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  2142  2143  2144  2145  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  Next

Comments 107451 to 107500:

  1. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Tim, I've changed my mind. You are confused and I apologize for all my wild speculation earlier. The experiment described by Minnett was a means of verifying the controlling mechanism and efficacy of downward IR radiation warming the ocean. It has nothing to do with the intensity of the radiation. Reducing the intensity of the downward radiation does not change how it interacts with sea water. Can you see that? I hope so. Meanwhile, the Ramanathan article addresses both radiation from clouds as well as radiation from the sea surface, in a comprehensive way. The article has to treat the various inputs and outputs of sea surface temperature comprehensively because it's establishing a case for ultimate limits on sea surface temperature. Ironically, that article is the nearest approximation to explaining how oceans might warm less than would simplistically seem the case that you're likely to find, something resembling the sort of argument you're failing to offer. I specifically tried to find something along the lines of what you were speaking of w/regard to unobvious limits to ocean temperature; Ramanathan suggesting support for your hypothesis is a gift. How you could possibly miss that is difficult to understand.
  2. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    @johnd re: Evaporation. Its a very good question and represents another shortcoming of the experiment.
  3. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Neither kdkd The experiment was designed to explore sea surface temperature changes as a result of changes in downward LW radiation. It succeeded in that for the relatively large downward LW radiation changes imposed by clouds. But thats all its done. The next step has to be how those sea surface temperature changes relate to changes in the loss of energy from the ocean. This needs to be be done quantitatively so that the CO2 effect can be seen to be sufficient to cause the observed warming.
  4. The first global warming skeptic
    So John, still using that highly misleading graphic on your website. Fixing that soon? As to this argument, perhaps time to at the reference to Harries 2001 for a proper test of theory against data.
  5. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    TimTheToolMan at 16:26 PM, I'm finding this an interesting discussion. What I am left wondering is where is the evaporation process being accounted for whilst the measurements of the temperature gradient of the skin layer were being taken, in particular as the cloud cover varied. I know it is not mentioned in the article, is it simply not relevant or merely given time out?
  6. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    TTTM #191 So are you saying that there is no evidence for this extra 10% of downward longwave radiation that should be accounted for by CO2? Or are you saying the experimental model is not sensitive enough to detect this. If the former, you need to show the evidence. If the latter, then we're screwed and specialists should be devising more sensitive data collection methods. The second of these conclusions is not sufficient to provide evidence against anthropogenic global warming mind you, so take care.
  7. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    "Well, at least we've confirmed the the crux of your misunderstanding." What? I believe this is your misunderstanding. I'll explain in more detail. The experiment used clouds cover to measure the effect of the skin. Clouds mean that there is about 100W of increased downward LW radiation seen at the sea surface. Compare this to the CO2 effect which is stated in the article as being 4W for a doubling of CO2 and is closer to 3W for current increases since industrialisation. So the effect they measured using clouds to create changes in downward LW radiation was 33 times greater than the effect that CO2 has on the ocean surface. "Oh, you didn't read the Ramanathan article above? I could swear you said you did. Anyway, check the literature; maximum sea surface temperature investigations have been going on for at least 40 years." I have read it and there is no analysis of how increased downward LW radiation from CO2 effects the amount of energy the ocean radiates. For that matter there isn't even an analysis of increased LW radiation from clouds and what effect that has on decreased radiation from the ocean. If you believe there is then please point it out.
  8. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    It is precisely the amount of IR that is one of the the problems. The CO2 effect is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the LW radiation explored in the experiment using LW from clouds. Well, at least we've confirmed the the crux of your misunderstanding. Some progress is possible! ...how much LW radiation reduction from the ocean does that imply?... That side of the theory is completely unexplored. Oh, you didn't read the Ramanathan article above? I could swear you said you did. Anyway, check the literature; maximum sea surface temperature investigations have been going on for at least 40 years. Not exactly "completely unexplored," more just a matter of unknown to you. That's a nice example of why expertise and experience counts for a lot, and why you'd never find the likes of me blithely disagreeing with people like Minnett.
  9. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    TTTM #187 That will be because you have not demonstrated that your argument has any validity.
  10. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    @TTTM: And why is that? Please elaborate.
  11. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    I've no doubt my argument fails to convince you archiesteel.
  12. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    @TTTM: "The CO2 effect is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the LW radiation explored in the experiment using LW from clouds." This doesn't matter. The article is about the relationship between IR radiation and upper sea level temperatures. Demonstrating the relationship was the goal of the article, not the amount of downward LW radiation produced by CO2's greenhouse effect. The author of the article acknowledges this at the end: "Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2), but the objective of this exercise was to demonstrate a relationship." I'm sorry, but you have failed to demonstrate in any way how the article is wrong, or why this would impact AGW theory. Until you come up with new arguments to support your hypothesis, you'll have failed to convince me (and others here) of its validity.
  13. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    On a parenthetical note, TTTM is not actually attempting to argue w/RealClimate, he's in dispute w/Peter Minnett.
  14. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    " The amount of IR is not the issue, it's the mechanism you appear to doubt" And where do you get that idea from? It is precisely the amount of IR that is one of the the problems. The CO2 effect is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the LW radiation explored in the experiment using LW from clouds. The other problem I have with the article is that the graph that you have reposted shows the skin temperature change as a result in LW radiation changes but how much LW radiation reduction from the ocean does that imply? See the above comment for additional uncertainty. That side of the theory is completely unexplored. I cant say this any other way, you either understand my argument or you need to reread the article until you understand the issue.
  15. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    archiesteel #182: I think these are the limitations where he's confused the control variable and the experimental variable :)
  16. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    @TTTM: "No, I'm pointing out the limitations of the experiment" What limitations are these, again?
  17. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Citing the article at RealClimate only deepens the mystery of what you're trying to accomplish, TTTM. You also sound rather ridiculous when you say the article is bereft of a useful conclusion, or numerical analysis in support of their conclusion. You: I've described the article and said they dont have any numbers to back up their theory. RealClimate: How about describing, in detail, what parts of that article you disagree with? Specifically, what's wrong with their method? What's faulty about the analysis? Most importantly, you need to show how the IR emanating from clouds is different from IR from other sources, because that's the crux of your argument. The amount of IR is not the issue, it's the mechanism you appear to doubt, but you need to show how. Be specific, because saying "I don't agree" is not an argument.
  18. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    "Wait a minute...*you're* dismissing the article on RC. Does that mean you also think there is no problem?" No, I'm pointing out the limitations of the experiment and lack of taking the result further in the science to actually justify the warming.
  19. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    @TTTM: "In arguing there is no problem you're dismissing the article on RC." Wait a minute...*you're* dismissing the article on RC. Does that mean you also think there is no problem?
  20. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    @TimTheToolMan: It is not CO2 that warms the ocean, but IR radiation. We know how much of that IR radiation is coming back down to the surface. Some of that IR radiation ends up on land, some ends up in the oceans. "My argument is that science doesn't have any data on the magnitude of the effect for CO2." Sure we do: about 3 degrees for doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
  21. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 15:47 PM on 9 October 2010
    The first global warming skeptic
    The more complex the model, the more important the empirical data. Fortunately there have been very detailed studies of IR transmission in the atmosphere. Many from before AGW was popular. Here is the measured transmittance of the IR band. This is freely distributed to people that use IR transmission in their work. It uses wavelength instead of wavenumber, so you will need to compare to the top axis of Riccardo's post. The picture is large and I can't do it justice here. This has been in use since the 1970's when CO2 was about 330 ppm. It has not changed since then. Always test the theory against the data. The amount of widening is limited, but visible. The amount of IR energy available for CO2 absorption after 1km in the horizontal direction is approaching zero W/m2. John Kehr The Inconvenient Skeptic
  22. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    "; it's possible you simply don't understand the generic nature of IR radiation and are thus confused about how increased C02 in the atmosphere could increase the temperature of the ocean." Suffice to say that its me thats done the research here and so I think I know the implications. Your comment of "generic nature" indicate that you dont understand the issue at all. One thing is certain, I didn't make this up. There is an article on RC that clearly describes the problem and the experiment that attempts to explain the solution. In arguing there is no problem you're dismissing the article on RC.
  23. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    "An argument would consist of your showing how oceans are immune to having their temperature changed by IR radiation." That would be one argument. Its not my argument however. My argument is that science doesn't have any data on the magnitude of the effect for CO2. Therefore Science cant actually say whether CO2 is warming the oceans or not. It comes back to one of my earlier statements where I'd said science observes ocean warming and automatically attributes it to CO2 without having any quantifiable justification. Compare this to the work that has been done to justify CO2's feedback mechanisms and consequent increases in downward LW radiation resulting in measurable increases in temperature in the atmosphere and on land.
  24. Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
    @Karamanski: I'm sorry as well if I mistook your eagerness to learn for disingenuous posturing. Now, in order to satisfy your curiosity to learn about climatology, you might consider looking at some other sites about this science, as this particular one here rather specializes in responding to popular skeptical arguments, and not provide a general introduction to climate science. Personally, I like Wikipedia as a general learning tool, but I'm sure there are other sites that focus on providing quality information on this subject. Perhaps others here can give you suggestions. Beyond that, you might have to look at online classes and/or trips to the library to learn the science in more detail...
  25. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    TTTM, you're not making a specific argument, you're only saying that you don't agree with something specific, namely that oceans are susceptible to having their temperature changed as a result of exposure to IR radiation. This is not an argument: "I am of the opinion, however, that an answer simply doesn't exist in the science today." An argument would consist of your showing how oceans are immune to having their temperature changed by IR radiation. Also, I've not said you're ignorant. I said you're adopting a posture of ignorance, but I'll grant that's going too far; it's possible you simply don't understand the generic nature of IR radiation and are thus confused about how increased C02 in the atmosphere could increase the temperature of the ocean. By your own word, you don't doubt there's an enhanced "greenhouse" effect in play, so assuming you're not ignorant, the matter really does come down either to posturing or confusion.
  26. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    @TTTM: "My argument has been well defined and relates specifically to CO2 warming the oceans as opposed to other skeptic's arguments of CO2 warming at all." This sentence perfectly illustrates how misguided your whole research has been, and why you have allegedly not found an answer for the inexistent issue. Greenhouse forcings, together with all other forcings, heat the oceans. CO2 captures then redirects heat in a random direction, and sometimes that is absorbed by the oceans, but the mechanism of absorption is the same whether the heat is coming straight from the sun, or is being re-radiated by CO2, CH4, WV, etc. "You say I'm ignorant but I say I've researched this and not found an answer." Perhaps that's because you really haven't found the question either. All you know is that, somehow, it must show that AGW is inadequate...
  27. Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
    "Arctic amplification is an expected (and now observed) result of an enhanced greenhouse effect" Isn't this amplification an outcome of the higher concentration and larger seasonal amplitudes of CO2 in the arctic? As the figures demonstrate, large parts of the Arctic see >390ppm for more months of the year than the lower latitudes. Peak CO2 occurs in April-May, as the melt season is getting underway.
  28. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    My argument is very specific. My argument has been well defined and relates specifically to CO2 warming the oceans as opposed to other skeptic's arguments of CO2 warming at all. Or the extent of warming or whatever. You say I'm ignorant but I say I've researched this and not found an answer. If such an answer exists then all you need to do is find it and AGW theory remains intact. I am of the opinion, however, that an answer simply doesn't exist in the science today.
  29. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    TTT,M, if you were making some specific argument against some specific thing, my speculations about your appearance here might be an "ad hominem attack." However, as you've not made an argument to address, such a thing is impossible, ipso facto. That is, unless we're prepared to accept "I doubt it" as an argument, which I don't. Arguably, being a "skeptic" does not entail maintaining a posture of ignorance while demanding to be educated.
  30. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    "If such a person as TTT,M really cared to have an answer as opposed to argue, he'd start by going to the literature and usually would never show up on SkS." You know nothing about me and nothing about what I have researched on this topic. The fact I brought it up at all ought to indicate that I know something about it. You've made an unprovoked ad hominem attack on me and have obliquely tried to imply the science is solid even though you provide no data to support that position. I do appreciate the link you've provided and my initial reading indicates that the issue is not addressed by this paper. It will take me some time to go through the references. I HAVE researched this topic and read a large number of papers looking for the answer. Not for some time though. I gave up a while back. I genuinely am looking for an answer. At this point I am a skeptic for good reason. As far as I'm concerned AGW theory is inadequate.
  31. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Hopefully TTTM will stop wasting everyone's time and start actually learning the science, but somehow I doubt it. :-/
  32. Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
    I've been wrong before, Karamanski. Perhaps I'm just too grouchy today.
  33. The first global warming skeptic
    Thanks, Riccardo, terrific job. Seconding and extending your thoughts on Spencer Weart's book, if people would read Weart before commencing to argue against facts as opposed to discussing actual open issues, the general quality of discussion on this matter would be much better.
  34. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    doug: Thanks for pointing TTTM in the right direction regarding the literature. I've been trying to encourage him to start looking in more detail, as it's clearly unreasonable for me or anyone else to do his work for him :)
  35. Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
    doug_bostrom, archiesteel, Learning about the meticulous details of climate change fascinates me. I thought the question I asked above was a very good question. I frequently hear the idea that polar amplification is a signature of greenhouse warming and cannot be idicative of solar forcing(I know the sun cannot be causing the warming now). I heard it in the "Solar schmolar" video on the "its the sun" post. I would like to apologize for the misunderstanding between you two.
  36. The first global warming skeptic
    Where are the figures of "real measurements" from?
  37. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    If such a person as TTT,M really cared to have an answer as opposed to argue, he'd start by going to the literature and usually would never show up on SkS. It's diagnostic of a person interested in pointless argumentation that they show up here repeatedly demanding answers they'd do better to seek out for themselves. As an example, here's a paper from long ago, with a citation trail extending in two different directions on the timeline, which if followed will eventually sort out TTT,M's hermetically conserved disputation: Thermodynamic regulation of ocean warming by cirrus clouds deduced from observations of the 1987 El Nino Notice, there's no way SkS can reproduce the level of detail conveyed in that double-ended trail of cites. TTT'M's favored rhetorical method is to demand that the folks at this site behave as perfect proxies for people who do research in the various fields he's not interested in. It's a old, tired technique. It's also conspicuous-- once we notice-- that TTT,M spends more time and effort badgering people at this site than seeking answers on his own, in a rich literature freely available. Unfortunately, the articles posted at this site necessarily leave some ambiguity hanging in the air, because full understanding of the topics covered here requires a level of specialist knowledge in the hands of remarkably few people, with the collective knowledge of all related topics beyond the reach of any single person. As well, presenting a case durable against a person infected with distrust requires detail beyond what's useful for most people. Folks like TTT,M exploit this, for whatever reason. This asymmetry works in two directions, however. For instance, TTT,M says, "Its a question of the numbers. Science doesn't have any (that I'm aware of) and so doesn't actually know whether CO2 is responsible for ocean heating at all. Notice that TTT,M is substituting his and our lack of expertise on this subject for an argument, when in point of fact experts don't agree with him. It's crucial to discern when "I doubt it" is being positioned as an argument. When we have a choice between "I doubt it" and what an actual expert says, it's generally better to go with the expert. This is not fundamentally a fair fight or even a fight at all. On one side is TTT,M and on the other the scientific community. The thing that allows TTT,M to obtain his stimulation here is that--of course-- SkS is not designed to deliver a postgraduate-level education on dozens of different fields related to climate change. So to that extent that's true, SkS will always be prey to silly distractions like TTT,M.
  38. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    The post does not address the physical mechanism of how the cooling in the northeast pacific that is compensated for by a warming in north-central pacific affects global temperatures, it just states and displays the correlation. What I'm curious about is what is the exact mechanism of how cyclical changes in the distribution of sea surface temperatures in the north pacific affects global temperatures. As stated in the intermediate post, "Consequently it would appear that there is nothing fundamental about a PDO that would cause significant changes to global temperatures." But then in figure 2, there is good correlation between the PDO index and global temperatures if the linear warming trend is removed. Please describe link between the two concepts I stated in the previous two sentences. And I repeat my original questions asked in my first comment on this post. Finally, I apologize for any misunderstandings of the other questions a posted on this website. To be honest I read the posts so many times that I have memorized them. Thank you.
  39. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    TTTM #116 You attempted to make a causal link too far here. So I think there's a typo in your comment, it should read: "I'm going to have to explain what I mean because it's clearly not well explained". Presumably you have numbers to back up your hypothesis? I'm indicating that the clarity of your explanation is poor, and it counfounds at least two independent issues. Also your confusion of the word "theory" with what you presumably mean to be "hypothesis" suggests that you need to work on your position more in order to express youreself more clearly.
  40. Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
    @doug: yeah, I noticed that as well. The fact that Karamanski doesn't acknowledge the answers he's given makes me think he's not really interested in learning, but rather in wasting people's time (like TTTM, cruzn246 and KL). I could be wrong, but the pattern is there.
  41. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    " You appear to be attempting to differentiate the heat caused by CO2 as opposed to any other greenhouse gas." You're going to have to explain what you mean here because I'm not differentiating anything as far as I'm concerned. So far, I've described the article and said they dont have any numbers to back up their theory. Please be specific about what you disagree with.
  42. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    TTTM #163 There is a flaw in your premise here. You appear to be attempting to differentiate the heat caused by CO2 as opposed to any other greenhouse gas. This part of your argument appears to violate the laws of physics, as heat is heat is heat regardless of its source. This failure to obey the laws of physics (or more charitably, mis-explanation of the phenomenon under examination) is a serious distraction from the rest of your argument, which appears to be at odds with the mainstream scientific interpretation of the phenomenon under investigation. Perhaps you should show us "the numbers" clearly and concisely (i.e. show us explicitly model versus observed) so that we can assess your claims. If you want people to accept your argument you need to do the groundwork to make it easy for them to do so :)
  43. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    I won't have anything but regret over wasting more time if I bother to do that, TTT,M. Find somebody else to pester. I'm sure they'll be along soon enough.
  44. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    You would have my gratitude if you could point me to the paper that quantifies the effect described in the RealClimate article and thereby validates the AGW theory as relates to ocean warming due to Anthropogenic CO2.
  45. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    Potential evaporation (or potential ET) is a hypothetical concept. Roughly speaking, it is amount of evaporation (including transpiration) assuming that the ground surface is always wet and all other things being equal as actual. But detailed definitions related to what I said "always wet" and "other things" are different from one author to another ... how to specify air temperature, humidity, wind speed, surface roughness, surface albedo, radiative energy input, etc. Also there are many different approximate ways to estimate it. So we need to be careful about the methods when we compare results of different authors. Conceptually it can be said that potential evaporation consists of two factors, energy input to the surface, and deficit of moisture in the air near the surface. And actual evaporation from land involves at least one more factor, availability of water on the ground (usually from the soil). Pan evaporation can be considered as a kind of potential evaporation, but not equal to its typical definition. Brutsaert considers that pan evaporation varies oppositely to actual evaporation. It is reasonable when moisture deficit dominates pan evaporation and it is mainly a result of actual evaporation. Situation may be different when moisture deficit does not vary much and changes in the energy factor is dominant.
  46. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    I'm a slow learner, I forgot that "Tim the Tool, Man" is his own ultimate authority on the behavior of the climate and thus it's pointless trying to tell him anything. Oops.
  47. Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
    On a meta-note, Karamanski's I'm confused...please explain this? artifice is beginning to wear thin, now that we've read it on multiple topic threads. Here's Karamanski claiming to be "confused" and in need of help and he's already got a grip on Arctic amplification. I'd suggest not biting; this does not seem a person in need of assistance.
  48. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Its not a question of understanding, Doug. Its a question of the numbers. Science doesn't have any (that I'm aware of) and so doesn't actually know whether CO2 is responsible for ocean heating at all.
  49. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Bingo, TTTM! Reduced rate of heat loss! Now, just think, "With the same amount of heat gain as before the change in heat loss." If you can understand those two things working together, you understand the whole thing.
  50. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Perhaps you should do more than a superficial reading before commenting on my understanding of the experiment. My conclusion is precisely the same as theirs. "So basically "science" has come up with a theory for ocean heat loss decrease due to increased CO2, showed that in principle an effect exists" The difference is that they've described their conclusion in the best possible light and entirely glossed over the fact that they only have half the story and dont know whether the effect actually accounts for the ocean warming.

Prev  2142  2143  2144  2145  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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