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  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  Next

Comments 130051 to 130100:

  1. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    "That IS EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. It's always TRYING to reach equilibrium but NEVER CAN because the goal posts keep moving. " Yes, but the goal posts tend to stay within a particular part of the field when boundary conditions (external forcing) are constant - in other words, on time scales longer than internal variability, there is a tendency to be near a definable long-term equilibrium. Saying that the climate system ever reaches equilibrium precisely would be wrong, but it can be a good approximation.
  2. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    It isn't surprising that a lake would have some connection to groundwater flows. Many do. (I have heard that natural processes may cause the Great Lakes to largely dry up over the next 20,000 years or so - but that was way back in elementary school. Not that it would be a linear process, but ... I'm guessing that would be on the order of a 1 foot drop per century - although I think the centers of some of those lakes are actually quite a bit deeper than 200 feet, as I recall (is the deepest point in Lake Superior below sea level?)).
  3. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    "but then we find water is entering also from the lake bottom through "sinkholes". " And has the lake overflowed, spilling back into Lake Superior (reversing the normal flow)?
  4. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    "So that means that you will never trust Mann again as well?" Mann's results have been largely confirmed; McIntyre and McKitrick's (spelling?) analysis was flawed. Roy Spencer's analysis is sloppy and unconvincing.
  5. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    chris It is a compressed graph of every other graph I have seen. Those low points are all known Ice Ages. The inaccuracy you see is the compression ie. they have done some averaging in order to get it to fit. Re: "For example we all know that the temperature hasn't dropped smoothly from "22 oC" to "12 oC" during the past several million years!" This is a direct result of that compression. Pro AGW charts do exactly the same type of compression but I don't see you complain about them. At the bottom left of the chart you will note the source of the data. The temp data is from a site with some of the best Paleomaps I have ever seen and often reproduced for text books. And you call me dishonest.
  6. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    thewags The far north has a couple of geologoc features that never seem to be talked about. The midatlantic ridge does not stop in the north atlantic but continues on under the Arctic ice pack. A paper last year stated that the activity had increased and that the ridge was spreading faster. The subduction zones are along the northern faces of Greenland to Alaska. So naturally the northernmost zones are showing increased volcanism. With all this increased tectonic activity I would expect major climate change at the north polar region. I truely can't understand why the IPCC has not taken this into account.
  7. We're heading into an ice age
    Mizimi Yes that was the first piece I saw that got me interested in the hypothesis. Mackey said the test period would be 2007-2011 and so far it's on the money. It's also the ONLY paper that predicted the cold snap, all the other articles and papers at that time said exactly the opposite. (I kept all the failed forcasts in a file to serve as bad examples for future generations). ps The green house is on hold until the ice melts. Right now I'm waiting on delivery of a larger snow blower that I can mount off the PTO on my tractor. Snow has been way too heavy for the gas fired one and too deep to plow, I have been using a bucket loader all winter to shovel it off and it's ruining my driveway. So I'm going to have to resurface it when everything finally melts. But I am planning to go with the blue plastic for the roof.
  8. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    Patrick Re: "Is the level of the nearest large body of water at all predictable?" Not in an open system. Best example is lake Huron. Snow melt, rainfall and evaporation are taken into account but then we find water is entering also from the lake bottom through "sinkholes". - Remember that discussion we had on Ned Potters blog about why the sea level has not changed as expected?
  9. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    chris Re: "So in our example of enhanced solar forcing, the Earth might be a bit warmer two years after the onset of enhanced solar, and likely warmer still 10 years later, but the temperature rise would be far short of the eventual (equilibrium) temperature rise than might take many decades to come near to equilibrium and many 100's or even 1000's of years before the oceans and ice sheets responded fully to the change in solar forcing" That IS EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. It's always TRYING to reach equilibrium but NEVER CAN because the goal posts keep moving.
  10. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    I guess what's good enough for Mann should also be good enough for spencer. So that means that you will never trust Mann again as well?
  11. Climate's changed before
    David Only the Australian mammals? I was not aware of particularly large mammals in Australia. As for all the continents except Africa, what about the Indian subcontinent?
  12. Climate's changed before
    No, I don't mean the Berkeley paper, I mean my own work on Australian mammals, but I'm glad they agree. Seehttp://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/History_Conquerors/ for an extended discussion on Australia and more generally. Whatever happened to the Neanderthals is a separate (though possibly related) issue to what happened to all these big mammals on all the continents except Africa.
  13. Climate's changed before
    ps This link will take you to PLos One when they are back online. Then just type in "neandertal" in their site search for the paper.
  14. Climate's changed before
    David You must mean the Berkeley paper: Climate Change Plus Human Pressure Caused Large Mammal Extinctions In Late Pleistocene ScienceDaily (Oct. 4, 2004) — Berkeley - A University of California, Berkeley, paleobiologist and his colleagues warn that the future of the Earth's mammals could be as dire as it was between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago, when a combination of climate change and human pressure resulted in the extinction of two-thirds of all large mammals on the planet. LOL - That's from Berkeley back in 2004! I don't know if I would trust them, but I can't access the original paper. That is a shame. There is also an ongoing argument about a couple of impacts right around then, one on land in the northern U.S. (I forget exactly where) and another in the Atlantic near Brasil (again I don't remember exactly where, I'll try to find the articles). I agree when something goes awry with the normal stabilising mechanisms things happen. But it's not something we have a lot of control over. But "causes far more problems to water based life forms than cold climate." I have to disagree with. Read that paper when PLos One comes back online (they are just doing maintenance) and look at the graphs. Both Neandertal and our ancestors took a real nose dive at H4, we were lucky to recover, neandertal wasn't so lucky.
  15. Climate's changed before
    Um yes, the Neanderthals are an interesting case since they involve "creatures" with similar culture and lifestyle and bigger brain than us. Clearly the interaction between us and them was complex. Climate change may well have played a role in Neanderthal demise either directly or indirectly, as may interaction with H. sapiens sapiens. But I am talking about the extinction of the megafaunas - in Europe adapted to cold conditions (eg woolly mammoth), in Australia to cool wet conditions (eg Diprotodon). And extinctions due to strikes from space? Dunno. I was once reasonably happy with the dinosaur demise theory, but even that one I have my doubts about now. I reckon CO2 build up with methane release as the planet warms up is a better bet for all of them, but that is just me. But whatever the cause of the past great extinctions, they are really just cautionary tales about what can happen to this planet when something goes awry with the normal stabilising mechanisms. Makes a nonsense of the denialist view that us puny 6 billion humans spewing ever more CO2 into the air couldn't possibly alter the climate. I think we are in for a least the late Pleistocene (yes, pre-Holocene if you like) nastiness, and quite possibly much worse. And you will find that hot climate (plus dry in Australia) causes far more problems to water based life forms than cold climate.
  16. Climate's changed before
    David I knew I had read a little about it. This is from my file. PLos One is down right now so I can't give you a link. But here is the Abstract. Neanderthal Extinction by Competitive Exclusion Banks,et.al Background: Despite a long history of investigation, considerable debate revolves around whether Neanderthals became extinct because of climate change or competition with anatomically modern humans (AMH). Methodology/Principal Findings: We apply a new methodology integrating archaeological and chronological data with high-resolution paleoclimatic simulations to define eco-cultural niches associated with Neanderthal and AMH adaptive systems during alternating cold and mild phases of Marine Isotope Stage 3. Our results indicate that Neanderthals and AMH exploited similar niches, and may have continued to do so in the absence of contact. Conclusions/Significance: The southerly contraction of Neanderthal range in southwestern Europe during Greenland Interstadial 8 was not due to climate change or a change in adaptation, but rather concurrent AMH geographic expansion appears to have produced competition that led to Neanderthal extinction.
  17. Climate's changed before
    sorry, i screwed up the link: This should work.
  18. Climate's changed before
    Ok, I am getting caught up. It was a series of glacations and interglacials. Yes I did read about this period to some extent (I have a terrible memory). The chart at Wikipedia is a good refresher. I'll brush up on it.
  19. Climate's changed before
    Just to refresh my memory you are talking about an interglacial within the Neogene-Holocene Ice Age? The Pleistocene was the last period prior to the Holocene and prior to H4, correct?
  20. Climate's changed before
    pps Calling sceptics "deniers" is the same as calling you an alarmist. I am sure that you don't like it either.
  21. Climate's changed before
    ps I am not as familiar with the Pleistocene, I have been studying the Paleocene-Eocene-Oligocene periods recently but have not gotten as far as the Pleistocene. What do you have so far?
  22. Climate's changed before
    David Someone essentially called John a liar (in a nice enough way) in the Arctic melt thread and he has been very quiet since. I side with John but I'm a liar too. The Permian extinction is obviously the most interesting. I'll assume that you have read "Gorgon" already since it is so pertinent. OK, the obvious factor is the Siberian traps. Large volcanic fields erupting for a very long time spewing all sorts of poisons into the atmosphere. But (from Gorgon) the sea extinctions (something like 90%) happened in a different time fram from the land extinctions (Somewhere around 75%). Sorry I don't remember the exact numbers. Well what caused the traps to erupt? In both the PT and KT extinctions we have evidence for very large impactors on the opposite side of the earth preceding the eruption of the traps. The reason for the extinctions is fairly obvious (two incidents and two extinction events, the second event caused by the first). BTW the same actually happened at the KT, Bakker points out that the dinosaurs were already in trouble by the KT event.
  23. Climate's changed before
    Well, the Late Permian comes immediately to mind. The period which is my own research speciality is the late Pleistocene. The cold period (Europe) and relatively wet period (Australia) was a time when large mammals flourished. The change over to a warmer and drier time saw the loss of numerous species. This extinction event is going to be mirrored by what is going on now. But more so, because the change which took hundreds, perhaps thousands of years then (ie starting some 25,000 years ago), is going to be replayed in the space of a few decades in the 21st century. I swore I wasn't, on the basis that life, and an equable climate, is much too short, going to argue with denialists any more, but here I am, can't help myself I suppose. BY the way, does anyone still following this thread know what has happened to the owner of this blog? It feels like we are playing around in a deserted house, the owner curiously absent.
  24. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    re #43/47 You're arguing fruitlessly through a semantic confusion over the concept of "equilibrium". Why not just go back and read my post #29 where I explained explcitly the use of the concepts of equilibrium and thermodynamics in consideration of natural phenomenon. If you think there's something wrong with the descriptions I gave there then address those specifically. But please stop tedious argumentation based on semantic misunderstanding. As for "equilibrium sensitivity" that's also a straightforward and easily understood concept. Imagine the sun started to irradiate more strongly. I'm sure we'd agree that the Earth's temperature would rise; we could easily calculate the eventual temperature rise (x oC). Would the Earth become x oC warmer instantaneously? No. x oC would be the temperature rise once the various elements of the climate system came to a new equilibrium with the enhanced forcing. It's useful to consider this in terms of an equilibrium rise since the various elements respond on very different time scales. The troposphere would warm initially quite quickly..the water vapour concetration would rise fairly quickly to give an amplification of the solar warming...the oceans would take a long time to come near to equilibrium with the enhanced forcing. Slow ice sheet retreat would give a further slow feedback amplfication through albedo effects...and so on. That's what "equilibrium sensitivity" refers to. We can contrast this with "transient responses" that relate to the short term responses to forcings under conditions that are far from equilibrium (but tending towards a new equilibrium state). So in our example of enhanced solar forcing, the Earth might be a bit warmer two years after the onset of enhanced solar, and likely warmer still 10 years later, but the temperature rise would be far short of the eventual (equilibrium) temperature rise than might take many decades to come near to equilibrium and many 100's or even 1000's of years before the oceans and ice sheets responded fully to the change in solar forcing None of this precludes the obvious point that any other cyclical or stochastic elements of the climate system that causes short term temperature fluctuations still apply (as I said in post #29).
  25. Philippe Chantreau at 17:21 PM on 25 February 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PS: that same post# 12 of yours links the ever so funny Roy Spencer beating his drum with the rumbly words of "the sloppy science of global warming." Roy Spencer's own sloppiness, fantastic ideas and incompetent mathematical treatment were exposed by the links I gave in this thread's post #437.
  26. Philippe Chantreau at 17:03 PM on 25 February 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    You're full of it Quietman. You linked Marc Morano's propaganda twice in post #12 of the "Determining the long term solar trend" thread. His name even figures on the link's tail. You're in essence saying that you linked stuff that you did not read. You're all fussy about Wikipedia and RC but applied no scrutiny whatsoever to Morano. What the heck? How could this qualify as a truly skeptical attitude? If you don't know who Morano is, you'd better learn before linking the stuff he puts together, shouldn't you? Wouldn't that be a reasonable expectation for a "skeptic"? You say "I don't pay attention to who the writer of an article is, only who they quote and what is contained in the quote." How does that make any sense? Why is it that the author quoted in an article is more important than the author of the article itself? What if an author is quoted in disagreement? That's total nonsense. Your excuses for intellectual dishonesty are getting lamer every time. If you don't care who writes an article, but only who it quotes, then you should not have a problem reading articles by that much maligned author from RC (whom you allude to but never named), so long as he quotes authors you like. However, you indicated that you distrust the entire site by saying "I don't read RC." What a load of dung. I guess since you didn't read the Morano's stuff you linked either, you have some sort of internally consistent attitude. Whatever. As for your thermodynamics problem, it was not among my questions, solve that with Chris. I do think, however, that my grasp on thermodynamics has nothing to envy to yours. About Patrick's clarification, if you believe that it supports in any way your contention that solar winds participate in increasing surface temps, first try to articulate clearly how that would work (with the appropriate quantities analyzed) and/or link work from real scientists that would do that. I'm not talking about loosely related articles that do not approach the subject. I want to see actual scientific treatment of the hypothesis. I'm all ears.
  27. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    And certainly at those moments when the water level stops rising or falling and starts to reverse - at such moments, there is instananeous balance.
  28. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    ... averaged over time - otherwise, an imbalance implies the water is piling up, and up, and up - or going down. You can only get so dry, you can only fit so much water into a given space...
  29. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    "Balance is never achieved" Is the level of the nearest large body of water at all predictable? When it rains more in a valley, the river in the valley floor will rise. This allows greater flow out of the valley, so that the river might then fall again. Over time, the river can only go so high or so low as the variations in precipitation can go... Isn't the average flow of water out equal to the average flow of water in (minus photosynthesis sink, plus respiration, etc. source - both being rather small in comparison to rain, springs, runoff, evapotranspiration...)...
  30. Greenland was green in the past
    From the NOAA link in the response to comment 2: "What does The Milankovitch Theory say about future climate change? Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 - 100,000 years ( Hollan 2000, Berger 2002). " Don't these "scientists" know the difference between an ice age and a glacation? We ARE in an ice age. So I guess they mean it will end in 50K years or will it reach another glacial maximum? - From the people that brought you AGW.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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?
  35. 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).
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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."
  44. 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.
  45. 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
  46. 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; ...
  47. 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
  48. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    ps I would not recommend living in the midwest for much longer.
  49. 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.
  50. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick Will do.

Prev  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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