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  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  2610  Next

Comments 130101 to 130150:

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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 ???
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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...
  8. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    ""See comment 35 here"" - I also meant to say thanks for that.
  9. 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...
  10. 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...
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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).
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    correction: 26/36 ~= 0.722
  20. 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.
  21. 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?
  22. 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.
  23. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman - where in the above comments were your friend's and chris's comments about thermodynamics?
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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?
  29. 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...
  30. 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.
  31. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    "would have to know the EXACT nature of ALL inputs " With regards to the difference between 2 and 3.0001, what would you say about the difference between 2 and 2.9999 ?
  32. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    ps 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.
  33. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe Actually it's the hockey stick site. And yes I will read a link that goes to RC when it's used as a reference to see what it refers to, I just don't go there on my own accord. As for chaotic inputs, there are simply too many. The earth breathes much more often than thought, the solar wind has erractic effects and tectonics which nobody at this site appears to understand the consequences of. Then chris reads the terms for Thermodynamic Laws, which were intended for use in engineering closed systems ONLY and tells me that they can be applied to climate. Sorry but that IS where this whole argument falls through. They DO NOT apply to open systems. In order to make these rules apply to an open system you would have to know the EXACT nature of ALL inputs and the simple fact is nobody alive knows these. The evidence is in the CONSTANT discovery that things are not what they appear to be. And I REALLY have trouble accessing this thread at this point. My references have already been posted in the various threads at this site (mostly under volcanos) so I am not posting them again.
  34. Philippe Chantreau at 04:18 AM on 17 February 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Worth quickly getting back on topic: Arcic sea ice extent has taken a serious hit and would have to grow now at the same kind of rate seen in November to catch up with last year's maximun. Kinda strange. I expect some weather system pushing the ice around and possibly compacting it, but area as shown by cryosphere today seems to have the beginning of a dip also. Hard to tell what's going on. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
  35. Philippe Chantreau at 16:47 PM on 16 February 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Patrick, I recall Quietman saying that he did not trust RC and, as a result, did not read it, althoug his readings (and links) have included niceties like the OISM page. That's the point of my question above. Nice link on Singer. This is the kind of reason why I'm always septical of "skeptics" on blogs. As of today I've seen perhaps 2 or 3 real ones. Ironically, they wouldn't even shape their thinking in terms of "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with AGW, wchich is a little to crude a way to put things.
  36. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    "How can limits of a system be properly defined is the system has been determined to be chaotic?" The Earth isn't chaotically gaining and losing significant amounts of mass, even relative to the atmosphere. Aside from that: Divide space (or space-time) into some number of grid cells. Identify the energy, entropy, mass (in terms of chemicals, subatomic particles, etc.), and momentum and angular momentum flows into and out of each cell (define the cells to move with the mass when convenient - for example, define a system that orbits the sun along with the Earth, rather than having the mass of the Earth constantly pass through different grid cells). Identify the chemical and physical reactions within each cell. Balance the energy, entropy, mass, and momentum budgets. DONE! The long term equilibrium climate includes the shorter-term variability. The shorter term variability continues in part due to positive feedbacks but is limited by negative feedbacks that keep the climate within a certain range of behavior; external forcing shifts the whole of such an equilibrium state and positive feedbacks can contribe to that shift. "besides, didn't you just smear Fred Singer?" Fred Singer is either a fool or a liar - or blinded to the truth by some ideology. Who am I to deny him that title, for which he has worked so hard; he has earned it. (try starting with comment 218 at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/are-geologists-different/langswitch_lang/it )
  37. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick You might find this interesting: Rift Zones: New Understanding Of Incredible Forces, Oil And Gas Reserves Beneath The Earth’s Surface ScienceDaily (Feb. 12, 2009)
  38. Philippe Chantreau at 18:56 PM on 15 February 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman, you declared once that one of the RC contributors (you did not specify) was untrustworthy because of some political reason or source of funding, although you gave no specifics. Your judgement in the matter did not take into consideration the scientific quality of his work, which is a fairly objective measure (i.e. the Spencer "claim" detailed above as example of sloppy work). Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion on that. I can understand that would leave aside one scientist's work because you don't like his ideas. Nonetheless, I would think that some level of reciprocity would apply to scientists with ideas you like (what a true skeptic would do), even if you could understandably be more complacent. We're still talking about science here. However, you had no problem spreading links to Marc Morano's propaganda. Morano is not a scientist at all, he is a PR professional working for a politician. What excactly is the rationale here?
  39. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Volcanic Eruptions Greater than 4.0 Period from 1945 to 1970 (16 major eruptions) Nomen Year Rank Location FERNANDINA 1968 4 Galapagos AWU 1966 4 Sangihe Islands KELUT 1966 4 Java TAAL 1965 4 Luzon SHIVELUCH 1964 4+ Kamchatka AGUNG 1963 5 Lesser Sundas AGUNG 1963 4 Lesser Sundas BEZYMIANNY 1956 5 Kamchatka CARRAN 1955 4 Chile SPURR 1953 4 Alaska BAGANA 1952 4 Bougainville Island KELUT 1951 4 Java LAMINGTON 1951 4 New Guinea AMBRYM 1951 4+ Vanuatu HEKLA 1947 4 Iceland SARYCHEV 1946 4 Kuril Islands Period from 1971 to 2006 (26 major eruptions) Nomen Year Rank Location RABAUL 2006 4 New Britain MANAM 2005 4 N.E.of New Guinea REVENTADOR 2002 4 Ecuador RUANG 2002 4 Sangihe Islands SHIVELUCH 2001 4 Kamchatka ULAWUN 2000 4 New Britain RABAUL 1994 4 New Britain LASCAR 1993 4 Chile SPURR 1992 4 Alaska HUDSON 1991 5+ Chile PINATUBO 1991 6 Luzon KLIUCHEVSKOI 1990 4 Kamchatka KELUT 1990 4 Java AUGUSTINE 1986 4 Alaska CHIKURACHKI 1986 4 Kuril Islands COLO 1983 4 Sulawesi GALUNGGUNG 1982 4 Java CHICHON 1982 5 Mexico CHICHON 1982 4+ Mexico PAGAN 1981 4 Marianas ALAID 1981 4 Kuril Islands ST.HELENS 1980 5 Washington AUGUSTINE 1976 4 Alaska TOLBACHIK 1975 4+ Kamchatka FUEGO 1974 4 Guatemala TIATIA 1973 4 Kuril Islands Source: http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm Results: 10 more eruptions recently with a VEI >=4 than for the same length preceeding period using 1970 as a cutoff. Note: I have no access to the additional activity or the undersea volcanos that are not included.
  40. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    re #445:
    How can limits of a system be properly defined is the system has been determined to be chaotic?
    Again, you need to be explicit. Are all the elements of the system "chaotic"? Are the dominant elements of the system chaotic? Or not? If only some elements of the system are chaotic, what is the amplitude of variation around the equilibrium "set" by the non-chaotic elements of the system....and so on... So we could go back to the Earth's surface temperature. There's nothing particularly chaotic about the Earth's atmospheric composition, and the forcing resulting from the greenhouse effect. Likewise the vastly dominant source of energy into the system (the sun) isn't particularly chaotic as a source of heat energy. The level of solar irradiance drifts up and down slightly with an 11 year cycle in an essentially non-chaotic manner, and the solar constant increases interminably slowly on the multi million year timescale (also non-chaotic), occasionally the solar output does drift slowly upwards or downwards within a relatively small range. So in general it's the internal elements of the climate system that are chaotic. But the evidence indicates that these chaotic elements (outwith extremely rare catastrophic events like extraterrestrial impacts or massive tectonic eruptions) result in "noise" that has a relatively small amplitude. We can see explicitly that El Nino's and La Nina's can temporarily enhance or reduce the Earth's globally averaged temperature by 0.1 - 0.2 oC, that ocean cycles that redistribute warm and cooler waters during rather longer timescales can have similarly small effects on the globally averaged surface temperatures....volcanic eruptions can temporarily suppress temperatures for a few years... …in general (outwith catastrophic phenomena, or small non-predictable variations in solar outputs, such as those associated with the Maunder minimum and such-like) the dominant influences on the Earth’s energy budget aren’t particularly chaotic, and the chaotic elements result in “ noise” characterized as fluctuations around the equilibrium temperature “set” by the dominant forcings (sun, greenhouse effect and the particular extant properties of the Earth like the positions of the continents and mountain ranges, and the Earth’s orbit). ..so again, we need to be explicit about what we’re considering.
  41. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    re #442:
    chris: First off, one can certainly apply the laws of thermodynamics to an open system. It only requires that the limits of the system are defined in the context of the particular analysis." Quietman: “No, limits of the system can not be properly defined”
    Of course the “system” can be defined. One just has to be explicit about the phenomenon under discussion. So if the evidence indicates that the Earth’s “energy budget” is defined by the forcings arising from the Earth and the elements of its climate system (the land, oceans, atmospheric composition, continental locations, mountain ranges, air and ocean currents, land and sea ice, orbital properties..etc), and the sun and its properties that defined the insolation levels, then these are the elements that “define” the “system”. We might choose to consider other elements under quite specific circumstances. On the 100 million year timescale we might choose to incorporate the passage of the solar system through the spiral arms of the galaxy, and thus consider variations in the cosmic ray flux and its putative climatic influences. And then we would incorporate this into the “definition” of our “system”. Of course this is of little relevance to the effects of changing greenhouse gas levels over several decades or centuries. Or we might choose to consider the Earth’s temperature response to forcings resulting from asteroid impacts or massive tectonic events. Again this isn’t of much relevance to our consideration of the Earth’s evolution to a new equilibrium temperature defined by an enhanced greenhouse forcing under consitions of relatively constant insolation…. …and so on… So the “limits of the system “ can be properly defined. It’s a question of being clear and explicit about what we are addressing.
  42. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    You don't really understand Quietman. I made a specific point about the Earth's temperature response to an enhanced forcing. Your friend posted some unrelated stuff about entropy and thermodynamics. I'm not trying to disprove your friends "definitions". Why should I want to do that? Your friend's "definition" have no bearing on my post. That's not very surprising since s/he apparently wrote in a context completely unrelated to my post. If you can't address the subjects of my posts Quietman, just keep schtum. It doesn't make any sense to trawl the blogosphere to find someone else's post that might have some vague relationship to mine! If you think I'm "denying" some well-characterized climate cycles, why not just direct me to the relevant post? You can give the url of the relevant thread, and all the posts on every thread is numbered. Just post the url(s) and the post number(s). Otherwise please stop making unsupported accusations insinuations. As for "equilibria" in relation to the Earth's surface temperature:... A considerable amount of scientific analysis supports the conclusion that the Earth's surface temperature responds to enhanced greenhouse forcing with a rise near 3 oC per doubling of atmospheric CO2 (between 2 - 4.5 oC at 95% certainty according the the IPCC compliations of the available evidence). Right now the Earth's temperature is fluctuating around a temperature "set" by the current solar irradiance and greenhouse gas levels (and incorporating insolation patterns, albedo and water vapour feedbacks, atmospheric aerosol levels, the position of the continents and location of major mountain chains, and so on). The Earth's temperature isn't rock steady, but undergoes fluctuations around the equilibrium temperature that results from the summation of forcings; these fluctuations are a result of cyclic and stochastic elements of the climate system. If the atmospheric CO2 levels double, the Earth's temperature will evolve towards a new equilibrium temperaure that will be somewhere around 3 oC warmer than the temperature around which the earth currently fluctuates. It's useful to understand that this temperature rise is the rise that will occur at equilibrium, since we understand very well that the inertias in the climate system (e.g. the massive ocean thermal sink) have the effect of damping the Earth's temperature response to a change in forcings. In other words, while the evidence indicates that the Earth's temperature response to enhanced greenhouse forcing is around 3 oC per doubling of atmospheric CO2, this temperature change will take many decades to be fully realized. That's a very straightforward, uncontroversial, and explicit use of the concept of equilibrium in relation to the Earth's surface temperature response to a change in forcings. If you feel the need to quibble with that, please do so on the terms of my post, rather than through completely unrelated notions of "thermodynamic laws" or "closed systems" or other extraneous stuff that someone might have posted on some blog somewhere.
  43. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Patrick Sorry, but this page has become too long and takes forever to load. I'll look to see your posts in other threads. But I will leave you here with this thought: How can limits of a system be properly defined is the system has been determined to be chaotic?
  44. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    correction to 442 Re: "new equilibrium temperature": This phrase 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".
  45. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    ps Who is Fred Singer? The name sounds familiar.
  46. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Patrick Sometimes a smear is truly deserved ("we are all toast" Hansen); besides, didn't you just smear Fred Singer? Is turn about not fair play? Is it not "we are all toast" Hansen who smears everyone else on the planet that disagrees? Re: "First off, one can certainly apply the laws of thermodynamics to an open system. It only requires that the limits of the system are defined in the context of the particular analysis." No, limits of the system can not be properly defined.
  47. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    chris So you can't disprove my friends' definition just because he said it better than I could? You have not denied the existance of climate cycles? Go back and reread your responses. You have a short memory. You denied natural cycles the very first time I brought up the subject. 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".
  48. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    #432 How dishonest you are Quietman.
    Chris has demonstrated his true faith by attempting to apply the laws of thermodynamics to an open system. And when I post a good explanation using a quote from a friend that was able to better express it than I, he attacks me personally, just like you did.
    First off, one can certainly apply the laws of thermodynamics to an open system. It only requires that the limits of the system are defined in the context of the particular analysis. In any case, I haven't discussed the "laws of thermodynamics". I described a very basic response of the Earth's temperature to an enhanced forcing. I pointed out that the earth will tend towards a new equilibrium temperature around which fluctuations occur due to stochastic and cyclic elements of the climate system. There's nothing very controversial or mysterious about that.. Secondly, you didn't post " a good explanation". You cut and pasted a completely unrelated post of some person on some other blog written presumably for some other purpose. Thirdly, I didn't "attack" you "personally". I pointed out that your posts didn't address my post at all. And how could a "cut and paste" from some unrelated blog by some person who hasn't read my posts, constitute a response to my post on this message board?
    But I also see the rest of the picture that you and chris refuse to acknowledge, ie. you are both in denial of natural cycles, chris even moreso than you.
    Examples please. I'm not "in denial" of any "natural cycles" for which there is evidence. There's clearly an 11 year solar cycle. There are cycles involving ocean circulation (the PDO for example). There are ocean circulation variations that are apparently more stochastic in their temporal evolution (ENSO, for example). There are cycles in the orbital properties of the earth (Milankovitch cycles) that govern insolation patterns that drive glacial-interglacial-glacial transitions....and so on.. So which "natural cycles" am I "in denial of" Quietman? Specific examples, please. All of these topics involve science, evidence, rational analysis, and on this message board, honest attention to the postings of others. If you can't deal with these issues, and other's posts in that philosophy, why not just ignore the posts that you happen not to like?
  49. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    "IF N increases with height, then LRS increases. This tends to decrease w. " I knew that didn't sound right! Increasing N while leaving m unchanged decreases the denominator [ k^2 + l^2 + (m*Hzs/LRS)^2 + 1/(4*LRS^2) ] and thus increases w. m must be proportional to N to maintain constant w. Thus, N increasing with height requires an increase in m to maintain constant w. u decreasing with height requries a decrease in w, requiring even more increase in m. Both effects tend to make the phase planes farther from vertical and closer to horizontal (the tilt away frome vertical increases). The vertical component of group velocity will generally increase at first as the tilt increases, but will reach a maximum value and then decrease. When u gets low enough, w goes to zero and then negative - and then m becomes large and imaginary (further decrease in u allows the magnitude of m to decrease but it will remain imaginary). the wave cannot propagate further. It may reflect back down; however, the variation of group velocity may cause the amplitude to become large at some level, to the point that there is wave-breaking, which is one way for wave activity to be absorbed in an irreversable manner, as described with regards to sudden stratospheric warmings (which reduce u, thus lowering the level to which the waves can propagate, etc...). Another thing that could happen is that where some component of group velocity is low, wave activity lingers, allowing more thermal damping to occur (the wave involves adiabatic temperature changes which tend to cause radiational cooling or heating). Clarifications: when a component of a wave vector is imaginary, the rate of exponential decay in that direction is proportional to that component's magnitude; thus the distance scale of penetration is inversely proportional to the magnitude, and thus is directly proportional to the magnitude of an effective imaginary wavelength. Regarding total internal reflection - the reflectance will of course be reduced if some wave energy is able to leak (tunnel - via the evanescent portion of the wave) across to a second interface where the wave can again propagate. --- Of course, temporal variations in wind can alter the result: If a wave propagates up to some level, and then the wind speed falls at that level, it takes the wave with it, so then the wave can propagate up further where the wind speed was lower, with less refraction. So short-term temporal variations in the basic state may also allow some leaks in the barriers to propagation.
  50. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    "Patrick, Ann Coulter is nuts." No argument there! - unless we suppose that her value system is tilted towards notoriety and money and very far from truth (although that could also be said to be 'nuts'), in which case she is just making a living the way she wants to do it. Nice links!

Prev  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  2610  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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