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  2530  2531  2532  2533  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  2544  2545  Next

Comments 126851 to 126900:

  1. The albedo effect
    re #5: RSVP, "nighttime Earth" means nighttime on Earth!. Click on the convenient link to Palle 2004 that John very thoughtfully added to the legend to Figure 2 in his summary. You'll find that Earthshine, the "ghostly glow of the dark portion of the lunar disk", is measured from the Big Bear Solar Observatory in Big Bear City in California during four hours of darkness at night. The paper contains a simple description of the measurement of Earthshine by comparing the brightness of the earth-lit Moon to that of the sun-lit Moon...
  2. The albedo effect
    re #4 RSVP: (i) Note that there isn't much uncertainty over the radiative forcing resulting from doubling of atmospheric CO2. The uncertainty lies in the climate response to this forcing, and this uncertainty applies to any source of forcing. So it is entirely appropriate to compare the forcing of any given phenomenon (e.g. albedo), to the pertinent and rather well characterised forcing arising from doubling atmospheric CO2. And remember that the generation of "controversy" is not necesssarily a representation of scientific understanding based on evidence, and we should really seek light on these subjects rather than heat.... ....and so, the fact that some people believe the greenhouse effect is a "myth", is no reason to wallow in ignorance ourselves! (iii) Yes a change in albedo can be considered a forcing, since it represents a change in solar radiation that "participates" in the energy balance that defines a particular climate (temperature) state. Of course it may also be a feedback (sea and land ice response to forcings), but it is convenient to consider it's contribution as a forcing (in the manner that Palle et al do), when considering the temporal variation in energy balance (i.e a "lumped" forcing). However!...note that we have to very careful with albedo, since the source of the albedo change complicates a direct assignment of a forcing (as Palle et al. 2008 discuss [*]). So an albedo change resulting from a change in cloud coverage, doesn't necesarily equate to a negative forcing, since clouds also reduce the radiative dissipation of thermal energy to space. [*] E. Pallé et al (2006) Can Earth's Albedo and Surface Temperatures Increase Together? Eos Trans. AGU, 87(4), doi:10.1029/2006EO040002
  3. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Tom Dayton - re:your post#189 and #190 (Second attempt to get this posted, without deletion) Here is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law again: P/A = BC*T^4 (watts/m^2) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/stefan.html Clearly, if T is greater than absolute zero an Electromagnetic Field is produced....continuously. There are no "wave packets". ---------------------------------- Why don't you produce ANY AGW paper that says the Sun's radiation, Earth Radiation or Atmosphere Radiation is in "wave packets"?
  4. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Tom Dayton - re:your post #187 (Second attempt to get this posted, without deletion) You said... "That is incorrect. One of the greatest advances in the history of human knowledge was the 20th century realization that "the energy in electromagnetic waves could only be released in 'packets' of energy." Not continuously. Not hypothetically. In the real world. By all objects." A Photon is released by an atom dropping in energy state....that can be considered to be a Packet of Energy. Multiple atoms releasing multiple photons on a continuous basis will produce a continuous release of Photon Energy. A Photon does not propagate on it's own....the Photon Energy is CARRIED by and Electromagnetic Field having a frequency and wavelength. (EM Fields are NOT PACKETS) Maybe you should have also quoted these statements from the same link: "In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD and the basic "unit" of light and all other forms of ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION. It is also the force CARRIER for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances" "Like all elementary particles, photons are governed by quantum mechanics and will exhibit wave-particle duality – they exhibit properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit WAVE INTERFERENCE, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when quantitative mass is measured." "It also accounted for anomalous observations, including the properties of BLACK BODY RADIATION, that other physicists, most notably Max Planck, had sought to explain using semiclassical models, in which light is still described by Maxwell's equations, but the material objects that emit and absorb light are quantized." ---------------------------- 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 (and carry Photon Energy)...continuously. Black body Planck's Law, Wein's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law will determine the frequencies (a probability function) and magnitude (w/m^2) of the Electromagnetic Fields produced by the body temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body Here is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law again: P/A = BC*T^4 (watts/m^2) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/stefan.html Clearly, if T is greater than absolute zero an Electromagnetic Field is produced....continuously. Your statement.... "There exist in the real universe, objects that are so cold that they emit wave packets so infrequently that occasionally a wave packet from one object travels all the way to the other object without encountering a wave packet coming the other way." ....is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, Planck's Law, Wein's Law and all Electromagnetic Physics! ------------------------------------- PS: Does the Sun blink "on and off" due to "packets" or does it produce continuous waves?
  5. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Re: Measurements of Back Radiation. (First try to get this posted was deleted) All direct measurements of Back Radiation use instruments that have their IR detectors cooled far below the -20 deg average atmosphere temperature. The cooled IR detectors make the direct measurements possible, just like the 2nd Law states. I have already posted this along with Instrument specifications in my Post #16. Isn't it funny that these same "scientists" (who absolutely know that these instruments use cooled IR detectors to make their direct Back Radiation possible) then claim that the Back Radiation will heat a warmer Earth? Isn't it funny that these same "scientists" claim that the Back Radiation (324 w/m^2 being absobed by a warmer Earth) EXCEEDS the Solar Energy (168 w/m^2) energy reaching the Earth's surface but never, ever say that we should harness this Phantom Back Radiation as a clean energy source? Isn't it funny that these same "scientists" know that IR Back Radiation (available Day and Night) can be concentrated at the focal point of a parabolic mirror (Solar Oven) never ever mention that Solar Ovens don't produce any warming when pointed at the colder atmosphere Day or Night? There are numerous Mega-Watt Solar Power installations that use parabolic mirrors to boil water which is then used to produce power. Funny how these installation don't produce any power from Back Radiation at night? There are probably hundreds of thousands of Solar Ovens used in 3rd World countries to boil water and cook food. Funny how these installation don't produce any power from Back Radiation at night? Isn't funny that these "scientists" never mention the actual measurements done by the Physics Dept. at Brigham Young University where they use Parabolic Mirror Solar Ovens to freeze water when the Ovens are pointed at the colder atmosphere, Day and Night? (just like the 2nd Law says will happen). Isn't funny how so many people believe that Back Radiation can HEAT A WARMER EARTH when it can't even heat an ounce of water even when the Back Radiation should be concentrated at the Solar Oven's focal point.
  6. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Tom Dayton - re:your post#188 They really managed to get just about everything wrong. "...a much larger fraction of long-wave radiation from the surface of the earth is absorbed or reflected in the atmosphere instead of being radiated away, by greenhouse gases, namely water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane" All objects that "absorb" energy HAS to "radiate" the same amount. (Conservation of Energy) ---------- "Since the emissivity (weighted more in the longer wavelengths where the Earth radiates) is reduced more than than the absorptivity (weighted more in the shorter wavelengths of the Sun's radiation), the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates, not lower. As a result, the Earth's actual average surface temperature is about 288 K, rather than 279 K." Gee, the Sun was the ONLY energy source in the calculation of the 279 K temp. The Atmosphere and the Earth are NOT ENERGY SOURCES, so how did the Earth manage to jump in temperature to 288 K ???? They CREATED energy. Typical.
  7. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Re:Interference When waves interfere they produce a NEW WAVE. If the waves that produce the interference are continuous the NEW WAVE will be continuous. If you do any measurement, all you can measure is the NEW WAVE. Example: A radiates 100 w/m^2 UP. B radiates 100 w/m^2 DOWN. A and B are close, no field losses. Between A and B the Field is 0 w/m^2. Any measurement done will give 0 w/m^2. Without knowlege that A and B exist, no measurement can be done between A and B to prove they exist. Interference (wave propagation) "In physics, interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that results in a NEW WAVE pattern." There is even an animation of continuous waves creating a continouous Interference pattern that produces a NEW WAVE that is CONTINUOUS! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) 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
  8. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    RSVP - re:your post#184 Yes, there are exceptions where the atmosphere is warmer than the Earth's surface but these cases are by no means the norm. Heat energy, in these rare cases, will flow from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler Earth. Global Warming from the atmosphere, of course is impossible because it would require an average atmospheric temperature to be higher than the Earth surface average temp.
  9. ACRIM vs PMOD, the rematch
    Loads of thanks, chris & Riccardo!! Your answers have been very quick, clear and helpful! :) Thanks!
  10. The albedo effect
    "This is sunlight reflected from the Earth and then reflected from the Moon back to the nighttime Earth." When the Moon is "new" in our sky, the Earth is shining its brightest on the Moon. When the Moon is "full", in the Moons "sky", the Earth is very dark except for maybe a detectable glow of urban sprawl. Light coming from the Moon is reflecting from the Sun. What is meant here by the "nighttime" Earth?
  11. The albedo effect
    Article begins with... "A change of just 1% to the Earth's albedo has a radiative effect of 3.4 Wm-2, comparable to the forcing from a doubling of CO2." Is it conceivably possible to discuss a subject without including some reference to CO2? Hasnt enough controversy around this subject indicated that it isnt the most convenient standard for comparison? 1) First because as we have seen in previous comments, for some, the greenhouse effect might be a complete myth. 2) Even if it is real, your own articles indicate quite a bit of variability for how much forcing could be associated with a doubling of CO2. 3) Even though you are dealing here with "albedo" as an independent variable, it is dependent on atmospheric radiative absorption. You even explain this here, and yet it is then used as one more independent forcing factor. Conceptually, it would seem that "albedo" per se is not a forcing in its own right, but only a measurement. For instance, the reflective properities of objects on the earth's surface determine radiative forcing. The color of paint for instance is the object of forcing, not the measurement obtained.
    Response: The term 'doubling of CO2' is a convention - we could just as easily say 3.7 Wm-2 but it just doesn't roll off the tongue as smoothly. To answer the possibility of greenhouse effect being a myth, the enhanced greenhouse effect has been confirmed by multiple independent lines of empirical observations. If you're genuinely interested in the science of global warming, I strongly recommend you read the following papers:
    • Philipona 2004 (surface measurements confirming increased downward longwave radiation)
    • Evans 2006 - analyses high resolution spectral data, quantitatively attributed the increase in downward radiation at specific wavelengths to each of several anthropogenic gases.
    • Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007 all compare satellite measurements of outgoing infrared radiation to find less radiation escaping at CO2 absorption wavelengths.
    If you don't have access to any of those papers, I'll be happy to email any to you.
  12. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Someone on this thread pointed out to Gord that wave packets (photons) passing from sky to ground, even if they do interact with wave packets going from ground to sky, do their interference thing while they share the same space but do not destroy any of their energy, and after passing each other simply carry on to hit the ground and sky, respectively. (Sorry for not crediting that someone, but I can't find that bit. One example that is close to that phrasing was a recent comment by Riccardo. Here are some places for more explanation of that: PhysLink.com: "This interference pattern is akin to ripples on water that approach each other, form an interference pattern of peaks and troughs and then continue on their way." A longer explanation is at MadSciNetwork
  13. Working out climate sensitivity
    Thanks Riccardo!
  14. Alberta Clipper at 16:14 PM on 5 November 2009
    How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Two areas on earth at the same latitude, both have the same maximum daytime temperature of 32C. At night, in one area the temperature drops out 17 degrees, to a minimum of 15C, the other area the temperature only drops out 5 degrees to a minimum of 28C. Both areas are at the same altitude, there is also no measurable wind through the 24 hour period. The reason for the different drop-out rates... water vapour. The area with the largest drop-out is a desert. The other area is a very humid climate. In Meteorology, the area with the large drop-out is described as "heat energy is rapidly lost to outer space". I don't buy the influence of the small 0.028% to 0.038% (280 ppm to 380 ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere, as having a major effect, as stated ad-infinitum everywhere.
    Response: The enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by empirical observations as shown above. You're correct that water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any CO2 warming. Positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.
  15. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, now let's extend the emission of thermal energy as wave packets (photons) from two very cold objects to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. Both surface and atmosphere comprise a riot of wildly heterogeneous bits of mass of various shapes, sizes, temperatures, and many other attributes. All those bits individually emit photons. The overall effect is a riot of photons in all manner of directions, having all manner of frequencies, in all manner of phases and timings. There is no single continuous wave of radiation from the surface, nor one from the atmosphere. Your model is incorrect.
  16. High CO2 in the past, Part 2
    "350 ppm is what we should be targeting (of course, that's a political impossibility" - if the good guys say this it helps to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since the denialists don't believe any kind of target is necessary, it is incumbent on us to push for the "scientific ideal" which is now even lower than 350, in fact down to 280 or so. That way, if politics is the art of compromise, a compromise between no target and 280ppm might give a result of, say, 400ppm, which we might be able to live with. A compromise between "350 is politically impossible so let's accept, say, 450" and no target is, perhaps, 550ppm or worse which we certainly can't live with.
  17. ACRIM vs PMOD, the rematch
    One thing to add to chris comment. The trick to artificially pump solar sensitivity in the model is to use a "slow" time constant as short as possible and similar to the solar cycle, 8-12 yr in the paper. Where does this number come from? Is it realistic? The number comes from Schwartz 2007 JGR 112, D24S05 which has been shown to grossly underestimate it (Foster et al 2008 JGR 113, D15102). Also, it looks quite unrealistic given that it represent the time it takes to the climate system to reach equilibrium.
  18. ACRIM vs PMOD, the rematch
    PeterPan, Scafetta, in the paper you link to uses (in my opinion) a sleight of hand based on false premises to come up with an extraordinaly high climate sensitivity to solar forcing, to arrive at the ("up to 65%") value that you reproduce. He analyses different Empirical Solar Signature ("ESS") parameterizations (ESS1 and ESS2) to attempt to match the solar variability to climate (temperature)variability. He finds that according to his ESS1 parameterization (fast climate response to solar forcing and thus small climate sensitivity to solar forcing), the solar variation cannot account for preindustrial temperature variation (he seemingly considers "preindustrial" to mean pre-1900), and therefore choses a model (ESS2) with a slow response time and very large temperature response to solar forcing. His error is one shared by a couple of the dull selection of papers he cites, namely he makes an a priori assumption that all "pre-industrial" temperature variation is solar-induced, and thus he has to swell the solar contribution to attempt to match this. This is obvously wrong. It's quite well characterised that some of the warming from the LA to 1900 warming was due to reducrion of volcanic (negative) forcing (say 0.l oC) and the change in CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels (around 276 at the LIA) to 1900 (~300 ppm) should give around 0.35 oC warming at equilibrium within the middle of the range of climate sensitivity (3 oC of warming per doubling of CO2). Let's say that 0.25 oC of this was realized by 1900. So we expect that around 0.35 oC of the warming from the bottom of the LIA to 1900 was volcanic/greenhouse-induced. The Moberg temperature reconstruction that Scafetta "fits" to (see Scafetta's Figure 6), gives around 0.35 oC of warming from the bottom of the LIA to 1900. So there isn't any need to "pump up" the climate response to solar variability to ludicrous proportions in an attempt to "fit" solar variability to a particular temperature reconstruction, and the solar contribution to temperature variability determined by proper solar scientists (Lean, Frolich, Solanki, Lockwood etc) is likely to be correct (e.g. perhaps 0.10 C warming Maunder Minimum (MM) to 1900 or 0.2 oC MM to 1950)...
  19. ACRIM vs PMOD, the rematch
    Thanks again for a very informative post. New studies go on confirming that PMOD seems more reliable. Anyway, I had also read elsewhere that the temperature difference between using ACRIM or PMOD would be very little, that's why I still wonder how Scafetta gets that 65 % (mentioned by clayco) if ACRIM was used (?): "Since 1980 the solar contribution to climate change is uncertain because of the severe uncertainty of the total solar irradiance satellite composites. The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used" http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf Do you know any paper or blog post where it's been addressed? Thnks!
  20. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, have you noticed that even the Wikipedia entry for the Stefan-Boltzmann law (Temperature of the Earth section) explains the atmospheric greenhouse effect without saying that it violates the second law of thermodynamics?
  21. The albedo effect
    re #1: Steve, the confusion lies largely in the papers of Palle et al from which the figures above are taken. For example, Palle et al (2004) are simply not clear about the anomaly values in their Figure 3 (Figure 2 above). I can't see from their paper what the reference albedo is from which the values (0.02 etc.) are anomalies with respect to. Yes the W/m2 axis should really be reversed as you suggest (Palle et al (2004)'s mistake!). On Pinatubo: There doesn't seem to be much of an effect on albedo. Palle et al (2004) suggest this isn't surprising:
    The albedos for the years after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (1991–1992) are among the largest; however, the increase is just comparable with interannual variability. The lack of a sharp rise is not unexpected, however, because Pinatubo's increased contribution of stratospheric aerosols is not accounted for by any of the ISCCP parameters used.
    Presumably the ISCCP data is optimised for characterising clouds from which albedo effect are determined. I wonder whether an essential difference between the properties of volcanic aerosols (scatter incident light) and clouds (reflect incident light) might be responsible for the apparent absence of Pinatubo on apparent albedo???
  22. CO2 has been higher in the past
    re #29; Disclaimed There's a decent amount of recent research/reviews on the subject of CO2 levels and extinctions. Here's a selection of papers/reviews that address this. It might be about a year out of date, and I wrote this in a slightly different context elsewhere....I had a quick look at the literature earlier, and didn't find anything that substantially adds to this. The major extinction events of the past 300 million years are generally associated with rapid onset and long term warming events, and tectonic processes are considered the most likely causes of the rise in greenhouse gases and warming associated with these (especially massive flood basalt events; e.g. the Serbian Traps at the end-Permian extinction; the Deccan Traps at the end-Cretaceous extinction; the tectonic events resulting in plate boundary separation and opening up of the N Atlantic at the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum) Major extinctions are associated with long lived perturbation of the climate system and the atmosphere. For example the early Jurassic extinction is associated with events (greenhouse gas induced warming) lasting 200,000 years Svensen H et al (2007) Hydrothermal venting of greenhouse gases triggering Early Jurassic global warming Earth Planetary Sci Lett 256 554-566 Abstract: The climate change in the Toarcian (Early Jurassic) was characterized by a major perturbation of the global carbon cycle. The event lasted for approximately 200,000 years and was manifested by a global warming of similar to 6 degrees C, anoxic conditions in the oceans, and extinction of marine species. The triggering mechanisms for the perturbation and environmental change are however strongly debated. Here, we present evidence for a rapid formation and transport of greenhouse gases from the deep sedimentary reservoirs in the Karoo Basin, South Africa....... likewise comprehensive analyses of the coincidence of major tectonic events, and resulting elevation of greenhouse gas levels, are associated with several of the major extinctions of the last 300 million years. Note that CO2 isn't the only player. Methane is implicated in several of these events (see especially the PETM below) and sulphurous oxides and their effects on ocean acidity and oxygen content are also implicated: Wignall P (2005) The link between large igneous province eruptions and mass extinctions Elements 1, 293-297 Abstract: In the past 300 million years, there has been a near-perfect association between extinction events and the eruption of large igneous provinces, but proving the nature of the causal links is far from resolved. The associated environmental changes often include global warming and the development of widespread oxygen-poor conditions in the oceans. This implicates a role for volcanic CO2 emissions, but other perturbations of the global carbon cycle, such as release of methane from gas hydrate reservoirs or shut-down of photosynthesis in the oceans, are probably required to achieve severe green-house warming. The best links between extinction and eruption are seen in the interval from 300 to 150 Ma. With the exception of the Deccan Trap eruptions (65 Ma), the emplacement of younger volcanic provinces has been generally associated with significant environmental changes but little or no increase in extinction rates above background levels. R. J. Twitchett (2006) The palaeoclimatology, palaeoecology and palaeoenvironmental analysis of mass extinction events Palaeogeog., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol. 232, 190-213 concluding paragraph: "Mass extinction studies have enjoyed a surge in scientific interest of the past 30 years that shows no sign of abating. Recent areas of particular interest include the palaeoecological study of biotic crises, and analyses of patterns of post-extinction recovery. There is good evidence of rapid climate change affecting all of the major extinction events, while the ability of extraterrestrial impact to cause extinction remains debatable. There is growing evidence that food shortage and suppression of primary productivity, lasting several hundred thousand years, may be a proximate cause of many past extinction events. Selective extinction of suspension feeders and the prevalence of dwarfed organisms in the aftermath are palaeoecological consequences of these changes. The association with rapid global warming shows that study of mass extinction events is not just an esoteric intellectual exercise, but may have implications for the present day." Notice that greenhouse environments are associated with the very delayed (millions of years) recovery of biota following thse extinctions; Fraiser ML et al. (2007) Elevated atmospheric CO2 and the delayed biotic recovery from the end-Permian mass extinction Palaeogeog. Palaeoclim. Paleoecol. 252, 164-175 Abstract: Excessive CO2 in the Earth ocean-atmosphere system may have been a significant factor in causing the end-Permian mass extinction. CO2 injected into the atmosphere by the Siberian Traps has been postulated as a major factor leading to the end-Permian mass extinction by facilitating global warming, widespread ocean stratification, and development of anoxic, euxinic and CO2-rich deep waters. A broad incursion of this toxic deep water into the surface ocean may have caused this mass extinction. Although previous studies of the role of excessive CO2 have focused on these "bottom-up" effects emanating from the deep ocean, "top-down" effects of increasing atmosphere CO2 concentrations on ocean-surface waters and biota have not previously been explored. Passive diffusion of atmospheric CO2 into ocean-surface waters decreases the pH and CaCO3 saturation state of seawater, causing a physiological and biocalcification crisis for many marine invertebrates. While both "bottom-up" and "top-down" mechanisms may have contributed to the relatively short-term biotic devastation of the end-Permian mass extinction, such a "top-down" physiological and biocalcification crisis would have had long-term effects and might have contributed to the protracted 5- to 6-million-year-long delay in biotic recovery following this mass extinction. Earth's Modern marine biota may experience similar "top-down" CO2 stresses if anthropogenic input of atmosphere/ocean CO2 continues to rise. The lesser extinction associated with the Paleo-Eocene-Thermal Maximum (PETM) 55 MYA is probably the best characterised (not surprisingly since it's the most recent!) example of massive tectonic processes (the opening up of the N. Atlantic as the plates seperated) associated with enhanced atmospheric greenhouse gases, ocean acidification etc.: M. Storey et al. (2007)Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum and the Opening of the Northeast Atlantic Science 316, 587 - 589 abstract: The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) has been attributed to a sudden release of carbon dioxide and/or methane. 40Ar/39Ar age determinations show that the Danish Ash-17 deposit, which overlies the PETM by about 450,000 years in the Atlantic, and the Skraenterne Formation Tuff, representing the end of 1 ± 0.5 million years of massive volcanism in East Greenland, are coeval. The relative age of Danish Ash-17 thus places the PETM onset after the beginning of massive flood basalt volcanism at 56.1 ± 0.4 million years ago but within error of the estimated continental breakup time of 55.5 ± 0.3 million years ago, marked by the eruption of mid-ocean ridge basalt–like flows. These correlations support the view that the PETM was triggered by greenhouse gas release during magma interaction with basin-filling carbon-rich sedimentary rocks proximal to the embryonic plate boundary between Greenland and Europe. And even the end-Cretaceous extinction (that did for the dinosaurs) seems to have had at least a significant component from massive flood basalt events (that resulted in the Deccan Traps in what is now India). In fact there is increasing evidence that the impact that resulted in the Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan post-dates the onset of the extinction by several 100,000's of years, and the extinction is associated with global warming (including a sudden contribution from the impact into limestone-rich deposits that vapourized massive amounts of carbonate (limestone) back into CO2): Keller G (2005) Impacts, volcanism and mass extinction: random coincidence or cause and effect? Austral. J. Earth Sci 52 725-757. Abstract: Large impacts are credited with the most devastating mass extinctions in Earth's history and the Cretaceous - Tertiary (K/T) boundary impact is the strongest and sole direct support for this view. A review of the five largest Phanerozoic mass extinctions provides no support that impacts with craters up to 180 km in diameter caused significant species extinctions. This includes the 170 km-diameter Chicxulub impact crater regarded as 0.3 million years older than the K/T mass extinction. A second, larger impact event may have been the ultimate cause of this mass extinction, as suggested by a global iridium anomaly at the K/T boundary, but no crater has been found to date. The current crater database suggests that multiple impacts, for example comet showers, were the norm, rather than the exception, during the Late Eocene, K/T transition, latest Triassic and the Devonian-Carboniferous transition, but did not cause significant species extinctions. Whether multiple impacts substantially contributed to greenhouse worming and associated environmental stresses is yet to be demonstrated. From the current database, it must be concluded that no known Phanerozoic impacts, including the Chicxulub impact (but excluding the K/T impact) caused mass extinctions or even significant. species extinctions. The K/T mass extinction may have been caused by the coincidence of a very large impact ( > 250 km) upon a highly stressed biotic environment as a result of volcanism. The consistent association of large magmatic provinces (large igneous provinces and continental flood-basalt provinces) with all but one (end-Ordovician) of the five major Phanerozoic mass extinctions suggests that volcanism played a major role. Faunal and geochemical evidence from the end-Permian, end-Devonian, end-Cretaceous and Triassic/Jurassic transition suggests that the biotic stress was due to a lethal combination of tectonically induced hydrothermal and volcanic processes, leading to eutrophication in the oceans, global warming, sea-level transgression and ocean anoxia. It must be concluded that major magmatic events and their long-term environmental consequences are major contributors, though not the sole causes of mass extinctions. Sudden mass extinctions, such as at the K/T boundary, may require the coincidence of major volcanism and a very large Impact. Beerling DJ et al. (2002) An atmospheric pCO(2) reconstruction across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary from leaf megafossils Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99 (12): 7836-7840 Abstract: The end-Cretaceous mass extinctions, 65 million years ago, profoundly influenced the course of biotic evolution. These extinctions coincided with a major extraterrestrial impact event and massive volcanism in India. Determining the relative importance of each event as a driver of environmental and biotic change across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (KTB) crucially depends on constraining the mass of CO2 injected into the atmospheric carbon reservoir. Using the inverse relationship between atmospheric CO2 and the stomatal index of land plant leaves, we reconstruct Late Cretaceous-Early Tertiary atmospheric CO2 concentration (pCO(2)) levels with special emphasis on providing a pCO(2) estimate directly above the KTB. Our record shows stable Late Cretaceous/ Early Tertiary background pCO(2) levels of 350-500 ppm by volume, but with a marked increase to at least 2,300 ppm by volume within 10,000 years of the KTB. Numerical simulations with a global biogeochemical carbon cycle model indicate that CO2 outgassing during the eruption of the Deccan Trap basalts fails to fully account for the inferred pCO(2) increase. Instead, we calculate that the postboundary pCO(2) rise is most consistent with the instantaneous transfer of approximate to 4,600 Gt C from the lithic to the atmospheric reservoir by a large extraterrestrial bolide impact. A resultant climatic forcing of +12 W(.)m(-2) would have been sufficient to warm the Earth's surface by approximate to7.5degreesC, in the absence of counter forcing by sulfate aerosols. This finding reinforces previous evidence for major climatic warming after the KTB impact and implies that severe and abrupt global warming during the earliest Paleocene was an important factor in biotic extinction at the KTB. Note that there may be some question over the absolute concentrations of atmospheric CO2 calculated using the plant stomatal frequency index. Note also that since these processes all occurred in the deep past, we obviously don't know exactly all the contributions to all the extinctions. However the associations between tectonic/mantle plume breaching/flood basalt eruptions/global warming and extinctions are increasingly supported by the evidence.
  23. Working out climate sensitivity
    Albatross, there might be problems with how Lindzen managed the ERBE data. The ERBE team recommends to analyze data at 36 (or multiples of 36) days intervals due to drifting of the satellite. Lindzen and Choi apperently didn't follow the advice. Dr. Roy Spencer, not an AGW supporter for sure, repeated the analysis and found significantly smaller feedback parameter. So probably it is Lindzen and Choi's estimate "way off the mark".
  24. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
    I believe if you are going to talk about humans creating CO2 we should also look at the large human CO2 sink ... crops. Looking at easy to find crop data for the US and the world; it is easy to calculate that the carbon we put into the atmosphere (based on your 29 gigaton CO2) is (27% Carbon) 7.8 gigatons of Carbon. Just looking at world wheat production, 21.8 gigatons of Carbon is taken out of the atmosphere (based on ~40% carbon in whole plant and the plant weighing ~100 times the seeds harvested). Heck even if the plant weighs 50X more than the seeds harvested that 10 gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere. What if you added in all the other human planted food crops? bet you come up with the fact that we have taken much more CO2 out of the atmosphere than we ever created by 10,000X. No something else is at play with the increase in temperature we are seeing ....
  25. The albedo effect
    Hi John The first paragraph below "albedo trends since 2000" refers to figure 1 but should refer to figure 2. The % shown in Figure 2 and 3 do not appear to match. Anyway, like Steve L. I'm a little confused. Thanks Tony
    Response: Apologies for the Figure 1/2 confusion - I was shuffling things around while drafting this post and failed to update that reference. Now fixed.

    The % shown in Figure 2 and 3 are the same. In Figure 2, Palle uses fractions. In Figure 3, he uses percentages. Eg - 0.01 = 1%.
  26. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, you wrote "In the real world, ALL objects above absolute zero will radiate continuously and Interference will also be continuous." That is incorrect. One of the greatest advances in the history of human knowledge was the 20th century realization that "the energy in electromagnetic waves could only be released in 'packets' of energy." Not continuously. Not hypothetically. In the real world. By all objects. The increase in frequency of radiation from increasing the temperature of an object does not mean there is a single, continuous wave whose frequency increases as the temperature increases. Instead, all objects always emit a gaggle of discrete wave packets (photons), each of those individual photons having a single frequency/wavelength. Some of those photons have a high frequency and some have a low frequency. Increasing the temperature of an object causes it to emit, among its gaggle of photons, a greater percentage of the higher frequency photons and a lower percentage of the lower frequency photons. That's why Wikipedia's entry on Thermal Radiation says "The emitted wave frequency of the black body thermal radiation is described by a probability distribution depending only on temperature." "Probability distribution" describes the membership of the gaggle of photons. If you randomly grab one photon out of the gaggle, it will have a particular, definite frequency. Most likely that frequency will be the frequency that is at the peak of the probability distribution. If you grab multiple photons from the gaggle, some of them will have high frequencies and some will have low frequencies. If you plot the number of photons (on the y axis) having a given frequency or wavelength (on the x axis) you will see a distribution that approaches the shape of that theoretical probability distribution as the size of your sample grows. The Properties section explains "Thermal radiation, even at a single temperature, occurs at a wide range of frequencies. How much of each frequency is given by Planck's law of radiation... The main frequency (or color) of the emitted radiation increases as the temperature increases... The total amount of radiation, of all frequencies, goes up very fast as the temperature rises." So my previous example is correct. There exist in the real universe, objects that are so cold that they emit wave packets so infrequently that occasionally a wave packet from one object travels all the way to the other object without encountering a wave packet coming the other way. That happens both from the warmer object to the colder object, and from the colder object to the hotter object. That violates your (Gord's) model of continuous waves emanating continuously from both objects. That means your model of summing/interfering is false in that case. Which means your interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is false in that case. The second law of thermodynamics is not wrong. Your interpretation of it is. That animation of wave packet emission that I keep linking to, also can be found by Googling "physlet Illustration: emission in the bohr model".
  27. High CO2 in the past, Part 2
    Riccardo, agreed -- that is the general approach taken.
  28. The albedo effect
    Hi John, I get the overall message, but I was tripped up at Fig 2. First, the anomaly axis can't be in %, can it, if a change in 1% = 3.4 W/m2 (the figure shows a change of .01% = 3.4 W/m2)? More semantically, shouldn't the W/m2 axis be reversed, such that higher albedo represents a negative forcing? Finally, in your description of the figure, you mention Pinatubo's large effect in 1991, but I can't see it in either data set shown in your Figure 2. Am I misinterpreting the figure?
    Response: Which way the Y-axis should go is really a po-tay-to/po-tah-to issue. But yes, it might have been less confusing if they put negative numbers on the W/m2 axis. I will update the caption of Figure 2 and 3 to clarify this.

    In Figure 2, the albedo calculated from ISCCP satellite data is not without its own problems. A Real Climate analysis sums it up thus: "The earthshine-trained ISCCP reconstruction of the albedo is a purely statistical parameter that has little physical meaning as it does not account for the non-linear relations between cloud and surface properties and planetary albedo and does not include aerosol related albedo changes such as associated with Mt. Pinatubo, or human emissions of sulfates for instance."

    I mainly displayed Figure 2 because this is the graph that seems to pop up everywhere - it seemed important to show that it is now defunct. Unfortunately, it may have sown more confusion than clarified.
  29. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    I think there is a misinterpretation of interference hanging around. For the principle of superimposition at any point the resulting wave is simply the sum of the single waves. It can also be zero, but this does not mean that the waves somehow "disappeared". Immagine two identical plane waves propogating in opposite directions and 180° out of phase. The resulting amplitude is zero everywhere but the two waves are still there. Indeed, if you put a mirror anywhere between the two sources you can deflect the waves. In our case it means that the IR flux from the atmosphere travels towards and actually reaches the earth surface. The earth still emits according to its temperature, but the net flux is reduced.
  30. Philippe Chantreau at 21:45 PM on 4 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    There is a number of papers that present measurements of downwelling IR radiation. This link shows the composition of sunlight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MODIS_ATM_solar_irradiance.jpg. It looks like it's lacking at the wave lengths of GH gases Nevertheless IR at these wave lengths does reach the surface, as measured in numnerous studies. This book is interesting. The measurements presented by Liou show that the downward IR flux increases with decreasing altitude, indicating an atmospheric source. Dunno if that link will work, the book is: An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation by Kuo-Nan Liou. http://books.google.com/books?id=6xUpdPOPLckC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=measured+downward+IR&source=bl&ots=NnPMfJXhPy&sig=sRrO6GTGgT_ckcTmdAumr-_9zww&hl=en&ei=p0vxSpX4C4uuswO5jOn4AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=measured%20downward%20IR&f=false This paper also shows measurements of both solar flux and total IR downward flux. http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf08/extended_abs/hinkelman_lm.pdf We have already discussed the Evans (2006) paper, also presenting spectroscopic measurements. http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm This is from a quick search, there likely is a lot more out there. So actual measurements of downward IR flux at the wave numbers of greenhouse gases are readily available. To the extent that this is IR radiation, I will consider it satisfies 2) of Gord's post 162 and also contradicts his assertion above that all actual measurements show that the atmosphere does not radiate IR back to the surface. It's been measured for quite some time, there are papers from the 60's treating of it.
  31. CO2 has been higher in the past
    In case anyone is wondering why I launched into a description of my understanding of the relationships between CO2 levels and ice sheet dynamics/sea levels in the Miocene and now, it was in response to a question posed by Mizimi in what was then post #33, asking why if CO2 levels are approaching levels observed 15 million years ago, why aren't sea levels much higher now (as then). However Mizimi's post disappeared shortly after I posted mine!
  32. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Aside from the global "average", which is normally warmer, air or the surface? I would say surface except for maybe snow on a sunny day, and maybe air vs water in the some circumstances. (just musing) Gord If I may ask a question... are you aware of any exceptions outside of the average temps you cite?. In which case I am just wondering if you would allow greenhouse warming in these specific cases...
  33. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    shawnhet - re:your post#178 The closest is #3. "GG absorb and emit infrared energy, but this has no effect on the temperature of the Earth's surface." ------------------------------ There is a distinct difference between Greenhouse Gases and the Greenhouse Effect. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will absorb IR energy and heat up, but they only heat up to an average of -20 deg C and the Earth has an average temp of +15 deg C. The Greenhouse Effect says that the -20 deg C atmosphere will heat the warmer Earth. The infrared energy from the colder atmosphere cannot reach let alone heat a warmer Earth. This is proven by the violation of several Laws of Science and ALL actual measurements.
  34. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Tom Dayton - re:your post #179 The animation/simulation in your link does not work. ----------------- You said... "Radiation is discrete, not continuous, at this low level of analysis." Exactly, therefore it is not applicable. In the real world, ALL objects above absolute zero will radiate continuously and Interference will also be continuous.
  35. High CO2 in the past, Part 2
    Steve L, concerning time resolution, it should be noted that there are ice cores with annual or sub-annual resolution for the last 100 thousands years (GISP2 and NGRIP ice cores in Greenland). The resolution gets worst going back in time but at least from the onset of the ice ages cycles it stays below a few centuries or less, depending on the specific site. But anyway, the real problem with this skeptic argument is physics. What should be the plausible mechnism for a rapid emission of CO2 of the order of a few decades? And also, to not be detected the CO2 must be reabsorbed by the climate system in a few decades as well, while we know, instead, that it stays in the atmosphere much longer. Here we notice a general attitude of the skeptics, immagine a mechanism which can not be ruled out a priori but that is far from being plausible. The trick is that in this way the burden of the proof stays upon "AGW theorists". It's far easier to immagine a weird hypotesis than prove it's unplausible or plain wrong.
  36. Philippe Chantreau at 18:58 PM on 4 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    I'm still considering all the implications of this, and it really does not seem to make sense. It would imply that a radiant barrier is impossible. Yet radiant barriers are used from homes to spacecrafts.
  37. High CO2 in the past, Part 2
    I thought another of the things that a skeptic might target is the lack of temporal resolution in general. I wonder how much CO2 has changed naturally in the past on a short timescale (over a couple of hundred or 1000 years). This is an inelegant excuse for me to expand on John's digression. I find the taxonomy of skeptic arguments interesting for a couple of reasons. First, relating to what I just wrote, there's only one or two entries for anthropogenic CO2 being insignificant relative to other CO2. I would be curious to know more about periods of rapid CO2 change in the past (or maybe more information about how solidly we know CO2 hasn't changed as quickly as it is currently changing). The other thing I find interesting about the taxonomy is that there are three groups, but "Warming isn't bad" is very unpopulated relative to the others. And another category ("It's too late to stop it") doesn't exist at all. I am curious about the implications for both categories of argument of short- vs long-term contextual information from paleo studies. It seems to me that those skeptical of the need to act should be demanding short term temporal resolution in these and other historical reconstructions.
    Response: Be aware that the skeptic arguments sorted by taxonomy is by no means comprehensive. There are probably around 100 skeptic arguments I have yet to add to the list. Time being the issue, I've prioritised them by popularity - next on my to-do list is always the skeptic argument that has been used the most. I also tend to focus on science based arguments - arguments like "people are making money from global warming" or "Al Gore is a hypocrite" add no real value to this website.

    If I get the time, I would like to expand on studies of CO2 in the past as they only serve to confirm the influence CO2 has on climate.
  38. Working out climate sensitivity
    Could someone please explain to me why the Lindzen and Choi paper makes a vague reference to the climate sensitivity of doubling CO2 being 0.5 C? This seems to be inconsistent with the warming (over 0.7 C) that has already been observed with "only" ~390 ppmv of CO2. Does the CO2 sensitivity implicitly include the net impact of all feedbacks arising once the warming is initiated? That is, it is not only a metric of the response arising solely to CO2, but rather of the integrated response of the entire climate system (oceans, atmosphere, cryposhere) to doubling CO2. Thanks in advance. If the latter, then Lindzen and Choi's estimate seems way off the mark. Thanks in advance.
  39. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Actually, my scenario isn't quite right, since there was significant Antarctic ice already by around 33 MYA and I think that the threshold for a fully-ice-free world is considered to be more like 700-750 ppm. Otherwise, the main points apply - it took an awful long time for extensive ice to form and major ice sheet expansion including Greenland ice only occurred later in the Miocene when CO2 levels dropped to Holocene levels. Even though we're approaching (or may have passed in the case of Greenland) thresholds for major ice sheet melt and sea level rise, we have only just done so, and the melt response is (hopefully) slow...
  40. Philippe Chantreau at 06:32 AM on 4 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Well you did not really answer my questions in 149 either. I have no problem waiting for that until I read more through the response to G&T that was sent to IJMPB. I do have other things to do too.
  41. CO2 has been higher in the past
    re #33 It’s likely a matter of time scales and the direction of the evolution of the climate in response to long lived changes in radiative forcing. You can think about it from both cooling (then) and warming (now) directions: (i) The Miocene, moving forward in time: 25 million years ago (MYA), the Earth was warm and there were no major ice sheets. Atmospheric CO2 levels were 600 ppm and higher, a level that was incompatible with the formation of major stable ice sheets. CO2 levels dropped slowly (thought to be the result of enhanced weathering [1] due possibly to movement of India and the Deccan Trapps into the equatorial humid belt with a resulting slow excess in the rate of CO2 removal from the atmosphere over many millions of years, relative to atmospheric influx [2]). (ii) The threshold for ice sheet growth seems to be around 500 ppm during this period, likely simlar to the current threshold. From around 15 MYA to 10 MYA CO2 levels fluctuated below and above this threshold with Antarctic ice forming somewhat and waning [3]. Going from warm, ice-free world to a CO2 level dropping to 500 ppm and a bit below, ice formation and extensive build up would be slow, a situation supported by a negligible ice albedo going in the cooling direction from an ice-free world. Simply due to the fact that ice sheet growth was very slow under these conditions, sea levels remained much higher then than now even as CO2 levels were dropping below the threshold for ice sheet formation. It was really only as a result of the further drop in CO2 levels around 13 MYA and again around 11 MYA, that extensive ice sheet formation occurred and sea levels dropped towards present day levels. (iii) Now consider the situation in reverse. The CO2 levels are rising and the threshold is being crossed in a warming direction. We’ve raised CO2 levels towards the 500 ppm threshold for a ridiculously short period of time (a few decades!) in the geological context, and the ice sheet response is (we hope!) slow. A world with extensive ice sheets takes (we hope) an awful long time to come to a new equilibrium with respect to a new enhanced forcing. The albedo effect from land ice probably results in significant hysteresis in the system, such that it’s more difficult to lose ice in a warming scenario, and more difficult to form ice in a cooling scenario. [1] Wan SM et al. (2009) Extreme weathering/erosion during the Miocene Climatic Optimum: Evidence from sediment record in the South China Sea Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 Art. # L19706 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040279.shtml [2] D. V. Kent and G. Muttoni Equatorial convergence of India and early Cenozoic climate trends PNAS 2008 105:16065-16070 http://www.pnas.org/content/105/42/16065.abstract?sid=4e6a6e83-8034-4eef-b0a2-865623be72e1 [3] W. M. Kürschner et al. (2008) The impact of Miocene atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuations on climate and the evolution of terrestrial ecosystems. PNAS 105, 449-454 http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/449.abstract Those are all likely to be considerations relevant to the relationships between CO2 levels, temperatures, and climate, ice sheet and sea level responses over very long periods.
  42. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Quote from the Palle 2008 report: Earthshine and FD analyses show contemporaneous and climatologically significant increases in the Earth's reflectance from the out-set of our earthshine measurements beginning in late 1998 roughly until mid-2000. After that and to-date, all three show a roughly constant terrestrial albedo, except for the FD data in the most recent years. Also look up: http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/ Dr.Spencer had a guest post about CERES satellites showing the same looks like earth's albedo is still growing - it is consistent with my theory that CO2 must also cause cooling as it behaves similar to water vapor. I leave it to the clever scientists to actually devise the testing method to determine the nett effect of the cooling and warming of CO2.
    Response:

    Your own quote says refers to "roughly constant terrestrial albedo" in recent years. Here is a full review of satellite and earthshine determinations of recent albedo trends.

  43. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, that link to the photon animation works fine for me, but I've also made the link clickable here. Open two browser windows side by side. In each window display that animation. Imagine that each is a different atom. Notice that there need not be synchronization between the two atoms' emissions. Even when the two atoms happen to emit simultaneously, usually they will emit in directions other than toward each other. If the two atoms emit infrequently enough, there will be times when a wave packet (photon) from atom A travels all the way to atom B without encountering a photon coming from B to A. Likewise, sometimes a wave packet will travel from B to A unopposed. In those cases, there is no summation/interference of two waves heading toward each other, because there is only one wave during that time frame. The temperatures of A and B are irrelevant to those individual events. Atom A can be hotter than atom B, without preventing the occasional passage of a wave packet (photon) from B to A. Radiation is discrete, not continuous, at this low level of analysis. It doesn't matter how often these situations of unopposed wave packet transition from cooler to warmer happens. The existence of even one such situation invalidates your interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics.
  44. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, let me understand you clearly: Greenhouse gases(GG) are hypothesized to be transparent to visible light and capable of absorbing and emitting in the infrared. Given that proposition, it seems to me that there are three ways to disagree with the GH effect. #1. The gases supposed to be GG cannot do what they are claimed to. #2. There is no infrared energy available for the GG to absorb. #3. GG absorb and emit infrared energy, but this has no effect on the temperature of the Earth's surface. Which of these three objections do you subscribe to(or is there another possibility I have missed)? Cheers, :)
  45. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Last time I checked... "Any luck coming up with these items?" is a QUESTION. ------------------- Funny how I have to keep on repeating things (over and over). Is there too much CO2 in the air? Swine flu? There must be some explaination.
  46. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, that's ok for me, you don't want to answer and, as you say, you couldn't do it without copy and paste. You might call it talking science, I don't. P.S. "PS: Don't ask me any more questions until you answer mine." Quite intimidating, isn't it? :D And by the way, i could not see any question, at least not in the last posts. Maybe they got lost in the meanders of the copy and paste.
  47. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Philippe Chantreau - It would REALLY be interesting if you would do the calculations for YOUR OWN example. I already did it in my post#166. Let's see YOU do the same calculation for YOUR OWN example, to temperature equiibrium...with heat flowing from cold to hot! I can hardly wait to see that!
  48. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Nobody knows what the trend is of earth's albedo after 2005?
    Response: The latest trend of earth's albedo is no trend. Satellite measurements (eg - CERES, MODIS measurements of cloud fraction, ISCCP) all show little to no trend (Loeb 2007).

    Incidentally, Palle has updated his data - it turns out that earlier graph with spiking albedo in 2003 was an artifact, a product of poor data. Palle's updated Earthshine data also shows no trend since 2003 (Palle 2008).
  49. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Ricardo - I will feel free to ignore you. Saves a lot of time, especially the constant repetion of my posts and "basic physics". PS: Don't ask me any more questions until you answer mine.
  50. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, "I am tired of constantly re-posting Physics links and repeating what I have already posted. " I'm tired too to not having an answer and to read always the very same trivial Physics 101. And indeed you didn't answer but just repost the same general well-know basic physics without any attemp to explain and use those physics. Don't repost anything, it's worthless if you can't apply it. So again the very same question (you know, it's much easier to copy and paste than elaborate) if you mind to answer: can you describe what this equation tells us? And how it applies to the earth-atmosphere system? In case you do not want to answer, feel free ignore me; but please do not copy and paste any more basic physics.

Prev  2530  2531  2532  2533  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  2544  2545  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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