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  2557  2558  2559  2560  2561  2562  2563  2564  2565  2566  2567  2568  2569  2570  2571  2572  Next

Comments 128201 to 128250:

  1. Philippe Chantreau at 03:25 AM on 1 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord says: "Warmer objects receive radiative energy from cooler objects.." That VIOLATES the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics." If this were true, i.e. warm objects can not receive radiative energy from cooler objects, we could not see any object colder than our retina. Let's further reflect (no pun intended): 2 objects of different temperatures emit radiative energy in all directions; according to this same statement, the energy coming from the cooler object that is emitted toward the warmer object has to, somehow, either disappear (which would violate the first law) or be rerouted in another direction. This could be detected, as the energy budget somewhere would reflect the "extra" energy that did not end up on the warmer object. I don't know of any experimental setting that shows this. Also this statement: "All objects that Absorb energy HAS to increase in temperature." Formulated this way, it would imply that, if you're floating in deep space, looking at stars, the light from these stars is going to make your body increase in temperature.
  2. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    In any collection of matter composed of individual molecules and atoms, the random velocities of those constituent components will range from near zero to very high velocity. The higher the temperature the greater the average velocity of the component molecules and atoms, but there will always be some in a low energy state.. These lower energy state components are able to absorb energy from a source radiating a full spectrum of ER as all warm bodies do. Some ER emanating from a relatively cooler body will resonate with some relatively few components making up a body of warmer temperature. The warmer body will not experience a rise in temperature because while it is absorbing low energy ER it is simultaneously emitting ER of higher energy, therefore experiencing a net loss in energy. Make sense?
  3. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    RSVP, there will be less energy consumed during winter at high latitude and more energy consumed during summer at middle and low latitudes. Nevertheless, human behaviour is an important issue, no question about it. We definitely have to modify our attitudes to waste energy; we can't afford it anymore.
  4. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord and Tom I dont know if anyone is deleting posts or the poor server software has simply maxed out for thread space. If this does get to you, I like Tom's question and would like to throw in my half pence. There seems to be an inconsistency in the mental model of a light source in comparing it as if it were some kind of hose spewing photons. In working with radio, you find that impedance is everything in terms of electromagnetic energy transfer efficiency. The source and sink have to be "matched" in terms of impedance for optimal energy transfer. As far as a mental model, how the heck does the source "know" that the load is matched before it "spews" out radiation? It cant. Something is gravely wrong with the conceptual model in keeping with the idea of a "before" and "after". And since light is also supposedly the same kind of thing, electromagnetic radiation, the same principal must apply, as well as the same conceptual inconsistency. We use a language to describe what is not happening, and thus a lot of confusion and arguing. Aside from the issue with modeling of basic physics, I do have a more prosaic and rather mundane thing to say. And that is that whether CO2 is causing global warming or not, as things warm up, there SHOULD be less energy consumed at least during the winter. This should contribute to less CO2, and therefore human behavior is likely one of the most important feedback mechanisms to consider. Behaviorism is considered science... maybe not so hard, etc.
  5. There is no consensus
    Re: dopeydrjohn in 172 through 179 You sound like you really don't like the conclusion of Doran & Zimmerman, so you're looking high and low for objections. I'll try to answer a few of your specific points, but start with the big picture: they obtained an independent directory of earth scientists, and got permission to send an email survey to all of them. They had the survey questionnaire vetted by independent survey design experts. They set up the online survey engine so that each person could only be counted once. They got around 30% response rate, and they cite sources confirming that this is about the expected participation rate for such polls (researchers get a HUGE amount of email, have very busy schedules, sometimes spend weeks or months on a ship, outdoors, in the Arctic, on mountains, etc.) You try to make it sound like D&Z committed fraud by not "following up" with the non-responders. That's way out of line! The survey design was that they would make it easy to respond, but they would not pester people who did not want to take part or did not have time. Your posts #177-179 are really overheated. You've already made up your mind, and whatever evidence D&Z present about the actual opinions of the actual scientists doesn't seem to get through the walls you have put up. Look, rather than posting your vehement arguments about how D&Z might be wrong, why not spend some more time getting familiar with the views of the actual scientists themselves? I've set up a website listing a lot of the most widely published and cited authors in this field, with a link to their home page. (Someone linked to my site back in the 150's in this thread, but nobody much picked up on it.) http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/index.html You can look through my lists and see for yourself who says what. I've annotated which scientists have signed public declarations calling for action to cut GHGs, as well as those who signed "skeptic" statements like the Leipzig or Manhattan Declarations. I've covered every name on eleven different skeptic declarations, yielding a list of about 480 self-declared climate skeptics. The catch is, very few of them have any standing or publication history in this field. The skeptics' statements are padded with non-experts. Their median number of pulished works mentioning "climate" is ... two, while some 169 of the 469 skeptic signers have ZERO published works mentioning "climate." http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table_by_clim.html Compare working group 1 of the IPCC, with a median of 93 climate publications. http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/AR4wg1_authors_table_by_clim.html In the top 100, only Roger Pielke Sr. shows up as a climate 'skeptic' - and he doesn't even dispute that CO2 drives warming. http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table_by_clim.html All told, I found about 2.5 to 3% of authors publishing on this subject are self-declared skeptics. This dovetails quite closely with D&Z. There simply are far, far more scientists saying this IS a problem than saying it is not. Suppose the percentage is double or even triple what both D&Z and I are finding? That still wouldn't even get you to 10%.
  6. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, I challenged you to produce a clear example where the standard basic teory gives wrong predictions. When you maintain that a standard, well-proven theory is wrong, it's your business to show where it produces false predictions. Not the defenders' - this is basic scientific conduct. If you don't want to confirm to that, I think your behavior may be said to border on trolling. And you requext that we "explain" seems utterly misplaced to me - there are hundreds of treatments of these phenomena available. I'll be more than happy to see you refute established theory! But I'm still awaiting your crucial counter example.
  7. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, oh well, as for the ONLY point i made you were able to answer, you confirm your wrong picture without even noticing the absurdity of energy appearing from nowhere. But it dooes not come as a surprise. You that ironically shout "PROVE I'M WRONG" are only able to copy and paste pices of physics you clearly do not understand and, as a consequence, can't use your own model to check if its predictions are indeed correct. No surprise that you can't, there are a lot of flaws in your knowledge of physics. - You don't know the difference betweeen heat and EM radiation. Plenty of time you interchanged this two concepts. - You don't know that a photon can annihilate (be absorbed) and disappear, hence you don't know how the interaction between matter and radiation works. Indeed you keep repeating that they must be re-emitted in any case, which contraddict everyone's everyday experience. In you view there is no way to warm a body by irradiation given that each and every photon absorbed must be re-emitted. - you don't understand what the vectorial nature of the electic field of the electromagnetic radiation imply. You make confusion between direction of propagation and direction of the electric field. You immagine the latter fixed becuase you don't know what polarization is. - you also use the concept of interference without knowing that emission from exicted gas molecules (and any warm body as well) is incoherent. - you don't understand what a flux is, let alone a balance between fluxes. Indeed, you subtract the fluxes from earth surface and from atmosphere downward whitout realizing that this reduces the net flux from earth surface. Then, I understand that you don't want reply and that it's a waste of time, you'd be forced to obsessively repeat the same story avoiding to look at it, to use it, to understand it. You are not able to question your ideas and confront them with your everyday experience, let alone apply them to more complex systems like climate. So yes, I agree with you that you're wasting your time. Writing and reading in this blog is like the quadrature of the circle. For you.
  8. Philippe Chantreau at 21:18 PM on 31 October 2009
    CO2 has been higher in the past
    I'm sure I'd want to respond to what appears to be some sort of insinuation if I had any idea what the heck you're trying to talk about. I don't and don't feel curious enough to go through the hassle of deciphering it.
  9. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Ricardo - re:your post#112 You said... "given that we were not able to explain the physics" What Physics?...and pertaining to What? ---------------- You said... "- the atmosphere absorbs 390 W/m^2 from the earth and emits the same amount but both upward and downward, twice the amount it absorbs" Wrong. If the atmosphere absorbs 390 w/m^2 it will radiate 390 w/m^2 in all directions. How did you get the atmosphere radiating twice the amount it absorbs? -------------------- The rest of your post is a jumble of errors and contradicting "babbling". Replying to all those errors and "babbling" would be very tedious and just a waste of my time.
  10. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    WeatherRusty - re:your post#111 You said... "Yes, until absorbed by a greenhouse gas molecule. The photon has at that moment ceased to exist, being converted to and added to the kinetic energy of the molecule." Wrong. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Whatever energy the gas absorbed will be re-emitted. -------------- You said... "The propagation of energy is interrupted by greenhouse gas absorption. The propagation to space is not at the speed of light, the propagation between subsequent absorptions and emissions, reflecting the free path of the photon, is at the speed of light. The flow of energy exiting the system is slowed down." Wrong. ALL propagating EM waves travel at the speed of light....they are light...only the frequency varies! HAHAHA....Tell that "story" to the Cop that gives you your next 'radar' speeding ticket. Now, that would be funny. --------------- You said... "With respect to the directionality of energy, electromagnetic radiation is not heat and heat is not radiation. By the above statement you clearly confuse the two." You are hilarious! Ever hear of Field Vectors ? (HAHAHA..They have been used for over a hundred years) Vector addition of fields... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/mulpoi.html#c3 ------ Heat Radiation Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2 ------- Heat flux "Heat flux or thermal flux, sometimes also referred to as heat flux density or heat flow rate intensity is a flow of energy per unit of area per unit of time. In SI units, it is measured in [W·m-2]. It has both a direction and a magnitude so it is a vectorial quantity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux ------------------------ Why don't you look up the Physics for yourself instead of just contantly "babbling"? ------------------------ You said... "Radiation is emitted in all directions, no direction is preferred for any reason. Heat, or more specifically a temperature gradient within matter will tend toward equalization as determined by the second law, entropy." -Pick a point. -Draw a line from the emitting body to the point. -That will give the direction. -The length of the line will determine the magnitude (inverse distance^2 loss). -Now you have a FIELD VECTOR. (By the way, the radiation from the emitting object will be at a 'right angle' to the emitting surface.)
  11. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Philippe Chantreau This very circular. The only way out is for me to concede and find things that I can agree on. For instance, you are right that a person's personal life should not be a determining factor in evaluating a person's achievements. As it turns out, this appears to be what happened to Arrhenius' detractor, Knut Angstrom for being politically insignificant. As you imply, image should not be the concern, and that it was unfair that Angstrom's critique of Arrhenius' greenhouse theory should be dismissed based on an issue of status as opposed to considering Arrhenius was a chemist, while Angstrom dedicated his life to investigating solar physics. (But, unfortunately, as we have witnessed, the world operates on politics and the truth sometimes has to wait.) http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/029/mwr-029-06-0268a.pdf ------------ To adress you question. I also agree with you that there are many good things that could never be accomplished by an individual. I think up to here, that is about all I can agree on, so I will not go on, lest this discussion never end.
  12. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Okay, Gord, since you answered my question #2 by saying the lamp filament cannotabsorb the reflected energy, here is the crucial followup question: What happened to the photons that were innocently traveling from the mirror toward the filament, having started their journey from the mirror blissfully unaware that their destination was hotter than the mirror they came from? 1. Did they self-destruct before they got there? If so, where did their energy go? How far away from the filament did they self-destruct? Is the distance from the filament what triggers their destruction, or is there some other trigger? 2. Or did the photons maneuver to the side of the filament to avoid it? If so, how did they maneuver--did they do it themselves, or did some outside force move them? How close to the filament did they get before they swerved? 3. Or were there no photons emitted by the filament straight toward the mirror, because the filament emitted those photons at an angle in order to avoid a head-on reflection? 4. Or did the filament emit fewer photons, because it refrained from emitting any straight toward the mirror?
  13. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, given that we were not able to explain the physics, let's try a different approach and see some consequences of your model. Just to make it simple, assume that all the radiation coming from the earth surface is totally absorbed. - the atmosphere absorbs 390 W/m^2 from the earth and emits the same amount but both upward and downward, twice the amount it absorbs; - the atmosphere changes it's temperature but not the earth surface; alternatively, the atmosphere does not warm upon absorption but then it must be at 0 K. - the net flux between atmosphere and earth surface is zero but the earth does not warm while still receving the flux from the sun; - the temperature of a planet is determined only by the distance from the sun and its albedo. For example, the moon (albedo 0.12) must be warmer than earth and Mercury (albedo 0.12 and nearer to the sun) warmer than Venus (albedo 0.7). For the same reason, the temperature variations of the earth across millennia are explained only by solar forcing and albedo feedback, both in timing and magnitude; a pretty regular pattern, indeed. - the same reasoning must apply to incoming solar radiation as well; if it is totally absorbed by the atmosphere the only change at the earth surface can be that it is now diffused radiation as opposed to direct radiation but temperature is unchanged. These are the first five i can think about. Many other both related and non-related to planetary climate can be immagined. But if you find even just one of the above not matching reality, the model is incomplete (at the very minimum) or plainly wrong.
  14. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, You Said: "Photon energy is carried by Electromagnetic Fields that propagate at the speed of light." Yes, until absorbed by a greenhouse gas molecule. The photon has at that moment ceased to exist, being converted to and added to the kinetic energy of the molecule. "All surfaces that have a temperature will radiate energy according to their temperatures....at the speed of light...they don't speed up or slow down." The propagation of energy is interrupted by greenhouse gas absorption. The propagation to space is not at the speed of light, the propagation between subsequent absorptions and emissions, reflecting the free path of the photon, is at the speed of light. The flow of energy exiting the system is slowed down. "The NEW WAVE produced will have a magnitude of [Earth Radiation w/m^2 - Atmosphere w/m^2] and a direction toward the colder atmosphere." With respect to the directionality of energy, electromagnetic radiation is not heat and heat is not radiation. By the above statement you clearly confuse the two. Radiation is emitted in all directions, no direction is preferred for any reason. Heat, or more specifically a temperature gradient within matter will tend toward equalization as determined by the second law, entropy.
  15. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Great site John. Are there any papers out there that have examined extinctions and CO2 levels throughout the Phanerozoic?
  16. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    SNRatio - re:your post#106 You said... "Gord shows no respect for that principle, on the contrary, he continues to make absurd claims like requesting us to explain "how a -20 deg C atmosphere can heat a -18 deg C Earth up by 33 deg C". Exactly, my greenhouse glassing heats the greenhouse!" "This is rather elementary radiation physics, well understood, and it is Gord's business to walk through the textbook examples, and point out where they are wrong - NOT where he thinks they are wrong, but where they produce demonstrably false predictions." Really? If it is "rather elementary radiation physics, well understood" then it should be a "snap" for you to explain it and back-up your answer with Physics...right? Intead of "babbling" about it why don't you just DO IT? You CAN'T because it requires a VIOLATION of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and a VIOLATION of The Law of Conservation of Energy. COME ON....PROVE ME WRONG! HAHAHA...Good Luck!
  17. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Tom Dayton - re:your post#105 You asked... Question 1: Is your answer the same as in #101? "...do you agree with me that light from the flashlight traveled to the mirror, reflected off the mirror, traveled to your eyes, and was absorbed by your eyes? Answer: Yes to both. Your eyes are lenses that concentrate the reflected EM energy at a focal point. ------ You asked... "Now angle the flashlight so it is aimed directly at the mirror, so if you were inside the flashlight you would see the full image of the flashlight's lit lamp head-on. Question 2: Do you agree with me that the light from the flashlight's lamp travels to the mirror, reflects off the mirror, and illuminates the interior of the flashlight, including the lamp?" No, the hot lamp filament CANNOT absorb the reflected energy because it has a smaller flux density w/m^2 compared to w/m^2 leaving the filament. If the filament absorbed the reflected light it would have to increase the filament's energy and temperature. If the filament increased in temperature, it would produce more light. More light would be reflected back to the filament causing it's temperature to rise again, producing more light etc. The process would continue until the filament reached an infinite temperature producing infinite energy. This would be called a Perpetual Motion machine in a positive feed-back loop. Just like the FANTASY "Greenhouse Effect" produces.
  18. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    WeatherRusty - re:your post#103 RE: 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. You said... "I don't have to describe how that might happen because it does not and can not happen the way you assume it must, in violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. You are the one arguing outside the mainstream in defiance of well understood physics." If it is "well understood physics"...then don't "babble" about it....POST THE PHYSICS! ------ You said.... "Atmospheric greenhouse gases increase the time required for the dissipation of energy to space by effectively decreasing the mean free path of individual photons. A surface that cools more slowly ends up being a warmer surface. It can't be described any more simply." Photon energy is carried by Electromagnetic Fields that propagate at the speed of light. All surfaces that have a temperature will radiate energy according to their temperatures....at the speed of light...they don't speed up or slow down. "In physics, interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that results in a NEW WAVE pattern." The NEW WAVE produced will have a magnitude of [Earth Radiation w/m^2 - Atmosphere w/m^2] and a direction toward the colder atmosphere. This is also confirmed by the 2nd Law. This NEW WAVE also travels at the speed of light. It can't be described any more simply.
  19. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Tom Dayton - re:your post#102 I answered your post#100 in my post#101 Now re: Droppings along the bunny trail Saturday, March 21, 2009 The Second Law and its Criminal Misuse "If the Clausius statement referred to any flow of heat when the two disks were placed opposite each other B would have to stop radiating towards A because if it did not, heat would be transferred between a body at lower temperature to a body at higher temperature. This is obviously absurd. The ability of either disk to radiate does not depend on the presence of another disk that absorbs the emitted radiation." "The ability of either disk to radiate does not depend on the presence of another disk that absorbs the emitted radiation." is correct. The rest is utter nonsense! Rabett obviously does not understand that the radiated Electromagnetic Fields are VECTOR fields and must be treated as such. Gerlich and Tscheuschner made that point very clear in their paper. Rabett's explaination is so dense it is astounding. The simple existance of the Interference Properties Of Waves proves that Rabett has absolutely zero knowlege of Electromagnetic Physics. Interference (wave propagation) "In physics, interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that results in a NEW WAVE pattern." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) Electromagnetic Physics has been in constant use by Electrical Engineers and Physicists for over a hundred years. Every Antenna radiation pattern design, every TV-Radio transmission, every Satellite link, every Microwave link, every Optical/IR link etc. uses Electromagnetic Fields as VECTOR fields. Somebody should explain that to the "Rabett"! Maybe he could make the big leap in understanding to include the late 19th Century Physics. ---------- Rabett's Heat Transfer examples totally ignore Electromagnetic Field Vectors and can also be easily disproven using The Law of Conservation of Energy. Example: Look at Rabett's diagram where he has the Surface T = 300K and Atmosphere T = 260K. Surface T = 300K is due to the ONLY energy source...The Sun....that's ALL the energy it can receive PERIOD. The Surface and Atmosphere ARE NOT ENERGY SOURCES! If ANY energy flows from the Colder Atmosphere T = 260K to the warmer Surface T = 300K then Surface T would have to increase in temperature thus CREATING energy. This is as basic as it gets....YOU CAN'T GET MORE ENERGY OUT OF A SYSTEM THAN YOU PUT IN! --------------------- Rabett Run is perfectly named...."droppings along the bunny trail".
  20. Working out climate sensitivity
    Thanks Tom! I read that post a couple of months ago and I didn't connected it to this, but I think that the clue is in the main article: Given that there's no trend in TSI since the 50s, the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere should have been decreasing since then until reaching a new equilibrium. However, what we have observed is just the contrary (more energy in than out). I guess that should be true regardless of any amplfication... Thnks again!
  21. Working out climate sensitivity
    PeterPan, maybe the comments starting with Chris's on a different thread on Skeptical Science will have enough pointers? Dunno, I haven't read them all.
  22. Working out climate sensitivity
    Skeptics have suggested that there may be feedbacks that only react to certain forcings. They base this on Shaviv 2003, claiming that the ocean heat flux correlated to the 11-year solar cycle needs 5-7 times more radiative forcing than the radiativee forcing associated with just the TSI variation. If someone could give me some context on this, I'd be very grateful.
  23. It's cooling
    It is worth looking at fig 6 in Trenberth's paper...it shows ocean heat content derived from 4 sources; GODAS, JMA, ECCo-GECCO & ECCO-GODAE. Two data sets show an increasing trend in OHT and two show the beginning of a steep decline. You can download the ECCO report from http://www.ecco-group.org/pdfs/reports/report44.pdf and compare it with the graphs from GODAS ( Google Meridional Overturning Circulation Simulated by NCEP GODAS...quick view). GODAS seems to show warming is essentially confined to the North Atlantic..the tropics and N. pacific show no trend, whilst the S pacific, S. Indian and S. Atlantic show steep declines since around 2006. So which do we believe??
  24. Philippe Chantreau at 06:23 AM on 31 October 2009
    CO2 has been higher in the past
    Arrhenius, or any other author will not be invoked because of his credibility as an individual but because of credibility as an author, proven by work that was subsequently confirmed through innumerable other publications and loads of data. Who the author is and what kind of political opinions he has, or what kind of life he lives has no bearing on that.. Only their work on that subject matters. You were the one starting the ad-hom against Arrhenius, here is the exact quote from post #9 above: "Also, in terms of establishing this man's credibility," and then it goes on with other stuff and the Eugenics blurb. You don't seem to understand what an ad-hom is. If I said that your opinion on matters of atmospheric physics is garbage because you don't understand the basic physics that would not be an ad-hom argument, whether or not it is correct. OTOH, if I said that your opinion on atmospheric physics is trash because you engage in morally reprehensible activities, that would be an ad-hom, whether or not the accusation is true, once again. Your engaging in these activities would have no bearing whatsoever on reflections on atmospheric physics, whereas your ignorance of basic physics would. The reason why we often insist on reliability of sources is to avoid giving undue weight to stuff produced by people who are not qualified. Researchers who are active in a given field are good sources about that field. Work that has been confirmed throughout a century of subsequent research confers credibility to its author on that subject. Last, refrain from half veiled insults comparing me to religious authorities siding with philosophy against data. It is unwarranted. You're also implying that I am ready to jail or silence by force anyone dissenting (without specifying exactly with what) even if based on valid work. There is NOTHING in any of my posts that could even remotely allow to draw such conclusion. If there is, be so kind as to cite the exact quote and explain how you interpret it. You are using once again a poor rethoric tactic that consists of demonizing the opponent. I have my opinion about what transpires of your ideology, I will keep it to myself since it adds nothing to a discussion of the existing science on our subject, which is the focus of this blog. If I wanted to, I could easily return the favor and compare you to Stalin who ignored the findings of genetics because he was clueless enough to go for Lysenko and what was ideologically more fitting. But I won't do that. It would add nothing. Finally explain how a "committee", unable to integrate information, successfully launches remotely operated vehicles to Mars and all that other stuff. I don't get it. Looks to me that some pretty darn good integration of info was done there.
  25. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    In order to have a serious scientific discussion, we have to agree on the description of phenomena. Gord shows no respect for that principle, on the contrary, he continues to make absurd claims like requesting us to explain "how a -20 deg C atmosphere can heat a -18 deg C Earth up by 33 deg C". Exactly, my greenhouse glassing heats the greenhouse! This is rather elementary radiation physics, well understood, and it is Gord's business to walk through the textbook examples, and point out where they are wrong - NOT where he thinks they are wrong, but where they produce demonstrably false predictions. It's very interesting whenever someone is able to show that a theory gives false predictions, but in order to do that, you have to get "inside" the theory. Not belief-wise, but technically, so you are sure that you are not mis-applying it. Gord does not seem to be in the position to apply the standard basic theory correctly. The inconsistencies he perceives come from his lack of understanding, not the basic theory itself.
  26. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To extend the 13C record back from 1981 see: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/13C_zhao.gif Source: Zhao, X.Y., Qian, J.L., Wang, J., He, Q.Y., Wang, Z.L., Chen, C.Z. (2006). Using a tree ring δ13C annual series to reconstruct atmospheric co2 concentration over the past 300 years. Pedosphere,, 16(3), 371-379.
  27. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    My point, Gord, is to then ask you to stand again in front of the bathroom mirror but aim a regular, visible-light, flashlight at the mirror. Aim it angled so the light reflects off of the mirror into your eyes, not straight back into the flashlight. Question 1: Is your answer the same as in #101? That is, do you agree with me that light from the flashlight traveled to the mirror, reflected off the mirror, traveled to your eyes, and was absorbed by your eyes? Now angle the flashlight so it is aimed directly at the mirror, so if you were inside the flashlight you would see the full image of the flashlight's lit lamp head-on. Question 2: Do you agree with me that the light from the flashlight's lamp travels to the mirror, reflects off the mirror, and illuminates the interior of the flashlight, including the lamp?
  28. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    What would happen to the Sun if the gases overlying the stellar core were not opaque to electromagnetic radiation? The core would be layed bare to gamma radiation which would rush out instantly cooling the stellar interior in a flash. The whole star would collapse in on itself due to a lack of "radiation pressure" which holds up the body of the Sun against the force of gravity. Just as the Sun's interior is kept hot by overlying radiation absorbing matter, so is Earth's surface kept warmer by greenhouse gases absorbing IR radiation. The physics is the same, even if the exact mechanism leading to the absorption of radiation differs.
  29. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, 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. I don't have to describe how that might happen because it does not and can not happen the way you assume it must, in violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. You are the one arguing outside the mainstream in defiance of well understood physics. A colder atmosphere does not radiate at higher energy than the warmer surface. The flow of energy from the solar warmed surface is on average out to space, the tendency is always, in the absence of sunshine and warm air advection, for the surface and atmosphere to cool. Atmospheric greenhouse gases increase the time required for the dissipation of energy to space by effectively decreasing the mean free path of individual photons. A surface that cools more slowly ends up being a warmer surface. It can't be described any more simply.
  30. Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
    Chris As per data in cited Journal of Geophysical Research article, there is actually a general cooling trend between what looks like the year 1940 and 1995. From there, yes, there is sharp warming swing, however, a very similar signature is visible around 1930 (although emerging from what looks like an even colder period that preceded it).
  31. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Phillipe Chantreau I was NOT the one that started out a dissertation using another individual's reputation and credibility to back my claims! I just happened to research who he was and found he was actively promoting a body of ideas that have been rejected, not only for moral and practical reasons, but more importantly, in terms of this discussion, for technical reasons. You make the case that it is unfair for me to be concerned with a person's grounding, while always defending "your" ideas based on the reputation of source material. The "one man" thing has to do with the quality of what committees tend to produce vs the individual. A committee is a mindless body that is incapable of integrating information. It can produce great things, (pyramids, space shuttles, etc), but it can never think. Oh, we forgot to mention Copernicus, by the way, who had to deal with your way of "reasoning".
  32. Philippe Chantreau at 17:14 PM on 30 October 2009
    Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
    Thanks Chris. Very interesting papers that nicely complement the subject of the post.
  33. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, while I wait for your answer to my comment 100, here is the Rabett's version of the explanation that folks in this thread having been trying to get you to understand: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/second-law-and-its-criminal-misuse-as.html
  34. There is no consensus
    just a test to see if the server is working.
  35. 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.
  36. 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?
  37. 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?
  38. 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!
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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, :)
  45. 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?
  46. 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."
  47. 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.
  48. 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, :)
  49. 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.
  50. 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."

Prev  2557  2558  2559  2560  2561  2562  2563  2564  2565  2566  2567  2568  2569  2570  2571  2572  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2026 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us