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  2529  2530  2531  2532  2533  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  2544  Next

Comments 126801 to 126850:

  1. An overview of Antarctic ice trends
    Mizimi, this post was actually devoted to clarify the difference between sea and land ice. Mass balance should be done for land ice, being sea ice seasonal and formed by compleately different processes.
  2. An overview of Antarctic ice trends
    According to the graph, antartic sea ice has grown in area by some 0.7 x 10E12 m2 in 23 years, so I would expect a measurable increase in albedo. Also pertinent is the mass of sea ice. Assuming a mean ice thickness of 62cm this equates to .45 x 10E12 m3 of ice...or 450 Gtonnes...about equal to the land loss from 2002 to 2005. Agreed the rates of growth/loss are not in balance, but would we expect them to be? As sea ice extends, so I would expect less snowfall in the interior and thus less replenishment of land-ice melt. Are there any longer time series for Antartic ice cover?
  3. Antarctica is gaining ice
    yes, agreed SNratio (re #11). However there are longer term measures of Antarctic ice mass loss from altimetry that are consistent with a nett mass loss in Antarctica (which is still pretty small in relation to the vast amounts of Antarctic ice) [*]. We should also note that the corrections applied by Bevis et al. (2009) suggest that a bias in ice mass loss from GRACE measurements amounts to ~33 Gt/yr [**]. This is a significant, but small, proportion of the total Antarctic ice loss determined by GRACE (see figures in John Cook's summary above): [*] E. Rignot et al. (2008) Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling Nature Geoscience 1, 106 - 110 (2008) [**]Bevis et al. (2009) para [19]; page 9:
    We can estimate the potential magnitude of the ice mass biases by noting that if the average velocity prediction bias of ~5 mm/yr evident in Figure 5 is developed over ~2 × 10^6 km2, an area somewhat smaller than that of West Antarctica, this would cause an apparent but spurious ice loss of ~33 Gt yr-1, which is a significant fraction of all published ice mass rates derived from GRACE [Velicogna and Wahr, 2006; Chen et al., 2006; Ramillien et al., 2006; Sasgen et al., 2007a]. However, it is not possible to arrive at an accurate numerical estimate of the impact of our geodetic measurements on GRACE ice mass change solutions without finding a reliable means to interpolate between our point measurements of vertical crustal velocity.
    The authors (Bevis et al, 2009) also point out that GRACE should make reliable estimates of any further enhanced acceleration in ice mass loss (or sudden jumps in ice mass loss), since the post-glacial rebound (that has to be corrected for in mass change estimations) doesn't vary much on the interannual timescale.
  4. An overview of Antarctic ice trends
    I'd also like to add this papers regarding sea ice in Antarctica: 1) Stratospheric ozone: Shindell & Schmidt 2004 2) Freshening (and stratification) of surface waters: Jacobs et al 2002 3) Snow turned into ice: Cavalieri et al 1997, where they say: "The observed hemispheric asymmetry in these trends is consistent with a modeled response to a carbon dioxide-induced climate warming". Markus & Cavalieri 2006 (pdf available here
  5. An overview of Antarctic ice trends
    Regarging sea ice increase in Antarctica, there's also a good summary in this NASA note. They also mention that flooded sea ice turns snow to ice.
  6. An overview of Antarctic ice trends
    Clearly these disparate phenomena (land versus sea ice) are better explained by the Sun than by greenhouse gases because, uh, actually no, it's all because of ocean cycles and stuff and, erm, or really this is all just a case of unreliable data and analyses -- the scientists are just trying to get more funding by producing confusing results! More seriously (but perhaps still trivially), has this measurably increased the albedo of Antarctica and thereby provided any negative feedback at all? Or, more generally, are there important impacts (besides effects on sea ice) of warmer salty water being overlaid by a thicker layer of cold fresher water?
  7. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, for a Stefan-Boltzman calculation of an atmosphere-free Earth's temperature (i.e., naked exposure of the Earth's surface to the infinite heat sink of outer space), see the web pages by Nolan Atkins that are part of his Lyndon State College course, but only the two sequential web pages here and the next one. Let's first come to understanding only with that case before adding the atmosphere. (So please don't reply with calculations about what happens with an atmosphere.) Do you agree with the calculations, results, and interpretations on that short sequence of two web pages?
  8. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, your example is missing a piece from its initial condition. At the very beginning, before you add the atmosphere as a heat sink, you must have outer space as a heat sink.
  9. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Shawnhet - re:your post 215 Yes, it has been covered before....many times. Why would you even think that the colder atmosphere would somehow cause the Earth's surface to not cool as quickly? How can a cooler atmosphere impede the Earth's radiation when the Earth provides the energy to heat the colder atmosphere? The Sun HEATED the Earth, and the Earth's radiation HEATED the the atmosphere and all the Radiation is then transferred to cold space. Look, let's examine a common device known as a Heat Sink. It is used to cool electronic devices like the Microprocessor in your computer. The electrical power (Sun) heats the Microprocessor (Earth) just like the Sun heats the Earth. Lets say the Microprocessor operates with (and has to dissipate) 10 watts of power (Sun) and it's surface area is 0.01 m^2. The Electromagnetic Field radiated by the Microprocessor (Earth) is 10 Watts/0.01 m^2 = 1000 w/m^2. The surface temp of the Microprocessor can be calculated by the Stefan - Boltzmann Law. Power/Area = Boltzmann's Constant X Temp^4 Temp^4 = 1000 w/m^2 / 5.67 X 10^-8 = 1.76 X 10^10 Temp = 364 K or 91 deg C We want the Microprocessor to drop in temp by placing a Heat Sink on it that will only be heated to 25 deg C or 298 K A Heat Sink (atmosphere) is initially at room temperature (20 deg C) and is placed on the Microprocessor (Earth) with a slight air gap so heat transfer by radiation is dominant. The Heat Sink has to have a larger surface area. Power/Area = 5.67 X 10^-8 X 298^4 = 447 w/m^2 Area = 10 Watts/447 = 0.022 m^2 The Microprocessor and the Heat Sink will now operate at a temperature of 25 deg C. So what happened here? The Electrical power provided is 10 Watts (the Sun). The Microprocessor (Earth) that was operating at 91 deg C transferred heat energy to the cooler Heat Sink (atmosphere)(initially at 20 deg C) raising it's temp to 25 deg C. The Microprocessor (Earth) and Heat Sink (atmosphere) stabilize at a temperature of 25 deg C and 10 watts of power is still dissipated to the suroundings (analagous to cold space). Did the Heat Sink (atmosphere)impede the Microprocessor (Earth) radiation?....Of course NOT! Did the Heat Sink (atmosphere) cause the Microprocessor (Earth) to "not cool as quickly" and increase in temperature?....Of course NOT!...EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OCCURED! ----------------------- The only difference between this example and the SUN - EARTH - ATMOSPHERE - COLD SPACE system is that the Heat Sink was assumed to have an emissivity of 1. If the Heat Sink (atmosphere) had an emissivity less than 1 it would not have absorbed all the heat energy of the Microprocessor (Earth) and would have had a temp lower than 25 deg C....just like the real atmosphere is colder than the Earth. ------------------------- This may be one of my last posts on this forum. Too much repetion is required explaining the same Physics over and over again and answering the same questions over and over. And, there is FAR too much censorship!
  10. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    By mid-century, annual average river runoff and water availibility are projected to increase by 10-40% at high latitudes and in some wet tropical areas, and decrease by 10-30% over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and in the dry tropics; some of which are presently water stressed areas... Drought affected areas will likely increase in extent. Heavy precipitation events, which are very likely to increase in frequency, will augment flood risk. IPCC AR4 WGII Summary for Policymakers. In a warmer future climate...Models project increased summer dryness and winter wetness in most parts of the northern middle and high latitudes. Summer dryness indicates a greater risk of drought. Along with the risk of drying, there is an increased chance of intense precipitation and flooding due to the greater water-holding capacity of a warmer atmosphere. This has already been observed and is projected to continue because in a warmer world, precipitation tends to be concentrated into more intense events, with longer periods of little precipitation in between. Therefore, intense and heavy downpours would be interspersed with longer relatively dry periods... IPCC AR4 WGI FAQ 10.1 The warmer climate therefore increases the risks of both drought - where it is not raining - and floods - where it is - but at different times and or places. For instance, the summer of 2oo2 in Europe brought widespread floods but was followed a year later in 2003 by record-breaking heat waves and drought. The distribution and timing of floods and drought is most profoundly affected by the cycle of EL Nino events... ...overall trends in precipitation are indicated by the Palmer Drought Severity Index...which is a measure of soil moisture using precipitation and crude estimates of changes in evaporation. (The PDSI graph shown roughly increases below the "0" line until about 1977, after which its all above the line.) IPCC AR4 WGI FAQ 3.2 Drought is easier to measure (than heavy precipitation events) because of its long duration...The Palmer Drought Severity Index calculated from the middle of the 20th century shows a large drying trend over many Northern Hemisphere land areas since the mid-1950's, with widespread drying over much of southern Eurasia, northern Africa, Canada and Alaska...and an opposite trend in eastern North and South America...Decreases in precipitation over land since the 1950s are the likely main cause for the drying trends, although large surface warming during the last two to three decades has also likely contributed to the drying... IPCC AR4 WGI FAQ 3.3
  11. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, re #210 (and I apologize if this has already been covered). If the atmosphere can absorb and emit IR radiation won't this imply that the surface will not cool as quickly as it would OTW? If not, why not? Put another way, wouldn't the complete absence of GH gases mean that all the incoming solar radiation would be radiated away from a lower height in the atmosphere(since there would be nothing to impede the radiation). Since Earth has a lapse rate(ie temperature decreases as we rise above the surface), doesn't any absorption of IR radiation in the atmosphere necessitate that the surface must get warmer? If not, why not? Cheers, :)
  12. Antarctica is gaining ice
    It should be noted that the observational period here is quite short, so one should be careful about firm conclusions. And, the precise extent may be somewhat lower than presented: Geodetic measurements of vertical crustal velocity in West Antarctica and the implications for ice mass balance Received 20 May 2009; accepted 28 August 2009; published 13 October 2009. Citation: Bevis, M., et al. (2009), Geodetic measurements of vertical crustal velocity in West Antarctica and the implications for ice mass balance, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 10, Q10005, doi:10.1029/2009GC002642. "We present preliminary geodetic estimates for vertical bedrock velocity at twelve survey GPS stations in the West Antarctic GPS Network, an additional survey station in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, and eleven continuous GPS stations distributed across the continent. The spatial pattern of these velocities is not consistent with any postglacial rebound (PGR) model known to us. Four leading PGR models appear to be overpredicting uplift rates in the Transantarctic Mountains and West Antarctica and underpredicting them in the peninsula north of 65°. This discrepancy cannot be explained in terms of an elastic response to modern ice loss (except, perhaps, in part of the peninsula). Therefore, our initial geodetic results suggest that most GRACE ice mass rate estimates, which are critically dependent on a PGR correction, are systematically biased and are overpredicting ice loss for the continent as a whole."
  13. The albedo effect
    re #17, so Palle's graph in 2004 shows a drop in albedo in 1997. Palle's graph in 2009, doesn't show a drop in albedo in 1997 [see Figure 2 (top) of Palle et al (2009) [*]; the pre-publication manuscript can be read by clicking on John Cook's "Palle 2008" link in the top summary)]. Palle's graph in 2004 shows a large rise in albedo in 2003. Palle's graph in 2009 doesn't show a large rise in albedo in 2003. My conclusion would be that Palle's determination of albedo measures isn't particularly robust (or at least wasn't in 2004), and the suggestion that there was a drop in albedo in 1997 coupled with an insinuation that this might have something to do with the very warm 1998, is flawed. After all if Palle has reinterpreted earler work that suggested a "distinct drop in albedo in 1997", to conclude in later work that there wasn't a "distinct drop in albedo in 1997", I don't see the point of pretending that the data still suggests a drop in albedo in 1997. Or do you have a good reason to reject Palle's own reinterpretation of his earlier work? [*] Palle et al. (2009) Inter-annual variations in Earth's reflectance, 1999-2007 J. Geophys. Res. 114, D00D03
  14. Philippe Chantreau at 16:28 PM on 7 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    I think Gord is confused. He (or she) is confusing a physical phenomenon with the representation of it. He can apply formulas but lacks a real understanding of the physical phenomena they describe. I don't care whether he is an engineer, student engineer, whatever. He may be more skilled that I at playing with formulas but he does not understand the stuff he keeps on posting in the belief it answers pertinent questions. I am unimpressed. Everyone I could ask abouth this who studies or teaches physics confirmed my understanding of it. NASA confirms it, every single physics link out there confirms it as well if one looks close enough. He is considering one side of a heat transfer in isolation although that side does not exist in isolation of the larger transfer that makes it possible in the first place. The overall exchange of energy between the surface and atmosphere complies with the 2nd law. I believe that I made a number of petinent points in post #149 that were not answered appropriately. Gord keeps on repeating stuff that does not, in fact, support his interpretation. OK so the Sun heats the Earth, which then heats the atmosphere, what happens at night? If there is no such thing as a GH effect, why are the daily temps, nightly temps and average temps not similar to those found on the Moon? What do we have on Earth that prevents our temps to drop near absolute zero at night? Oceans? Why does Antarctica NOT drop near absolute zero during the Austral winter? Why is the surface of Venus warmer than Mercury's and how does Venus maintain nearly identical temperatures on its sunny and shady sides? Makes NO SENSE without a GH effect. Looking back at post # 168, Gord's calculations bring 2 objects in equilibrium both radiating 90W when we started with 90 and 60. Looks strange. We started with a total of 150, the object transferring energy has not cooled and still radiates at 90W, but the other one has warmed and now also radiates at 90W. A total of 180, compared to the 150 we started with. Looks funny. I don't believe Gord knows what he's doing. I have already spent way too much time on this but it appears to me that his calculations on Earth temps are equally mistaken, and what I found in the response to the G&T paper makes a lot more sense. Response to the Gerlich and Tscheuchner paper disputing the existence of GH effect: http://rabett-run-labs.googlegroups.com/web/G%26T2.11.doc?hl=en&gda=GiEkiT8AAAAXmxShcFP2xrtZ1iQa9EYObLHe1BSUDn5EEukXYSRaprw7opP7C43-G-AfaR61VoGccyFKn-rNKC-d1pM_IdV0 If nothing colder can radiate EM radiation, how can I see a glowstick whose surface is much colder than the surface of my eyes? Why is NASA insulating spacecrafts with radiant barriers since, according to Gord, they can not radiate any IR back to the body they insulate? How can the action of cooling a spectrometer CREAT a IR flux going against an immensely larger and warmer body (Earth's surface?). And even if that was the case, why would the IR flux observed increase as altitude decreases and the proximity to the larger warmer body increases? And what emits this IR radiation in the first place? It makes no sense whatsoever.
  15. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Upon reviewing some of my previous posts (which I have stored on my computer), I find that they have also been deleted. I no longer have any desire to participate in this forum.
  16. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    (This is my fourth attempt to get this posted without deletion - now subjected to new censorship) It appears that constant repetition of my posts are still required. Does anybody out there understand what "continuous" means? The Stefan-Boltzmann Law: Power/Area = Boltzmanns Contant X Temp^4 (watts/m^2) The only time there will not be an Electromagnetic Field produced is when T = 0. Clearly, if T is greater than absolute zero an Electromagnetic Field is produced....continuously. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is A LAW OF SCIENCE. When some people say the EM field is not continuous it is an obvious contradiction of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. -------------------- I have also repeatedly posted Physics Links that Heat Radiation is heat transfer by Electromagnetic Waves. Heat Radiation is heat transfer by electromagnetic waves. (see my post #203) Heat Flux is the representation of Heat Radiation as a Vector quantity that uses w/m^2 as the Magnitude of this Vector quantity. The w/m^2 is, of course, used in The Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Heat flux (see my post #203) Yet, there are people who continue to say that Heat Radiation and Heat Flux are not representative of Electromagnetic Waves. ----------------------- I have also repeatedly posted Physics Links that describe Interference including links that explain the phenomena very clearly using continuous waves. Interference (wave propagation) (see my Post #152) Cancellation of Light - Bubble example where light is totally cancelled (continuous waves) - Constructive and Destructive Interference as it relates to Diffraction (continuous waves). - more on Constructive and Destructive Interference (continuous waves) (the links are in my post #152) Despite all the evidence (known for hundreds of years) and all the evidence in their daily lives that the interference of continuous EM waves (eg. like Solar light) produces continuous interference patterns, some people still ignore these simple facts. ------------------------ Arguing with people that ignore these obvious facts and produce posts that contradict Laws of Science, is not only Tedious, it is Frustrating. We are in the 21 Century and this Science has been well known and used for over a hundred years. It would actually be funny, if it wasn't so sad. --------------------------- PS: John Cook will be deleting my comments if I copy and paste material from past comments. Presumeably, this will also include the Laws Of Science and Physics Links that I have previously posted. Since Laws of Science and Physics do not change, please do not attempt to re-write these Laws of Science or Physics based on "opnions". My hands are now effectively "tied behind my back" as far as disputing "opinion based re-writes" of these fundamental truths. Opinions are now in control, not the actual Science. Hopefully, John Cook will also delete those constantly repeated questions directed to me that required repetion of my previous posts. If this is not applicable to those people that constantly ask the same repeated questions of me, I will simply respond that the question has already been answered. Oh well, it was fun before the censorship became stiffleing. It would actually be funny, if it wasn't so sad.
  17. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, you might want to follow a sort of "lesson for laymen" (skip the first 10 minutes or so) given by Prof. Archer from the University of Chicago on the very basics of the greenhouse effect. Hopefully a full lesson from a climatoligist will clarify the missing concepts.
  18. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    shawnhet - Re:your post #209 You said... "So, if greenhouse gases keep the Earth's surface from falling below -20C(or whatever number), doesn't the temperature of the surface have to rise above that when the sun is hitting it?" First, you have to get Cause and Effect correct. The Earth is heated by the Sun (the only energy source). The Earth's radiation then heats the atmosphere to -20 deg C. The colder atmosphere does not heat the warmer Earth. The Sun, being the ONLY energy source, HAS to be the cause of the Earth's surface temperature. I have already posted numerous examples of how the Sun can produce the current Earth surface temperature. Don't you recall my posts directly to you on this subject? --------------- You said... "Doesn't the fact that greenhouse gases absorb energy necessitate that the surface temp of the Earth must be greater than it would OTW be?" No, of course not. The Greenhouse Gases only absorb enough IR energy from the Earth to heat up to -20 deg C. A body of -20 deg C cannot Heat a warmer Earth. I have also produced many posts on this before. Did you not see them? ----------------- Please review my previous posts before asking questions that have already been answered. That will save both of us time and needless repetition.
  19. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, re: #183 So, if greenhouse gases keep the Earth's surface from falling below -20C(or whatever number), doesn't the temperature of the surface have to rise above that when the sun is hitting it? Doesn't the fact that greenhouse gases absorb energy necessitate that the surface temp of the Earth must be greater than it would OTW be? Cheers, :)
  20. The albedo effect
    17#..sorry should have mentioned it is on page 13.
  21. The albedo effect
    Chris: the original 2004 graph is here: http://science.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/STM/2005-05/loeb_earthshine.pdf which contests the accuracy of earthshine data. Palle's graph shows a distinct drop in albedo in 1997 which was followed by a hot 1998.
  22. The albedo effect
    RSVP, there's no definition of a wavelength range. In general the albedo varies with wavelegth but is usually measured over wide range. As stated in this post, the earthshine measurements cover 0.4-0.7 microns while CERES data cover 0.3-5.0 microns. They both cover the visible spectrum, where the sun radiation mainly is.
  23. The albedo effect
    Question: From the discussions so far, I get the impression that albedo refers to the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, but I didnt see this explained anywhere. Is there a defined band or cutoff frequency?
    Response: Albedo refers to reflected sunlight, which includes UV light, visible light and wavelengths above the visible spectrum. This covers radiation from around 0.3 microns to 1.2 microns. Visible light is part of this spectrum: roughly 0.4 microns to 0.7 microns.
  24. The albedo effect
    Henry Pool, not sure this is what you were looking for, but here you find the annual minimum concentration time serie while here are the monthly values. I'm going to ignore your last complain given the effort we put to point at the relevant physics you probably didn't look at.
  25. The albedo effect
    I thought global warming has been stalling for quite a number of years now, I think the fact the earth has been brightening would be a reasonable explanation for this? It makes sense that it will take a few seasons after the brightening of earth that some noticable cooling will take effect.. Did anyone find a graph plotting ozone concentrations per annum? Surely that must be possible to find that data? I am not the man who claims to be the expert - I am just checking whether the science is there. I think it is not. I still donot where that 1.7 for CO2 came from. I said it is probably based on the assumption that CO2 is the problem . You then promised to show me the calculations how that was arrived at. As far as CO2 is concerned, no one from your site (side) came to me with comprehensible experiments that took the cooling of CO2 into account and that resulted in convincing figures..
    Response: Global warming hasn't stalled - satellite measurements find the planet is still in positive energy imbalance and ocean heat measurements find the planet is still accumulating heat.
  26. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
    Usmar, the conclusion should be that there's no more CO2 in the atmosphere given how much we take out each year. Clearly this is not the case. You should follow the whole carbon cycle, not just one single step. The carbon stored in crops is recycled quickly, it averages to zero. Trees, on the contrary, live and continuosly take out CO2 from the atmosphere for centuries before their carbon is recycled. Not a subtle difference indeed.
  27. The albedo effect
    Henry Pool, following Palle 2008, the albedo increased while the earth was warming, instead. This should make clear that there's not a simple and direct relation between the observed albedo changes and the earth surface temperature trends. As for the future trend, I'm glad that you are "pretty sure" about one thing that scientists working in the field admit they don't know. Definitely you should tell them.
  28. The albedo effect
    Did anyone read the conclusion of Palle et al 2008? "In the common period, earthshine, CERES along with ISCCP-FD data show a trendless albedo. However, preceding CERES, earthshine and ISCCP-FD reflectances show a significant increase before flattening and holding the increase. This implies a reduction in the net sunlight reaching earth...it is important to point out that the physical causes behind these decadal variations in albedo are still unknown, and that we just don't know yet whether we should expect the albedo changes observed during the modern period to persist into the future.." end quote. I am pretty sure that the increase will hold because it is most probably due to a) an increase in CO2 b) an increase in ozone (due to elimination of CFC's) and c)greater shallow water reservoir surface areas due to human activities. These three components in gasform cause most of earth's reflection. You can look this up in your own quoted papers that show the common solar radiation spectrum. (I remember it refused to speak about or admit that CO2 also causes cooling and it seemed deliberately confusing). Obviously as the weather was getting warmer more clouds are formed, which also helps to reflect more sunlight to space. The reflected sunlight is what makes earth cooler. Anyways, does anyone have any figures about ozone and the ozonehole? I have not heard much about it lately, so this may mean that it must be closing and that means less sunlight (the "bulky" part of the spectrum ) is getting through. This is what the report is saying. I have not yet seen a study that assesses the cooling properties of CO2 (when it is hit by sunlight) and compare them with warming properties of CO2 (when it is hit by earth's radiation). My gut feeling tells me that the nett effect will be close to zero. I am not sure what you people are going to do or say in Copenhagen. I am more and more convinced CO2 is not the problem.
  29. High CO2 in the past, Part 2
    Comment 36 here has information relevant to my comment #7. Perhaps it's a preview to the post John says he may eventually do. I look forward to it!
  30. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Re #35: Don't worry Chris, pretty much all of your contributions are appreciated (at least by me) regardless of what baited you into the work. Re #36: Here is an excellent example of a very worthwhile comment that I just about missed. In fact, I was trying to stimulate something similar on another thread in which I noted that "Global Warming is Good" is an argument not often tackled here, and where I suggested that skeptics should ask how fast CO2 concentrations have changed in the past and what was the result. Thanks.
  31. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    This Zona Land site has great animations of wave interference! The ones of most relevance are Wave Interference 1, Wave Interference 2, and Wave Interference 3, which illustrate waves passing through each other unaffected after they have shared the local space where they superposed. The VRML Interference Worlds looks fun, though I haven't tried it.
  32. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, see also the Wikipedia entry on Superposition, the section on Application to Waves.
  33. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, the topmost animation on this page shows the passage of waves through their superposition and then unmodified onto their original destinations, as Riccardo explained.
  34. The albedo effect
    Which "original graph" are you talking about Mizimi? Why not link to, or cite, the data you refer to??? If you look at Palle (2008) [published as Palle et al. (2009) J. Geophys. Res. 114, D003D03], the albedo doesn't "show a distinct drop in albedo in 1998". In fact the albedo in 1999 is lower than 1998 (see Figure 2, top). Please clarify. Note that Palle et al. 2006 [*] point out that one can't translate a change in albedo to a forcing in the manner that you suggest (your "0.7 W" comment) without considering the source of the albedo change. If it's due to a cloud response, an increase in albedo doesn't necessarily mean a negative forcing since any increased cloud response also has an element of suppressed radiative dissipation of thermal energy (see post #6 above). In any case if heat is being added to the oceans, then heat is being added to the oceans! Your putative "happens to balance" obviously isn't balancing at all. [*] E. Pallé et al (2006) Can Earth's Albedo and Surface Temperatures Increase Together? Eos Trans. AGU, 87(4), doi:10.1029/2006EO040002
  35. Are humans too insignificant to affect global climate?
    #1 David Horton:
    "Do we (you) know John if the difference between what we are producing and what is being dealt with is increasing? "
    This paper deals with that (yes, it is increasing (both emissions and sinks are growing, but the former faster than the latter)): "Changes in the long-term efficiency of the natural sinks in removing atmospheric CO2, as measured by the ratio of sinks to emissions, are indicated by the proportional trend in the AF [(1/AF)dAF/dt]. Over the period 1959–2006, this was +0.25 ±0.21% y-1" "We estimate that 35±16% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 growth rate between 1970–1999 and 2000–2006 was caused by the decrease in the efficiency of the land and ocean sinks in removing anthropogenic CO2 (18 ± 15%) and by the increase in carbon intensity of the global economy (17 ± 6%). The remaining 65 ± 16% was due to the increase in the global economy."
  36. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Thermodynamics applies to heat. Objects composed of vibrating atoms and molecules rearrange themselves when in direct contact according to the laws of thermodynamics depending upon how "hot" they are. Hot material objects or portions of them move about according to how hot they are in abidance with the Law. Electromagnetic radiation is not material and it is not heat. The Second Law does not apply. The atmosphere is warmed primarily by the Earth's solar warmed surface through radiation, conduction and convection. Only conduction and convection are restricted by the Second Law. The atmosphere does not warm the surface the same way as the surface warms the atmosphere. Generally speaking the cooler atmosphere can not conduct or convect warmth to the surface, but it can and does radiate to the surface because it has a temperature above absolute zero. There are four ways to end up with a warmer object, direct strong radiation toward it as for example the Sun does during daytime or place a warmer object in direct contact with it so that conduction and convection can take place. The fourth way is to allow or force the object to cool more slowly once it has been warmed by the first three. The greenhouse effect works by means of the fourth option. Take away the first three and the greenhouse effect will not work since it produces zero energy. Take away the Sun and none of the options work. ---- "All bodies that have a temperature will produce an Electromagnetic Field WAVES...continuously." All dense matter with a temperature will produce a continuous spectrum of ER. The emission by free electrons, atoms and molecules is not continuous as required by quantum mechanics. The discreet emissions of ER are smeared into a continuous spectrum by the density and temperature of the matter. For the same reasons, all dense matter regardless of temperature can absorb the full spectrum of ER or very nearly so if it is close to a perfect black body, which the Earth is.
  37. ACRIM vs PMOD, the rematch
    solar magnetograms? http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-1315/6/9/092016/ees9_6_092016.pdf?request-id=8e517d78-d0ca-42ea-8628-27ee1c1f3eca Katya Georgieva “The role of the sun in climate change” Earth and Environmental Science 6 (2009) 092016 doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/9/092016
  38. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, "cancellation" of waves, better know as destructive interference, is a local effect. Whenever the two waves happen to be in different places they are undisturbed by the preceding interference. This is what the principle of superimposition means. And rememeber, waves, not energy fluxes.
  39. The albedo effect
    "In the common period, earthshine, CERES along with ISCCP-FD data show a trendless albedo. However, preceding CERES, earthshine and ISCCP-FD reflectances show a significant increase before flattening and holding the increase. This implies a reduction in the net sunlight reaching Earth. In the context of the recent climate change, it is important to point out that the physical causes behind these large decadal variations in albedo are still unknown, and that we just don't know yet whether we should expect the albedo changes observed during the modern period to persist into the future." (Palle 2008) Project Earthshine includes the observatory at Mt Teide (Gran Canarias)not just BBSO and they reckon to have almost global coverage. In addition they have another observatory in partial use in Crimea. A further proposal to set up an earthshine project in Antartica ( which would give 6 days of un-interrupted data)was put forward in 2004 but seems to have died a death. If you access the original graph the time series goes back to 1985 and shows a distinct drop in albedo in 1998 - a very hot year. Yes, the current data shows little change in albedo (from 2000..so what?) but that long term trend of -0.7W is still there and just happens to balance the +0.7W heat being added to the oceans.....
  40. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    PS: Heat Radiation Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which CARRY energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2 --- Properties of electromagnetic waves "An electromagnetic wave, although it CARRIES no mass, does CARRY energy." "A more common way to handle the energy is to look at how much energy is CARRIED by the wave from one place to another." http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/EMWaves.html --- Heat flux "Heat flux or thermal flux, sometimes also referred to as heat flux density or heat flow rate intensity is a flow of energy per unit of area per unit of time. In SI units, it is measured in [W·m-2]. It has both a direction and a magnitude so it is a vectorial quantity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux ----------------------------------------------- All bodies that have a temperature will produce an Electromagnetic Field WAVES...continuously.
  41. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Cancellation and Black Body Radiation. Blackbody Radiation "Blackbody radiation" or "cavity radiation" refers to an object or system which absorbs all radiation incident upon it and re-radiates energy which is characteristic of this radiating system only, not dependent upon the type of radiation which is incident upon it." The radiated energy can be considered to be produced by standing wave or resonant modes of the cavity which is radiating." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html#c1 Last time I checked, resonance and standing waves were a result of interference....so is cancelation of waves!!
  42. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, your examples of the need of a cooled detector are just guessing a reason when you don't know how it works. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. And about your "beloved" cancellation (sic) of light, this "cancellation" occurs at specific conditions and at particular points (or regions) in space, not everywhere. Also, you don't see that the effect is due to phase, which modulates the amplitude of the wave as function of time and space. You can not describe an energy flux this way becuase, in fact, it's not a wave. @WeatherRusty I know, there must be something pathological in me :D But i'm too curious to see how far a man who doesn't want to study and learn can go saying that the whole world is wrong. ;)
  43. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord wrote "There are no 'wave packets.'" Go to the HyperPhysics site that you trust so much, to the page on Blackbody Radiation. In that diagram, note the line connecting the Blackbody Radiation oval to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law oval. That connecting line says "summed over all wavelengths gives the." In other words, Blackbody Radiation... summed over all wavelengths gives the... Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is a merely a convenient summary description of the underlying, more fundamental, entities and behaviors.
  44. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    WeatherRusty - re:your post#200 I wonder how many times I have to repeat, over and over again, these simple concepts. (see my many, many posts on interference that includes ACTUAL physics links) Here is one link that is so simple that a CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND! Cancellation of Light (This Bubble link is especially well done...even a child could understand it) http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/bubbles/bubble_colors.html ------------------------------------ I have repeated this at least 10 times now! What, exactly, don't you understand about interference and light cancellation ???
  45. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    I can't believe this attempt to educate Gord has continued on as it has. Not only does he dispute the reality of the greenhouse effect but he also claims quantum mechanics to be flawed in the most fundamental of ways. No discreet wave packets of light according to him? If a new wave pattern results from interference how is it we can detect discreet emitters of radiation such as distant stars? Leptons (photons) do not obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Information is not lost as a result of interfering waves, they pass right through each other. Downward "cooler" radiation is not canceled out by "warmer" radiation traveling in the opposite direction. The energy "waves" pass right through each other. Discreet emissions of electromagnetic radiation such as when an electron jumps energy levels within the Bohr model always propagate in all three spatial directions with no direction preferred just as a wave propagates outward in all directions when dropping a stone in water. The squiggle that represents the photon as shown in the model is just there to indicate emission, but the emission is actually as wave-particle duality. The model shows only the "particle" representation.
  46. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Ok, I have had some time now to study the most recent Palle et al report, I agree with the conclusion: "In the common period, earthshine, CERES along with ISCCP-FD data show a trendless albedo. However, preceding CERES, earthshine and ISCCP-FD reflectances show a significant increase before flattening and holding the increase. This implies a reduction in the net sunlight reaching earth...it is important to point out that the physical causes behind these decadal variations in albedo are still unknown, and that we just don't know yet whether we should expect the albedo changes observed during the modern period to persist into the future.." end quote. Well, if you go a few steps back (above) you will have noticed that I am pretty sure that the increase will hold because it is most probably due to a) an increase in CO2 b) an increase in ozone (due to elimination of CFC's) and c)greater shallow water reservoir surface areas due to human activities. Obviously as the weather was getting warmer more clouds are formed, which also helps to reflect more sunlight to space. The reflected sunlihgt is what makes earth cooler. So remember: water and carbon dioxide are like my mother and father. Make sure about the facts before you say anything bad about them/ I am not sure what you people are going to do or say in Copenhagen. I have done my job.
  47. dopeydoctorjohn at 01:37 AM on 6 November 2009
    There is no consensus
    Birdbrainscan Thanks for your reply. The subject of my posts was the Doran study. Yes, looking at the bigger picture is something else I might have done, but, quite clearly, the subject of my posts was the Doran paper. Big pictures are made of little pictures. Pixels on your screen. Rods and cones on your retina. There's nothing inherently wrong in looking at one study. I don't doubt that the majority of scientists in this field agree with the current dominant paradigm. They always do, almost by definition (Kuhn). That's not my point, either. I read scientific journals every week (insofar as medicine is science) and I reflexly look for flaws in the research. This keeps my patients safe and well, and my practice successful. I stand by every material comment I made about the Doran paper, and you have not contradicted these observations. Is there a broad agreement amongst scientists that temperatures are rising? Clearly there is. Do some authoritative scientists disbelieve that catastrophe is at hand? Clearly some disbelieve. But either way the Doran study constitutes very poor evidence and does little to advance certainty about these questions beyond that which we have from other sources. It doesn't merit the space it occupies on this site. Surely there are better consensus papers around than this? But I did not, as you imply, take issue with their conclusion then seek to criticise their method. I took issue with their method. And I would happily tear apart a skeptic paper in the same way. The way researchers deal with non-response bias is well-established. You'll find it dealt with in any medical journal you care to open. (and doctors are busy people, too). I see no evidence of Doran dealing with this potential confounder. Which makes the research sloppy. And since a responder whose views are likely to concur with a researcher is more likely to answer a survey than a (potential) responder whose views are likely to disagree with a researcher, exploring non-response bias might have turned up evidence Doran might not have wanted. But nothing in post 173 suggests an accusation of fraud. I could as easily assert that accusing me of accusing Doran, at this point, of fraud, is itself "way out of line". Do you have comment about 174-176? Can I take it then that these observations re the Doran study go unchallenged? Do you have comment about the substance of 177-179, aside from their temperature? before asking me to just turn away from this research and look at other research? Aside from exhorting me to chill out and avert my eyes, do these observations re the Doran study remain unchallenged? In my field I read a lot of junk science. I don't like being bullshitted. Well intentioned or not, Doran is misleading in comparing the scientists and the public on the one graph when they were not asked the same question. No matter how noble the cause, sloppy or disingenuine work is not justified and is ultimately self-defeating. Machiavelli's methods have no place in science.
  48. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, just to add fuel to the fire, there's one more thing you don't understand, the reason why an IR detector is cooled. The dector can work at room temperature, it is cooled only to have a better the signal to noise ratio. Clearly you're talking of things you don't know.
  49. The albedo effect
    So albedo has had an effect on global temperatures - mostly a cooling effect on long term trends
    But, after showing Pallé 2004 (Fig. 2), I don't see any new long term trend; only recent trends (since 2000). The update in Palle 2008 (fig. 2a, p. 32) still shows an overall decreasing long-term trend in albedo (and therefore a warming effect), isn't it? In fact, Pallé 2005 compared earthshine with other data sets and says that 1985-2000 trend would range "from 2–3 W/m2 [Wielicki et al., 2002; Pinker et al., 2005] to 6–7 W/m2 [Palle´ et al., 2004; Wild et al., 2005]" (paragraph [20]). *I've also seen that Pallé replied to the comment by Bender suggesting that the earthshine could be considered global (paragraph [3]).
  50. ACRIM vs PMOD, the rematch
    @ Peter Pan http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/nicola-scafetta-comments-on-solar-trends-and-global-warming-by-benestad-and-schmidt/ "Benestad and Schmidt apparently do not know that since 1978 Lean 1995 as well as Lean 2000 do not differ significantly from PMOD because PMOD was build (by altering the published TSI satellite data) by using Lean 1995 and Lean 2000 as guides. Moreover, we also merge the Lean data with ACRIM since 1978 to obtain an alternative scenario, as it is evident in all our papers. The discontinuity problem addressed by Benestad and Schmidt in merging two independent sequences (Lean’s proxy model and the ACRIM) is not an issue because it is not possible to avoid it given the fact that there are no TSI satellite data before 1978." Nicola Scafetta

Prev  2529  2530  2531  2532  2533  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  2544  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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