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  2233  2234  2235  2236  2237  2238  2239  2240  2241  2242  2243  2244  2245  2246  2247  2248  Next

Comments 112001 to 112050:

  1. Berényi Péter at 13:23 PM on 22 August 2010
    The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
    Unfortunately the Simpson 2009 link above is not correct. Here is a better one. Quaternary Science Reviews 28 (2009) 1631-­1657 doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.03.004 Calibrating a glaciological model of the Greenland ice sheet from the Last Glacial Maximum to present-day using field observations of relative sea level and ice extent Matthew J.R. Simpson, Glenn A. Milne, Philippe Huybrechts, Antony J. Long
  2. What caused early 20th Century warming?
    #27: "in the early century, most of those years had low sunspot activity " 'Relatively' low sunspot numbers, yes; but the peaks are increasing through the first half of the 1900s. Anne-Marie's logic is sound. Long term cycles in solar output are apparent; Bonev etal 2004 reached this conclusion: "the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in the long-term solar variability. There are some clues that the next minimum will be less deep than the Maunder minimum" (emphasis added) That sounds like the next few cycles are predicted to continue the downward trend that began after the 1960 peak; so why are we still warming?
  3. Berényi Péter at 13:00 PM on 22 August 2010
    The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
    #61 Peter Hogarth at 09:46 AM on 22 August, 2010 Your calculations are therefore dubious Not very much. According to Simpson 2009 between 10000 BP and 3000 BP the average volume change of the Greenland ice sheet is about -5700 km3/century. It translates to an eustatic sea level rise rate of 15 mm/century, still not alarming. The fastest loss rate they show is about -8000 km3/century between 5000 BP and 4000 BP. For the sea level it is still not more than 22 mm/century. As present ice loss rate is supposed to be much faster than anything seen during the early holocene when arctic temperatures were higher than now, it is either measurement error or a transient which can not last for long (a "weather event"). Greenland is very interesting, but rest assured, not dangerous for coastal cities. BTW, I have just found something curious. It is not immediately related to Greenland, but to the wider context of glacial - interglacial transition. As the great continental ice sheets of America and Europe melted, sea level rose by about 120 m. This added water displaced an equal volume of atmosphere, which increased air pressure over land everywhere on the globe by about 1%, except at former ice margins where uplift of land was larger than that of the atmosphere due to postglacial rebound. The pressure increase translates to a 0.5°C global land surface warming via lapse rate. This additional heating have not occurred over the oceans, so it must have had a pretty large effect on global circulation patterns. Anyway, it would deserve a closer look and somewhat more accurate calculations.
  4. What caused early 20th Century warming?
    Unfortunately your assertion that solar activity since the 1950's has been stable is wrong according to historical records of sunspot activity. Have a look at the following Australian government link where graphs of historical solar cycles are available. More sunspots equates to more radiated heat. http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/3/1 (my apologies but I use Firefox and post links as per the hints provided) From the aforementioned link, you should note that sunspot activity in the early 60's was at an all time high post 1750. Sun spot activity during the 80's and 90's were the second and third highest for that period. As for the warming in the early century, most of those years had low sunspot activity hence I can't see how you can arrive at your conclusion that the warming is attributed to increased solar activity.
  5. The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
    Forget about mirrors, consistency, glass houses, your hurt feelings etc. theendisfar. The point is, you're arguing from the perspective that scientists are not trustworthy and that makes a discussion with you entirely pointless. Some of the self-described skeptics appearing here don't seem to believe they're victims of some fantastical plot run by a myriad of scientists and that means it's technically possible to have a productive discussion. Useful conversation with those expediently conjuring up imaginary scientific misconduct, conspiracies etc. is impossible because such artifices are a form of evasion, a way of saying "I doubt it" without having to provide any argument. If you've ever tried to talk down the anxieties of a person who is technically paranoid you'll understand what I mean. My observation is that the response of such a person when boxed in by logic is to imagine a new world with features excusing them from following logic. Mind, I'm not saying you're delusional, I have no way of knowing that. What I will say is that making broad, negative generalizations about the character and methods of a myriad of scientists does sound rather like inventing a new world with conveniently inexplicable features.
  6. The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
    theendisfar, in addition to the excellent replies you've already gotten in response to your invocation of Popper and your contention that consensus has no role in science, you should read the Skeptical Science response to the Argument There is no consensus". In addition to that post, I suggest you watch Naomi Oreskes's "Consensus in Science: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong?," which I link in my comment there. Also read another of my comments there, regarding the role of scientific consensus. Then my followup two comments here, and about math here, and about Kuhn's description of science here. Also relevant are comments about what science really is. You might start with mine.
    Moderator Response: Further detailed discussion of the nature and role of consensus in science is better done on the more general thread "There is no consensus," because this thread we are reading now is devoted more narrowly to the Oregon Petition.
  7. There's no empirical evidence
    KR, In particular, "Trapped radiation will only serve to slow the radiative cooling exhibited by black body radiation" is completely insensible - random words that don't mean anything to me. Thank you. I believe I can make it clear. If an object is radiating at 390 Watts/m^2 (m^2 is meters squared) and a GHG absorbs some of it and sends back 2 Watts, then the rate of cooling via Radiation has dropped to 388 Watts/m^2. Since a Watt is a joule/second, then the most obvious choice of words to me was to say that it 'slowed'. Keeping in mind that radiation travels at the speed of light, any IR trapped by CO2 is in effect trapped at the surface since it's frequency at the surface is every 1/150,000,000 seconds if trapped at 1 meter or 1/15,000 seconds if trapped at 10,000 meters. Temperature changes over such short time periods and so little energy can, for practical purposes, be seen as not changing. To describe the 'trapped' energy when it is away from the surface requires one to predict it's location within the atmosphere which is highly variable and since everyone is so concerned with it's contribution to surface temps, that is the obvious choice again. So, if you consider the 'trapped' energy as stuck at the surface, or better yet, when you are measuring it it is at the surface, then in practical terms you have reduced the radiation rate by 2 Watts. Now consider that a cubic meter of water at 15 C (average Sea Surface Temp) contains about 1.2 Billion joules, a reduction in cooling of 2 Watts is a 12 hour reduction of 86,400 Watts. Sound like a lot? Consider it takes a 4.1 Million joule increase to raise that 1 cubic meter of water 1 C. However, the radiative resistance does not impede Convection or Evaporation (where available), in fact, since a slight increase in Temperature will be observed at the surface, the Convection rate will increase accordingly. Better?
  8. Berényi Péter at 10:03 AM on 22 August 2010
    There's no empirical evidence
    #124 KR at 07:52 AM on 22 August, 2010 Delamere et al 2000 is an interesting paper. But they fail to show actual data for TOA emissions. Of course they don't do that. It is about modeling, not measurement. But they do provide some hints regarding why these quantities are not measured properly yet.
  9. Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
    "Popularity?" What's in a word? Citations are among other things a measure of the utility of a paper's content. In the scientific world a paper is useful when it helps to provide a framework for further exploration. So not popularity in the sense of "People" magazine. Meanwhile, all citations are not equal. A citation to an article from a paper authored by a pundit at a thinktank is not a very good indicator of that article's scientific merit. Poptech you seem very invested in E&E, presumably because it's a journal offering easy acceptance of articles that can't find a publisher elsewhere and thus many articles important to "skeptics" appear in E&E. Earlier I wondered if you could inform us about what fraction of the world's libraries subscribe to E&E. You'd mentioned a figure of something less than 500 libraries counting E&E among the journals on their shelves, that apparently being a usefully large number to convey the impression the journal has heft. Did you ever tease out that fraction from your information sources?
  10. The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
    Doug, A sudden epiphany, theendisfar? In a manner of speaking. Having commented on deception my argument was self defeating in a couple of ways. First, I was claiming AGW has done a poor job of proving anything, essentially speculating, and then I was doing the same thing with the regards to the folks I was detracting. Second, it has proven to be a terrible distraction, this post is further evidence of that. A different paradigm is exposed when you look in the mirror and apply the standards you hold others up to. I made a mistake and the quicker I own up to it the better. Too much torque, your credibility is snapped. Fair enough, do not take any of my statements at face value. What, you didn't before? :) I expect a fair amount of knocking, I made some dumb comments that I thought were harmless enough without carefully predicting the outcome. What I said is on par with many inflammatory remarks made about Skeptics, here and elsewhere. Not excusing any of it, just reminding those that live in glass houses.
  11. Berényi Péter at 09:56 AM on 22 August 2010
    There's no empirical evidence
    #123 KR at 07:49 AM on 22 August, 2010 do you think that in other wavelengths the top of atmosphere (TOA) emissivity has increased? Yes. Note that the measured TOA emissivity has decreased at all observed wavelengths in that graph. In the graph, yes. Not in reality. As I have already told you, the offset in the graph is arbitrary. TOA radiative imbalance, as measured by satellites, have some 6 W/m2 uncertainty. Can you produce evidence to that effect? If not, I can't take your comment seriously. You can't produce evidence to the contrary either. The 0.9 W/m2 radiative imbalance at TOA is only assumed, never measured. In order to be taken seriously you have to be able to tell assumptions and facts apart in the first place.
  12. The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
    Berényi Péter at 06:03 AM on 22 August, 2010 Yes, my first comment was released in haste and was incorrect, apologies (I was looking at the bedrock uplift data for Agassiz and Renland, which amount to over 100m and around 300m respectively in the same period). I think we have to read the whole paper rather than making fast judgements. As you know, the percentage of d18O in the gas trapped in the ice core is used as a temperature proxy. It must be corrected for altitude (and latitude) hence an estimate of elevation at deposition time is required. Assuming similar d18O histories and known elevation history at one site allows past elevation at nearby sites to be more accurately constrained. Glacial Isostatic Adjustment has also to be factored in. Your calculations are therefore dubious (but at least not upside down...) The difference between elevation histories at core sites in the centre of the Greenland ice sheet and the margins gives evidence that the loss at the margins of the ice sheet is very sensitive to temperature changes and these margins have responded rapidly in the past. This is analogous to what we are currently measuring and seeing. The recent reversal in the long term downwards Arctic temperature trend (Kaufman 2009 etc), appears to require more than is possible from natural variations or forcings, and Vinther argues in his conclusion that relatively small temperature changes could lead to greater mass losses than previously thought. Vinther 2009 states: “Greenland ice sheet (GIS) is an important concern, especially in the light of new evidence of rapidly changing flow and melt conditions at the GIS margins”. I agree. These recent mass losses are not “weather noise”.
  13. The main culprit in mid-century cooling
    Could aerosols from industrialisation in China and coal fired stations elsewhere be damping down the warming trend over the last decade?
  14. Berényi Péter at 09:30 AM on 22 August 2010
    The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
    #60 Peter Hogarth at 07:18 AM on 22 August, 2010 That is, the 10,000 year elevation change shown here is upwards (crustal uplift), rather than downwards (ice loss), as you have incorrectly interpreted it to be. No, it is not. You are surely not trying to tell us total gas content of an ice core decreases with increasing atmospheric pressure at depositional elevation. and I am not “you guys” Sorry for that, sir. It will never happen again.
  15. The main culprit in mid-century cooling
    Focusing on the cooling period as indicated above, 1945 to 1975, that period began with 2 declared El-Nino years that were much stronger than normal. Including those 2 years, a total of 10 years within the nominated period were declared El-Nino years. There was also 10 La-Nina years within the same period with the 3 final years being successive declared La-Nina years. HOWEVER, virtually the whole period, in fact the exact period was dominated with the SOI predominately and quite strongly in the positive (wetter) phase, and the IPO entirely and also very strongly in the corresponding negative (wetter)phase. The IOD was in the postive phase(drier) 3 times whilst in the negative (wetter) phase 4 times. The negative phase of the IOD is a pattern with cool SST in the Indian Ocean west of Australia, and warm SST in the Timor Sea to the north. For Australia overall, this cooling period was also a period of generally higher rainfall, so irrespective of what else may have been happening in the atmosphere, the amount and distribution of cloud cover would have had a determining influence on both how much the SST's warmed and cooled, and where, as well as where the moisture that formed into those clouds was carried to and deposited. Clouds also affect temperatures, causing lower temperatures during the day and warmer at night, so more clouds are not only indicated by the generally higher rainfall, but consistent with how temperatures varied also.
  16. Is global warming still happening?
    Excellent rebuttal! I have only one suggestion to make, it is already so near perfect;) In place of the fancy sounding word, 'indicator', use the more normal sounding word, 'sign', which really will be readily understood here as meaning the same thing.
  17. The main culprit in mid-century cooling
    Yes, good post. Something I am mildly curious about is why the post 1975 heating doesn't converge on the trend line up to 1940, but runs parallel and offset down. Is it because there is still substantial (even if lower) aerosol presence?
  18. The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
    TOP:
    The Scopes trial got evolution pretty close to being the codified into law in many places. At least you can't teach or even discuss opposing viewpoints.
    Of course you can. You can't teach creationism in *science* class, because it's not science. This would be true even if evolution were false. But you can certainly teach creationism in the context of *religious studies*. In case you haven't noticed, the Torah is a religious work, not a scientific work.
  19. The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
    A sudden epiphany, theendisfar? Too much torque, your credibility is snapped.
  20. There's no empirical evidence
    Look, folks the precedent on this site is that assuming you can wrestle him/her to the ground w/regard to basic physics, theendisfar will then apply this dog-eared joker from the skeptic deck: "Without going into motivation, Yes, I think many climate scientists are purposely misrepresenting conjecture as empirical and repeatable evidence quite frequently using subjective terms to provide wiggle room and plugging conjecture into GCM's, passing the predictions off as reliable." Once you actually get back to empirical evidence as opposed to heading back into the 19th century to rehash classic thermodynamics and the like, whatever data you may end up discussing will be dismissed as the result of a vast conspiracy or whatever it would take to support theendisfar's hypothesis of rampant corruption in the scientific community. So I really wouldn't bother w/rejoinders, attempts at correction or the like. I'll hazard a guess that theendisfar is here for kicks, nothing more.
  21. There's no empirical evidence
    Berényi - Delamere et al 2000 is an interesting paper. But they fail to show actual data for TOA emissions.
  22. The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
    Doug, I can understand your skepticism and can only say that time is the best measure and that #55 is sincere. Trust me, if you look at the Empirical Evidence thread you can see how stimulating the AGW community is being. Mind numbingly For what's it worth I repeat Making claims, to date, that are unfounded and accusations without the accused present is not worthy of discussion and upon reflection is amateur and low respectfully and arguably inclusive. I was raised and educated to be above this behavior and will seek to reinforce this claim. Take it or leave it, so long as I an free to comment here I will do so in the manner described above.
  23. There's no empirical evidence
    Berényi - do you think that in other wavelengths the top of atmosphere (TOA) emissivity has increased? Note that the measured TOA emissivity has decreased at all observed wavelengths in that graph. Can you produce evidence to that effect? If not, I can't take your comment seriously.
  24. There's no empirical evidence
    There's a phrase by Wolfgang Pauli that I find appropriate, "That's not right - that's not even wrong". What you've posted is nonsense. In particular, "Trapped radiation will only serve to slow the radiative cooling exhibited by black body radiation" is completely insensible - random words that don't mean anything to me. How could energy accumulation slow radiative cooling? That completely reverses cause and effect - slowing of radiative cooling traps energy, not the other way around. You're just not making sense. When you do, great. Until then, well, babble just isn't worth my time. In the meantime, I would suggest reading up on the Greenhouse Effect, and how it actually works.
  25. There's no empirical evidence
    Tom et al, To those that think 107 - 110 are gibberish, can at least one of you provide an example? Pick the first obvious one, the understanding is progressive so an early error will likely falsify the rest of it. Does Temperature as 'Energy Pressure' not make sense? Makes sense if you take into account that a joule = a newton with regards to Energy. They are equivalent. Energy/Volume = Pressure. Anyone?
  26. The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
    Re: Karl Popper Popper was a wonderful man, a great philosopher, and a brilliant writer. But there is much more to the philosophy of science than Popper and he has his detractors. His "falsificiationism" is probably a bit old hat today, but is a wonderfully useful rule, like Ockham's Razor or Hume's Fork. His best book is actually a work of political philsophy The Open Society and its Enemies. A contending branch of the philosopy is Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which is a more sociological view. Kuhn points out for example that for centuries Newton's Laws did not explain the orbit of Mercury. But scientists did not immediately abandon Newton's Laws - they were much too useful. So Kuhn believed that science works in "paradigms" (a word he invented, and later regretted!). Basically "normal science" continues with its paradigms until evidence begins to contradict a formerly accepted theory. Scientists will try to "save the theory" by modification, but eventually a new paradigm in the case of "revolutionary science" is accepted. The eventual acceptance of continental drift, along with plate tectonics, is a good example of this. There are other manifold and variegated views of science, like the Duhem-Quine thesis Duhem-Quine. Climate science actually depends on fairly straightforward paradigms of radiation physics and atmospheric physics. To falsify it, these would need to be undermined to a significant degree. But anyone is welcome to try.
  27. There's no empirical evidence
    theendisfar, the problem is not your typo of "combined" instead of "combines." I'm going to make a pretty wild guess at some of your major misconceptions, but again, what you wrote is so bizarre that I might guess wrong. The system at issue is not just the Earth's solid and liquid surface. Nor is it that plus the atmosphere. The "system" is the entire Earth, from the outermost wisps of the atmosphere down to the Earth's core, as seen from outer space. Convection, conduction, and evaporation happen only within that system, and do not--can not--exchange energy with anything that lies outside that system. So convection, conduction, and evaporation cannot cool that system. But radiation from that system can escape that system, thereby carrying energy out of that system, into outer space. Such radiation is emitted toward outer space by everything in that system that has a temperature above absolute zero--which is everything. All those everythings also emit radiation in every other direction at the same time. Radiation that does not head toward outer space eventually gets absorbed by more things in that Earth system. On average, half of the emitted radiation heads toward outer space at least initially. But even radiation headed toward outer space faces obstacles--objects that absorb radiation. (But radiation does not get absorbed by other radiation it encounters. Only objects can absorb.) Some of those obstacles are greenhouse gases. When they absorb radiation, they attain higher energy states. Some of that energy they give to other objects by banging into them (that's "conduction"). But some of that energy they radiate. Just like all the previous radiating, the radiation goes in all directions, but half of it heads toward outer space. But now some of that radiation hits more obstacles in the form of greenhouse gases, and so on. This process causes a smaller proportion of outgoing radiation to make it all the way out of the system (to outer space) than would make it if there were no greenhouse gases in the way.
  28. Berényi Péter at 07:26 AM on 22 August 2010
    There's no empirical evidence
    #113 KR at 06:39 AM on 22 August, 2010 If you look at Figure 2 at the top of this page, the emissivity of the Earth has decreased due to greenhouse gasses You know that's not true. Figure 2 only shows it has decreased in certain narrow frequency bands relative to the rest. The offset in the figure is arbitrary, it is not measured with acceptable accuracy at all. Also, it would be very interesting to have a look at the curve below wavenumber 710 cm-1. Arctic window, between 400 and 600 cm-1 plays a crucial role under certain circumstances.

    Figure 2

    About that and nooks and crannies of arctic clouds read Delamere & al. 2000. As usual, it is not about actual measurements, but modeling. However, it presents the basic concepts quite clearly.
  29. There's no empirical evidence
    :) Dang! 107 should say COMBINED with a D, with regards to evaporation. HTML tags are causing trouble :) I can see how COMBINES with an S could cause confusion
  30. There's no empirical evidence
    KR, Can you please explain what is wrong in 107? Note; Should be "Convection combine with evaporation" and I failed to state the assumption 'where evaporation is available". And Trapped radiation implies an atmosphere where convection is available given Ian's "greenhouse effect". Other than that, I can see no other areas that could be in question. Are you saying that restricting a method of energy transfer where another is available will not increase the rate of the other? Thanks
  31. There's no empirical evidence
    If I may be so bold as to interject and declare that I'm more with Theendisfar.Surface heat loss must be by conduction,convection and radiation.99% is lost by cond/convect. Radiation fom the surface is trifling and as for "back radiation"...no go,completely contrary to 2nd Law of thermodynamics.There is no greenhouse(ie limiting of heat loss by convection)in operation whatsoever.Arrhenius was wrong.The greenhouse effect is a complete misnomer.The model of the atmosphere that is conveyed to the general public is simply wrong.Gravity and surface pressure accounts for the "warm" atmosphere....and not CO2 or any other gas. To mentally image the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere that some claim, then each molecule of CO2 would have to be a 2 bar electric fire with a parabolic mirror directed earthwards.
    Moderator Response: If you really want to argue about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, please start by reading the post "2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory." If you still aren't convinced, read the more detailed material that you get to by clicking the links in the "Further Reading" green box below the post. Still want to argue? Then please read the comments on that post first. To save everybody the time of repeating all that. Again.
  32. There's no empirical evidence
    theendisfar, I agree with the other respondents. Your explanations are gibberish. By that I mean "nonsensical." I can't even argue against it, because it is so confused. You really need to set aside everything that you think you know, and read some very basic explanations.
  33. There's no empirical evidence
    Ian, This is just gibberish. I cannot follow what you are trying to say. I doubt that even you know what you are saying. Sorry, Temperature is a measure of kinetic energy within a given volume. Kinetic energy, when viewed as Force and when divided by Volume, can be represented as Pressure. The higher the density per unit volume, the higher the temperature or 'pressure'. You can simply replace 'energy pressure' with 'Temp...', and that should clear things up. Oh, and to be clear, any references in those posts to 'Law', all apply to the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics. 4 if you count the Zeroth Law, which seems obvious, but I imagine it has some use. You are right to doubt me. AGW is real and is caused by an increase in CO2 and other green house gases. No other science can dispute that statement. ? That is not gibberish, but understand that I am not so experienced as you, so my ability to read between the lines is not as refined. For give me but I only got, basic English mind you; "AGW is real and is caused by an increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases."
  34. Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
    Poptech wrote : "So yes I told them the reason why I listed them and under what criteria." You just can't help yourself, can you ? Lucky you're around to tell these authors how their papers were something that they didn't think they were, and how they were wrong to ask for their papers to be removed/mystified as to how anyone rational could see in their papers something that wasn't actually there. Amazing.
  35. There's no empirical evidence
    theendisfar - Nope. Your posts here, here, in fact all of your posts on this thread - nope. At the top of the atmosphere the only energy pathway is radiation. If you look at Figure 2 at the top of this page, the emissivity of the Earth has decreased due to greenhouse gasses - so that since the 1970's, at the 1970 temperature of the Earth, it wasn't radiating as much as it received. Energy accumulated, the temperature of the Earth/atmosphere increased, and and the energy radiated to space increased as well. It got warmer. In the simplest view possible: The equilibrium temperature of IR cooling bodies (energy output) with equal energy inputs and different emissive spectra depend on the integrated energy of their emission spectra - objects (or planets) with lower integrated spectra will come to equilibrium at a higher temperature than objects closer to a black body spectra. Note that greenhouse gasses tend not to affect the visible wavelength energy coming from the Sun - I think less than 1% (numbers, anyone?) of the solar spectra is in the affected IR bands. So the input energy does not change. CO2 directly reduces the emissive IR spectra of the Earth - and temps go up as a direct response, as the Earth system moves back to equilibrium energy exchange at the top of the atmosphere.
  36. What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
    RSVP wrote : "The hubris has to do with wanting to believe we have all the answers, when in reality the problem is much more complex than we think." How has said that they have all the answers ? And the only hubris I have ever seen on this site has been from so-called skeptics claiming that they know better than scientists who spend their working lives on the problems and complexity that is Climatology, and claiming that their pet theory has never been thought of before and is a better answer than AGW. There never seems to be any complexity involved when the so-called skeptics make their bold assertions - they have usually come up with the answer while surfing the Net and discovered secret knowledge from playing around with figures and seeing patterns that no-one else has !
  37. There's no empirical evidence
    theendisfar - I am sorry but would appear to have an extremely flawed understanding of physics which is guiding you to some very wrong conclusions. I have no idea where you got this from but short of starting again from a text book, how about you look at science of doom. Its impossible to have a discussion with any meaning in face of this kind of misconception.
  38. The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
    An apology for: "Without going into motivation, Yes, I think many climate scientists are purposely misrepresenting conjecture as empirical and repeatable evidence quite frequently using subjective terms to provide wiggle room and plugging conjecture into GCM's, passing the predictions off as reliable. That statement seems quite purposeful, almost a recitation, perhaps reflective of something oft-repeated and deeply seated. I wonder if the apology is based on a durable internal integration of actual contrition, or is simply a facile way of being assured of continued conversational stimulation?
  39. Berényi Péter at 06:03 AM on 22 August 2010
    The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
    #57 Peter Hogarth at 01:18 AM on 22 August, 2010 One of the points of this post is that there is plenty of evidence and peer reviewed research which shows that the Greenland Ice Sheet volume has varied in step with the NH high latitude temperature variations in the past, see Vinther 2009 Yes, no question about that. However, it is the rate of change we are talking about here. I have copied Figure S2 b here from the Supplementary information to Vinther 2009. As you can see depositional elevation over the Greenland ice sheet has decreased by 200 m during 8 millennia when both local air and sea surface temperatures were 2-3°C higher than today. That translates to a rate of -2.5 m/century. The area of the ice sheet is about 1.78×106 km2. Therefore the century scale loss of ice volume was 4400 km3 what makes 4000 km3 meltwater. Surface area of all the seas is 3.6×108 km2, therefore it implies an eustatic sea level rise at a rate of about 11 mm/century. Hardly alarming, even if we take into account that holocene melt rate was highly variable, for short periods it could have been 3-4 times the average. Eight thousand years of ice sheet response is a bit better sample from a climatic point of view than a decade. You guys are making a fuss about weather noise.
  40. The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
    Ian, As for Popper, I simply looked up 'falsification' and his descriptions of how to reinforce a theory were very similar to the methods I was instructed on. I never heard of him till today either. I didn't recognize that I invoked someone hostile to your position, so in my own words. Quickly, I was taught to: 1. Prepare a Hypothesis statement that had the opportunity to be confirmed or denied with the ability to test within mind. 2. First attempt to confirm the hypothesis to see if I was on track using known Laws of physics and methods. 3. If no methods were available, determine and execute a method to confirm. If no method to confirm can be found, the exercise is over since this can only lead to falsifying a negative. Proving the unverifiable is a futile exercise. 4. Once evidence is obtained, this is the important part, try vigorously to break the hypothesis with the ferocity as the biggest skeptic would apply. 5. Once I was not able to break my hypothesis, I was to ask a trusted colleague to attempt the same. 6. Once they could not, though it would be better to have it reconfirmed again by someone who respects you, then it was safe to publish, with all the methods, conclusions, and areas that might lead to falsification for the Skeptical community to confirm or deny. I was taught to expect hostility, especially if what you were proposing was especially novel or would impact your audience in a dramatic way. This an other streams validate this all too well. To me, this method (I was taught it under the name 'scientific method') renders consensus/opinion moot which vastly reduces the number of questions that could arise. Does this seem at all unreasonable? Do you have a better method?
  41. The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
    sorry link was deleted for some reason http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=3&t=107&&a=105#22448
  42. The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
    :) Ian, I must man up and recognize my inflammatory comments have invited this level of scrutiny. I'm afraid that you quoting Popper does not equate to a scientific education. You are correct. Assume I have no proper education in any sense other than I am indeed the one typing these posts and I'm not simply reciting this to someone to make up for my lack of reading and writing abilities. Heck assume I'm using voice software to read and write these messages if it pleases you. I repeat that my statements going forward are of my understanding and not simply recited from other sources. I recognize your vastly superior titles, tenure, and intellect. I invite your rebuke.
  43. There's no empirical evidence
    theendisfar re 107, 108, 109 and 110. This is just gibberish. I cannot follow what you are trying to say. I doubt that even you know what you are saying. AGW is real and is caused by an increase in CO2 and other green house gases. No other science can dispute that statement.
  44. There's no empirical evidence
    Ian, 107, 108, and 109 cont . . . From 109 No energy has been created or lost, the system has only lost it's ability to cool an additional 2 Watts at the speed of light and instead has to cool at the speed available to convection. Now this begs the question, is the difference in the cooling rate enough to create a back pressure that holds the energy at or near the surface increasing that region's pressure/temp? My understanding is that the elasticity of the atmosphere combined with the readily available room for an increased convection rate will offset that kind of back pressure. No energy was created or lost from my understanding, I believe I have met all Thermodynamic Laws. Will save that in the event I am understanding this incorrect.
  45. The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
    theendisfar said:
    I can only offer that this paper accurately describes the scientific education I received and has been reliable to me.
    I'm afraid that you quoting Popper does not equate to a scientific education. In my over 40 years as a scientist (undergraduate, graduate, post doc and work as a research scientist) I had never even heard of Popper until I found him discussed on creationist anti-science sites. Shortly thereafter I found his name used by AGW deniers. Anyone, in my view, who uses Popper to support science is probably an anti-science sufferer. Does this mean that scientists are not aware of his theories? No, we called it sticking to the scientific method and real scientists still follow this regime. The theory of AGW is valid not because of all the results confirming it but because no-one has produced one iota of evidence disproving it. Non-science editorials and opinion pieces by AGW deniers do not count as scientific evidence.
  46. There's no empirical evidence
    Ian, 107, 108 continued . . . A uniform surface creates equal pressure going up and will have equal resistance going down. Varying the surface in both energy pressure and specific heat allows for currents to form which allows for an increased convection rate. Land Sea breezes come to mind. While the surface and atmospheric energy pressures have adjusted, no energy has been created or lost. Now let's place a resistance on the Radiation rate. If 2 Watts is correct for CO2, that is a .005% restriction at 390 Watts. Convection rates within the Earth's atmosphere are highly variable, from dead calm to reaching dozens of meters per second. Thermal currents and hang-gliding come to mind. If a radiative resistance is encountered, and if my understanding of the 2nd Law is accurate, then any energy trapped by radiative resistance will simply be picked up convection given that it very rarely reaches it's physical limits. No energy has been created or lost, the system has only lost it's ability to cool an additional 2 Watts at the speed of light and instead has to cool at the speed available to convection. One more cont . . .
  47. Dust-Up On Mars: Should Martians Be Sceptical of Global Warming?
    I think papertiger is saying that because we can observe the geology in some detail, we can infer something about the ancient climate (e.g., the existence of certain kinds of sedimentary layers suggests the presence of standing water at some point in the planet's history). Not just of the ancient climate on the Red Planet, but because of the lack of water erosion, even of the recent history, right up to the present day. Extra terrestrial astronomical forcing are the origin of all these cycles, long term (last 2.4 Ma, Pleistocene), middle term (last 127Ka, last interglacial - last glacial time-span) and short term, (the last 10.000 years (10Ka)), on both planets Earth and Mars. See comment one at the "intermediate explanation" link.
  48. There's no empirical evidence
    Ian, 107 continued . . . A true Greenhouse comes to mind. If it has a constant source of energy and it is perfectly sealed, then it will increase in pressure/temp until it is radiating at the same rate it is absorbing, keeping the emissivity and conductivity of the container in mind. Place the greenhouse into an atmosphere, and now you include conduction to the atmosphere at the surface. With a uniform surface and in zero gravity convection is not in play so what you'll end up with is a steady stratification of the atmosphere's temperature moving from higher temps to lower temps the farther you get from the surface. The energy in the system has not increased, we have only added an additional component with the atmosphere. The energy pressure in the greenhouse has decreased by the amount of energy transfered to the atmosphere. By adding gravity to the equation, we introduce convection. Gravity on Earth is 99% the strength at the top of the troposphere as it is at the surface so gravity will pull more strongly on cooler denser air than it will hotter cooler air that is created at and near the surface. The higher the surface temp the quicker the air near the surface heats of and the quicker it becomes less dense than the volume above it. Gravity drags cooler air to the surface which creates a larger difference in temp between it and the warmer it it replaced creating a faster rate of cooling.
  49. There's no empirical evidence
    Ian, from the Oregon Petition stream Also please explain to us how convection and evaporation add energy to the atmosphere. They only move the energy around Convection and Evaporation do not add any energy to any system, they only move energy from areas of high energy pressure (temp) to areas of lower energy pressures with an increasing rate with increasing differences in pressure. This is precisely the core of my argument. the enhanced green house effect is what adds the additional energy. This goes against my understanding. Once you add energy pressure to a system, it is finite and does not add more energy to the system even if a portion is trapped, the 1st and 2nd Laws apply here. Trapped radiation will only serve to slow the radiative cooling exhibited by black body radiation. My understanding is that should a method of energy transfer experience resistance, then another medium available, in this case convection combines with evaporation, will make up for this resistance in the most efficient manner possible. Preserving the 2nd Law.
  50. The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
    Ian et al, I was wrong to even allude that anyone was attempting to deceive another under any, or with no, motivation at all. Having attempted to be clever with my position has only secured more resentment and mistrust. Strong claims are not easily retracted, however I offer that I sincerely retract any statements alluding to the deception or understanding of anyone contributing the AGW debate. Making claims of anyone's deception without their immediate availability to offer a rebuttal or clarity is just simply wrong and I apologize to the many and most climate scientists who's motivations and contributions I surely do not fully understand. I also retract any claim or allusion that I am more well versed on this subject than anyone else. From this point forward I will only offer my understanding of the subject. You are just arguing from a baseless "I don't like it therefore it is wrong" attitude. I will offer that it is not baseless. I do not like it because my education and experiences demand, of me, a more rigorous set of methods and conclusions than what I have been exposed to. I can only offer that this paper accurately describes the scientific education I received and has been reliable to me. Making claims, to date, that are unfounded and accusations without the accused present is not worthy of discussion and upon reflection is amateur and low respectfully and arguably inclusive. I was raised and educated to be above this behavior and will seek to reinforce this claim. Also please explain to us how convection and evaporation add energy to the atmosphere. See Empirical Evidence stream for my reply.

Prev  2233  2234  2235  2236  2237  2238  2239  2240  2241  2242  2243  2244  2245  2246  2247  2248  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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