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  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  2214  2215  2216  2217  2218  2219  2220  2221  2222  2223  2224  Next

Comments 110801 to 110850:

  1. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    michael sweet at 05:31 AM, there is no dispute as to whether overall the energy budget is balanced or not, or that the energy received at the surface and leaving the surface is the same. That is what compiling an energy budget is all about, so I am bewildered how you can confuse quantifying the nett contribution each process makes to that balance with the combined nett result. Is this a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees, I doubt it. It appears that the point of there being a nett loss of heat from the surface when back radiation is offset against heat radiated off is being avoided simply because the maths of -390 plus 324 = -66 is not compatible with a notion that would be satisfied if it was a positive value instead of the negative one it is. If it was a positive value, then the overall balance would still be maintained by additional energy being input into the evaporation process or thermals and transferred from the surface to the atmosphere by those means. If we were to look at it the other way, the heat energy that is lost through evaporation is in part being driven by the heat energy contained in the rain that returns to earth, and a portion of that energy then becomes part of the energy that increases the heat that is being radiated off. The most basic law of physics confirms that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another. The argument that you are making is that even though energy is being utilised in one process, it is still available to be used in another process concurrently. That often is demonstrated by accountants as being possible, and widely believed by the masses to be true, but at the end of the day it is simply a matter that someone couldn't tell the difference that a negative value makes to the balance sheet as opposed to a positive value. A deficit is not a surplus, nor a debt an asset, but there are many who will claim otherwise. Is it that when the house purchased for $390,000 is sold for $324,000, that $66,000 then becomes available to renovate the house just sold? That is the argument being put.
  2. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Johnd - looking further at all your comments, you seem to making inappropriate divisions. That evaporation energy only comes from the solar input; that surface radiation is only tied to backradiation etc. The surface would radiate from the solar input alone if there was no atmosphere - you cant make that separation. What warms the water? ALL the incoming energy. What causes the surface radiation? The energy from ALL incoming radiation. What causes backradiation? All the energy in the atmosphere whatever the origin.
  3. Spanish and Catalan translation of the Scientific Guide to 'Skeptics Handbook'
    That's all very nice, but I really don't think it is the Spanish-speaking part of the world that is the lead player in obstructing action on AGW. It is the English-speaking parts, esp. Canada (that immensely destructive shale oil project), our own USA, and now, India. The next language population that needs to be targeted is either Russia or China. After the huge wildfires in Russia, they are more likely to listen now than just two years ago, though it will still be a huge uphill battle to get them to stop selling oil and gas. Why, stopping it is still out of the question: with much luck, we may get them to shift to more gas than oil, cutting back on both. But in order to get Russia to cut back, China has to stop buying so much oil. But China still hasn't taken the hint from the dust storms battering their capital, they bring online another coal-fired power plant each week. So the Chinese translation is probably the most urgent. Finally, as for the comments on languages, I have little trouble understanding Castilian even though I hear and speak only Latin American Spanish. And in fact, the formal written Spanish they study in school in Mexico and South America really is quite close to Castilian: it is the many who never got past 3rd grade who have trouble understanding Castilian. Perhaps this is why I even hear popular singers (on the Spanish language radio-stations here in California) singing in Castilian, pronouncing "thinko" instead of "sinco" for "cinco".
  4. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    GC - Feedback is context of current discussion is something that changes in response to temperature. Water and CO2 in atmosphere are dependent on temperature so both are feedbacks. Forcings are changes that are independent of temperature. Emitting millions of year accumulation of CO2 into the atmosphere is a forcing. It will cause CO2 feedbacks as well. In contrast, you cant change the H2O in the atmosphere independent of temperature, so it cant be a forcing. John Cook - how about a simple spreadsheet on the site (illustrative purposes only) to show how feedbacks work? eg T = k1 * solar + k2*GHG + c1 GHG = f1 * T + c2 Then iterate through time.
  5. Is climate science settled? Especially the important parts?
    gmcrews, I suggest you read Steve Easterbrook's recent post, "I Never Said That!"
  6. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    BTW: a word like 'monotonic' really doesn't belong in a basic version either. I first saw the word in a High School Calculus class. Those who didn't get that far have never seen it.
  7. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    Answering 3^ Very Tall Guy: yes, it does, but in a basic version, we really do want to avoid terms like SNR. The target audience just blanks out and stops reading it. This is unfortunate, since it is not THAT hard a concept, but that is the reality we have to deal with.
  8. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    JohnD So can you explain why by adding sufficient thermal energy to CO2 by whatever means to enable it to enter the atmosphere, it is considered a forcing, whereas by adding sufficient thermal energy to H2O by whatever means it is considered a feedback. You do not need to add thermal energy to CO2 to make it enter the atmosphere, unless your planet is below -78C (~200K). This is a sublimation point of CO2 (when solid turns to gas). You do need to add energy to H2O because it is a liquid (or solid) at normal earth temperatures. Liquids, such as H2O, (but not CO2 which is a gas) do have a vapour pressure which, as several people have tried to explain to you, is dependent only on temperature. This is why it is a feedback; if the temperature of the atmosphere increases (by whatever means) then the vapour pressure of water increases too. More water vapour in the atmosphere means more IR absorption which means that the heat that will escape into space is retained in the atmosphere for longer, and so the planet heats up. You are still confused about rates of evaporation, seeming to think that this affects the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold. This is simply wrong. If the rate of evaporation slows (without the temperature changing) then so does the rate of condensation - so no change in the overall amount.
  9. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    I love the comparison with lung cancer and shortness of breath! That choice of an example is hard hitting, succinct, and persuasive.
  10. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Johnd - I am not skirting anything. I am trying to put my finger on which part of fundamental physics you do not understand. I am really struggling to make your sense of comments at all. eg you claim surface losses 390 but only gains 324 so a net loss of 66 which must cool the surface. Huh??? LOOK at the diagram. The surface gains: 168(solar) + 324 (backradiation) = 492 It losses: 390(radiation) + 24 (thermal) + 78 (evaporation) = 492! They balance as they must. I am at loss as to how you could interpret the diagram the way you have.
  11. Is climate science settled? Especially the important parts?
    IMHO, the predictive skill of the climate models have not been formally and empirically demonstrated (as in IV&V). I am not sure if this should be considered a "The Science Is Settled" issue or not. Besides sensitivity studies, the models are primarily used as the basis of political policy -- not the thrust of this blog, of course. If the topic seems interesting, there has been a recent discussion on the current adequacy of verification and validation of the models here. For example, Dr. Steve Easterbrook argues there that conventional IV&V for the climate models may well be meaningless.
  12. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    David, Yooper's list is more comprehensive than mine. As you read more you find sites that cater to what you are interested in. I read a lot about ice and not much about changes in animal behaviours. Skeptical Science covers a lot of issues at a basic level and there are often references to other sites for more detailed information. Realclimate is very good but also technical.
  13. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Johnd: As I pointed out at post 56 the amount of energy reaching the surface and leaving the surface are EXACTLY the same. This is required by the second law of thermodynamics. There is no "net loss of heat", you are completely wrong. You are ignoring the input energy from the sun. The energy to evaporate the water comes from the combination of energy from the sun and backradiation. You cannot separate the two as you are trying to do. You have to add them together. The energy budget is closed, there is no loss or gain in the illustration. I am not confused about energy loss, you do not understand the illustration. Perhaps if you read some of the background material we contiously post you would begin to understand the basics. You do not understand the greenhouse effects of CO2 and H2O either. I do not have the time to explain it to you now. In any case, you do not listen to what is explained to you and it would waste my time. I continue posting so that if anyone lurking is reading the exchange and wants an answer they can see what is wrong with your arguments. I am growing tired of having to constantly repeat my previous posts. You are apparently unable to understand the basics of energy exchange in the atmosphere. In addition, you do not understand the simple chart that scaddenp posted. I do not want this to become another "waste heat" discussion so I am not going to post any more about this subject. Your basic understanding of energy exchange is so flawed that it appears to be impossible to convey to you even the most simple facts. I suggest you review the post scaddenp made and his references and see what you can make of it. If you think that professional scientists have left out a large factor that means that you do not understand the paper. You would make a better impression if you said: "I do not understand what this illustration means" rather than "these scientists are wrong". The scientists are right. You do not understand the basic physics.
  14. Pete Dunkelberg at 05:31 AM on 7 September 2010
    Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    BP:If it were true, this energy had to come from somewhere. As the oceans have by far the largest heat storage capacity in the climate system, no internal heat reservoir can supply this heat, it can only come from outside. The upper ocean is directly attached to the lower ocean. Too little is known about the vertical component of ocean currents. But your (BP) next statement: To support this sudden OHC increase, [assuming no connection between upper and lower ocean] there should have been a transient drop of 6 W/m2 in OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) at TOA (Top of Atmosphere), but nothing like that was seen by satellites. leads to the conclusion that ....
  15. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    Yooper, 'Preciate it, it'll keep me busy i'm sure.
  16. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    Not so fast. Waar blijft de energie van het versterkte broeikaseffect?. "The analysis of Levitus et al (2009) also shows, however, that the energy uptake of the oceans between 2004 and 2008 is stalled, at least in the upper 700 m (red dotted line in Figure 2). There is no reason to believe that the radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere during this period was in balance. Trenberth and Fasullo did not know where the anthropogenic greenhouse energy, which since 2004 has accumulated in the climate system has gone. They consider it very unlikely that this energy as a whole accounted for melting of sea ice and ice of glaciers, ice caps and permafrost." Roughly Translated
  17. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    johnd, the energy needed to convert CO2 and H2O from liquid or solid to gas is not relevant to the greenhouse gas feedback versus forcing topic. What is relevant is that in the conditions present on Earth (versus, say, Mars), there are vast pools of liquid water ready to go into the air as soon as the air's temperature is high enough to hold more water as vapor. And there are vast numbers of particles in the air, ready to be nuclei of water vapor precipitation. In fact, both mechanisms operate continuously even while the air's temperature and therefore water vapor capacity are constant, because individual molecules of water continuously swap positions with other molecules among liquid and gas communities. What stays constant with a constant air temperature is the overall average water vapor concentration. In contrast, there are no pools of liquid or solid CO2. And the Earth's air temperatures are far too hot for CO2 to precipitate. Low air temperature is not a limiting factor on CO2 concentration in the air.
  18. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    Berenyi Peter, If you look at the graph, it's impossible to miss the noise; ascribing the accuracy you do to a single quarter's information is laughable. gpwayne I think the explanation is good, but I'd suggest not quoting Pielke in the opening paragraph; it sets up the piece as ad-hom rather than pro-science (I know that's not the intent). HumanityRules I guess whether or not 7-8 years is a trend depends on the signal to noise ratio of the data as well as the time period. I've no idea what the GRACE data looks like personally.
    Moderator Response: [graham] Hey VTG - nice to see you! I know what you mean about the quote - see below for link to Pielke's response, characterising it as an ad-hom - but in truth all these 'basic' rebuttals are being written to be consistent with the intermediate versions. John Cook chose to use the quote as a fair representation of the overall skeptical argument, and I don't believe it is inappropriate. In fact, reading Pielke's defence rather confirms my point - but see what you think for yourself.
  19. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    michael sweet at 01:41 AM, neither CO2 nor water vapour can have any effect whatsoever without the thermal energy each absorbs. Without absorbing sufficient thermal energy CO2 would not even be able to be present in the atmosphere, so it is no different to water vapour in that respect. So can you explain why by adding sufficient thermal energy to CO2 by whatever means to enable it to enter the atmosphere, it is considered a forcing, whereas by adding sufficient thermal energy to H2O by whatever means it is considered a feedback. Thermal energy must be available from other sources before either can become part of the atmosphere, thus both are solely in the atmosphere as feedbacks before any follow on effects can be determined.
  20. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Galloping Camel, water vapor's level in the Earth's atmosphere is limited by temperature. Putting more into the air merely causes an equivalent amount of water vapor to precipitate out. Removing more merely causes an equivalent amount to evaporate in. So the temperature cannot be "forced" higher or lower by using addition or subtraction of water vapor as the primary forcer. As Michael Sweet wrote, the water vapor level reacts to an increase in air temperature that itself has any cause. An example of such a cause is forcing of temperature to be higher by humanity's injection of CO2. Water vapor level increases as a feedback from the increased CO2 level, through the intermediary of increased air temperature. But you are correct insofar as the additional water vapor due to the increased temperature does in turn increase the temperature, because water vapor is a greenhouse gas. But that increase of temperature is strictly limited; it does not run away. And the initial temperature increase that started this chain of events cannot be due to water vapor, as I explained in my first paragraph. That's why water vapor is not a "forcing," but only a "feedback" from some other forcing.
  21. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    michael sweet at 10:42 AM, Phil, you are getting it all back to front. I am trying to explain to you something that you don't understand. Or perhaps you do, as rather than concede it you skirt around it by not actually referring to the specific point. that being what a nett loss of heat, in this case 66, really means in terms of heating and cooling. Thermal energy, heat, is radiated of from the water and thermal energy, heat, is radiated back to the water by the atmosphere, the amount radiated off dependent on each of their relative heat contents, or temperatures. As the diagram shows the heat radiated off 390, is greater than the heat radiated back, 324, from the atmosphere. Thus due to the absorption of solar energy, converted to thermal energy, the water is warmer than the atmosphere to the extent that the difference, 66, is a nett loss of heat from the water to the atmosphere. That is clearly a transfer of energy that cools the water. It is simply is not logical to claim such loss of heat is a warming effect on the body losing the heat. Perhaps you are confusing the rate of heat loss with direction??
  22. Berényi Péter at 01:48 AM on 7 September 2010
    Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    Levitus 2009 is bogus anyway. They suppose a large jump in OHC at the turn of 2002/2003. It is about 7.3×1022J during the forth quarter of 2002 and the first two quarters of 2003. If it were true, this energy had to come from somewhere. As the oceans have by far the largest heat storage capacity in the climate system, no internal heat reservoir can supply this heat, it can only come from outside. To support this sudden OHC increase, there should have been a transient drop of 6 W/m2 in OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) at TOA (Top of Atmosphere), but nothing like that was seen by satellites. 6 W/m2 is huge and there is no way to miss it. It is equivalent to a 1.6°C drop in the effective temperature of Earth as seen from space.
  23. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    GC: Both CO2 and H2O absorb IR and are greenhouse gasses. Because of its short 1/2 life in the atmosphere, H2O responds to other forcings. When CO2 causes the temperature to rise, H2O responds by increasing (it is a feedback). If the Milankovich cycles caused temperatures to decrease H2O would decrease. H2O does not force (cause) the initial change in temperature, it responds to changes caused by other forces. Because humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere, CO2 is forcing (causing) the temperature to increase. In natural cycles, CO2 responds to other forcings (it is a feedback). In the current, human caused change, CO2 is a forcing, not a feedback. It is a little confusing because CO2 can be both a forcing or a feedback.
  24. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    Re: davidwwalters (54)
    "Along with Skeptical Science, Dr. Hanson's website and some others I have bookmarked maybe you could cite a few more for me. I especially like to point out observable effects of AGW to my (many) friends who are deniers."
    Here's some resources I've found helpful in providing visual documentation of climate changes: Double Exposure Extreme Ice Survey Swiss Glaciers On-line James Balog's Glacier Melt Video Mauri Pelto's Glacier Change Blog Mauri Pelto's Glacier Website US Scientific Assessments of Change (with links to IPCC versions of same) Sea Level Rise Maps (you can play with various levels of rises in various places to visually see future inundations) Websites (brief list - I'm leaving out literally dozens of favorites here): Arctic Sea Ice - Neven's Blog Climate Charts & Graphs Climate Progress Deep Climate Open Mind OSS Foundation Real Climate - Start Here Scott Mandia When I get the time, I'll post a more comprehensive listing on my (very rudimentary as yet) Typepad blog. Hope this helps, The Yooper
  25. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    Well, whatever the direction of the last couple years, it is very clear to me why Pielke did not use 2001 as the starting point for his claim.
  26. Berényi Péter at 00:20 AM on 7 September 2010
    Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    Looking at the trend in ocean heat, this is what we find (Source: Levitus 2009) No, we do not. There is a revised and updated version at the NOAA Global Ocean Heat Content page by the same authors. The main difference is that the updated version in 2006 starts to diverge from the published OHC reconstruction. Now it is decreasing slightly instead of the former increasing trend. The difference is about -1022 J in less than 2 years.
  27. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    michael sweet, >>On the other hand, all these effects are anthropogenic changes in the Earth weather system. In the end the sum of all changes is what matters.<< -That's kinda what I was thinking, I was just unaware of how UHI effect compared to other AGW causes. I appreciate the help. As for Dr. Hanson, -just read "Storms of my...." Along with Skeptical Science, Dr. Hanson's website and some others I have bookmarked maybe you could cite a few more for me. I especially like to point out observable effects of AGW to my (many) friends who are deniers.
  28. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    scaddenp (#12), you stated: "TOP - the point about water vapour is that it is a feedback not a forcing." Though we often disagree, you generally make sense. However, I am scratching my head over this one. Both CO2 and water vapor absorb Infra-Red radiation.
  29. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    The acceleration of Greenland ice loss is NOT based purely on the records from GRACE. There are records going back to the 1950s. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Greenland-rising-faster-as-ice-loss-accelerates.html
  30. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    •that one symptom is indicative of the state of an entire malaise You don't really state the importance of OHC. From memory 80-90% of the energy in the system is entering the oceans. You really need to quantify the importance of that symptom. This isn't shortness of breath, this is a shadow on an x-ray. •that one can claim significance about a four year period when it’s too short to draw any kind of conclusion On this website I see no such reluctance to call accelerating Greenland ice loss on the basis of a 7-8 year GRACE record. Consistency across all metrics would be a good start. •that global warming has not been occurring on the basis of ocean temperatures alone I'd go back to my first answer. If we could get this right it would probably be the best measure of heat build up in the system. It seems well worth making this an important metric.
    Moderator Response: I think the acceleration is rather different. In the first place, I've been following the GPS studies (embedded in bedrock), physical studies, satellite data and other sources for a while now, so it is not just the Grace record we're looking at. And an 8 year acceleration is a very clear signal. What it means overall needs more time to get a better and more appropriate trend line, but it is pretty indicative of one thing - that negative mass balance has been consistent and growing over most of a decade - and longer when you look at other records. But mainly, my point would be that I'm not attaching claims to the mass balance record, merely reporting the data. Pielke takes a single short period and pronounces AGW not happening. He does it again in a little defence he's written (link is below). You say "global warming has not been occurring on the basis of ocean temperatures alone" and I agree. Evidently, Pielke thinks differently. And one other thing - if the oceans have not been warming, what is causing all the Arctic ice to melt?
  31. Sea level rise: the broader picture
    DW #79 We can agree on the most important point then: Its unlikely that the 'missing heat' has found its way into the deep oceans quickly with no known mechanism.
  32. iPhone app version 1.1 - now with search, image viewer and Twitter!
    What a great idea and a great app. Deniers like to use ridiculous oversimplifications (like - "it snowed today so global warming isn't real"), but the real world isn't so simple. This app presents real facts, and gives detailed explanations, so you are informed. Every denier should have to read through this app, which debunks every one of their unsubstantiated arguments. It has helped me in many situations when I didn't have quick internet access to use search on mp3 or any other SE. The information is kept up-to-date and is easy to read and understand for most people. I like how both sides are presented... what the skeptics claim and what the science actually says. Nice work! Too much of the American public is pretty ignorant of science and this app helps with the task of hopefully educating the masses!
  33. Spanish and Catalan translation of the Scientific Guide to 'Skeptics Handbook'
    I laud the use of Catalan - they are a proud nation who would be pleased to have their separate linguistic needs recognised. However, I note the language denoted as Spanish is in fact 'Castilian' which is but one of several languages spoken in Spain - Galician is a notable example. Moreover, the 'Spanish' of the Iberian peninsula differs in significant aspects from Latin American Spanish. Many a war has been fought over lesser slights! As Ambrose 'Bitter' Pierce famously said, 'A language is a dialect with an army and a navy.' ;-)
  34. Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
    CBW, I’ve taken out the part about the stratosphere – it doesn’t really matter because I do mention it in the “It’s not us” rebuttal anyway. I’ve left point #1 as is because I think that structure works.
  35. Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
    Re: chriscanaris (10) People that live in the Upper Peninsula (the UP) of Michigan are known as Yoopers. The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is connected to the Lower Peninsula of Michigan by the Mackinac Bridge, a 5-mile long suspension bridge. Yoopers refer to those from the Lower Peninsula as Trolls, as they live "below da bridge". Ethnically, most are from Finno-Scandinavian stock, with some German and Cornish (England) thrown in. If you've ever seen the movie Grumpy Old Men than you've seen a typical Yooper, both in attitude and accent. Few Yoopers my age or older will be found on Internet science commenting sites (because that takes away time from deer camp), so I'm comfortable with the tag "The Yooper". Probably more than you ever wished to know, eh? ________________________________________________________________ Re: VoxRat (5): I well understand flippancy and it's twin sister snark. And have dated both frequently. :) ________________________________________________________________ Nice job, James. I second CBW's comments, as that will aid in clarity. The Yooper
  36. Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
    Off topic, but I don't want to die wondering: What does 'The Yooper' signify?
  37. Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
    Living in Florida as I do it is clear that the Pew Center's plot of hurricanes is a case of torturing the data to suit an agenda. Thank you Berenyi Peter (#16 & #27) for injecting some facts into the discussion.
  38. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    David, Go to the link at post 39 for a recent summary of UHI data compared to rural stations. The whole paper is available (free) at Dr. Hansons web site if you want to read it. It appears that UHI was overestimated 20 years ago. The adjustments made for UHI probably resulted in underestimation of the warming to date- the opposite of what the deniers claim. Current data indicate that the UHI effect is small. There are significant heat budget changes due to albeido effects when forest is changed into farms. These exceed UHI because farms are much bigger than cities. On the other hand, all these effects are anthropogenic changes in the Earth weather system. In the end the sum of all changes is what matters. The IPCC considers all known changes in its reports.
  39. Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
    Since satellite measurements don't actually cover all 50 years, I think it would be safer to mention radiosondes in #4. Lower troposphere temperature as measured by radiosondes (weather balloons) for around 50 years and satellites for around 30 years
  40. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    I make no bones about where the energy for evaporation comes from - solar radiation but largely by atmospheric radiation (back radiation). BOTH heat the water - the water molecules dont care which is which. At the fundamental level, evaporation depends on a/ partial pressure water in atmosphere, and b/ temperature difference. Evaporation takes energy away, cooling the water - but not much. The water must radiate according to its temperature (much of which comes back as back-radiation). Radiation and evaporation are both temperature-dependent phenomena and its best to think of them in those terms. Consider what happens when you reduce GHG. Less back-radiation so temperature drops, so it radiates less till new equilibrium found. Cloud cover etc are dealt with in diagram in terms of average global cover.
  41. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Johnd: Carefully read the chart and the paper. Do not try to explain to me something you do not understand. The chart clearly shows that 168 w/m2 arrives at the surface from the sun. 324 w/m2 arrives at the surface from back radiation. The surface radiates 390 w/m2 as IR. 78 w/m2 is removed from the surface by evapotransportation (evaporation of surface water and the subsequent release of energy in clouds when the water changes back to liquid). 24 w/m2 is removed from the surface by thermal transportation. Total arriving = 168+ 324 = 492/m2 Total leaving = 390 + 78 + 24 = 492 w/m2 The energy to evaporate the water comes from the sun and the backradiation. What is so hard to understand?? The amount of water evaporated is determined by the temperature. The temperature is a function of the backradiation, caused by greenhouse gasses. The energy balance in this example is closed. There is no imbalance in the radiation budget as you suggest. The amount of energy radiated greatly exceeds the amount transported by evaporation and thermal transfer, although those processes are important. As greenhouse gasses increase, the backradiation increases and that heats the surface. Cloud cover has been considered in making the chart.
  42. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    scaddenp at 07:04 AM, you are also avoiding the original point. That was where energy required for evaporation originates from, and thus how this affects the amount of water vapour that enters the atmosphere driven by factors that are not driven by the temperature, but instead are the primary drivers. All you have shown so far is that of the solar energy that has been absorbed by water as thermal energy in the case of evaporation, some of it is transferred into water vapour by the evaporation process which requires an energy input, and some is radiated off into the atmosphere, two completely different processes. It should be obvious that if thermal energy is being radiated off, it is not being utilised for evaporation, nor is it adding to the heat content of the water, it cannot be assumed to be in different places at the one time, or being used by concurrent processes. Radiation only occurs when an actual transfer of energy occurs, which in the case of water, any energy content of the water will be reduced by an amount that is the difference between outgoing and incoming thermal radiation as shown on the budget chart. It is already clear that what is radiated off is energy that is not being used in the evaporation process so why would the evaporation process then be able to utilise the lesser back radiation when part of the solar radiation is required to add additional energy to the outgoing radiation leaving even less energy available to drive evaporation. Varying cloud cover has an direct effect on evaporation, and even in an environment of above average air temperatures, evaporation will fall below average levels as cloud cover increases above average levels, not just at any particular point of time, but as a general response over a period of time.
  43. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    Ned #46 Fair enough. However I will note that BP has posted here since I flagged his cop out in #42, and since then I've decided that it was worse than a mere cop out. So I'd figure I'd flag him to follow it up properly when he's back, or ignore it at his peril.
  44. Empirically observed fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming
    Fair point Chris. I started out writing about correct climate model predictions, but most of them turned out to be anthropogenic signals, so I switched gears. But you're right that several of these are *consistent with* AGW rather than "fingerprints". I'll adjust the rebuttal accordingly.
  45. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Johnd- as we continue to tell you - the surface is radiated by both the sun AND the back radiation. Once you get this, then you really understand the greenhouse gas effect. While you continue to misunderstand this, then you continue to talk nonsense. Take a while to understand that whole chart. Read the paper.
  46. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    Whoops, "decreases it locally" it should say. I would have to say that I am assuming that UHI is largely air heated by dark surfaces rather than waste heat.
  47. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    Well as is usually the case, the IPCC WG1 has a good index to the data and literature. Overall though it appears that land use change is (eg forest to farm) increases albedo though urbanization with it asphalt surfaces obviously increases it locally. Some discussion
  48. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    michael sweet, -you're probably right. was just wondering, and where can i find some data on this particular subject (UHI)?
    Moderator Response: One relevant post you can find by typing "It's Waste Heat" into the Search field at the top left of this page.
  49. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    michael sweet at 04:37 AM, I think it was clear that the discussion was focused on back radiation and the evaporation process, not the whole energy budget. Perhaps read back through the thread and pick up on that particular theme again instead of diverting away from it. In the meantime, regarding how the energy radiated from the surface can be larger than the energy from the sun alone, in forming a budget it is the nett result that determines a surplus or a deficit. Clearly the combination of radiation and back radiation shows a nett deficit, which is a cooling process, not warming. If that process is unable to sustain itself, losing energy, how is it able to give up energy to drive evaporation? If it hasn't been given up to evaporation when the water releases it as thermal radiation, a lesser amount of returning thermal radiation is not going to provide extra energy to drive a process that required more energy than was available originally. Evaporation releases excess energy over and above what is being lost by thermal radiation.
  50. Is climate science settled? Especially the important parts?
    thingadonta wrote: A completely opposite way of looking at it (the skeptical one, by the way), is that you should actually never 'cast aside' one's 'doubt of climate science'; such is the road to ideology, blind faith, and false certainty as a means to social power and control. The Aztecs and Mayans discovered it, and now 21str century ‘scientists’ have discovered it (but not the sceptical ones). The pre-Columbian peoples of America did not have "blind faith" in their religions - they followed them because they seemed to work. They offered sacrifices, the Gods responded with rain, good crops and victory in war. A year of drought could be cured by more sacrifices, and the Gods would be appeased. Unfortunately, the series of good years were accompanied by expansion in populations and farming (slashing and burning hill areas, for example) that were unsustainable in prolonged periods of drought. These were followed by revolutions, overthrow of the city elites, population collapse, desertion of the large cities, and (sometimes) mass murder and cannibalism. These societies were essentially conservative, led by elites who aggrandized themselves with buildings, temples, expanded populations for bigger armies and personal display. If there were a few Mayan radicals they might have said "We have enough large temples - let us build granaries to store grain and resevoirs to retain water. Let us limit our wars to defence only. Instead, we should be limiting our population growth and ensuring our agriculture is sustainable. We know from history this region endures catastrophic droughts every few centuries - let us plan to mitigate those because one will surely happen, maybe in the times of our children or grandchildren." The elites would have replied "The Gods will punish us if we do not build larger temples. Other cities will have bigger temples, and the Gods are fickle. We need a bigger population to provide us with the young men to fight and win wars to bring back slaves to build those temples. And droughts? If we please the Gods, they will not punish us with droughts. We must expand our agricultural base to please the Gods and our wise rulers." Which one was exercising "social power and control"? Which one was offering the solution most likely to work in the long term?

Prev  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  2214  2215  2216  2217  2218  2219  2220  2221  2222  2223  2224  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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