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  2569  2570  2571  2572  2573  2574  2575  2576  2577  2578  2579  2580  2581  2582  2583  2584  Next

Comments 128801 to 128850:

  1. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    Patrick I realize what the words mean (nice twist BTW) but what I am saying is that in nature it does not happen. Balance is never achieved, it's what I would call an unnatural state.
  2. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    The commonality between thermodynamic equilibrium and equilibrium water level in a funnel: In both cases, a disequilibrium causes an imbalance that tends to restore equilibrium (in chemistry, La Chatelier's principle). The difference: Thermodynamic equilibrium fluxes are equal and opposite along all channels (a chemical reaction occurs forwards and backwards at the same rate) - whereas the water leaving the bottom of the funnel is not balanced by water entering through the bottom of the funnel.
  3. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    "Understood. My argument is that there was no "tipping point" because it is a nonexistent concept." Oh, I think the concept exists :). There can't be any positive feedback regarding thawing permafrost releasing methane if there is no permafrost to thaw. Generally, the presence of tipping points and thresholds would be dependent on the state of the climate.
  4. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    471: "....including all of the processes of life." are the last seven words of: "Equilibrium" and "thermodynamics" are certainly not only engineering concepts. They are fundamental to all processes in the natural world including all of the processes of life. Presumably you have a point to make Quietman. Arch insinuation is a poor substitute for clear explanation. I expect that if you were able to state your point clearly we could easily clear up your problem with my sentence. Why not have a go?
  5. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    "Water seeks it own level, it's the same idea. But that level is never acheived except in a laboratory because in an open system there is always something else that changes the level (soil absorbtion rates, evaporation, tidal forces, etc.) ie. equilibrium is never achieved. Therefore there is never a balance. Chaos keeps everything in an open system in constant flux." Flux = in general conversation, any change. Flux in science can refer to a flow of something - Energy, matter, momentum. It can also refer to fields, in that the field 'flows' along field lines (?). Such a flux may or may not be changing. Unbalanced fluxes, sources, and sinks, cause net changes in distributions. For example, take a grid cell; there may be fluxes of some thing into or out of the cell through the spatial boundaries. There may be sources and sinks within the cell that convert something else into that thing or convert that thing into something else. Instantaneously, balance IS achieved if the sources, sinks, and fluxes into and out of the cell all sum to zero. Over time, balance IS achieved if the time average of the sources, sinks, and fluxes into and out of the cell all sum to zero. A stable equilibrium tends to be approached if there are tendencies for greater influx and/or sources to cause changes that result in greater outflow and/or sinks. For example, using the concept of water flowing through a funnel: Without viscous effects, the square of the velocity out of the funnel will be proportional to the depth of the water within the funnel (gravitational potential energy determined by water level, conversion to kinetic energy when exiting flow leaves the high pressure (from the weight of the water column) at the bottom of the funnel; viscosity slows it down but the general trend is still for faster outflow to occur in response to higher water level. Thus, faster inflow will raise the water level until the outflow catches up to the inflow rate; this is a stable equilibrium... Of course the 'real' world is more complex but the general concept can still apply. (the equilibrium may be replaced by a 'strange attractor' in chaotic systems).
  6. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe My reason for posting my friends comment: chris at 21:22 PM on 10 January 2009 "Equilibrium" and "thermodynamics" are certainly not only engineering concepts. They are fundamental to all processes in the natural world including all of the processes of life. Please note the last 7 words. As for Marc Morano, I don't know who that is. I assume that uou refer to the author of one of the articles. I need to point out that I don't pay attention to who the writer of an article is, only who they quote and what is contained in the quote.
  7. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    Patrick Re: RATES OF CHANGE. Understood. My argument is that there was no "tipping point" because it is a nonexistent concept. Chris Re: "equilibrium sensitivity" Water seeks it own level, it's the same idea. But that level is never acheived except in a laboratory because in an open system there is always something else that changes the level (soil absorbtion rates, evaporation, tidal forces, etc.) ie. equilibrium is never achieved. Therefore there is never a balance. Chaos keeps everything in an open system in constant flux.
  8. Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
    #14: "Of course fear isn't "the greatest behavioural driver in mankind". I would suggest that sex, ambition, the imperative to care for our children, the drive for creativity, learning and understanding of our environment and world, and so on, are greater "behavioural drivers"; certainly nowadays..." Wrong Chris, the primary driver is SURVIVE because all the things you quote cannot happen if you are dead. And more times than you think it is that old hindbrain that keeps you alive.
  9. Philippe Chantreau at 12:28 PM on 24 February 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Thanks Patrick. And Quietman, If you interpret any of this as support for your contention that solar winds are participating in a significant way to surface temp increase, I think you are deeply confused. However, as I said bebefore, if you have science articles saying so (not just loosely related), link them. I am still to discover the logic that leads you to distrust RC but trust Marc Morano for scientific judgment unaffected by politics.
  10. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    p.326 Wallace and Hobbs: top of photosphere = bottom of chromosphere, has a vertical minimum in temperature at about 4300 K; chromosphere about 2500 km thick, top of chromosphere temperature on the order of 100,000 K. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/RandyAbbas.shtml 500 km/s and 500 ions/cm3 agree with Corona temperature of 3.6 million K Solar wind: - near Earth, temp ~ 970 K - "Latest Solar Wind Values" (Jun 10 or 12 of 2005?) ~ temp ~ 36,000 K "during periods of greater sunspot activity it shows corresponding increases in density, temperature, and velocity" p.326 Wallace and Hobbs: Solar wind at Earth ~ 500 km/s, temperature can "occasionally" approach 1 million K. v(rms) (km/s) for T (K) ... 4.99 ......... 1,000 .. 15.79 ........ 10,000 .. 49.9 ........ 100,000 . 157.9 ...... 1,000,000 . 274 ........ 3,000,000 . 300 ........ 3,600,000 So the kinetic energy of the average motion dominates in the total kinetic energy of the particles. Energy per kg at T ~ 1 million K, solar wind speed ~ 900 m/s (PS because the thermal motion is random, square the speeds seperately before adding; multiply thermal energy by 2 for electrons + protons): 1/2 [(900,000 m/s)^2 + 2*(157,900 m/s)^2] = 0.43 TJ/kg Electrical potential energy per proton electron pair: 13.6 eV. 1 eV = 1.602 * 10^-19 J. Electric potential energy per mol ionized hydrogen: 1.31 MJ. Energy per kg is approximately 0.0013 TJ, less than 1% of the kinetic energy of the particles. ----- CORRECTION of comment 467: Density 6.02 atoms/cm3 = 6.02 * 10^4 atoms/L 6.02 protons/ cm3 ~= 10^-19 kg/m3 100 protons/ cm3 ~= 1.7 * 10^-18 kg/m3 0.43 TJ/kg * 1.7 * 10^-18 kg/m3 ~= 0.73 uJ (microjoules) per m3. 0.73 uJ/m3 * 900 km/s = 0.66 W/m2 = 0.048 % of TSI That's the energy of the solar wind - well, near the high end of it's range. From the more common numbers (using Temperature of 150,000 K, I'm not sure if that's average or above average or what, but it shouldn't make more than a few % difference): 500 km/s, 6 ions/cm3: 0.0064 W/m2 = 0.00047 % of TSI. Well, if the Earth's magnetic field could focus that energy onto the Earth, perhaps 100 times, the effect would be commonly: 0.64 W/m2, 0.047 % of TSI near high end: 66 W/m2, 4.8 % of TSI. The last case would be HUGE. But how would the magnetic field do that? I don't think that's how it works. The magnetic field deflects the solar wind, but the solar wind (and the interplanetary magnetic field it carries along) distort the geomagnetic field. variations in the solar wind can resonate with particles (electrons) within the geomagnetic field, boosting their energies: "SOLAR WIND MAKES WAVES; KILLER ELECTRONS GO SURFING? http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0904magwaves.html" But how much total energy is involved in that? And what ultimately happens to it? Aside from those questions, how much multidecadal variability is there in the solar wind? Changes in the magnetosphere can affect the E-region dynamo of the ionosphere. In this region, winds driven by differential heating produce electric fields and currents because of differences in mass and radius of gyration between electrons and the much heavier ions; electrons are much more tied-down to magnetic field lines. If winds and pressure distributions were altered in the E-region and F-region of the ionosphere, this wouldn't have much direct effect on much of the mesosphere, and very very little on the stratosphere and troposphere, because it is such a small amount of mass in comparison. If there is a significant effect, it would have to be (I think) by wave-mean interactions. Maybe the lower thermosphere winds could alter vertical momentum transport to-and-from the mesophere, thus altering upper mesopheric circulation, ... thus altering lower mesospheric circulation, ... thus altering upper stratospheric circulation, ... thus altering lower stratospheric circulation, ... thus altering tropospheric winds, thus altering climate, though not clearly with an immediate net warming or cooling effect. (PS variations in TSI would likely have significant impacts on the upper atmosphere because of the larger variability of UV radiation compared to total TSI variability). Everything is connected, but everything is not connected equally. There are a lot of missing and fuzzy links here; the greenhouse effect as a driver of climate change is much better understood.
  11. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Sorry, also using ten year moving averges looks a bit like trying too hard. 12 month averages would seem to be appropriate for a ten year period. S
  12. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Hi, Thanks again for a great site. I think it is a bit disingenuous to use surface based temperature graphs rather than sattelite based ones. There is a new paper from one Arno Arak who claims that hte sattelites show no warming when measured to Dec 08. Is there anywhere this is refuted. Shane
  13. Climate's changed before
    ps Let me rephrase that. "this quite clear from the fossil record. Climate changes can and do cause extinctions but from cooling, not warming." I should have said: "this IS quite clear from the fossil record. Climate changes can and do cause MAJOR extinctions but from cooling, not warming. Minor extinctions happen all the time because some organisms have over specialized and are too sensitive. The small climate changes (which occur normally) weed out those species. It's called Natural Selection."
  14. Climate's changed before
    David I understand what you are saying but disagree that they caused the extinctions. The warming as the agent of extinction is simply false. Life on Earth has always adapted well to increases in heat, this quite clear from the fossil record. Climate changes can and do cause extinctions but from cooling, not warming. Every extinction cited as being caused by GHGs can be shown to have other causes. I agree with Mizimi on this. Name an extinction where warming is blamed and I will give you a more viable explanation for that extinction that has nothing to do with GHGs. This is a violent and dangerous planet. People that refuse to believe that are seriously deluded.
  15. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Phillipe See patricks comment. I don't remember where I saw the articles, I think at Science Blogging (Imagenova). Patrick Thank You
  16. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    The vast majority of solar energy output is radiation - 'TSI' - it is mostly thermal radiation, with the spectrum of a blackbody (but not quite because the temperature varies within the photosphere, both horizontally and vertically, and the source of the radiation to space is distributed vertically over that 'surface' layer; short wavelengths (< 100 nm) and very long wavelength (> 1 to 10 cm) emission is over and above that of a blackbody of photospheric temperatures (in a range near 5780 K); the energy at these wavelenths is more variable but a small fraction of the total (Wallace and Hobbs, p.323 graph). The short wavelength (<100 nm) emission is nearly all from the corona and is about 3 ppm of solar TSI; wavelengths less than 200 nm account for about 0.01 % of solar TSI (Wallace and Hobbs, pp.327-328). A typical velocity of the solar wind is 500 km/s at Earth's orbit. Solar wind speeds and densities are quite variable. What is the order of magnitude of the power per unit area? From: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/RandyAbbas.shtml density: 3 to 500 atoms per cm3 (essentially 3 to 500 protons and 3 to 500 electrons) (I'm not sure but the higher figure might be for closer to the sun) speed: 495 km/s, 500 km/s, 700 km/s, can get to ~ 890 km/s (3.2 million km per hour). " It is the supersonic outflow into interplanetary space of plasma from the outer atmosphere of the Sun. Its is composed of positive ions and electrons, with the ions being almost entirely composed of protons, about 95% to be exact. The elements that make up the Solar Wind are Hydrogen (95%), Helium (4%) and a mixture of Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Neon, Magnesium, Silicon and Iron at < 1%. " The average density of the Solar Wind is 4.0 atoms per cubic centimeter. Which is pretty small if you think about it, especially since the Solar Wind is responsible for deflecting the tails of comets away from the Earth. " The Solar Wind is constantly being blown off from the Sun at speeds of about 400-500 km per second. If you were to travel at 450 km per second you could travel around the entire world in 85 seconds! " -- Density 6.02 atoms/cm3 = 10^4 atoms/L, divide by 6.02 * 10^23 atoms/mol: Density 10^-19 mol/L = (for protons) ~ 10^-19 g/L = 10^-19 kg/m3 -- From: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/wind_character.html http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/images/wind_character_big_jpg_image.html density ranges mainly between 1 and 100 protons per cm3, wind speeds mainly between 300 and 700 km/s and in the graph remain between 200 and 800 km/s but can sometimes get above 800 km/s "At the orbit of the Earth, the solar wind has an average density of about 6 ions/cm3" "The sun is flinging 1 million tons of matter out into space every second!" Temperature ~ 150,000 K - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c2 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/kinetic/idegas.html#c2 v(rms) = sqrt(3*k*T/particle mass) = sqrt(3*R*T/molar mass); k= 1.38066 * 10^-23 J/K R = 8.3145 J/(K mol) v(rms) solar wind = to make a long story short, much more energy is in the macroscopic motion than in the thermal motions of particules following the average motion; ...
  17. Philippe Chantreau at 04:00 AM on 24 February 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    OK, so I'll repeat the questions I had for you on the Mars thread. I don't understand what you're trying to say and I don't see anything in the article you link (on the Mars Thread)that clarifies it. How does the solar wind "carry" heat? What is your definition of heat? How do you think that heat is normally transmitted through space? What scientific references do you have that particles winds participate in the Earth' energy budget
  18. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    ps I would not recommend living in the midwest for much longer.
  19. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    chris In order for this "equilibrium" equation to gice the correct result you need to have all the correct data. You do not. It's just that simple. Right now you have a GIGO situation. Why? Because important factors are ignored as "being insignificant". Gravity is a weak force, so weak we can't actually figure out what it actually is. But it has a large effect and it's just one factor left out of the equation. The solar wind is another. It's brushed aside as "insignificant", only TSI is important. But a solar flare increases not just the velocity but the thermal energy of the solar wind and this factor is ignored. I understand why it was ignored 20 years ago but with what has been learned in the last few years there is no excuse for ignorance. The same goes for tectonic heating. It's viewed as "business as usual" when in fact it has increased to dangerous levels. Why? Because we are stuck in this "it's AGW" fantasy that Hansen started.
  20. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick Will do.
  21. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    RE 20: "during the upper Mesozoic with the highest possible levels of CO2 and NOTHING CATASTROPHIC ever came of it" RATES OF CHANGE.
  22. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    Yes, that's right Patrick The straightforward concept of equilibrium with respect to climate (e.g. a change in the equilbrium temperature of the Earth in responce to a change in radiative forcing) is encapsulated in the opening sentence of a nice review on climate sensitivity in Nature Geoscience published in October: "When the radiation balance of the Earth is perturbed, the global surface temperature will warm and adjust to a new equilibrium state." Reto Knutti & Gabriele C. Hegerl The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes Nature Geoscience 1, 735 - 743 (2008) http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo337.html
  23. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: A climatic equilibrium is not a thermodynamic equilbrium. It is a state where mass, energy, and momentum fluxes, etc, are balanced over sufficient time without net regional redistributions. It would be analogous to the equilibrium water level in a funnel with a given openning at the bottom and a given inflow rate at the top - as opposed to the equilibrium water level that would occur when the inflow is shut off.
  24. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    John said: Systems with positive feedbacks aren't necessarily unstable. It depends on the strength of the positive feedback. If it's less than a certain threshhold, the positive feedback gets less and less till a stable position is reached. Empirical observations of climate sensitivity estimate that's the case with our climate. ] Yet the argument says...As f approaches 1, the change in temperature grows very large....but at the same time you seem to be saying f cannot approach unity ???
  25. Comparing IPCC projections to observations
    Chris: if you go to Wattsupwiththat site, you will find various threads dealing with 'raw' data from MLO including some correspondence between Dr Tans and Andrew Watts which is quite illuminating, especially Tans' comments on funding and equipment age. Note also Tans has taken on board some suggestions from AW which have been common practise in commerce and industry for many, many years. In any event, MLO publishes data which has been mathematically derived since the 'real' data is a voltage output at the instrument sensor, not an actual concentration reading. MLO is at around 3200m altitude, so there has to be a correction for PT no? Another maths fuction dependent on P and T readings concurrent with the CO2 sample. Also worth reading is the 'README' file at the noaa data site, some of which I quoted in #36.
  26. Climate's changed before
    David; the examples given of extinction events are interesting but not relevent. Sure there were changes in climate that caused species extinctions, but those changes were caused by massive physical forces -catastrophic in scale and duration far beyond what we can do by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Bear in mind too, that the earth was a very different place then and so was the climate; in truth one could argue that if it wasn't for these events we would not have the climatic conditions we enjoy today.
  27. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    Re 35 - When the exceptions to these 'laws' are found, could it be that reformulating the 'law' to take into account a broader range of phenomena would leave the law intact... okay, I realize that doesn't sound very clear, so here's an example: Because of the kinetic barriers to nuclear reactions, in many circumstances, entropy and free energy are calculated without respect to nuclear energy. But a nuclear reaction could provide more free energy to the rest of the system while increasing entropy. Including the nuclear entropy and free energy in the original calculation restores the 'laws'. When virtual quantum particles zip into and out of existence, these could be included in some way into thermodynamics. Are these processes large enough to affect our understanding of the climate system? The climate system depends on many of the same things a non-nuclear engineer might deal with - heating and cooling, water vapor pressure, blowing the air, pressure differences, adiabatic compression, latent heat, mixtures, gravitational potential energy, optics...
  28. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    ""See comment 35 here"" - I also meant to say thanks for that.
  29. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Re # 453 Quietman, you are being decidely naughty and attempting to use contrived misunderstanding and misrepresentation as an "argument"! I've desrcribed explicitly how I'm using the term equilibrium (see post #446, for example). Nothing I've said contradicts the "Laws of Theremodynamics"! Your "argument" seems to be (post #454): "I discussed with mu friend the use intended and he agreed that it does apply to this argument as well. So it actually is not out of context." That's just silly. Why not try to be explicit? Read my post #446, and explain explicitly where you disagree. Leave you "friend" out of it. Or better still, get your friend to engage with the arguments at first hand...
  30. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Einstein constructed a theory based on the concept that the speed of light should be observed to be the same in any reference frame, and that the physics within a room sitting on the Earth; held up by the force of supporting material by the ~ 9.81 m/s2 acceleration of gravity, should be equilavent to the physics in the reference frame that is being accelerated at 9.81 m/s2 upward with no gravitational field actiing on it. As far as I know, it was a bit of an intuitive leap, but there were reasons for thinking that these conditions might be true. For the first part, the speed of light was predicted by some equations (Maxwell) that involve two constants - permittivity (related to electric fields) and permeability (related to magnetic fields). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_constant http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/electric/elefie.html These values can vary as material properties, but have values in 'free space' as well. If space is a material... well...; but anyway, will these material properties change if the materials move? It's concievable but ... Well, there are two immediately apparent options: Physics varies among inertial reference frames, suggesting there is a fundamental inertial reference frame (the only one in which the speed of light appears the same in all directions?), perhaps the one which follows the motion of space itself? - OR - The speed of light is the same in all reference frames; physics is the same in all inertial reference frames; space and time can be warped. Anyway, Einstein's theory yeilded predictions; tests have been made (E=mc^2 (actually, that's a special case of E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2, I think), gravitational lensing, the relativistic correction to Newtonian-based calculation of the perihelion advance of Mercury (non-relativistic contributions come from planetary interactions), red-shift due to the expanding universe (actually that may be relativity as evidence of expansion rather than the other way around?) - due to lengthening wavelengths with the expansion of space as the photons are travelling - this is distinct from red shift due to relative motion, which I believe is also altered by relativity relative to the equation for the doppler shifting of sound waves, for example - there is also relativistic gravitational red shift, gravitational distortion of time... so far the theory has not falsified. I wonder if Tesla's opinion about relativity is analogous to Einstein's opinion about quantum mechanics. Anyway, where in the scales involved of the solar system and the Earth has General Relativity - or Newtonian approximations, where applicable - been violated? If there is an error it is too small to be detected yet. Which says something about whether we need be concerned with regards to Milankovitch cycles, tides, etc. --- "See comment 35 here" ... "I had to stop posting in the thread where you asked. Just to open it takes a couple of minutes now (it's too long)." I don't know about your computer or internet connection, but what I would do is open up multiple windows (or tabs, if you have that option) so that I can do one thing while waiting for another... I'm going to keep posting at the other site; maybe if you only stop by once every few days...
  31. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    "Tesla was critical of Einstein's relativity work, calling it: “ ...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists ...[76] " - Wikipedia I don't remember Einstein's exact words about math versus experiment, but they essentially agreed with what Tesla said about his math (just not about his own theory). LOL
  32. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    ps When making models using math it is nest to keep in mind the statements that Einstein and Tesla made on the subject.
  33. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick Re: "furthermore, we do understand it." I don't think so. When we identify the nature of gravity we will understand it. Thus far we only understand it's effects and that not completely. What we have is a "working knowledge" of gravity. The same as we have a "working knowledge" of climate. We really do not have all the answers yet.
  34. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick 027 Re: Quietman - where in the above comments were your friend's and chris's comments about thermodynamics? It was posted in a different thread. See comment 35 here:. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing? ps I had to stop posting in the thread where you asked. Just to open it takes a couple of minutes now (it's too long). pps This thread is also becoming a problem but not as bad.
  35. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    The composition of subduction-zone magma could/would also be affected by any subducted sediments (though some of that forms an accretionary prism that is not subducted) and also by alteration of the upper oceanic crust by water (hydrothermal vents near the mid-oceanic ridges).
  36. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Re 441: "Re: "new equilibrium temperature" discusses thermodynamic laws, implying a closed system. The earth has no equilibrium temperature, it constantly changes. GHGs do control it's limits but never achieve "equilibrium" because the earth "breathes". " The equilibrium in this context is a long-term equilibrium. The equilibrium temperature may refer to the average temperature over time. If the average temperature is higher, more LW radiation goes to space, cooling the climate system off, etc. It is not exactly that simple, of course, because of feedbacks, and the nonlinear dependence of blackbody radiation on temperature, and the potential for changing the spatial and temporal variability of the temperature for a given average. However, the concept still works, as part of a longer-term equilibrium climate. There must be limits to the unforced variability (true that the limits could be a function of time scale), or the probability would be much higher that nothing other than bacteria be alive right now.
  37. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    ""Magma chockfull of silica is viscous (think warm, gooey taffy) and traps lots of gases." " Yes, it is. But geologic emissions are only roughly 2 or 3 percent of anthropogenic emissions and are roughly balanced by the chemical weathering sink. ------------- "This indicates that the magma is mixing with subducted sea bottom." The magma comes from subducting crust and some of the overlying crust. Crust is enriched in silica relative to the mantle, so yes, subduction zone volcanism tends to be more silica rich (and produce less mafic and more felsic igneous rocks) than mid-ocean ridge magma. Hot spot volcanism magma comes from the mantle but penetrates overlying crust, as I understand it - well it's quite fluid (and produces basalt, I think) at Hawaii, but can be quite viscous (and typically felsic) at Yellowstone - my guess is the difference in overlying crust composition is the big factor. Continental crust is more felsic and less mafic than oceanic crust; the mantle is ultramafic. Igneous rocks ----------- felsic --------------- mafic ----| ultramafic intrusive: granite. grano-diorite diorite. gabbro | peridotite extrusive: rhyolite dacite....... andesite basalt | komatiite There are also a class of igneous rocks which are less rich in silica but not mafic; they contain feldspathoids. Chemically, feldspathoid + quartz = feldspar; igneous rocks can contain feldspathoids and feldspar, feldspar, or quartz and feldspar, but not quartz and feldspathoids at the same time because they would have reacted in a molten state to produce feldspar. Of course, during the crystalization process, some crystal grains can form and then (if/when big enough to prevent diffusion toward equilbrium composition) become out-of equilbrium with the composition of the melt... ----------------- "Keep in mind that planetary alignments of that nature are extremely rare and take several years to line up fully and several more to unalign." How rare is rare? "The combined pull of the planets beyond our orbit is greatly underestimated because of the lack of understanding of gravity." If you're thinking of the invocation of dark matter to explain the rate of revolution around the galactic center at great distances, you should know that doesn't apply to planetary orbits around a star. If it did, Pluto would be orbiting faster. If you're thinking of 'reduced mass' instead of actual masses, that's important for objects with masses similar to each other, but with the planets all orbiting the sun, and the sun's mass over 1000 times that of the next most massive body involved, 'reduced mass' is a very minor issue for planetary orbits. It plays a bigger role in the Earth and moon's orbits about their common barycenter, but it's still a relatively small effect, furthermore, we do understand it. Relativistic effects are also relatively minor for the solar system, although it might be necessary to take them into account for Milankovitch-like cycles of various planetary orbits (it makes a contribution to perihelion advance) - where incremental changes build up after many revolutions. This is understood. If you're thinking of the lack of theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics - that's a nonissue for actually using general relativity and it's approximation, Newtonian gravity, for planetary orbits and even dust-particle orbits, charged particle orbits, etc. If you're thinking of radiation pressure, that's understood as well. http://www.etsu.edu/physics/etsuobs/starprty/22099dgl/planalign.htm http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planets.html
  38. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick Look beyond the eruptions. Why are there eruptions and what do they implicate? A recent article states "Magma chockfull of silica is viscous (think warm, gooey taffy) and traps lots of gases." This indicates that the magma is mixing with subducted sea bottom. All of these volcanos near coasts are there because of the subduction. An increase of volcanic eruptions are symptons of tectonic plate movement and that is the "thermostat" that I already referenced. It's not a slowed process, it's a chaotic process that is now happening but was induced by the 1976 planetary alignment. Keep in mind that planetary alignments of that nature are extremely rare and take several years to line up fully and several more to unalign. The combined pull of the planets beyond our orbit is greatly underestimated because of the lack of understanding of gravity. If you can't see this you can't follow my reasoning for climate changes.
  39. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    correction: 26/36 ~= 0.722
  40. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Re 176 - that was interesting. Although I already had some sense that a number of faults north of and around India, including some extensional ones, were a consequence of the India-Asia collision. Re 175 - supposing that undersea volcanism were proportional to the number of VEI>=4 eruptions apparent from the surface, and using 16 per 26 years as a baseline: 1970 - 1944 = 26 2006 - 1970 = 36 16/26 ~= 0.615 36/26 ~= 0.722 0.722/0.615 ~= 1.17 A 17 % increase in VEI>=4 eruptions. A 17% increase in submarine eruptions would be some very small fraction of total geothermal heating, having a heating effect much much less than 0.1 W/m2.
  41. Philippe Chantreau at 20:06 PM on 18 February 2009
    Climate change on Mars
    Quietman, seems you have left the Arctic ice thread, where I was asking you about this comment here on the solar wind. I don't understand what you're trying to say and I don't see anything in the article you link that clarifies it. How does the solar wind "carry" heat? What is your definition of heat? How do you think that heat is normally transmitted through space? What references do you have that particles winds participate in the Earth' energy budget?
  42. Philippe Chantreau at 06:50 AM on 18 February 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Mizimi, I am quite aware of that, it's not the point. The point is that ionized particles do not play a significant part in that budget. What is usually considered for Earth' heat budget is TSI, which is light. The remark about IR referred to the possibility that more "heat" (Quietman's words) would be "carried" by the solar winds, the equivalent of an increased TSI, with the increase being in the IR range. The paper cited did not approach that at all.
  43. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman - where in the above comments were your friend's and chris's comments about thermodynamics?
  44. Empirical evidence for positive feedback
    re 72...recent research has shown cloud cover is affected by natural aerosols emitted by plants. See comments on the "It's aerosols" thread.
  45. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Just a small point Phillipe, -- the earth's energy budget is dependent on total solar radiation not just IR.
  46. The link between hurricanes and global warming
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10796-global-warming-link-to-hurricanes-likely-but-unproven.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13226-hurricane-study-whips-up-a-storm.html "Global warming is likely to affect cyclones and hurricanes, concludes a new statement from 125 experts, but they say the evidence for this to date is inconclusive." "There could be an effect but it's impossible to say for sure," says Julian Heming of the UK Met Office. The statement was issued at the end of a workshop organised by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). "The workshop concluded that the increasing economic damage caused by tropical cyclones is to a large extent the result of "increasing coastal populations […] and, perhaps, a rising sensitivity of modern societies to disruptions of infrastructure"." Some of the debate centres around our ability to detect hurricanes which has improved markedly since the deployment of sateliites and would thus affect our perception of hurricane numbers and intensity.
  47. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Lee: have a look at the site posted by Saluki...it shows 2 out of 3 graphs indicating a temperature decline. Also theWags has a valid point I raised some time ago...namely that the number of stations collecting data has declined alarmingly over the last 20 years, so we should be asking whether these graphs are truly representative of the global condition. See http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html for a graph of stations vs temperature. It also appears that too many of the remaining stations are in the US for a realistic sampling.
  48. Philippe Chantreau at 16:27 PM on 17 February 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    You're also suggesting that RC is less reliable than a purely political source (Morano's), which you read and linked. Whatever, again. But that's not all. In our exchange about Mars' climate, you first suggested an argument valid IF (emphasis yours) there was a correlation with Earth' climate. After I pointed that there was no correlation, you come back saying "You are right of course in that there is no correlation between Mars's climate and Earth's" as if that shows no contradiction to your previous proposition. Then you follow with some confused mumbo-jumbo. That's another kind of thing I'm wondering about. Granted, all of us make mistakes and dislike owning them. How many mistakes do you think you can be exonerated from before doubts arise about the good faith? In that same thread, you go on with increased speed of the solar wind as if it is relevant to the Earth's energy budget. I did not elaborate at the time, because I could not see what you were talking about. I still can't. Anyone is free to correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, solar winds are made of ionized particles. The big difference with photons (solar irradiance) is that they travel a lot slower than light, and they have a significant mass and a charge, which is why they can be deflected by the Earth' magnetic field. That is also what makes them of little to no relevance to the planet's energy budget. Where did you ever see a study assigning a forcing to solar winds that would be relevant to tropospheric/stratospheric temperatures? Is there anything in the article you link suggesting that the superhot microflares (which you seem to allude to) actually increase the total IR radiation (how heat is tranported in the absence of a medium to conduct it) leaving the Sun for the Earth? Nothing of the sort. That's yet another example of a cite that does not support your argument and is not even really related to it. How many of these can be ascribed to good faith? If it is really good faith, what else does that indicate?
  49. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Where in an open system does conservation of energy not apply if one accounts for the inputs and outputs? Same for mass, entropy (not conservation of, but you get the idea), etc...
  50. Philippe Chantreau at 15:28 PM on 17 February 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    So you don't go to RC on your own accord but you'll go to OISM (and link it), Beck's and what not. Right. Whatever.

Prev  2569  2570  2571  2572  2573  2574  2575  2576  2577  2578  2579  2580  2581  2582  2583  2584  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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