatively small decrease in *melt season* temps. The fact is that, overall, the Arctic is warming up at an alarming rate. The DMI data makes that clear, which is why the DMI itself agrees. Discussion about the UHI effect is off-topic on this thread. Try this one.
  14. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hi Peter, superbe illustration of ERA-40 vs. T511. It IS a possibility that DMI´s data stich is not perfect, but remember that around 80% of the dive after 1991 actually happens before 2002, that is, before the stich. I agree with everyone that a strong cooling in the 80N-90N is surpricing, even though we cant say its impossible, but i understand fully why its tough to swallow. But the alternative is, that DMI´s data are useless. If the Peak temperature in 1991 (Far warmer than the DMI average) is NOT warmer in real life than the peak cold in 2010 (Far colder than the DMI average), then these melting DMI data are says absolutely nothing. is not that correct? If when DMi say "far colder than normal" doenst mean far colder than normal etc... Then DMI are close to useless. - and thats hard to swallow too :-) And as I said, 80% of the dive happens 1991-2002 in pure ERA-40 data. So these should be junk too? Hard to swallow - it just doesnt sound correct. K.R. Frank PS: Peter, its as though the few data from rather populated areas of Europe (UK + Holland) means more to you than 4-500 hundred rural-city pairs i showed you from all over USA... isnt it? And then data from the whole world i showed you: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/urban-heat-island---world-tour-155.php And the 0,53K from 1951 to 2004 from china... ...
  15. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Frank, On Nevins blog we had a discussion earlier this summer about the Polar Hole (the unshaded area at the center of ice pictures) having an unprecedented amount of open water this year. See nevins polar hole image. This area roughly corresponds to your above 80 degree area. Perhaps you can explain why there is so much open water at the pole when the temperature seems to be "cooling". Since the water is about -2C, while the surface of ice floes is closer to 0C, that would acount for the decrease in temperature that you observed. The ice was insulating the atmosphere from the colder water. With the ice now melting, the atmosphere is exposed to the cold water and gets slightly cooler. Do not worry, once the ice is completely gone the water will heat up and the air will go up too. It is interesting to find instances where warming results in transient cooling for odd reasons like the exposure of cold water to the air. Cryosphere Today adjusts their sea ice area for open water at the polar hole. Does anyone know how to get a record of how much they have had to adjust for that and how much this year was over the average?
  16. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Wops, heres the grid: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/BLANDET/dmi2010.jpg
  17. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hi Peter Heres grid for 2010. average just under 0,4 C. vertical lines are days, i have estimated each day and summed up. What do you get for 2010? K.R. Frnak
  18. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    KR @89, I would if I had the time ;)
  19. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Peter @84, If I may make a humble suggestion. I would be interested to see the results of your calculation of the trend in temperatures north of 80 N from 1958-2009 (or 2010) for the period JJA, and/or JAS. I think important to consistently use the same time window (rather than the variable melt season) and to us all the grid points N of 80 N (i.e., "Is it possible that your pixel counting process is introducing bias"). One can then try and fit a OLS model to the data (if appropriate) and test the null hypothesis for zero slope (beta=0). I agree, something does not add up, there are some pretty major differences between your analysis and that of Frank's. Sorry, no ideas as how to deal with the "jumps" in the records when they changed products. kdkd or someone else more familiar with stats might be able to offer to ideas as to how one can homogenize the data.
  20. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    I attempted to download the DMI data, in order to determine how many days of >= 0C there are on a yearly basis (to look at the length of the summer melt season), but can't seem to get access to it. I would be curious to find out if the length of such a nominal 'melt season' increases over the years since 1958. Is anyone with access to the data willing to take a look?
  21. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Frank, Talking of humor, funny that you seem to have completely ignored the data and content of the papers that I presented in my post #72. I say that that because I provided data for all seasons and annual, and all the seasons show warming during the summer going back to 1979, and most of the ice loss has occurred during that time. Anyhow, despite your unsubstantiated allegations, no-one is trying to ignore or "hide" temperature changes over the the summer period as evidenced by the three papers that I cited. You are the one who chose to focus on the short summer period and ignore the rest of the year. In the interests of clarity and honesty, please insist that Anthony Watts change the title of you post at WUWT to: "DMI polar ECMWF reanalysis data shows cooler suggests little change in Arctic summer temperatures north of 80 N since 1958" Although to be honest, I would even contest the validity of that statement until seeing the results Peter's latest analysis. Frank "and there fore I think it is relevant to compare todays Arctic conditions with the almosr "human-CO2-free" period 1925-45 with todays conditions." I am not going to let you detract from the misleading title and content of your WUWT post which is under discussion here. Please take your discussion about the 1925-1945 window to a more the appropriate thread.
  22. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    @FLansner: do you have a link to the data you used for your graph? The link you provided pointed to the graph again. "To me this supports the NASA finding that the ice retreat after year 2000 is to some degree result of special wind pattern rather than only warming." I thought that was a Russian research? Do you have a link to the NASA study?
  23. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP - And you completely ignored what I said here, that the sign of the TOA radiation imbalance completely disproves the waste heat theory. As to that 1% accumulating - well, it's been 1% for as long as the 99% greenhouse gas forcing, the CO2 side effects of that energy use, which is actually the major cause for warming. RSVP, you have continued to hold to this theory over >300 postings on multiple threads, despite numerous examples of why you are incorrect. I can only conclude that you have non-rational reasons for clinging to it. Given that, it's simply not worth the time to discuss it any further with you.
  24. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    @FLansner: "Archiesteel: The summer temperatures 80-90N in 1991 was at all time highest since 1958. there after ther summer temperatures trended down to all time minimum 2010." I'm interested in the actual temperature delta. According to figure 2 above this is about 0.5C over 14 years, or 0.36C per decade. "So the trend dive is the largest possible for this data type." How do you know this? Are you arguing the fact that, because this is the largest dive in the instrumental record, then it's the largest *possible*? Think about it. "What more do you want?" A sense of perspective would be nice. Compare the 0.36C/decade cooling with the annual warming of about 2.5C over the same 14 years, or 1.8C/decade. Note that this is an *annual* trend, so it includes the colder melt season temperatures. To claim the Arctic is cooling, as is often done on WUWT and other such sites, is simply wrong, even if there has been a slight cooling melt season trend in the past decade. "Its so funny, all the time we hear you warmies say we have to focus on SUMMER conditions in the Arctic" Two things here: using the term "warmies" doesn't make you very convincing. To the contrary it tends to decrease your credibility. Second: who among us "warmies" said we had to focus on summer temperatures? What we check in summer is not temps (since it's relatively stable above the melting point, as explained above), rather we check sea ice extent and volume. The only ones focusing on summer temperatures are the "skeptics" at WUWT and such. "but then a data set comes by that tells a colder story for the 80N-90N area in summer time. And bingo, you demand FULL YEAR FULL YEAR." It's always been about full year for temperatures. "You may not see the humor, but I do :-)" I guess it's good to be able to laugh at oneself.
  25. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    FLansner at 08:47 AM on 22 October, 2010 At the moment I only have DMI data through beginning of Summer 2010. ERA Interim I can get more easily but this runs a few months behind anyway.
  26. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP >The market is saturated, so the oranges are not shipping Listen carefully: this is physically IMPOSSIBLE in thermodynamics. There is no such thing as "saturation" when we are talking about how much energy a particle emits. The rate of output will always grow to exactly match the rate of input. Not some of the input, ALL of it. Your constantly accumulating surplus cannot and does not exist.
  27. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    FLansner at 07:49 AM on 22 October, 2010 I think you are comparing concern about ice extent minimum or summer ice melt, which requires thermal energy but not necessarily localised temperature rise (the ice is melting, but it stays at zero degrees C) and summer temperatures, which don't vary much for the same reason. The trends indicate that the Arctic sea ice is also reducing in extent for any given month of the year and and the temparature is rising on average throughout the year. I am also just presenting the data, just more of it.
  28. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    # 81 FLansner What I meant, is the data online in file format? Eg. as txt, csv, xls or whatever. The numbers. Then I can calculate the trend with errorbars. Or you could do it yourself.
  29. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    If anthropogenic heat flux radiates, how does it accumulate?
  30. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hi Peter, its hard to say, but I did several checks. What value do you get for 2010? K.R, Frank
  31. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    SRJ: Heres the data in question. Due to melting conditions in summer time the temperatures are kept within a more narrow range than the rest of the year. the 1991-2010 dive is a few times bigger than the general noise: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GlobalIceExtend/fig1.jpg To me this supports the NASA finding that the ice retreat after year 2000 is to some degree result of special wind pattern rather than only warming. K.R. Frank
  32. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    FLansner at 07:58 AM on 22 October, 2010 I have looked again at your “cooling” chart, and I hope you do not mind me reproducing it below. I have double checked and compared with the chart below generated from the official DMI numerical data (the dark line is 5 year average), and though I have not yet updated through 2010, I am concerned that there appear to be significant discrepancies in the period you say shows cooling. Is it possible that your pixel counting process is introducing bias? There is something not quite right here.
  33. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    #259 Of course anthropogenic heat flux radiates, along with, and indistinguishably from solar heat. However the baseline temperature is referenced from the situation where this heat source is non-existent. The addition of this heat source increases outgoing radiation while at the same time raises the average global temperature.
  34. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    BP - Albatross has provided a better explanation than you could hope for in the explanation of your stomatal paper link. cynicus' last comment is distinctly relevant. You have to be very creful when you base your whole argument on cherry-picked sections of a single dataset, especially if you do not consider the uncertainties or come to the same conclusions as the authors. But what it ultimately comes down to is the fact that every climate change requires a forcing, and to date there is no coherent evidence for large internal variations in climate, let alone large internal variation that just so happen to occur when we are forcing the climate which a factor that even at the low end ought to produce substantial warming.
  35. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    You have yet to explain why anthropogenic heat flux does not radiate from the planet. Your analogies, the train & the orange grove, are flawed in that they assume a unchanging emission rate. This assumption is not valid when discussing a radiating body, e.g. the planet. Outer space is not saturated with energy.
  36. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Bibliovermis #257 As an analogy, situate yourself at an orange grove that takes in oranges for packing and export from other groves in the vicinity. (This represents heat input and output from the Sun.) Every year, 100,000 oranges are brought in from surrounding groves, and 100,000 oranges are shipped to other locales. Not a single orange is left over. BUT! Since the grove began, 100 trees have begun to produce fruit. They are leaving 5000 oranges which either have to ship or rot. The market is saturated, so the oranges are not shipping, however, since the quality of what is coming in from other groves never was really perfect, some of what grows in the local grove does go out. However the 5000 surplus that cant sell remains in the grove. These are not necessarily oranges that grow in the grove, but at any rate 5000 oranges are now added to a rotting pile every year. This represents global warming.
  37. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Albatross, you write "Anyhow, here is a paper on polar amplification using the ERA-interim data." Look, There is no doubt that polar amplification happens. But this polar amplification happened around 1925-45 too - before humans CO2 emissions exploded - and there fore I think it is relevant to compare todays Arctic conditions with the almosr "human-CO2-free" period 1925-45 with todays conditions. For instance, the 20 year period 1990-2010 has NOT yet reached an average temperature on Greenland that matches the average temperature on Greenland 1925-45. 1925-45 was warmer than 1990-2010 on greenland. And yet some scientists screeeeeems about the warm Greenland. And the present ice melt as though heat in 1925-45 did not melt ice. But Albatross, perhaps you think that because of the polar amplification, then there physically cannot be an area 80N-90N that is cooling one degree Celsius while far larger areas of the Arctic warms several degrees in the summer. As I wrote: I dont know. But I think its obvious that the areas of Ice retreat that has suddenly open waters releasing heat directly op in the air must have a far warmer trend than the ice coveres areas, for example 80N-90N. And all over the world, there has been more precipitation in later years (perhaps due to Solar minimum + warmer temperatures) and more precipitation in the Arctic ONLY has an albedo/cooling effect in areas with no open waters like 80N-90N. But buttom line: I just presented the data, and then you can considder them or not, its a free world :-) K.R. Frank
  38. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    e at 05:16 AM on 22 October, 2010 No, energy distribution plays a massive role in climate, that is all the malankovitch cycles do... the younger dryas episode is believed to be the direct result of the slow down of oceanic energy transport. These things matter, and would need to be quantified to calculate sensitivity. I would hate to think what the inferred sensitivity would be using this method on the holocene climate optimum... Or the massive negative feedback inferred from the younger dryas... Ok so we can calculate malancovitch cycles effect through changes in solar distribution, how about the oceans? So currents are going to be driven by variable salinity and energetic state, and atmospheric interaction, driven by variable convection, with pressure systems being affected by stratospheric interactions with variable UV... Its not a case o co2 is this, there fore the average T is thus.. you need to know how the energy is being distributed around the globe, and whether this is affecting the inferred climate of the reconstructions. You need to know all the variables.
  39. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    # 76 FLansner "Very significant dive" should be presented as a trend estimate with uncertainty, and maybe also t-value. So what is the trend (and uncertainty) in the DMI summer data since 1991? If the time series is online I could easily do this. And actually, if I understand you correct, the trend was positive until 1991, and negative since 1991. I.e. there is a changepoint. Is that changepoint statistically significant?
  40. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, Please explain how anthropogenic heat flux is different than solar heat flux. Why will AHF build up rather than radiating away from the planet?
  41. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, We are not "adding energy" by burning fossil fuels, we are temporarily slowing the rate at which energy is released into space, causing a build up of heat.
  42. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    KR you write: "Your narrow focus on summer implies some incorrect conclusions - that Arctic temps are declining, that the icecap isn't shrinking." No i certainly dont. The icecap HAS been shrinking, obviosuly, and the shrinking icecap has opened waters that has to be accompanied by heat released to the atmosphere and thus warmer temperatures in large areas. I wrote exactly about the ice covered area 80N-90N in the melt season, no more no less. NO ONE can say that the Arctic ice cap hasnt been shrinking. (honestly, its only some of you alarmist that for some reason reads my words that way, as far as I have seen). K.R. Frank
  43. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, Please try and understand what is being explained to you. Waste heat is released at a constant rate, it is included as part of the equilibrium input and output. When we are at equilibrium, then that means every unit of energy added by waste heat each year is being output into space. This is the definition of equilibrium, energy in equals energy out. There is no "excess" energy anywhere in the equation. If we increase the annual rate of waste heat release, then in the short term yes energy accumulates. The reason for this is it takes time for equilibrium to be restored. But restore it shall, and once it does energy once again stops accumulating. The reason waste heat doesn't add much to the equation is because the rate isn't growing; it's relatively constant so the earth has had plenty of time to reach equilibrium with respect to waste heat. The analogy to the train is off-base. Imagine instead a train that automatically grows or shrinks itself depending on how many get on or off. This is how thermal equilibrium works. Just keep these two critical concepts in your mind when you think about this: 1. In the long term, energy in MUST equal energy out (waste heat counts as energy in BTW). 2. The rate of thermal radiation is directly proportional to temperature. The faster you heat you add to an object, the faster it radiates that heat.
  44. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Energy FROM THE SUN comes in. Energy FROM THE SUN goes out. Add some "CARBONATED" energy from dead dinosaurs for 200 years and you get global warming my friend.
  45. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    "archiesteel at 03:56 AM on 22 October, 2010 @FLansner: define "very significant dive," please, then compare that to the annual temperature increase rate." Archiesteel: The summer temperatures 80-90N in 1991 was at all time highest since 1958. there after ther summer temperatures trended down to all time minimum 2010. So the trend dive is the largest possible for this data type. What more do you want? Then some of you guys compare the oscillations in summer melt temperatures with the HUGE oscillations that occur when we have much colder temperatures. Obviously temperatures are kept within a small margin when we have melting consitions in summer time, so to compare just like that with the big oscillations for - 20, 30, 40 Ceisius nonsense. The years back to 1958 shows what oscillations we normally see under melt conditions, and the dive 1991-2010 is as big as anyone could possiblly demand (!!!!!!) Its so funny, all the time we hear you warmies say we have to focus on SUMMER conditions in the Arctic, but then a data set comes by that tells a colder story for the 80N-90N area in summer time. And bingo, you demand FULL YEAR FULL YEAR. You may not see the humor, but I do :-) K.R, Frank
  46. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Energy comes in. Energy goes out. When the energy coming in equals the energy going out, equilibrium is reached. Equilibrium does not mean no outgoing radiation.
  47. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Bibliovermis "The energy does not remain present in the planetary climate. It radiates out from the planet into space" When the train leaves, and all the seats are taken, you cant get on the train. The hockey stick handle was flat. This implies equilibrium. Any excess energy is excess energy and WILL accumulate. End of story.
  48. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, A value can only be integrated if it remains in the system. Your steadfast refusal to acknowledge that anthropogenic heat flux radiates out from the planet does not change the reality of the situation.
  49. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Hopefully someday, a paper will be passed around with my idea so you can come into the constructive "fold". Usually found on a roll, sometimes folded, sometimes crumpled, never "passed around."
  50. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    FLansner at 20:27 PM on 21 October, 2010 If the moderators will forgive a small diversion on UHI: See chart below on Central England Temperature trend compared with "rural" Armagh temperature trend. Since 1900 the measured 100yr temperature trends are indistinguishable, which casts doubt on claims on some skeptical websites that UHI may have affected the Central England record. These same websites suggest Armagh is unaffected by UHI.

Prev  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  2126  2127  2128  2129  2130  2131  2132  2133  2134  2135  2136  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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