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  2462  2463  2464  2465  2466  2467  2468  2469  2470  2471  2472  2473  2474  2475  2476  2477  Next

Comments 123451 to 123500:

  1. A brief history of our iPhone app
    {This leads to numerous blogs similarly labelling me a solar physicist} Well John, you know the old saying, - "you can call me anything you want, just don't call me late for dinner!"
  2. A brief history of our iPhone app
    I love my app! This site deserves more traffic.
  3. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    "There are some things known with certainty, e.g. the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic..." Yet there were times in the past when CO2 levels were significantly higher. Correlation does not prove cause and effect.
    Response: Both your statements are correct. However, a proper understanding of the implications requires a deeper look at the science:

    CO2 has been higher in the past

    There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature
  4. A brief history of our iPhone app
    How can "skeptics" build an app that's coherent? I'd love to see them try. It would be nice to be able to enlarge the screen and turn it sideways (can't do it on my Touch). Old eyes and all.
  5. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    RE
    Response: Don't forget to post a review in iTunes :-)
    Just did.
  6. The sun is getting hotter
    batvette, in addition to what Riccardo replied, you should read Climate time lag.
  7. The sun is getting hotter
    batvette, as i'm sure anyone will admit, temperature has gone up from the lows during the Maunder Minimum. This post is on the recent trend, where you have slight decrease in solar output but rising temperatures. More on the Maunder Minimum in this recent post
  8. The sun is getting hotter
    No reason to overthink this: http://science.nasa.gov/.../maunderminimum.jpg It's not rocket science (or big $$$$ research obscuring its findings with acronymic codes to confuse common sense) to see that the latter half of the 20th century was a period of increased solar activity unmatched since recording of which began. The peaks may have decreased somewhat in the last 20 years BUT were still far above the average of the 400 year period- making the expectation that this 20 year period should be observing a cooling effect from solar influence patently absurd. To be exact: "Various independent measurements of solar activity all confirm the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1978" Is misleading. It is bad science to be sure. While one could say that solar activity has decreased since 1978 it is completely erroneous to assume that it has decreased in comparison to the 400 years of recorded observation- let alone believe that since 1978 we could calculate that a cooling effect on earth climate should be the result.
  9. It's the sun
    This is the first time in my life that i see the IPCC accused of over-emphasizing the role of the sun. Never say never, indeed.
  10. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    robert test at 10:17 AM on 24 February, 2010 I'm guessing you're not from a Commonwealth of Nations locale. John is practicing King's English.
  11. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    Your article titled "Have American Thinker disproven global warming?" makes me wonder about grammar. Have the rules changed? Has the rule of noun-verb agreement changed? Isn't "The American Thinker" a singular noun requiring a singular verb? The American Thinker website thinks it does. You'll find this description there: "American Thinker is a daily internet publication...." So, if the American Thinker is a singular noun, your title--to be grammatically correct--must be "Has the American Thinker disproven global warming?" You made the same error in the opening sentence of the first paragraph and the next to the last sentence in that paragraph. What were you thinking?
  12. A brief history of our iPhone app
    I love the comment on the end of the Guardian article (it's exactly my thought too)... "This might shock some people, but I happen to agree with the sentiment underlying the request issued by Climate Realists for sceptics to build their own rival app. I think it would be very constructive if they compiled a one-stop shop for all their arguments with full references and citations so that everyone could assess them calmly and dispassionately. This would be done away from the white heat of the blogosphere cauldron where people can make any claim they choose and know it has the ability to stick..." Spot on. Invariably the trouble is trying to pin the sceptics down on the source of their 'science'. But I suspect they already know such an app could only serve to undermine what limited credibility they currently enjoy.
  13. Dikran Marsupial at 08:47 AM on 24 February 2010
    What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    Cowboy, data on CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and land use changes can be download from here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ "Frankly, with what (I believe) I know, I don't buy into "man-made" global warming" allegedly being settled science." neither does e.g. Phil Jones (from his interview for the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm) "N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean? It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well. " I don't think "the science is settled" is anything most climatologists would say. There are some things known with certainty, e.g. the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic, however there are large uncertainties regarding many elements of the theory, and the scientists involved are quite happy to talk about them (their papers are often filled with such caveats). Politicians and journalists on the other hand...
  14. A brief history of our iPhone app
    Great work John. This has really raised the profile of Skeptical Science, which is fantastic. I don't have an iphone, or much technical knowledge (as is about to become apparent, as I am now going to ask what may be a stupid question...) but how easy would it be to make the app for other phones? Would it be possible to make a generic app that could be adapted to lots of different phones, or is that not how it works? (I have a sony ericsson w810i phone and I would love to get skeptical science on it, but I am interested in general)
  15. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    To avoid creating a list of back-to-back posts, I'll just say 'Thanks' for the responses. Frankly, with what (I believe) I know, I don't buy into "man-made" global warming" allegedly being settled science. But I wouldn't be being honest to myself if I assumed that I must be right. Let's be honest, when you read emails that say that if empirical data does not match model outputs then the the data must be wrong, and emails that clearly say that 'inconsistent' data has been intentionally deleted, you have to question how agenda may have influenced accuracy of science, or to be more accurate, how the science gets reported. That makes it, from an honest and practical point of view, impossible to entirely separate science from politics (at risk here of being considered off-topic). On the other hand, I know that to damn the science because a piece of it may have been, to some as of yet unknown extent, compromised would essentially be an ad hominem fallacy.
  16. Philippe Chantreau at 07:35 AM on 24 February 2010
    Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    I will join Doug on giving kudos to John. That, and the strong focus on published science, is what makes this site among the very best on the subject.
  17. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    "Cowboy, many questions are addressed in the list of "Arguments" you see at the top left of this page (the ones next to the thermometer). See, for example, CO2 lags temperature." Thx. I'll take a look at that.
  18. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    "Since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have been rising at a fairly constant fraction (about 45%) of human emissions (fossil fuel + land use), which is prettty good evidence that the cause of the rise is not a lagged response to previous warming, but is the result fo human activity. " Understood. But the data I was referencing went back to the BEGINNING of the IR. I think I need to find that data ... But thx for your response.
  19. Philippe Chantreau at 07:28 AM on 24 February 2010
    Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    I just read the updated version with the disclaimer, which does make the all thing somewhat better. However, the paragraph following the disclaimer is still abusive: "So the results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is disproven." The first sentence is false. For any reader, the "results" of the papers is something that the papers actually contain, and would likely be assimilated with the conclusions of the papers. What would be correct for Thompson to say would be that the observational data contained in the papers suggest to him, without doing a data analysis, that there is no compelling change of OLR. Furthermore, the very fact that there is disagreement between the peer-reviewed conclusions of the papers and the non peer-reviewed conclusion of Thompson opinion piece should prevent the use of such definitive words as "disproven." I don't see how one can go at length to expose doubt, then jump to certitude. 2 questions for Thompson: 1-Did you also amend your blog post suggesting agreement between the researchers and you, which I will cite again here: (Posted by: gdthomp01 Feb 18, 03:07 PM) "But even on the wavelengths shown, there was no decrease in OLR at those wavelengths so I still felt comfortable drawing the conclusions I did - and the authors of these papers (using simulated results from climate models) drew those same conclusions using these wavelengths although they weren't based on the actual measurements." You say: " I still think this data isn't compelling enough to draw a conclusion about the OLR decreasing over the spectrum of CO2 absorption and I didn't change any of my conclusions because I still believe those." On what calculations/scientific assessment do you base these beliefs?
  20. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    Hat tip to Gary Thompson, and to John Cook who-- by inflicting cruel and unusual demands for polite comportment on us all-- demonstrates that it's actually possible to have a productive dialog on this topic! Who knew?
  21. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    On this blog and on the comments to my AT article there were two interpretations of my article that disturbed me. A) readers thought that my article somehow stated that the authors of the three cited papers agreed with my conclusions and B) I was being deceptive in not showing a graph that depicted the delta in BT between TES and IRIS. That was not my intent but since I was the one who wrote the article I am to blame for those perceptions. One of my favorite one-liners about life is that "in the absense of clear communication, people will make up their own story so it is up to me to communicate effectively." I updated the American Thinker article to clarify those two points and AT has uploaded the new version. First I put further language in the article that unambiguously states that the conclusions drawn in this article are from the author (me) and not the authors of the three cited papers. In many respects my conclusions were in direct opposition to the authors' conclusions in their papers. Also, I included the graph from the third paper that showed the comparison of the real measured data from TES and IRIS (2006 and 1997). I still think this data isn't compelling enough to draw a conclusion about the OLR decreasing over the spectrum of CO2 absorption and I didn't change any of my conclusions because I still believe those. I can live with counter viewpoints on how I interpret the data and my supposed lack of understanding of the underlying science but I can't abide being percieved as A) misrepresenting someone else's conclusions and B) cherry picking data and hiding contrary results. I Thanks to all here who brought this to my attention.
  22. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    Hello Gary I don't know if you are still paying attention to us. I agree with Toby Joyce's advice, you need to try to get this published in peer-review. It is meaningless on a blog site. There are millions of those. You cannot expect any of the climate scientists who need to review this to see it where it is. Personaly I will wait for that before I bother to read it. Johns'critique points out the serious flaws and is good enough for me. Anyway, given the rising global temperature, melting glaciers, melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, bark beetle disasters, increase in extreme weather events and so on, I think your conclusion has been overtaken by events and rendered rather moot. :+) It is sort of like arguing that there is a serious flaw in the Case-Shiller housing index and housing prices are therefore not going to fall. Best regards Tony
  23. Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes
    Volcanic activity releases more water vapour than any other gas (up to 95% of the total gas discharge may be WV) and submarine/coastal lava flows produce localized highly acidic conditions (pH ~ 2.0). Given that the estimated total atmospheric release of CO2 from volcanic activity is ~ 130million tons then a conservative estimate of WV released would be ~ 400 million tons, which I suggest would have a greater immediate effect (but shorter lived) than the CO2. Some background stuff here: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
  24. A brief history of our iPhone app
    I love that the Telegraph's own review called Delingpole "Delingate"! Now, there's a -gate that's really deserved!
  25. A brief history of our iPhone app
    Thanks, John, Please keep up the good work!
  26. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    To Tom Dayton's pointer to materials for further study, let me add Spencer Weart's history of climate research, The Discovery of Global Warming, a very readable, fascinating and informative work no matter your perspective on this topic. The book is available in print but Dr. Weart has also kindly made it available in HTML form, at the link.
  27. A brief history of our iPhone app
    John, This is wonderful news! A breath of fresh air really. The fact that the "realists" (uh huh) are hitting back do hard just goes to show what an excellent job you are doing. We don't have an iphone (so much for the Telegraph's hopeless generalization about "lefties" all having iPhones), but if we did the app would be on there. I'm sure the realists are feverishly working away on their own. But you were first, you have the reputable science on your side, and above all, you have integrity. I wonder if the "realists" will charge a fee? Anyhow, this bird should get back to work. Best of luck John, I hope that the app opens up new and exciting opportunities for you. PS: How about interactive apps? You could project the global SAT anomalies in 2060 (for example)by selecting a range of accepted climate sensitivities and for different emission scenarios.
  28. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    RSVP, does it come as a surprise that the atmosphere is on average colder than the surface? Never heard about lapse rate, i.e. that it gets colder with altitude? I thought it was preatty obvious. You still miss to distinguish the two componets of an IR spectrum as measured from satellites. There is the part that is due to absorption, the relatively narrow absorption band, and the part that is transparent to IR and hence can measure what comes directly from the surface. The former causes warming, the latter is what hopefully tries to restore equilibrium. You do not need to have faith on "belivers of AGW", you probably need to look a bit more deeply into the physics involved; 'cause even if all the climate science is wrong, it's not obviously wrong for sure.
  29. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    Cowboy, you wrote "...until there is actual evidence that models produce more accurate results." See the argument "Models Are Unreliable". You wrote "...recent events that have caused question with respect to the reliability of data used in who-knows-how-many models." The "events" I think you are referring to do not involve data that go into models, but only data that are observations against which the models are tested. Just as importantly, those "events" have zero implications for even those data. See "CRU emails suggest climate conspiracy". Also "On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record". And "Can you make a hockey stick without tree rings?" Finally, your questions and comments have covered a wide enough range that I think you would enjoy and benefit from an initial overview of global warming instead of diving straight into answers to individual questions. Subsequently you might come back with some even better questions. Try cce's "The Global Warming Debate".
  30. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    guinganbresil, you have to think in terms of a time dependent process. Separate, at first, the two contribution, energy absorbed by increasing CO2 and energy emitted by the warming surface. Both increase monotonically. When you start adding CO2 the first term must prevail pushing the system out of equilibrium. Then the system responds increasing its temperature. Two cases need to be considered: 1) if the increase in temperature is not strong and/or fast enough, absorption keeps prevailing pushing the system further and further out of equilibrium. This is the "pathological" case of the runaway warming. 2) if the increase in temperature is able to keep up with the forcing, the trend in total OLR reverses and the planet will exponentially reach a steady state. The take away message is that in any reasonably real situation on planet earth, if you measure a decreasing OLR the planet might be going toward a runaway warming or at least it's too early to tell (remember, it's a time dependent process); if you measure increasing OLR the planet is going to reach a steady state. Luckly the latter applies to the current situation and at least for now we can rule out runaway warming.
  31. A brief history of our iPhone app
    Just downloaded the iPhone app yesterday. It's fantastic. I find myself just sitting and reading through the segments. I have a few climate change denier friends. This should make for great fun at our next party.
  32. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    Cowboy, your quote of NOAA is specifically about stratospheric temperatures, not the rest of the atmosphere nor the average of the atmosphere. Volcanoes emit both CO2 and aerosols (some reflective and some not). The precise effects on temperature vary over time for a given volcano, and vary across volcanoes, because of variation in the amounts and rates of those emitted substances, and how high in the atmosphere they go (and even the height changes over time). For more, see the Scientific American note How Do Volcanoes Affect World Climate? If you have more comments about volcanoes, you should post them on a thread about volcanoes, such as Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. Our host, John Cook, is trying to keep each thread on topic, so often he deletes off-topic comments.
  33. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    Cowboy, many questions are addressed in the list of "Arguments" you see at the top left of this page (the ones next to the thermometer). See, for example, CO2 lags temperature. Also handy for finding the relevant arguments and posts is the Search field at the very top left.
  34. A brief history of our iPhone app
    Android please! My Motorola Cliq has had iPhone envy since you released your app!
  35. A brief history of our iPhone app
    Alas, I do not have an iPhone. (With a dirt cheap pay-as-you-go plan, I barely qualify as a cell phone user.) but if I did I would add this app. Let's see if the followers of Climate Realists come out with their own app. What will be interesting will be to document their "evidence" and break it down between actual science and politics/conspiracy drivel.
  36. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    "Riccardo at 06:00 AM on 23 February, 2010 RSVP, the continuos part of the spectrum comes directly from the surface and reflects surface temperature. The atmosphere is overall much colder, i.e. much lower emission intensity and a peak shifted to lower wavenumbers, and being almost transparent has a lower emissivity. On the contrary, the level at which the strong absorption bands saturates reflects the tropospheric temperature or, to be more precise, the air temperature at the height from which IR escape directly to outer space. " I am sorry, but I do not follow. I thought CO2 is making the atmosphere that much warmer? Here you are saying it is colder, and that the extra IR is coming from the Earth's surface. If this energy is escaping because the atmosphere is transparent at these wavenumbers, how exactly is the surface getting warmer? If I am skeptic about anything, it has to do with my faith in "believers of AGW" to make a convincing argument about AGW. I think it would be more productive if we all just concentrated on lower CO2 for other reasons.
  37. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    Tom Dayton (40), may assertion is based on conservation of energy. If you SUDDENLY add insulation to an object that is in thermal equilibrium, the heat loss from the object SUDDENLY goes down. The object's temperature then increases (and its heat loss through the new insulation) to restore the equibrium to the original heat loss. Conservation of energy would prohibit both the heat loss AND temperature to increase at the moment you add the new insulation unless the insulation were creating (or adding) energy to the system. The heat loss has to DROP before the temperature can increase. The more realistic case is a continual adding of insulation (increasing CO2) rather than a step increase. In this case the same applies, the increase in heat loss would only occur after the addition of insulation has been reduced (or stopped as shown in Murphy 2009.) At best, you could achieve a state of quasi-equilibrium where the increase in temperature (and thus its contribution to heat loss) matches the decrease in heat loss from the increasing insulation. I agree with you that IN REALITY the OLR could be going up due to some cause OTHER THAN CURRENT CO2 INCREASES - changes in albedo, insolation, or recovery from a PAST high CO2 transient that has been reduced. I have not seen a good explanation of the disparity. The increasing CO2 cannot warm the Earth (with downward long wave) if it is causing more heat loss to space (upward long wave) unless it is GENERATING ENERGY. I understamd the wavelength bands of the specific upward and downward fluxes are different, but overall energy must be conserved.
  38. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    garythompson "We have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere about 17% from 1970 to 2006 (328ppm vs. 383ppm) and the OLR appears to have remained constant" John Cook "Anyway, I appreciate your comments and expect (nay demand) that commenters here will abide by our commenting policy and treat you with respect." As long as the debate is focused on whether CO2 is causing global warming or not, oil interests are off the hook. Ironically, those who are crusading for the planet's health (in terms of correlating warming to GHG emissions) are in some sense impeding that attention be focussed on what is directly measurable... that being anthropogenic CO2. Of concern specifically is the planet's capacity to absorb CO2, and where all this could be taking us. This may be more of a problem than any warming. I dont really know this, but somehow if anything has me genuinely concerned, it is not runaway global warming, but runaway global CO2 concentration. I have placed these two excerpts side by side to contrast what appear to be two realities. One reflecting a known. The fact about CO2 global levels (even though I arrived at 14% using these values). The other, John's need to mediate the hubris of those "in the know". I would go further still and ask what guarantees does proving AGW have on taking action against curbing CO2 emissions? Maybe the warming will be seen as necessary as temperatures actually start dropping for other "radiative forcings". On the other hand, focussing directly on the ills of CO2 and our ability to control its output seems like enough work in its own right. ETC.
  39. Dikran Marsupial at 19:48 PM on 23 February 2010
    What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    Cowboy asks: "But isn't the theory of "greenhouse gases" that solar energy is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere? " I think it would be more correct to say that greenhouse gasses absorb the long wave radiation (i.e. heat) leaving the Earths surface, rather than the incoming short-wave solar radiation (light). w.r.t. CO2 lagging temperatures, a change of concentrations of about 100ppm (as we have seen over the last 200 years) happens at the start start of an interglacial period. This results from a temperature change of about 6 degrees or more, so you could argue there is a sensitivity of about 20 ppm per degree. There simply hasn't been a temperature change in the last few thousand years that could explain a rise of 100 ppm, so for that theory to work, you would need to find a reason why the carbon cycle is 6-10 times more sensitive to temperature now than it has been for the last 800,000 years (looking at the Vostok ice core data). Since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have been rising at a fairly constant fraction (about 45%) of human emissions (fossil fuel + land use), which is prettty good evidence that the cause of the rise is not a lagged response to previous warming, but is the result fo human activity.
  40. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    Sorry to double-up on posting (I'm not a spammer), but with respect to the few posts above, I just found this at NOAA... "While middle tropospheric temperatures reveal an increasing trend over the last three decades, stratospheric temperatures (14 to 22 km / 9 to 14 miles above the surface) have been below average since the warming effects from the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption dissipated in 1993. January - December 2008 was the 16th consecutive year with below-average temperatures (an anomaly of -0.62°C/-1.12°F), the second coolest year behind 1996 which had an anomaly of -0.64°C/-1.15°F. The below-average stratospheric temperatures are consistent with the depletion of ozone in the lower stratosphere and the effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The large temperature increase in 1982 is attributed to the volcanic eruption of El Chichon, and the increase in 1991 was associated with the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&year=2008&month=ann In my understanding of the above, NOAA is saying that volcanic activity INCREASES WARMING, so if there was increased volcanic activity during the Little Ice Age, according to them it would have counteracted the cooling during that period...
  41. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    @garythompson, Your claim is: "A key component of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been disproven." Even if this was true, it does not disprove AGW in toto, contrary to your commenters at American Thinker. Many theories, accepted as valid, are often retained even with an anomaly or two. Newton's Law of Gravity could predict the existence of Neptune, but was not rejected solely because it could not explain the orbit of Mercury (Einstein's theory could). Science works in "paradigms", or (perhaps better) in "research programmes", of which climatology has been a resounding recent success. As we know through the work of Naomi Oreskes, 95% of climatology papers accept AGW. So to bring your claim home, you need to get it peer-reviewed & published, discussed at conferences and tested with new data. Science is inherently conservative and an accepted paradigm is not changed easily. Having read your article, I find like Ricardo at #34, your failure to discuss the last chart in paper 3 rather damns your thesis. You take the previous two charts, claim that one can be overlaid on the other, there there is no difference in the OLR between 1970 & 1997. But chart 3 shows is difference is non-zero. It seems to me that you lack the analytical skills to seriously investigate these data, because "eyeballing" is just not good enough.
  42. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    But isn't the theory of "greenhouse gases" that solar energy is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere? Is particulate matter in the atmosphere generally not as reflective as the globe, or is it somehow less capable of energy transference? Doesn't global climate envelope all ocean currents, regardless of their paths and speed? I mean, I can understand that a local condition (by Milankovitch forcing?) could cause a local change in atmospheric water vapor which could be spread and/or transferred to other locations. But wouldn't such events be "averaged" over just several decades, much less 70 years? After all, the quote I referenced said "possible changes" in ocean current patterns anyway. I don't claim to be any form of climatologist, but formal training as an engineer does teach one how to analyze scientific data. And I see things such as a desert in Arizona where there used to be a sea, and that change, along with similar changes, happened long before industrialization and man-generated CO2 (leaving aside the exhaling thing). What I get from your comment (no disrespect intended) and wording like "POSSIBLE changes in ocean current patterns" is that there are still far too many potentially related variables and unknowns to even think about trusting long-term climate modeling, particularly on a global scale. I am personally in favor of keeping an eye on the big picture history and events until there is actual evidence that models produce more accurate results. Particularly with recent events that have caused question with respect to the reliability of data used in who-knows-how-many models. Incidently, with an understanding (?) that Maunder is related (second cousins, I think) to "greenhouse gases" with respect to climate, I was looking for graphs I have seen that showed historic atmospheric CO2 level increases lagging global temperature increases. Do you know the current thinking with respect to that data?
  43. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    Cowboy, the part of that quote that makes it consistent with this Skeptical Science post is "...in concert with increased volcanism and possible changes in ocean current patterns."
  44. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    Is it not true that... "The longest minimum on record, the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715, lasted an incredible 70 years. Sunspots were rarely observed and the solar cycle seemed to have broken down completely. The period of quiet coincided with the Little Ice Age, a series of extraordinarily bitter winters in Earth's northern hemisphere. Many researchers are convinced that low solar activity, acting in concert with increased volcanism and possible changes in ocean current patterns, played a role in that 17th century cooling." http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
  45. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    This discrepancy between the GCM models and the Satellite measurements has been known and discussed for years. The results has always been inconclusive.There has been no way to reconcile the results. 1. If you believe in the GCMs then they are right. If you believe in Satellite measurements then they are right. The conclusion is NOT definitive. The two systems get different conclusions. There is no way to determine which is correct.(so far) To take it one step further, I take exception to both studies. They are both wrong. Now try a THIRD theory. Called "EXCESS CO2 Scenario "(available free at www.scribd.com.) First I take exception to Gary Thompsons assumption that the GHE is valid. Arrhenius's GHE IS valid. He said Add an energy photon to a GHG and you get GHE warming. IPCC & the GCMs GHE says : Add a GHG to the air and you get warming. (They implicitly assume that there is excess photons always available for every GHG that is added) This is wrong. It is my claim that Arrhenius's GHE only works up to the point where we reach equilibrium in the air. I.e. if there is excess energy photons, then adding a GHG will give more GHE. BUT when you get to equilibrium, where energy in equals energy out to space via direct radiation AND CO2 delay & then radiation (hence GHE warming) , then ALL of the absorbable energy photons DO get absorbed, and there are no more available for when you add more GHGs. If there are no more photons available then you have EXCESS GHGs in the air AND the GCM feedback mechanisms do NOT work because there are no more photons to be absorbed by the feedback WV GHGs. The simple proof is that the energy spectrum for both CO2 & Water Vapor absorbs 100%.i.e. leftover GHGs. The next proof is that there is excess WV in the air. Otherwise the GHE would continue (runaway GHE) until all the WV was at the 900C of a GHG with a photon.- i.e. the GHE would continue until the oceans dried up. Third proof: When the humidity of the GHG WV goes from say normal 33% to raining or 100%, then the temperature does NOT increase like it should (i.e. instead of 32C from WV we should get 96C from rain??? It doesn't happen. But if the energy photons are limited and limiting then when you add more WV then the GHE would not increase. 4th proof: In the morning the sun light energy photons increase. The GHE increases. At night the sunlight goes to zero, The temperature decreases, the GHE decreases. The CO2 and WV that WAS transporting photons to space as part of the GHE, no longer do it. so they are now made available in the air, i.e. the available GHGs increases, but the temp goes down as the GHGs goes up. IPCC is wrong. IT is the Photons that dictate, NOT the GHGs. Once you get to equilibrium, the Arrhenius GHE CHANGES to no longer work. (there are no energy photons to drive it.) This means that adding more CO2 by mankind burning hydrocarbons, ONLY adds more excess unused GHGs to the air (more plant food) Finally I PCC's "more GHGs means more GHE" is wrong (only works when excess energy is available) because you can NOT warm an object up without adding energy (2nd Law of Thermo) What this all means is that 1. Arrhenius's GHE works, but only up to equilibrium where it becomes limited by the amount of photons coming in. (i.e. about 32C out of 287 or about 11%). BUT when the energy in increases every morning and the temp goes up by say 10C, then 11% of that is due to INCREASED GHE. As is 11% of any reduction when the sun goes down. 2. We are at equilibrium daily- go from absorbing energy to radiating on a rotating basis. Hansen's GCMs claims that we are NOT at equilibrium for 50+ years due to the extra added CO2. This is wrong. As #29 was getting to, if the ground gets hotter then it radiates more faster until we cool off to equilibrium (as dictated by the amount of energy coming in). Likewise if we cool off (unless volcano dust reduces the energy in,) the energy in will keep pushing and pushing and pushing until the temp returns to the equilibrium dictated by the energy in. It happens every day, at the speed of radiating photons (i.e. speed of light) Bottom line Mankind can NOT change the temperature unless he changes the amount of energy coming in (volcano dust, SO2 will lower it), or produces more energy (by oil gas & uranium- which is super trivial compared to solar insolation.) All adding more CO2 does is add more excess CO2 to the air. i.e. AGW is false. BUT GW is true. (as the AGW experts claim- a few missing data points do not change the conclusion that we have warmed. BUT obviously it DID warm from 1970-1998. So what caused it (because solar insolation has essentially been constant since the 60s.??? See John Dodds Wobble Theory of Global Warming at www.scribd.com - summary is free!) (John Cook, on the basis of the referenced papers I request that you ADD Gravity and Planetary Eccentricity to the list of causes of Warming & climate change)
  46. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    guinganbresil, your assertion that "...OLR increase resulting from this would have to be less than the decrease due to increasing CO2, otherwise the balance would be reversed and cooling would ensue" is incorrect because it is an overgeneralization. So is "The OLR will only increase after the GHG increase has stopped or slowed significantly." The amount of increase in OLR depends on the actual values in the specific situation, of the extra insulation from the greenhouse gases, of the rate of incoming radiation, and the rate of temperature increase. What you have stated as a logical requirement is not a logical requirement. It is only one possible case.
  47. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    @coal geologist Not only are you a geologist, but you also make a great psychologist. I have been wondering for a long time why people simply cannot, or do not want to get their head around what is in essence a simple truth, namely AGW.
  48. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    I am glad to see some serious discussion on this issue! I agree that the IMG, IRIS and AIRS spectral data do not cover a sufficient band to see the whole picture. Non-spectrally resolved satellite measurements indicate that the total outgoing long wave radiation has gone UP over periods of increasing CO2 and temperature. Here is one example: http://www.isprs.org/publications/related/ISRSE/html/papers/332.pdf As CO2 concentrations increase, the total OLR should decrease since more and more of the long wave radiation is trapped that would otherwise have escaped to space. If OLR does not decrease, then the radiative balance would be moving toward cooling, not warming. The increase in temperature to move the system back toward equilibrium would result in more IR emission as temperature goes up, HOWEVER the OLR increase resulting from this would have to be less than the decrease due to increasing CO2, otherwise the balance would be reversed and cooling would ensue. I would understand a relatively constant OLR, since an increase in surface emission in the window region could balance the decrease in the CO2 band in a quasi-equilibrium condition of increasing CO2. An increasing OLR is just not supported by increasing GHG warming. Some have said that OLR is predicted to increase - see Murphy 2009, Figure 1. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The figure in Murphy is for an idealized step function increase in GHG. The increasing OLR only occurs AFTER the increase in GHG has STOPPED. When you apply this step function response to a monotonically (long time scales of course) increasing GHG concentration, the OLR will DECREASE over time. The OLR will only increase after the GHG increase has stopped or slowed significantly.
  49. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    It seems that a lot of those who comment on the site (American Thinker) have a poor understanding of how scientists get paid through grants. I would correct them, but, alas, I am forever banned. Glad to see others contribute to the comments pages this article at AT. Good article, John. Love the iPhone app.
    Response: Don't forget to post a review in iTunes :-)
  50. Visual depictions of CO2 levels and CO2 emissions
    Theendisfar, both of your most recent comments here seem to include a hodgepodge of facts regardless of their relevancy. I would suggest that if you want to engage in a discussion, pick some particular point and try to present it as clearly as possible. The comparison of the Moon and the Earth is one example. You originally made the statement "Without an atmosphere to convect much of the energy away from the surface, the surface would be much hotter and radiate at a higher energy similar to the moon." I pointed out to you that in fact the surface of the Moon is colder than that of the Earth, when it should be warmer due to its lower albedo. The difference between the two is the direct result of the Earth's surface being warmed by greenhouse gases. This is not a controversial statement, and in fact has been understood since the 19th century. It's also not a "side note analogy," it's a basic piece of confirmatory evidence that the theory of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases is correct. I'm not really sure I understand the point you're trying to make about convection and latent heat. Ultimately, the only way the Earth system gains and loses heat is via radiation. The movement of heat within the climate system is important, and the details get a bit complicated, but they're not really necessary for a first-level discussion of the greenhouse effect. If your claim is that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, you'll need to find someone else to debate that with -- I've just spent the past couple of days here engaging in that argument with another commenter, and I'm uninterested in spending any more of my life right now explaining what from my perspective is very well established, uncontroversial physics. Let's see, what else? You ask: Would you happen to have a link to an actual AGW Hypothesis or Theory? It is quite difficult to refute something that cannot be or has not been described accurately. Perhaps you can expand on your statement if one does not exist. There are many different kinds of scientific theories. If you want to get pedantic about it, the "theory of climate change resulting from anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases" is very analogous to the "theory of plate tectonics". Both of them developed over a period of time through the contributions of many scientists working in different fields. Neither one can be readily reduced to equations or simple laws, and neither one has a central manuscript along the lines of Einstein's or Newton's papers. Neither one can be completely tested in the lab, though portions of each can be. Ultimately, both theories gained acceptance from the scientific community by combining a convincing theoretical framework with multiple independent lines of empirical evidence. Requests for "a link to the theory of the greenhouse effect" are as much of a red herring as requests for "a link to the theory of plate tectonics". In both cases, if you are genuinely unclear on what the theory involves, you would be better suited to audit some Earth Sciences courses at your local university and/or work through a good, appropriate textbook.

Prev  2462  2463  2464  2465  2466  2467  2468  2469  2470  2471  2472  2473  2474  2475  2476  2477  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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