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  2533  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  2544  2545  2546  2547  2548  Next

Comments 127001 to 127050:

  1. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    http://www.livescience.com/environment/060124_earth_albedo.html It seems that measurements have shown beyond doubt that earth's albedo has been increasing since 2000.
  2. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Tom Dayton - re:Your Post #100 Yes, of course you will see your reflection. What's your point?
  3. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Ah, your answer helped me understand your perspective, Gord. How about this situation? No flashlight, no lab. Just walk into your bathroom, turn on the lamp, stand in front of the mirror, adjusting your position until you see yourself in the mirror. Please do that right now so we aren't talking about a hypothetical situation, but a completely real, concrete one that you personally experienced. I believe that the reason you saw yourself is that light from the bathroom lamp reflected off your face to the mirror, then reflected off the mirror back to your face. Do you agree with my belief? I'm not asking you how much light was reflected, or how much interference there was, or the angle of reflection. I'm asking merely for your interpretation of the factual experience you just had: Did light from the lamp reflect off your face onto the mirror and back onto your face? Yes or no?
  4. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    WeatherRusty - re:your Post#96 You said... "By the application of your "physics" the Sun would instantly implode and Earth's liquid core would have long ago solidified." Where did you dream that up that little "gem of wisdom" and what "Physics" are you talking about? ------------------ You said... "Your understanding of the greenhouse effect and radiative transfer is totally wrong. You do seem to understand the Laws of Thermodynamic but your failure to comprehend how radiation interacts with matter leads you to believe those laws are violated." Again, you just are "babbling" your "opinion" with no specifics or back-up. I have already shown in my Post #87 that you have an astonishing ability to create posts that are rife with errors and numerous violations of Laws of Science. ----------------- Any luck coming up with these items? 1. Please supply ANY Law of Science that supports the "Greenhouse Effect" and AGW. 2. Please supply ANY Measurement that shows that CO2 in a Colder Atmosphere can Heat up a Warmer Earth. 3. Please describe (and back-up by Physics) how a -20 deg C atmosphere can heat a -18 deg C Earth up by 33 deg C to a whopping +15 deg C. There has been over $200 Billion spent on AGW, there are thousands of papers on AGW, the IPCC has written several reports on it and countless "Scientists" say AGW is real. So, this should a "snap" for you to produce....right? Good Luck!
  5. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Tom Dayton - re:your Post #94 Your questions can't be answered directly. Reflection and/or emission of Electromagnetic Fields and resultant Vector summation or subtraction depends entirely on the reflecting/emitting surfaces and the point chosen for analysis. Review these links: 1. Vector addition of fields... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/mulpoi.html#c3 2. Cancellation of Light http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/bubbles/bubble_colors.html http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/15F.html http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/lightandcolor/interference.html -------------------------------- The cancellation of light links show how constructive or destructive interference of EM fields work in the time domain. Vector summation of EM fields is usually used for actual calculations.
  6. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Shawnhet - re:your Post #95 The facts are that the Oceans are warmer at the equator than other latitudes and the reason is the direct heating of Solar Energy at the equator. As the latitude increases there is progressively less heating of the Oceans by Solar Energy. Heat conduction, convection and Ocean currents due to the Earth's rotation (Coriolis acceleration) ensure heat transfer to colder Ocean waters. ---------- See SOLAR RADIATION ENTERING THE EARTH SYSTEM and Insolation: Solar Radiation Striking the Surface I = S cos Z I= Insolation S~ 1000 W/m2 (Clear day solar insolation on a surface perpendicular to incoming solar radiation. This value actually varies greatly due to atmospheric variables.) Z = Zenith Angle (Zenith Angle is the angle from the zenith (point directly overhead) to the Sun's position in the sky. The zenith angle is dependent upon latitude, solar declination angle, and time of day.) http://edmall.gsfc.nasa.gov/inv99Project.Site/Pages/science-briefs/ed-stickler/ed-irradiance.html ---------- PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY See the Sea Surface Temperature (Mean)(2nd row first graph) for the Ocean temperature at the equator. The mean Sea Surface Temperature IS 29 deg C at the Equator. (If you take the area under the curve with AutoCad the average temp occurs at a 40 deg latitude and the temperature is 18.7 deg C.) http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/geology/hh1996/ocean.html
  7. Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
    IPCC AR4 states: "Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance." and "General Circulation Models indicate that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will receive increased snowfall without experiencing substantial surface melting, thus gaining mass and contributing negatively to sea level. Further accelerations in ice flow of the kind recently observed in some Greenland outlet glaciers and West Antarctic ice streams could substantially increase the contribution from the ice sheets." I wonder if their conservative conclusion will change by AR5, given several recent studies on sea level rise projections and recent observations of Antarctic ice sheet loss.
  8. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, By the application of your "physics" the Sun would instantly implode and Earth's liquid core would have long ago solidified. Your understanding of the greenhouse effect and radiative transfer is totally wrong. You do seem to understand the Laws of Thermodynamic but your failure to comprehend how radiation interacts with matter leads you to believe those laws are violated.
  9. It's the sun
    Solar activity didn't cause global warming, it caused several really hot years. Volcanic activity in the oceans have caused most of the ice melt on the ice caps. Or I should say where the warm waters from volcanic activity has effected the ice. Ice on land has increased, this you would expect with the heating up of the oceans. Moisture is being pumped into the air, and this warm moist air is turning into snow. Now that the solar activitty has settled down you can expect to see a hell of a lot more snow. This is going to do nothing to build up the Ice caps, because the waters in the oceans are still being heated up by volcanic activity. Nor do I expect to see a reduction in volcanic activity in the oceans. I find it strange that with ever increasing volcanic activity in the news, tsunamis, and earthquakes that this has been overlooked and ignored. The carbon sink suddenly becomes saturated and still it is attributed to man made hydrocarbons. Yet it was not a gradual build up that was expected but sudden saturation, again underwater volcanic activity was totally ignored but is the most logical reason for the sudden saturation of the carbon sink. But never fear, the "we are all going to die!" bunch can take solace in the fact that we are in for a lot of really cold weather and even greater storms generated by extreme temperature differentials. This is not something you would expect to happen with total global warming, if anything storms should be milder. Before anyone argues with me, you should probably check out the rise in tectonic activity around the world. How this tectonic activity has changed the ocean floor not to mention ocean currents. Don't argue, look first.
  10. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, yes it rotates, but it never **at any point** has more than an area of pi*r2 facing the sun at any time. There is never an area of 4pi*r2 that is illuminated by the sun. You were subbing a non-existent/imaginary area into an equation to allow you to calculate the actual energy received by a real *section* of the Earth all the while labelling your expression wrongly. I think most folks would find that confusing. Anyways, if your point is that if the equator existed in isolation and *did not* rotate it could heat its surface to 87C from solar radiation alone, I agree with you. However, neither of those qualifiers apply. Cheers, :)
  11. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, To help me understand what you're thinking, let's switch the topic from absorption-and-re-emission to good old-fashioned reflection. In my lab I shine an infrared flashlight at a mirror, and measure more infrared coming from the mirror when that flashlight is turned on than when it is turned off. I conclude that the mirror reflects infrared from my flashlight. Do you agree with my conclusion? I take that mirror outside at night and suspend it above the ground, with its reflecting surface facing the ground. I measure more infrared coming from the mirror than from the empty sky next to the mirror. I conclude that the mirror reflects infrared from the ground. Do you agree with my conclusion?
  12. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Shawnhet - re:your post #92 There was no "peeling" of the Earth's surface and laying it out to face the Sun !! The Earth....ROTATES! and there is ALWAYS a MUCH greater warming at the Equator as it ROTATES!! The "point" was stated in my Post#50 to Chris: "Result: TE = 360.49 K or 87.34 deg C!! That's the energy that the Ocean can store at the equator and distribute over the Earth by conduction."
  13. Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
    re #6, Riccardo has beaten me to it, but " a couple of years" is an awful short time to consider changes in sea levels, especially in light of the high interannual variability in sea level measurements, some of which is real (effects of El Nino’s, La Nina’s and the descent of the solar cycle from its max in 2003 to min in 2009 during this period) and some of which is measurement error (comparison of satellite altimetry and tide gauge measures indicates this is around 0.5 mm per year). A couple of recent papers have addressed the “sea level budget” over this very short period and concluded that the budget can be “closed” from the evidence that the mass (polar ice cap melt and mountain glacier retreat largely) has made a larger contribution to sea level rise, compared to the steric (warming) contribution, in this very short period (around 2002/3-2007/8) compared to the previous decade [*,**]. So that’s consistent with an increase in the rate of polar ice melt, and a small decrease in steric contribution perhaps due to the drop of the solar output in the period 2003-2009 as the sun has dropped to the bottom of the solar cycle. [*] Leuliette EW and Miller L (2009) Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L04608 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036010.shtml [**] Cazenave A et al. (2009) Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo Global Planet. Change 65, 83-88 astract: From the IPCC 4th Assessment Report published in 2007, ocean thermal expansion contributed by 50% to the 3.1 mm/yr observed global mean sea level rise during the 1993–2003 decade, the remaining rate of rise being essentially explained by shrinking of land ice. Recently published results suggest that since about 2003, ocean thermal expansion change, based on the newly deployed Argo system, is showing a plateau while sea level is still rising, although at a reduced rate ( 2.5 mm/yr). Using space gravimetry observations from GRACE, we show that recent years sea level rise can be mostly explained by an increase of the mass of the oceans. Estimating GRACE-based ice sheet mass balance and using published estimates for glaciers melting, we further show that ocean mass increase since 2003 results by about half from an enhanced contribution of the polar ice sheets – compared to the previous decade – and half from mountain glaciers melting. Taking also into account the small GRACE-based contribution from continental waters (< 0.2 mm/yr), we find a total ocean mass contribution of 2 mm/yr over 2003–2008. Such a value represents 80% of the altimetry-based rate of sea level rise over that period. We next estimate the steric sea level (i.e., ocean thermal expansion plus salinity effects) contribution from: (1) the difference between altimetry-based sea level and ocean mass change and (2) Argo data. Inferred steric sea level rate from (1) ( 0.3 mm/yr over 2003–2008) agrees well with the Argo-based value also estimated here (0.37 mm/yr over 2004–2008). Furthermore, the sea level budget approach presented in this study allows us to constrain independent estimates of the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) correction applied to GRACE-based ocean and ice sheet mass changes, as well as of glaciers melting. Values for the GIA correction and glacier contribution needed to close the sea level budget and explain GRACE-based mass estimates over the recent years agree well with totally independent determinations.
  14. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, your expression was wrongly labelled and has been from the beginning(Te should be blackbody temp of the equator, perhaps, cetainly not of the Earth). It is true that the equator during the day absorbs the same amount of energy as if we had peeled the entire surface area of the Earth's sphere and laid it out facing the sun. However, this is a very confusing way of formulating it IMO and combined with the poor labelling makes you very difficult to understand. I still don't see what the point of calculating this is though. Clearly, the equator doesn't exist in isolation. Cheers, :)
  15. CO2 has been higher in the past
    At the risk of diluting this thread further, here is an interesting educational website (for kids) on CO2 and the ocean. http://virtualurchin.stanford.edu/AcidOcean.htm I wish there was a portion of it devoted to how the ancient pH was estimated.
  16. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Shawnhet - re:your post #90 It has EVERYTHING to do with the Earth as a Sphere! That's why Area of Sphere = 4*Pi*R^2 was substituted for Area of Disk = Pi*R^2 !!! And, that's why it applies to the Equator, the only point on the the Earth that is "perpendicular" to Solar Flux !!! Exactly like said in my post#54 to you! "To get the equation for the Earth as a sphere one just has to substitute the area of a sphere A = 4 X Pi X Radius^2 in place of A = Pi X Radius^2. And, you get this equation: TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/D) ) )^0.5) This will give the temp for Max Solar energy at the Earth's equator...not an average Earth temp."
  17. Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
    Riccardo, what causes interannual variability in sea level? It has to vary for some reason, generally either the water is holding more/less heat or more ice has melted It doesn't just decide randomly to increase its level. Unless it is caused by something other than ice melt and steric heat level increase my point still stands. Do you have something else in mind? Cheers, :)
  18. CO2 has been higher in the past
    RSVP, maybe i misunderstood you comment #6. You wrote "Is this based on science or scientology?". My impression was that calling scientology the knowledge we have on solar physics (right or wrong it might be) is a profound discredit of science.
  19. Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
    One general comment on the length of a time serie. There is no pre-defined minimum lenght to asses a trend. It depends essentially of the interannual variability so that for a low varibility phenomenon a few years could be enough. A nice example are the first CO2 measurements at Mauna low; after just few years Keeling was able to determine a consistent trend. But keep in mind that this do not allow any meaningful extrapolation on either side of the serie. @shawmet you should put some numbers before coming to a conclusion. If you add 286 Gt (the number for Greenland) of water to the world oceans you will get an increase in sea level of about 0.8 mm. Now look at the figures in this post and you will notice (just eyeballing) an interannual variability of almost 10 mm. Here again comes the relation between length of a time serie and interannual variability. In the case of sea level plus or minus 0.8 mm for a few uears does not change much. But if repeated over decades you will detect the difference.
  20. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, I don't have an issue with your temperature calculation for the equator during the day, but you have labelled it wrongly again. This is not the Black Body temperature of the *Earth*, but only of a portion of it (during the day). It has nothing to do with the Earth receiving energy as a sphere, it has to do with the fact that the equator is the part of the Earth that is directly facing the sun. Other parts of the globe have the sun's light hit them at an angle(as I think you have already agreed). IAC, I still don't understand what relevance you think this value has for the Earth as a whole, as I've been saying since at least post #62. Cheers, :)
  21. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Shawnhet - re: your Post#85 Summary: 1. This equation gives the AVERAGE Earth temperature (Day and Night) for Solar Energy received by the Earth as "disk". TE = TS (((1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D))^0.5 Where TE is blackbody temp of the Earth in K TS is the surface temp of the SUN in K = 5778 Rs is radius of the Sun = 6.96X10^8 D is distance between the Sun and Earth in m = 1.496X10^11 a is albedo of the Earth = 0.3 Gives TE = 254.90 K or -18.25 deg C 2. This equation gives the Earth temperature for Solar Energy received by the Earth as a "sphere". It will give the Earth temperature at the equator. Te = Ts (((1-a)^0.5 *Rs)/D)^0.5) Where TE is blackbody temp of the Earth in K TS is the surface temp of the SUN in K = 5778 Rs is radius of the Sun = 6.96X10^8 D is distance between the Sun and Earth in m = 1.496X10^11 a is albedo of the Earth = 0.3 Result: TE = 360.49 K or 87.34 deg C. 3. This equation gives the Earth temperature for Solar Energy received by the Earth as a "sphere". It uses the full amount of the Solar Constant (1368 w/m^2) being received at the Earth's equator. SC * (1-a) = BC * TE^4 TE = (SC * (1-a)/BC)^0.25 where SC = Solar Constant (1368 w/m^2) a = albedo of the Earth (0.3) BC = Boltzmann Constant (5.67 X 10^-8) TE = Black Body Earth temp in K Gives: TE = 360.50 deg K TE = 87.35 deg C --------------------------------- Now, Please show your calculations for the Earth temperature at the Equator. -----------------------------------
  22. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    WeatherRusty - Re:your Post#81 First, the atmosphere Radiates ALL the heat energy it absorbs and it DOES NOT AFFECT THE EARTH'S SURFACE AT ALL! There is absolutely no back radiation from the colder atmosphere reaching the Earth's surface at all...let alone heating the Earth. The Earth's radiation heats the Greenhouse Gases (because of the emissivity) to -20 deg C....that's all! The "Greenhouse Effect" that relies on a colder atmosphere heating a warmer Earth DOES NOT EXIST. The fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" is PROVEN to not Exist because: 1. It would VIOLATE the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. 2. It would VIOLATE the Law of Conservation of Energy. 3. ALL actual measurements PROVE that it does not exist. -------- If YOU still think it exists then provide these very basic answers: 1. Please supply ANY Law of Science that supports the "Greenhouse Effect" and AGW. 2. Please supply ANY Measurement that shows that CO2 in a Colder Atmosphere can Heat up a Warmer Earth. 3. Please describe (and back-up by Physics) how a -20 deg C atmosphere can heat a -18 deg C Earth up by 33 deg C to a whopping +15 deg C. There has been over $200 Billion spent on AGW, there are thousands of papers on AGW, the IPCC has written several reports on it and countless "Scientists" say AGW is real. So, this should a "snap" for you to produce....right? Good Luck!
  23. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    WeatherRusty - Re:your Post#82 Heat transfer by Radiation has been identified as the "vehicle" for AGW and the "Greenhouse Effect". This is apparent in ALL the AGW literature. I already provided several AGW links to the "Greenhouse Effect". Trenberth's Energy Budget Diagram shows Back Radiation from a much colder atmosphere heating a warmer Earth. The IPCC uses Trenberth's Energy Budget Diagram throughout it's reports and uses an atmospheric temperature of -19 deg C in it's reports: "The energy that is not reflected back to space is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. This amount is approximately 240 Watts per square metre (W m–2). To balance the incoming energy, the Earth itself must radiate, on average, the same amount of energy back to space. The Earth does this by emitting outgoing longwave radiation. Everything on Earth emits longwave radiation continuously. That is the heat energy one feels radiating out from a fire; the warmer an object, the more heat energy it radiates. To emit 240 W m–2, a surface would have to have a temperature of around –19°C. This is much colder than the conditions that actually exist at the Earth’s surface (the global mean surface temperature is about 14°C). Instead, the necessary –19°C is found at an altitude about 5 km above the surface." http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf You should read the AGW literature before making comments. - ALL the AGW'er literature IGNORE the FACT that the SUN is the ONLY Energy Source. - They ALL use a COLDER atmosphere to HEAT a Warmer Earth. - They ALL use "Creation of Energy" by the Earth and Atmosphere. ----------------- You said.... "Warmer objects receive radiative energy from cooler objects, the radiation does not raise the warmer objects temperature, but the energy doesn't just disappear. It is absorbed by the warmer object so that it cools more slowly than if it were not exchanging energy with other near by matter." What Laws of Science supports this "Fantasy" statement? I can tell tell you the Laws of Science that your "Fantasy" statement VIOLATES! You said ... "Warmer objects receive radiative energy from cooler objects.." That VIOLATES the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: You said.... "....the radiation does not raise the warmer objects temperature, but the energy doesn't just disappear. It is absorbed by the warmer object..." And, that VIOLATES Two Laws of Science ! All objects that Absorb energy HAS to increase in temperature!...a VIOLATION of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. If the object aborbed energy and DID NOT increase in temperature then the energy would HAVE to disappear!....a VIOLATION of The Law of Conservation of Energy. ---------------------- Your post is rife with errors and violations of numerous Laws of Science.
  24. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    WeatherRusty - Re:your Post#79 The Earth's average temperature is +15 deg C. The SUN is the ONLY energy source, the Atmosphere and the Earth ARE NOT ENERGY SOURCES. Proof: If the Sun were removed, the Earth and atmosphere would rapidly cool to near absolute zero. The Atmosphere and the Earth cannot Create Energy. Conclusion: The Earth's temperature of +15 is CAUSED by the ONLY ENERGY SOURCE....THE SUN! ----------------- To suggest that the Sun is NOT the cause of the Earth's temperature is the same as saying that your MP3 player is not powered by it's battery. It's powered by CO2 that somehow generates electricity. That's an equivalent Fantasy to the "Greenhouse Effect" Fantasy.
  25. Philippe Chantreau at 03:25 AM on 30 October 2009
    CO2 has been higher in the past
    Playing the Eugenics card is a tried and true tactic of the creationist rethoric. Your argument had nothing to do with the ideas considered for our subject. It is a textbook example of an ad hom. You say, in essence, this: "Arrhenius did Eugenics, so his work on radiative properties of CO2 is questionable." That's a load of dung. The body of empirical results confirming the original ideas is too large to be covered here, although John has given us excellent references, which you seem to be intent on ignoring. What's that new argument about "one man"? The Standard Model took Planck, Einstein, Dirac, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Bohr, Von Neuman, Feynman and a number of other, less known contributors, such as Aspect. And they all had teams working with them. All this in a number of labs and particle accelerators in many different countries. Some, like CERN, are international entities. We're as far as can be from the "one man" thing. That makes the Standard Model invalid? Total nonsense. The IPCC was created to address a problem that is of concern to this entire planet's human community. It intends to do (and regularly updates) the most comprehensive review and integration of the existing, relevant science. You think one man would have been enough? I don't even know why I bother responding to this. Enjoy your fantasy world.
  26. Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
    Personally, I would be wary of accepting the idea that ice loss is accelerating. Sea level rise is pretty much flat for the last couple of years, which strongly implies if ice mass is accelerating its decrease, then rate of change of steric increase in sea level must be dropping. You can't have it both ways. Cheers, :)
    Response: When inverse barometer effect is filtered out (as it adds a lot of noise to the sea level signal), we find sea level rise is unabated in recent years:



    Sea level rise is subject to internal variability due to ocean processes like El Nino/La Nina. In La Nina conditions, sea level falls. Considering that we've been experiencing the strongest La Nina conditions in over 20 years and yet the rate of sea level rise has not fallen, the only explanation is that the contribution from ice sheets has increased. This is confirmed by the latest GRACE satellite data.
  27. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, the hypothetical temperature of the equator in isolation is not the same as the temperature of the Earth as a whole. Thus, your TE is not "TE = Black Body Earth temp in K" as you have stated. I don't have an issue with dividing the SC by 4 to get the average energy received by a square meter on the Earth's surface. What you seem not to understand is that the textbook derivation of Earth's blackbody temperature *already* takes into account the fact that that a square meter near the equator absorbs ~ 4 times this average value. No matter how you slice it, the Earth does not receive energy as a sphere as you claim here "Here is my equation with the Earth as Sphere for receiving the Solar Energy Te = Ts (((1-a)^0.5 *Rs)/D)^0.5)". However, some sections of the Earth do receive nearly the full value of the solar constant while the sun is shining(for instance, a black parking lot on a clear day in Saudi Arabia, perhaps). Cheers, :)
  28. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Riccardo - Re:your Post #78 You said... "You simply did elementary calculations of the electromagnetic fluxes of an immaginary static system at fixed temperature and with no absorpion. It should be clear that it does not apply in our case." I DID USE THE ABSORBTION OF THE ATMOSPHERE !!! Again, ALL heat energy ABSORBED is RADIATED!!! The Earth Radiates 390 w/m^2 and the Atmosphere ABSORBS and RADIATES 324 w/m^2 in all directions. These numbers came directly from Trenberth's Energy Budget Diagram!!!! http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html Now, if you have a problem with the ABSORBTION numbers, I suggest you complain to Trenberth....NOT ME!
  29. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    shawnhet - re:your post#80 One last time... Look at my Post #64 regarding the Solar Contant. "The Solar Constant for a Sun temp of 5778 K is 1368 w/m^2. To get the Earth as a Disk average you simply divide the 1368 w/m^2 by 4 to get 342 w/m^2 which is used by Trenberth's Energy Budget Diagram as the average Solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. The 342 w/m^2 is the average Day and Night Solar insolation. The reason you divide by 4 is Area of Sphere = 4*Pi*R^2 and Area of Disk = Pi*R^2 has a ratio of 4 to 1. Without the Disk Averaging all the Solar Constant 1368 w/m^2 would be received at the Earth's equator and less at other latitudes because of the angle of the higher latitudes. Zero w/m^2 will be received at the Poles. The two equations describe the two situations." If you use the full 1368 w/m^2 (which is what would be received at the equator) you can calculate the temp of the Earth TE: SC * (1-a) = BC * TE^4 TE = (SC * (1-a)/BC)^0.25 where SC = Solar Constant (1368 w/m^2) a = albedo of the Earth (0.3) BC = Boltzmann Constant (5.67 X 10^-8) TE = Black Body Earth temp in K Gives: TE = 360.50 deg K TE = 87.35 deg C Here is my equation with the Earth as Sphere for receiving the Solar Energy Te = Ts (((1-a)^0.5 *Rs)/D)^0.5) Where TE is blackbody temp of the Earth in K TS is the surface temp of the SUN in K = 5778 Rs is radius of the Sun = 6.96X10^8 D is distance between the Sun and Earth in m = 1.496X10^11 a is albedo of the Earth = 0.3 Result: TE = 360.49 K or 87.34 deg C!! --------------------------------------- The results are the SAME!
  30. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Riccardo, You directed the following comment to me... "it looks like you think that scientist are stupid or that you don't trust science at all." I do not think anyone is stupid, especially scientists. The problem here has nothing to do with "science" if you understand science as a process that is not involved in the production or defense of dogma. There ways of saying things that reflect the limits of our understanding, and ultimately, all science is based on empirical data obtained with instrumentation that is limited in one form or another.
  31. Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
    re #2 RSVP, inspection of the Figure on page 10 of the paper you linked to shows that with recent warming, the temperatures are now above zero for 6 months of the year (JJA and SON) and the three month period MAM is getting close to zero. That's obviously linked to the acceleration of Greenland mass loss, especilly during the last 20 years, as indicated by now a rather large amount of evidence (see top post and my post #3). It's worth pointing out that the authors of the paper you linked to have very recently published a long term temperature analysis of the Arctic [*] (in other words it doesn't just focus on the set of West/SW coast coastal stations in the paper you linked to). This indicates that a very long term, and very slow cooling trend resulting from the extremely slow variation in earth orbital parameters, has undergone a marked reversal in the 20th century. So over the last 2000 years, an achingly slow cooling of around 0.2 oC per 1000 years, has been reversed such that we've already had about 1.4 oC of warming in the region in around 100 years. [*] D. S. Kaufman et al. (2009) Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling Science 325, 1236 - 1239 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5945/1236
  32. Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
    For longer time series of antarctic ice cover, there are other sources, although there are periods of missing data in between. Rayner et al. http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf It is true the GRACE project is recent, and the period it covers is still short in climatic terms. But it contrasts with the data that shows Antarctica gaining ice AREA. It has has been loosing ice in the short and long term.
    Response: Also keep in mind that Antarctic sea ice and Antarctic land ice are two separate phenomenon, each with unique characteristics and influences. Antarctic land ice is showing a long term trend of accelerating ice mass loss. Antarctic sea ice has shown a long term trend of increasing sea ice extent. This is despite the fact that the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica is warming. More here...
  33. Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
    re #1 the notion that one can "pick stuff to support any position", doesn't apply if one makes an effort to assess the science more broadly HumanityRules. In reality there isn't much question about the accelerating mass loss in Greenland, and there is a consistent picture of nett mass loss in Antarctica from a number of different measurements. You've chosen a single paper by Box et al. from quite a few years ago to make a point about Greenland. I find it useful for oldish papers to determine what the authors themselves have published in the intervening years, let alone the more general recent work on the topic at hand. So in fact even just focussing on recent work by Box indicates that your criticisms don't have much merit. Obviously since GRACE satellites have only been active since 2002, one can hardly expect a longer time series from GRACE! However why not look more widely into the science? Box has recently described an analysis of Greenland mass balance from 1958 - 2007 [*] which indicates a marked acceleration of negative mass balance especially since the late 1980's. Likwise Box has updated the Greenland temperature series that you linked to an earlier version of, and has pointed out that volcanic eruptions and manmade industrial aerosols have resulted in suppression of warming during periods of the 20th century, but that the recent warmng has pushed Greenland temperatures over the threshold of viability, and that Greenland warming is lagging behind the expected warming rate based on N. hemisphere trends. If Greenland warming were to get back in the expected phase with N. hemisphere warming it still has around 1-1.6 oC of warming to "catch up". None of this is surprising in the light of a very consistent set of data from GRACE, and surface and station temperature records, ocean glacier retreat, mass balance measurements from altimetry, Greenland surface melt, etc. etc. Obviously if one selects a single oldish paper from the scientific literature one might be able to support a particular point in the manner you suggest. However it is the weight of disparate evidence that lends confidence in the conclusions about the climate response with respect to specific phenomena - that's partly why the IPCC reports are so useful since they collate and assess everything. However the intermittent nature of these means that one does need to be aware of the very recent studies since these are rapidly progressing fields.... [*] E. Rignot, J. E. Box, E. Burgess and E. Hanna (2008)Mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet from 1958 to 2007 Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L20502 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035417.shtml [**] J. E. Box et al (2009) Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007 J. Climate 22, 4029-4049 http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI2816.1
  34. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, From post #58: Both examples violate the 2nd Law because there is heat energy flowing from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth. The above Greenhouse Effect links describe a Perpetual Motion Machine, actually a Perpetual Motion Machine in a Positive Feedback Loop. ----------- Greenhouse gases are very effectively absorbing IR, as is often stated by skeptic, IR absorption is "saturated" within the first 10 meters of Earth's surface. That first 10 meters of atmosphere is usually very nearly the same temperature as the underlying surface because it is directly exchanging energy with the surface by conduction, convection and radiation. Because of the saturation within the first 10 meters, the surface is directly exchanging energy radiatively only with that layer. The first 10 meters exchanges directly with the next higher layer and so on...until the radiation is finally released at 255K. Warmer objects receive radiative energy from cooler objects, the radiation does not raise the warmer objects temperature, but the energy doesn't just disappear. It is absorbed by the warmer object so that it cools more slowly than if it were not exchanging energy with other near by matter.
  35. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, You stated: ALL the 390 w/m^2 radiated by the Earth is radiated to cold space. If you removed the atmosphere, the Earth would still radiate 390 w/m^2 to cold space ! -------- Whatever the actual numbers are, the fact remains that all energy received from the Sun will eventually be emitted back to space as you state. The issue is from where most of this energy is radiated as seen from space. Most does not radiate directly from the surface, but rather from high in the troposphere because the lower atmosphere is made opaque to infrared radiation by the presence of greenhouse gases absorbing to extinction. The 255K effective temperature of the Earth is thus apparent from a globally averaged 16,000' above Earth's surface (layer of emissivity) due to the greenhouse effect rather than at the surface which averages 288k.
  36. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    I note that no one wanted to answer me on where the 1.7 came from. Instead you want to lead me into a labyrinth where I will never get out. I am just an ordinary factory chemist. But if I get lost, what about officials who have to make decisions on this science? Anyway, I think the info I am looking for does not exist because it seems I am the only person to think that cooling by CO2 is possible during daylight..... A few scientists demonstrated that cooling by CO2 does happen higher up in the atmosphere. I think it does not only happen higher up, it happens everywhere in the atmosphere. (CO2 is diffused in the air) Let us do a simple experiment. If it is a sunny day here in Africa, the heat from the sun is scorching. It will take no more than 10 minutes before you will start looking for a shade or cover. Now if the humidity rises during the day from let us say 20-30% to 70-80% and it remains sunny, then you can feel that the heat from the sun became less, as the humidity increases.. You can feel that the infra red radiation (which are the warm rays) is being blocked! The light is still coming through! It is more dangerous now in the sun because you do not feel the heat but you can still get burned. Now what happened? (Now remember that words water vapor and carbon dioxide are interchangeable) Now, I have been around a bit, so I can tell you that so far there are at least three theories: 1) The IR rays from the sun hit on the water vapor, it absorbed photons. It became agitated (at that wavelength) not letting light through anymore,so it becomes opague so that any further radiation at those wavelengths where absorption occurs are blocked. But light doing what light does best: it has to keep moving. So it is bend away. The position of the molecule is random, so one can assume that 50% (at those wavelengths where absorption occurs is bend away from earth, back to out of space. There is cooling! 2) What happened is the same is what happens when you sit in a room with a furnace in a corner. To stop the hot heat from getting to your face you put a shield in front of you. (the water vapor). Some heat is absorbed (by the shield) but the other heat is bend off. But you are sitting in a closed room. So the temperature goes up. (IN THE ATMOSPHERE).There is no cooling. 3)The sun's (radiation) photons that are absorbed somehow changes into kinetic energy and this is passed on to the atmosphere, i.e. mostly O2 and N2. So absorption goes on all the time and the radiation that is absorbed is changed to heat. So the radiation that did not reach the earth is all changed to heat. There is no cooling. So, now before we carry on, which do we say now is the correct theory and why?
  37. Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
    Article states... "As temperatures warm, ice melts contributing to sea level rise." ... and I suppose sea cooling as ice melts into it. Please see the following for temperatures in Greenland. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf Page 10 contains a very intesting graph breaking out temperatures along seasons for the last 200 years. Air temperatures generally remain below zero nine months of the year. I assume not much ice is melting during these months. According to the data, since the year 1800 there have been warmer and cooler decades. If there is a trend, it is very slight, and only seems to affect winter months when temperatures are still remaining well below freezing. On the other hand, there is no trend like this for the summer months, so what explains ice melt acceleration? ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Also, during the winter hardly any sunlight reaches these parts, and yet the warming trend is affecting winters when people in the northern hemisphere just happen to be consuming the most heating oil. Is'nt that curious?
  38. Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
    If this was a set of data refuting climate change you would be dismissing it for the short time period it covers. Yet you don't seem to be worried about this here. Unfortunately in this paper they don't state the geographical position for the data set over the antartic. A previous Chen paper that analysed the GRACE data did the analysis at two geographical positions on antartica and found mass loss in the West and mass gain in the East. I wonder if any comment is needed about the seasonal variation in Greenland. The artic ice sheet extent is very regular reaching its minimum point within a few days every year (mid-September). Ice mass minimum appear to be much more variable here, spread over several months, does that matter? Could be an indication of error introduced during processing. Finally this paper shows some interesting info and suggests there are more important things than global mean temperature that affect local Greenland temperature. http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/jbox/pubs/Box_2002_Greenland_Temperature_Analysis.pdf . The paper I linked to above also suggests winter variation is of importance in Greenland. There are a few year on the graph in this article were it can be seen that mass build up was severely cut short during winter 2006, 2007 and 2008 stand out. Is this then purely temperature or are local weather factors (precipitation) affecting the situation. I'm starting to realise the vast amount of data out there and how easy it is to pick stuff to support any position.
  39. CO2 has been higher in the past
    RSVP Arrhenius is cited exactly once in the introduction of "CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic." The fact that he's a racist is not really a strong rebuttal to a paper that 1) in no way relies on any of Arrhenius' observations or opinions and 2) cites over 100 (non-Arrhenius) references. Ad hominem attacks are a technique for winning arguments, not for getting any closer to the truth.
  40. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Chris I understand what the implications could be if such a small increase in CO2 could in fact create so much havoc. However, it helps to be optimistic (while taking this possibility into consideration), and make absolutely damn before going nuts about CO2. I think there is still some time.
  41. CO2 has been higher in the past
    chris "Numerology"! At least I can see you have a sense of humor.
  42. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Philippe. It only took one man, Isaac Newton, to point the world in the right direction about the basic laws of physics. Later again, only one man, (Einstein), to introduce important caveats. On the other hand, with the smoke and mirrors theory, an international commitee has been invoked to establish its credence, and now you talk about "low blow" creationist tactics? Why a commitee? Why not just one man?
  43. CO2 has been higher in the past
    re #14 O.K., you don't believe in the greenhouse effect RSVP. The arguments you employ to try to support that astonishing position are weak 'though. You seem to be attempting to insinuate that Arrhenius's insight (which we know to be fundamentally correct) can be made to appear incorrect by reference to his views on sociological aspects of human evolutionary genetics. Your numerology is suspect, and perhaps that's partly why you don't find the greenhouse effect "intuitive". For example it makes rather more sense to consider the temperature variation throughout the last 500 million years (the Phanerozoic), a variation of the order of 10 oC (minimum to max). It’s variation within that temperature range that is relevant to the role of CO2 variation in modulating the greenhouse effect. After all we know (more 19th century science!) that a “naked” atmosphere-free earth has a temperature of around 255K from its cosy location near the sun. When considered in that light, a temperature increase of 1 oC as a result of a 34% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration doesn’t seem so puny. It's already around 10% of the entire temperature variation of the last 500 million years, and pretty much what we expect within our (and Arrhenius’s for that matter) understanding of the greenhouse effect…
  44. CO2 has been higher in the past
    RSV #15, I may have misunderstood your comment, because I don't see the point of the Stefan–Boltzmann law here. I thought you were doing a (empirical) rule of three, suggesting that a 36% increase of CO2 (empirically) drove a (small) 0.34% change in temperature with reference to the absolute zero (i.e. percentage of change in the kelvin scale). (Leaving aside the fact that the equilibrium temperature is higher) that's why I asked what the point was in assessing the temperature change as a difference from the absolute zero.
  45. Philippe Chantreau at 06:48 AM on 29 October 2009
    CO2 has been higher in the past
    That's funny. RSVP is attempting an ad-hom on Arrhenius that is somewhat reminiscent of what we see with creationists. "Establishing this man's credibility"? The rethoric is getting down to the most miserable levels. Whether there was resistance to his CO2 ideas and the presence of other non related stuff has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the physics involved, which can not be disputed. The initial formulation may not have been totally accurate, but the principles were correctly understood. That is an objective fact. Arrhenius could have been a paranoid schizophrenic, he would still have been right on this subject. The fact that some things are not intuituve to you is exactly why this site's focus is on science papers published by researchers active in their field.
  46. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Peter Pan Radiation energy is proportional to absolute temperature.
  47. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Chris, Being on the board of an institute specifically created to promote pseudoscience isnt exactly "periperal". Eugenics may be considered politially incorrect now, but at that time he was promoting it as respectable science. My comment is about judgement, not politics. Secondly, I never said anything about a linear relationship. I was only giving my opinion that a ratio of 0.0094:1 (i.e., .0034:.36) doesnt seem to reflect considerably tight coupling. Which is a completely separate issue from CO's atmospheric molecular mass percentage of 0.045, and the fact that CO2 absorbs energy from only a fraction of the IR spectrum. And after considering all these small values taken together, whether logarithmic or seismic or however you want to package it, the CO2 greenhouse theory (or smoke and mirrors theory or however you want to call it) is definitely not intuitive to me.
  48. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Henry Pool @ Riccardo on 122 You are doing the same thing! You did not provide me with any figures!!! There is no science in any thing you say and you do not provide any logical scientific answers.
  49. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, Your problem appears to start in this line "Substitute (4*pi*Re^2) for (Pi*Re^2) to get Earth as a "sphere" " In this step you don't do what you have done above, you should equate what Earth absorbs as a disc (from the Sun) to what it emits as a sphere to space. (4*pi*Re^2) does not equal (Pi*Re^2) so when you substitute it in you are changing the value. (Obviously, you can only substitute two quantities that are equal). A brief scan of the rest of your work seems to show that it is fine, but the Earth does not *absorb* as a sphere, it *emits* as a sphere. Cheers, :)
  50. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Henry Pool, now I anticipate you won't bother looking in that AGW Observer site's index, either. So here is a link to that site's collection of papers on CO2's absorption properties in the atmosphere, to complement the link I already gave you on laboratory measurements.

Prev  2533  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  2544  2545  2546  2547  2548  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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