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  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  2544  2545  2546  2547  2548  2549  Next

Comments 127051 to 127100:

  1. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Henry Pool, I anticipate that you will object that those papers I just pointed you to are too narrowly focused. You need to also look at the Index on that AGW Observer site. Again, I will save you the labor. This time I'll even save you the labor of copying and pasting the URL by providing a link.
  2. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Henry Pool, the top of the original post on this page you are reading now has a green box immediately before the Comments section. In that box, our host John Cook already provided a link to a collection of a large number of the scientific papers reporting the empirical measurements that you keep claiming don't exist. Since you don't seem to like to exert the labor to look where people point you, I'll repeat the link here: http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/
  3. CO2 has been higher in the past
    RSVP, When you turn on your heating at home, do you also set your target temperature as a significant percentage change on a kelvin scale? I cannot see any sense in assessing the magnitude of a temperature change as the relative difference from absolute zero, that's an arbitrary point. Why not celsius scale instead (i.e. freezing point of water instead of absolute zero)? What is important is that it shouldn't deviate from the average value in which human civilization has thrived. That's the dangerous boundary.
  4. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Henry Pool, you really think that the IPCC is stuck on a 19th century experiment? Do you really think that no one has measured CO2 absorption since then? Do you really think that more than a century of science has passed in vain? Many people here showed you how things work, but you didn't notice, as you didn't notice a century of science indeed. You didn't put any effort to find yourself the numbers (there are plenty around) you're asking for. You "suspect", "think" or "presume" a lot of things, based on nothing, and are surprised that people tells you "go and do some studying". Knowledge does not come doing nothing and if you want to do nothing forget knowledge. It is then your attitude that makes your questions un-answerable, you will keep thinking forever that "nobody could think of a way to test it properly" (sic) untill you find the will to learn.
  5. CO2 has been higher in the past
    This is an odd thing to say RSVP: "A 36% increase in CO2 to a roughly 0.34% (1 degree K/290 degree K = .0034) change in global temperature doesnt seem to indicate strong coupling." The three fundamental errors in that statement are ones that Arrhenius would have recognised over 100 years ago: (i) the relationship between earth temperature and atmospheric CO2 is not linear. The temperature varies according to the logarithm of the CO2 variation as Arrhenius had already deetermined in 1896. (ii) The relationship between earth temperature and the logarithm of the change in [CO2] refers to an equilibrium response. (iii) The temperature scale is not a linear one with respect to heat content, and it's very easy to produce spurious arguments based on misunderstanding this. The non-linearity of temperature can be illustrated by the observation that the rates of chemical reactions broadly double with each temperature increment of 10 oC. Thus a reaction that has a rate constant of 1 (say) at zero oC, may well have k=2 at 10 oC, 4 at 20 oC, 8 at 30 oC, 16 at 40 oC, 32 at 50 oC and so on... Arrhenius knew this too... If we're going to use arguments to assess relationships in the natural world, we should base these on physics that is at least at a late 19th century level!
  6. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    I think the 1.7 comes from the total average global warming measured (since 1750?) and the greenhouse gases (and anti greenhouse gases) are assigned a value based on their increases or decreases since 1750. I think it is not based on any specific testing on carbon dioxide that would show us exactly how much of the sun's- and how much of earth's radiation is being blocked by CO2. As far as the science goes, I think it is presumed (by the IPCC)that Svante Arrhenius "science" was right or partly right. IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN THAT IS WRONG SCIENCE. We need to re-visit this. Svante's equipment must have been so poor, that he could have made big mistakes and he could have been completely wrong. I think he worked with 100% CO2. We need to test at certain concentrations, in the range from 0.01 to 0.06 % CO2....We need to know where we are with this and where we are going, even if the nett effect of carbon dioxide is warming (which I doubt).....None of you have convinced me yet with any numbers on the table that show that CO2 is to blame for global warming. I need to see actual figures from actual measurements taken during actual experiments. To think I started out 3 months ago, believing that CO2 is the problem! Now I am a total skeptic. It is because there are no figures when it comes to CO2. How is this possible? I suspect nobody could think of a way to test it properly. So there are only stories. Nothing but stories. And if you do not "believe" those stories you will be told by the "believers" to go and do some studying...... Is there anyone out there who can show me exactly how the 1.7 was arrived at? It just cannot fall out of the air somewhere (right into this site).
  7. CO2 has been higher in the past
    I don't think the political views of a scientist 100-plus years ago has much influence on our perception of his understanding of the physics of processes in the natural world RSVP. That sounds like a very modern concept (attempting to trash science that one doesn't like by reference to peripheral political or character traits in individuals)! Arrhenius was pretty much spot on in his understanding of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 (carbonic acid in his terminology from the manner in which CO2 concentrations were then determined) variation, and the earth temperature response, recognising that the temperature varies according to the logarithm of the CO2 concentration change: Arrhenius: "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression" [*] The reason that he didn't consider increased CO2 particulalry problematic is that in his time atmospheric CO2 concentrations were rising very slowly indeed. He considered that doubling of atmospheric [CO2] would take about 3000 years. We now know that mankind can very easily achieve this massive amplification in a century and a half. In fact the concerns relating to massive enhancement of atmospheric [CO2] only really began to be voiced by scientists in the 1970's, when the scale of man-made CO2 emissions began to bite home: e.g. Broecker, W.S. (1975) "Climatic change; are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" Science 189, 460-3. [*] S. Arrhenius (1986) On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 41, 237–275
  8. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, What would be the effective temperature of the Earth as seen from space? According to Wiens Law, what does the Earth radiating at 10 microns indicate as it's temperature. What is the globally averaged surface temperature of the Earth? Why the difference?
  9. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Henry Pool, go back to my comment #112. Points #2 and 3 are what you call the cooling effect of CO2. They are both roughly negligible if you mind to put numbers on them as scientists working in the field do in details. The number 1.7 W/m2 forcing from pre-industrial era come from a procedure like the one you describe but pluging in real numbers. I can't see why you should not accept it given that your are simply "sure that the cooling effect is therefore as much as the warming effect." for no reason.
  10. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Excellent post, as usual. I always learn something new here. Loads of thanks!
  11. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, no need to read it again. You did not consider the atmosphere for what it really is and that's explain, i hope, what i 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.
  12. CO2 has been higher in the past
    John The cited reference in the article starts like this... "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important greenhouse gas, and its role in regulating global surface temperatures has been recognized for over a century (Arrhenius, 1896; Chamberlin, 1899). It is now generally accepted that the 36% rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1860 (280–380 ppm) is partly responsible for the concomitant rise in global surface temperature" If you looked up the Wikipedia reference on Arrhenius, you will find he met resistance for his idea. So to say that his idea was RECOGNIZED is an overstatement, especially with whatever data he had in 1896! Also, in terms of establishing this man's credibility, the Wikipedia article includes a little more. It goes on to say that Arrhenius apparently felt that global warming would be a good thing in that it would help world food production. In addition, he apparently supported the following... Wikipedia on Arrhenius... Racial biology "Svante Arrhenius was also actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been planned as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute's board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909. Swedish racial biology was world-leading at this time, and the results formed the scientific basis for the Compulsory sterilization program in Sweden, as well as inspiring the Nazi eugenics in Germany" ''''''''''''''''''''''''' Getting back to Dana Royer's intro... A 36% increase in CO2 to a roughly 0.34% (1 degree K/290 degree K = .0034) change in global temperature doesnt seem to indicate strong coupling. In fact, it tends to signal that there is quite a lot margin for continued CO2 polluting.
  13. CO2 has been higher in the past
    RSVP, it looks like you think that scientist are stupid or that you don't trust science at all. Comparing what solar physicists know on our sun (on all the stars) to scientology means that you did not even try a wikipedia search for stellar evolution, let alone scientific papers. They might of course be wrong, but this is what our scientific knowledge tells us. And one needs scientific arguments to contend.
  14. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    shawnhet - re: your posts #74 and #75 Here is the derivation of the equation. BC = Boltzmann's Constant Te = blackbody temp of the Earth Ts = surface temp of the Sun Rs = radius of the Sun D = distance between the Sun and Earth a = albedo of the Earth Psemt = (BC*Ts^4)(4*pi*Rs^2)....energy emitted by the Sun Peabs = Psemt(1-a)(Pi*Re^2)/(4*pi*D^2)....energy absorbed by the Earth as a "disk" Substitute (4*pi*Re^2) for (Pi*Re^2) to get Earth as a "sphere" Peabs = Psemt(1-a)(4*Pi*Re^2)/(4*pi*D^2)....energy absorbed by the Earth as a "sphere" Peabs = (BC*Ts^4)(4*pi*Rs^2)(1-a)(4*Pi*Re^2)/(4*pi*D^2)....energy absorbed by the Earth as a "sphere" after replacing Psemt. Peabs = (BC*Ts^4)(4*pi*Rs^2)(1-a)(Re/D)^2....energy absorbed by the Earth as a "sphere" Peemt = (BC*Te^4)(4*pi*Re^2)......energy emitted by the Earth as a sphere Equating... Peemt = Peabs gives: (BC*Te^4)(4*pi*Re^2) = (BC*Ts^4)(4*pi*Rs^2)(1-a)(Re/D)^2 (BC*Te^4)/(BC*Ts^4) = (1-a)(Re/D)^2(4*pi*Rs^2)/(4*pi*Re^2) (Te/Ts)^4 = (1-a)(Re/D)^2(Rs/Re)^2 Taking the square root of both sides gives: (Te/Ts)^2 = (1-a)^0.5(Re/D)(Rs/Re) (Te/Ts)^2 = (1-a)^0.5(Rs/D) (Te/Ts)^2 = ((1-a)^0.5 *Rs)/D Taking the square root of both sides again gives: Te/Ts = ((1-a)^0.5 *Rs)/D)^0.5 Te = Ts (((1-a)^0.5 *Rs)/D)^0.5) And what I posted was: TE = TS (((1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/D)))^0.5) Which I typed too many brackets in, but does not change the result. This equation gives the temperature of the Earth at the equator. Hope this helps.
  15. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Riccardo - Re:your Post #73 You said... "You are compleately missing that there is earth, there is the atmosphere and there is empty space outside. Consider the whole system, not just a piece of it." "Yes, all the bodies at a certain temperature will radiate a fixed amount of energy. No doubt. But again, you are not considering atmosphere and free space and then the total energy balance." Read my post #69 again...the Earth, atmosphere and cold space were all included in the calculations.
  16. CO2 has been higher in the past
    To #5: As you mention yourself: If you extrapolate the average sea level rise of the last 40 years, you'll get up into that interval in a few thousand years. Which is not to say that is what will happen, we may have negative feedbacks, like clouds and (possibly) aerosols. On the other hand, there may be positive feedbacks kicking in significantly, too. Like the mentioned CO2/sea water temperature relation. Remember, the forcing from radiation imbalance we have now is very small compared to the natural seasonal and cyclical variations, and the effects are to be seen on longer time scales.
  17. CO2 has been higher in the past
    To be able to say the Sun was 4% cooler 540 million years ago assumes linearity associated with a slope of 0.04 divided by 540 E+6, which equals 7.4 x E-11. Is this based on science or scientology?
  18. CO2 has been higher in the past
    I have a question about the Tripati paper I hope somebody can answer. If CO2 levels are about the same today as 20 million years ago and I guess from what is said in this article the sun is a little warmer thn 20million years ago as well then where is all the water? Why don't we have 3-6oC higher global temperatures and 75 to 120 feet higher sea levels. Thats 2200-3000cm of sea level rise. Given an estimate of sea level rise was 3cm for the previous decade that means we'd have to wait 1000 years for that publications prediction to come true. Why aren't sea levels that much higher? Maybe not knowing all the conditions 20million years ago might have something to do with it?
  19. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    In that case I have to bear in mind the absorption of water at 14. The % of water in the air can be easily 1% on average compared to the CO2 of only 0.035%. If I look at it that way then there is only a tiny little corner of earth's radiation at 14 that is not being emitted. The gaps in the sun's emittance caused by the CO2 are the same size , in total, if not more. I am sure that the cooling effect is therefore as much as the warming effect. The problem is: there are no real figures when it comes to carbon dioxide. No proper research has been done. It is all just stories. Some infatuation with a viking who lived many years ago and whose results have been proven wrong. I have been going around asking the same questions and not getting any measured results. In fact, many "scientists" would not believe me when I told them that CO2 causes cooling (during daylight) You did not answer the question on my post at 117: It seems we are going around in circles. I went to the subject: "CO2 not the only driver of climate change" on this site that was recommended by you and I could not figure out where this 1.66 (1.7) came from. That 1.7 is a weighted figuire, is it not?>
  20. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Commenter #1 misses the point of this blog post -- with a weaker solar forcing, and no CO2 causation of warmer temperatures, how could temperature be warm enough to bubble all that CO2 out of the oceans? Anyone who challenges the role of CO2 in warming the planet should be prepared to provide an alternate explanation of what accounts for warm geologic periods. The other point I was going to try making was that CO2 proxies include phytoplankton, such that high CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are actually inferred from high CO2 in the photic zone of the oceans, contrary to the interpretation in comment 1. However, when I looked at the paper (Royer 2006, figures 1b and 3b) I noticed that there are no phytoplankton proxies for CO2 when CO2 is estimated to be quite high. I haven't read the paper yet (too many things on the go), but I found that interesting.
  21. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Henry Pool, take the sun radiation at sea level, take the sun radiation outside the atmosphere; the difference will be what is absorbed by the atmosphere; then you need to consider who is abosorbing at the various wavelength. Straightforward. Then do the same thing starting with the radiation emitted by the earth and you are done. Look for the data and the calculations yourself if you mind, it won't take more than a few minutes. Though, it is just for your curiosity, becase you can be sure that this is exactly what scientists have done for a long while.
  22. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, Upon thinking about it, I find that it is equivalent to say that one divides the energy received by the sun(1368Wm-2) by the surface area of the Earth and to use the explanation I gave in my last post. This doesn't change the fact that the following expression doesn't work to calculate the temperature of the Earth. TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/D) ) )^0.5) Cheers, :)
  23. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, I agree that the Earth absorbs as a disk and emits as a sphere. However, that fact is already taken into account in your **first** expression - TE = TS (((1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D))^0.5. Your second expression is mistaken(it has to be wrong if your first expression is accurate). Check the derivation of it here(about 2/3 of the way down the page). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body The reason for the division 1368 by 4(when you are calculating the energy **absorbed** by the Earth) is not to relate it to the surface of the sphere, but rather to average it over the day-night period and to account for the shape of the Earth (as you say here) "It is only the vector portion of the flux that is 'normal' to the surface that will cause heating. All 'normals' to a spherical surface will be on a line passing through the center of the sphere.". Cheers, :)
  24. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    It seems we are going around in circles. I went to the subject: "CO2 not the only driver of climate change" on this site that was recommended by you and I could not figure out where this 1.66 (1.7) came from. It just falls out of the air somewhere. It looks to me this is a weighted figure - you would only do such a weighthing if you are 100% sure of what the cause is of your problem. So this looks very familiar to the famous theory: "Let us have planet, let us add some CO2, let us see if the temperature increases, it did, so that must be it." Clearly this does not answer the simple question I am asking in 113 (although I forgot an important absorption): On my graph of the solar radiation spectrum I have clear gaps caused by CO2, especially at 1,4; at 1.8, and 2.4 (um); we know from the tables that the solar radiation carries on, so that means it also blocks some of the sun's radiation at between 3 and 4 and 5 um. In addition, I also heard that they use the UV absorption of carbon dioxide to determine the presence of carbon dioxide on other planets. So to say there is no cooling caused by carbon dioxide clearly flies in the face of all the evidence in front of me. Therefore we need specific testing that will determine how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the carbon dioxide. What we need to establish is the nett effect.
  25. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, "All heat energy absorbed is radiated!...there is no "reducing heat dispersion" or "higher equilibrium temperature"! You are compleately missing that there is earth, there is the atmosphere and there is empty space outside. Consider the whole system, not just a piece of it. "I already explained that the Earth at +15 deg C will radiate 390 w/m^2...always." Yes, all the bodies at a certain temperature will radiate a fixed amount of energy. No doubt. But again, you are not considering atmosphere and free space and then the total energy balance. "This is an obvious subtraction of two Electromagnetic Fields." And that's what we called IR radiation, indeed. And that's what is moving energy from the sun toward the earth and from the earth to outside space through the atmosphere. It's indeed the very same flux i'm talking about. "What do you mean by "Only after this point is clear, which appers to not be the case up to now, we can continue on how the thermal insulation works in the case of the earth atmosphere." ????" I mean that if we do not first fix the misconceptions in basic physics we can go nowhere.
  26. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Henry Pool, "yes, the problem is that water also absorbs where CO2 absorbs. I think it needs to be untangled." Just at some frequencies, not all. And it's not a problem, it is just a known effect that can be easily taken into account. "If so, then that is not the right type of science, because that is assuming you know exactly what the solution to the problem is." It is calculated from basic principles, not yet the solution of the problem. "You must first prove to me, scientifically, that the nett effect of the cooling and warming caused by CO2 is causing global warming." At this stage, we are not yet proving that it causes all of the observed global warming. We are just calculating forcing and than that it is at least part of it. After that other factors come into play, weighted by their relative forcing and by climate sensitivy.
  27. CO2 has been higher in the past
    thingadonta, we have quite a good handle on the temperature-dependent partitioning of CO2 between the atmosphere and oceans/terrestrial environment. One rtaher simple way of looking at this is to consider the relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and earth temperature during the recent ice age cycles, since it's likely that the full increase in atmospheric CO2 levels during glacial to interglacial transitions results from temperature-dependent repartitioning. Looking at multiple ice age cycles, there is a generally consistent increase of atmospheric CO2 near 90 ppm (190 ppm glacial to 280 pm interglacial), and this is associated with a globally-averaged increase in earth temperature of 5-6 oC. Since these transitions are long (~5000 years), we can assume that the repartitioning has come near to equilibrium. So each degree centigrade of temperature rise "flushes" 15-18 ppm's worth of CO2 into the atmosphere at equilibrium. That's a useful "rule of thumb" in considering the likely contribution of temperature-dependent repartitioning to CO2 levels in the past. Since much of the tempeature variation during the Phanerozoic covers around 8-10 oC between coldest and hottest, we don't really expect variation of atmospheric CO2 from temperature-responsive repartitioning of more than around 150-200 ppm. Since atmospheric CO2 proxies indicate variations of CO2 levels of up to several thousand ppm of CO2, we can be pretty confident that these arise from factors other than temperature-dependent repartitioning. And when one examines the geological record, the causes of many of the large variations of atmospheric CO2 that likely dominate temperature variation, are apparent.
  28. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    RSVP, Oh there is Global Warming, we are coming out of an Ice Age....just like we have many times before. The reason for Global Warming is the same as always...the ONLY ENERGY SOURCE....THE SUN.
  29. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    To Gord If greenhouse warming is not real, what then do you attribute global warming to? I suppose you dont have to have a theory, but it would be interesting to know if you do.
  30. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    I really appreciate this blog! As for this post, I wonder about two things: 1. What does the track racord until now tell us about the _net_ forcing (all feedbacks inclusive) from the CO2 increase we have had? Does it clearly show that the estimates of about 2 oC/doubling are the most plausible, given all data? (Maybe I should have known this, but I don't.) 2. Is the net feedback effect a stable and well-defined entity, or is it the average of several different terms, which may vary with a set of conditions? Has it been investigated whether variation in feedback may partially explain som of the climatic variability? ( Again, maybe I should have known this, but I don't.)
  31. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Riccardo - re: your post #68 You said... " But it's effective in reducing heat dispertion and this results in a higher equilibrium temperature." "...the outgoing flux is just reduced, didn't reverse." Wrong. All heat energy absorbed is radiated!...there is no "reducing heat dispersion" or "higher equilibrium temperature"! I already explained that the Earth at +15 deg C will radiate 390 w/m^2...always. The warmer Earth radiates 390 w/m^2 and heats up the atmosphere to -20 deg C. The atmosphere will radiate 324 w/m^2 in all directions...always. Between the Earth and Atmosphere the resultant EM field is (390-324) 66 w/m^2 in an upward direction. Past the atmosphere the Resultant EM field is 66 w/m^2 PLUS 324 w/m^2 for a total of 390 w/m^2 in an upward direction to cold space. 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 ! There is no "reducing heat dispersion" or "higher equilibrium temperature"! And, the "outgoing flux" IS NOT REDUCED!!! --------------------------- You said... "By the way, you used this very same concepts in #16 without even realizing it. You correctly wrote P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4); the two terms are two fluxes in the oppostite direction, one coming from a cooler body. "Only after this point is clear, which appers to not be the case up to now, we can continue on how the thermal insulation works in the case of the earth atmosphere." HUH?....P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4) = P/A = e*BC*T^4 – e*BC*Tc^4 (Watts/m^2) This is an obvious subtraction of two Electromagnetic Fields. This is EXACTLY what I used for "Between the Earth and Atmosphere the resultant EM field is (390-324) 66 w/m^2 in an upward direction." !! What do you mean by "Only after this point is clear, which appers to not be the case up to now, we can continue on how the thermal insulation works in the case of the earth atmosphere." ???? ----------------------------------- P.S. Think about this, a random sequence of correct statements HAS MADE THE CONCLUSIONS RIGHT!
  32. CO2 has been higher in the past
    @thingadonta "Isn't C02 concentration in the atmosphere strongly correlated with ocean temperatures at the time:" That is right under presumption that CO2 levels in the system (biosphere and hydrosphere)are nearly constant. You have to understand, that CO2 levels in the atmosphere and in the oceans are in equilibrium. This equilibrium is dependent on the temperature of the system. If you rise temperature more CO2 will find its way into the atmosphere, if temperature falls, the oceans will absorb more CO2. But, what will happen if you release large amounts oc CO2 into the atmosphere from sources other than the ocean? A certain fraction of this CO2 will be absorbed in the oceans and the other fraction will stay in the atmosphere, according to equilibrium. This is exactly what we see. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising and the amount of CO2 in the oceans is rising too. This is seen in every measurement in the atmosphere and in the ocean. This is a fact that is not possible to neglect. If you understand this simple connection of CO2 level, equilibrium and temperature, it will be very easy for you to understand, why rise of temperature is able to force CO2 into the atmosphere and why CO2 is increasing in the oceans despite of rising temperature.
  33. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    yes, the problem is that water also absorbs where CO2 absorbs. I think it needs to be untangled. Anyway, that calculation of the net forcing =1.7, that is the one based on the global warming observed to which every greenhouse gas is then assigned a value depending on the increase in that greenhouse gas since 1750? If so, then that is not the right type of science, because that is assuming you know exactly what the solution to the problem is. You must first prove to me, scientifically, that the nett effect of the cooling and warming caused by CO2 is causing global warming.
  34. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, many people already tried to show you where your pedantic and obsessively repeated reasoning is faulty. I'll try with simpler physics that I hope you manage better. Just my two cents. The sun is heating the earth, no questions about it. Given a constant power input, a body will warm indefinitely unless there is a mechanism of dissipating it; in this case, the body will exponentially approach an equilibrium temperature. If you put a suitable thermal insulator, you reduce heat dissipation and the equilibrium temperature will be higher. Is it the thermal insulator that heats the body? Definitely not. Is the thermal insulator warmer than the body? Clearly not, there will be a temperature gradient inside it (and in the right direction, also!). But it's effective in reducing heat dispertion and this results in a higher equilibrium temperature. Does this violate thermodynamics? Absolutely not, the outgoing flux is just reduced, didn't reverse. By the way, you used this very same concepts in #16 without even realizing it. You correctly wrote P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4); the two terms are two fluxes in the oppostite direction, one coming from a cooler body. Only after this point is clear, which appers to not be the case up to now, we can continue on how the thermal insulation works in the case of the earth atmosphere. P.S. Think about this, a random sequence of correct statements does not make the conclusions right.
  35. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Henry Pool, put numbers on those absorption you claim has not been considered, but do not forget the presence of other absorbing species. This is the evidence that you do not see. And as repeatedly said no more tests are nedded, they are all well know (if you mind to look for them around on the internet or in a database of optical properties). Then, based on the known numbers, the net effect of 1.7 W/m2 is calculated exactly the way you ask, taking into account the absorption properties of all the constituents of the atmosphere.
  36. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Dear Riccardo, on my graph of the solar radiation spectrum I have clear gaps caused by CO2, especially at 1,4; at 1.8, and 2.4 (um); we know from the tables that the solar radiation carries on, so that means it also neatralizes some of the sun's radiation at between 4 and 5 um. In addition, I also heard that they use the UV absorption of carbon dioxide to determine the presence of carbon dioxide on other planets. So for you to say there is no cooling caused by carbon dioxide clearly flies in the face of all the evidence in front of me. Therefore we need specific testing that will determine how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the carbon dioxide. What we need to establish: what is the nett effect? Now if you can tell me exactly how the 1.7 was arrived at?
  37. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Tom Dayton - re:your post #66 The difference is that Adiabatic Warming does NOT VIOLATE the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics! "These clouds absorb the radiation emitted by the earth and radiate it back down toward the earth's surface, warming the air." http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/temperature/temperature_radiation_heat_p_2.html “Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.” http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3 Hmmm, now which one should I believe, the one that complies with Laws of Science or the one that violates Laws of Science?
  38. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Um... But Gord, the very same online book you just cited in comment 65 answers RSVP's question exactly the way RSVP said that most people answer it, and also explicitly states that air transfers energy down toward the surface. See http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/temperature/temperature_radiation_heat_p_2.html
  39. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    RSVP - re:your post #63 The answer is Adiabatic Warming. Here is a link. Adiabatic temperature change and stability http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/atmospheric_moisture/lapse_rates_1.html
  40. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Shawnhet - re: your Post#62 Here is another way to look at it. The Solar Constant is the Solar Flux reaching the Earth before the Disk Averaging takes place. 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. Hope this helps.
  41. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Question for Gord How does one explain the following... During two consecutive nights in a high desert location, there is no appreciable wind at ground level for two days. On the first night temperatures drop to 5 degrees C, while and on the second it goes below freezing. The only observed conditions at ground level between one night and the next were the high clouds of the first night. Most people usually attribute the warmer night to the cloud coverage that seems to act as a "blanket". Is there some fallacy to this model, and if so, what would be a better way to describe what is going on?
  42. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, I don't understand your point. I think we more or less agree up until the point where you calculate (for all practical purposes) how much energy would be absorbed if we peeled the "skin" off the Earth and stretched it out into a disk equi-distant to the sun(than it is now). The fact is your value as presented has no physical meaning. The Earth does have a night period and a day period and the energy of the Earth as a whole must take this into account. If you want to calculate the maximum insolation received by some portion of the Earth for some portion of the day, that's great, but it needs to be placed in some kind of context to have any meaning to the behavior of the Earth as a whole(IOW it has to be averaged or distributed somehow). IAC, your post to me has two different equations to allow you to derive the temperature of the Earth and they must be mutually contradictory(when you equate the 2 expressions for TE, you end up with D=2D such that D cannot equal 0). Cheers, :)
  43. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    NASA now has a site for neat summaries of the data - http://climate.nasa.gov
  44. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    shawnhet - re: your post#54 No, I'm not "off base". The Spherical Earth receives Solar Flux at an angle at all points except the Equator. It is only the vector portion of the flux that is 'normal' to the surface that will cause heating. All 'normals' to a spherical surface will be on a line passing through the center of the sphere. When you Integrate Solar Flux over the Spherical surface (this is called a surface Integral) facing the Sun, it is done by using a projection of the sphere onto a 2D plane. This projection is a disk (actually a circle) that has an Area = Pi X Radius^2. It will produce a Solar Flux density averaged over the disk with no variations for the Equator or any lattitude. You can see the development of this equation here: The Solar Radiation received by the Earth (modelled as a disk, a projection of a sphere onto a 2D plane) represents an average flux density over the entire spherical surface facing the Sun. This quantity is called PEabs, the average solar energy absorbed by the Earth facing the Sun. The emitted energy uses the Earth as a sphere. This is called PEemt. The two quantities are then equated and this equation is the result: TE = TS (((1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D))^0.5 So this equation represents the Solar Energy received by a disk Earth facing the Sun and emitted by a fully spherical Earth. TE is an average Night and Day temperature in absence of an atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body ------------ 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. Hope this helps.
  45. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Steve - re:your post #56 Geez Steve, what other energy source other than the Sun, is capable of heating the Earth to +15 deg C ? It just takes a "piddly" 390 w/m^2 X Surface Area of The Earth = 390 w/m^2 X 4 X Pi X Radius^2 = 390 X 4 X Pi X (6.371 x 10^6)^2 = 1.99 X 10^17 watts....that's all. Any Ideas? -------------- Here are some Calculations for Mars and Venus. Venus "The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface..." Surface temp (mean) 735K or 461.85 deg C It has an atmosphere that is composed of 96.5% CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus Mars, atmosphere "The surface pressure on Mars is only about 0.7% of the average surface pressure at sea level on Earth." It has an atmosphere that is composed of 95.3% CO2. The surface temp is about 250K or -23 deg C. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marsatmos.html Solar Constants Venus (2647 w/m^2 - 2576 w/m^2)= average of 2611.5 w/m^2 Mars (715 w/m^2 - 492 w/m^2)= average of 603.5 w/m^2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant#Solar_constant Heating due to the Solar Constants/4 using Stephan Boltzman Law and (albedo = 0): Venus = 327.58 K or +54.43 deg C Black body temp. Mars = 227.12 K or -46.03 deg C Black body temp. With the addition of an atmosphere the temp increases are: Venus = 735K - 327.58K = 407.42K (461.85 C - 54.43 C = 407.42 deg C) Mars = 250K - 227.12K = 22.88K (-23 deg C -(-46.03 C)= 23 deg C) It should be obvious that Venus and Mars have about the same amount of CO2 in their atmosphere (96.5% and 95.3%) yet their temperature increases due to the addition of an atmosphere vary by 407.42 deg C - 23 deg C = 384.42 deg C! CO2 obviously does NOT have any effect on the temperature increases of these planets. The Ideal Gas Law PV = RT gives the general relationship between Pressure P and temperature T. Venus has a much larger atmospheric pressure than Mars thus the Venus temperature is much higher than Mars! CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with these planetary temperatures! ---------------------- Re: Your link: http://skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html I take it that you want me to explain the "Measurements of downward longwave radiation" ? Well, I have already done that. See my post #16, where I show: "All the Instruments used to measure the so called "Greenhouse Effect" prove that it does not exist! They use IR detectors that have been COOLED far below the -20 deg C atmosphere temperature to make the direct measurement POSSIBLE." I then give the Specs's for the AIRS Instrument and TES Instrument and their IR Detector COOLING temperatures that make the direct Back Radiation measurements possible. Then look at my Post #18 where I provide a link to a paper and measurements done by the Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University proving that Back Radiation cannot reach the Earth. ----------------- Now it's YOUR TURN to provide some 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!
  46. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Chris - re:your post #55 You said... "1. The greenhouse effect doesn't violate the 2nd law, since the suppression of radiative dissipation of thermal energy from the surface by back radiation from a cooler atmosphere, doesn't require (as you assert) a flow of heat from a colder (atmosphere) to a warmer body (the surface)." First, there is no "suppression" of radiated energy from the Earth by the Atmosphere. The Radiation occurs at the speed of light and ALL the Earth's Radiation (390 w/m^2) is radiated to cold space....without "suppression"! ------ Second, the "Greenhouse Effect" links say EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR RANT ! Tutorial on the Greenhouse Effect- University of Arizona “In this case, the Earth still gains 240 Watts/meter2 from the sun. It still loses 240 Watts/meter2 to space. However, because the atmosphere is opaque to infrared light, the surface cannot radiate directly to space as it can on a planet without greenhouse gases. Instead, this radiation to space comes from the atmosphere. However, atmospheres radiate both up and down (just like a fire radiates heat in all directions). So although the atmosphere radiates 240 Watts/meter2 to space, it also radiates 240 Watts/meter2 toward the ground! Therefore, the surface receives more energy than it would without an atmosphere: it gets 240 Watts/meter2 from sunlight and it gets another 240 Watts/meter2 from the atmosphere — for a total of 480 Watts/meter2 in this simple model.” http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html The Greenhouse Effect “Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth’s atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth’s surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html 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. --------- Third, Trenberth's Energy Budget Diagram clearly shows 324 w/m^2 of Back Radiation from the Colder atmosphere being ABSORBED by a warmer Earth surface ! http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html Again, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR RANT ! --------- Fourth, John Cook's response to my very first Post #15 said: "Response: The atmosphere doesn't create energy. Greenhouse gases absorb outgoing infrared energy, preventing some of it from escaping out to space. The absorbed infrared energy is then reemitted in all directions, some of it heading back to Earth where it warms the surface. It's not an argument or a theory that CO2 causes global warming. It's an experimentally observed physical reality." Again, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR RANT ! ---------------------- It is obvious that YOU don't understand the Greenhouse Effect, no matter how many times it is shown to you! And, it is YOU that is uses "False Logic" and YOUR argument "fundamentally fails" because it's based on "semantic confusion of heat and radiation." !! ----------------------- Next, You said... "2. The accumulation of thermal energy in the earth system under a positive radiative imbalance obviously doesn't require the "creation of energy". Your non-sequiter ("the sun is the ONLY energy source"...therefore increased thermal energy in the climate system under radiative imbalance is "a violation of The Law of Conservation of Energy") is just silly...it's equivalent to asserting that the analogy of water flowing through a reservoir under constrained outflow (my posts #41 and #43) requires "creation of mass", when nothing is being "created"; the thermal energy (or water) is simply accumulating." There is NO OTHER Energy source besides the SUN! Proof: If the Sun were removed, the Earth and Atmosphere would rapidly cool to near absolute zero!! Your argument is the same as saying your MP3 player will continue to operate when the battery is removed !! Geez, this is as fundamental as it gets. Read the Greenhouse Effect links above, they ALL create energy ! Is 390 w/m^2 of Earth Radiation greater than the 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy heating the Earth? A CLEAR CREATION OF ENERGY! Trenberth's Energy Budget claims that the Sun, Earth and Atmosphere ARE IN RADIATIVE BALANCE ! That's why he claimes that the in-coming 235 w/m^2 of Solar Energy is BALANCED by the 235 w/m^2 out-going IR radiation ! Again, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR RANT ! And, The Law of Conservation CANNOT EVER be VIOLATED...no matter how "silly" you think Laws of Science are. ----------------------------- Like I said... You just provide your "OPINIONS" ! Face the FACTS: - You have not produced ANY argument for my posts based on any Physics! - ALL your posts are just your "opinions" with ZERO Back-up. You should spend more time reading the Laws of Science and getting your facts straight before babbling your uninformed "opinions". HAHAHA...you are hilarious!
  47. CO2 has been higher in the past
    One important point: Isn't C02 concentration in the atmosphere strongly correlated with ocean temperatures at the time: ie: the oceans absorbs more c02 when the oceans, and the earth is cooler, and the oceans realease c02 as they warms/the earth is warmer? (A simple water temperature-c02 solubility relationship). The correlations in earth history between c02 concentration in the atmosphere and earth temperatures given above, therefore, are at least in part simply a reflection of this ocean temperature/c02 concentration relationship. Correlation is not causation. Therefore, the important issue is establishing to what effect earth temperature drives ocean temperature which then drives c02, and not the other way around. (This is also the reason c02 lags temperature rises at the end of ice ages by several hundred years (something Al Gore forgot to mention) the oceans take longer to warm and then release their c02).
    Response: You're correct that correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation. Causation comes from our high understanding of the radiative forcing from CO2. Reinforced by observations of the enhanced greenhouse effect. So from this, we determine the radiative forcing from CO2, calculate the radiative forcing from the sun and work out their combined effect on climate.

    Does CO2 drive temperature or the other way around? Both actually. But this is not the question addressed in Royer 2006. The focus is the measured CO2 levels and the radiative forcing they would impose on the climate - is the forcing consistent with temperature records?

    I imagine the GEOCARB carbon cycle model used would examine what drives CO2 so he possibly goes into more detail about the carbon cycle in previous papers (here's a complete list of his research complete with PDF links).
  48. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    "So bringing it all together, there are two reasons for the focus on CO2: 1. CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing 2. CO2 radiative forcing is increasing faster than any other forcing" Wouldn't a third reason be the atmospheric life of CO2 compared with say, methane? A little more than a decade for methane. A few centuries for CO2 at least, or perhaps tens of milleniums for a portion of it, according to other studies... http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1265r6548477378/
    Response: Good point and thanks for the link. Of course, there are other reasons for the focus on CO2, not the least being we're the ones causing the CO2 rise and unless we stop CO2 emissions, the radiative forcing will only increase. But I've learned through experience to keep the "take home points" from each post down to just one or two concise points. Trying to say too much reduces the impact of the message.
  49. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Henry Pool, "Sorry Tom, but the same also applies to what your friend said. If they say the cooling effect is next to nothing then I can also say the radiation being blocked from earth must be next to nothing." Being called into question as a friend of Tom (my honour :)), I will try again in a different way to clarify the different behaviour of sunlight and infrared with respect to CO2. I'll use some aproximate numbers (let me keep just a couple of decimal digits) that appears to be what you are looking for. We have sunlight coming in, similar to blackbody radiation at temperature T=5250 K: 1) no scattering; we have the opinion of a physicist of the atmosphere (i'm not). You could also google for Rayleigh scattering if you like. 2) no absorption in the visible 3) absorption in the IR. Even assuming that it's totally absorbed by CO2 in the main band at 600 cm^-1, it is roughly 10^-5 of the total incoming energy. We can safely call it zero. Infrared emitted toward space: 4) no scattering again 5) absorption by CO2, about 1.7 W/m2 more than a century and something ago. Hence, the net forcing is 1.7 W/m2. That's schematically it. You will not agree with one (or more) of these points. Tell us which, maybe it will be easier to understand what is your point. "We do not want stories that nobody can verify. We want actual figures. From actual measurements. Taken during actual experiments." You can verify all of the five points above. But do not look in climate papers, you will not find anything usefull there. It's pretty old and well established 19th century physics and for sure oil companies will not pay a penny for this research ;)
  50. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, I didn't insist that the atmosphere acted just like a blanket; I said the fact that colder blankets can help you stay warm stomps on the simplistic idea that the Sun is the only factor governing temperature. You didn't take the time to follow the link the I supplied indicating that I'm not saying "the atmosphere is a blanket". And apparently you didn't bother to read the rest of the textbook or Atmoz's blogs to see why the greenhouse effect is real, despite being poorly named and despite the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. By the way, how are your calculations coming for explaining the relative surface temperatures of Mercury, Venus, and Earth? And come to think of it, here's another thing for you to explain: http://skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html

Prev  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  2544  2545  2546  2547  2548  2549  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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