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  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  2610  2611  2612  2613  2614  2615  2616  2617  2618  2619  Next

Comments 130551 to 130600:

  1. Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    Ps: Chris; I am not 'propagandising' against the science that 'might' find a solution to this problem. I am unconvinced that the 'problem' exists in the magnitude that is being proposed, especially since the 'science' is currently incapable of modelling what is going on to a reasonable degree of accuracy. In addition, the GMT ( which is actually a mathematical artefact and does not exist) 'record' indicates a rise of less than 2C by the end of this century. Hardly enough to cause panic attacks. Not only that, but I am skeptical that a)the root of the problem is just CO2 from fossil fuels and b)that even if it was, the chances of getting global action to reduce FF usage are pretty slim ( politicians being what they are). We already have countries pulling out of or ignoring agreements to reduce emissions ( The US, Canada, Australia to name but three, one of which is the biggest consumer...guess which) so either they don't care OR they know something we don't.
  2. Models are unreliable
    In post #68 Chris says “What quiet sun?” There are several agencies that report on solar activity that Chris could have accessed to find out. NOAA has revised several times their predictions of the magnitude and delay of the start of cycle 24. An animated display of the revisions can be viewed at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/05/nasa-moves-the-goalposts-on-solar-cycle-24-again/ . A day-by-day report of solar activity is available at http://www.dxlc.com/solar/ and http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/forecast.html. Numerical monthly sunspot averages since 1749 are at ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY. As can be observed, the sun remains quiet, even for a solar minimum. The assertion that all temperature trend direction changes are brought about by Milankovitch cycles is rejected by history and logic. The longest Milankovitch cycle is about 100,000 years and has been associated with the glacial/interglacial cycle. Most have determined that it accounts for about half of the glacial/interglacial climate change. The shortest and much weaker 23,000 year Milankovitch cycle explains only about 10% of the variance (http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E16.7.pdf.xpdf) . There is no mechanism by which any Milankovitch cycle could cause the observed temperature trend changes that last only a few millenniums or so. Chris has finally (albeit inadvertently) conceded that average global temperature uptrends and downtrends take place irrespective of the atmospheric carbon dioxide level with the statement in post #78 “a temperature downtrend at high/highish atmospheric CO2 levels only means that the particular driver of the temperature trend at that particular time is variation in insolation”. Think about it. A temperature downtrend continuing for a millennium or so with the carbon dioxide level higher at any given temperature than it was during a prior uptrend. The Vostok data show repeatedly a temperature uptrend changing to a downtrend with the carbon dioxide level during the downtrend higher than it had been during the uptrend. The NOAA data are graphed at the Middlebury web site given at post #41 or at http://www.roperld.com/science/CO2_Temp.pdf . No amount of spin or deception can alter that this proves that significant net positive feedback does not exist. Without the imposition of significant net positive feedback by the GCM users, the GCMs do not predict significant global warming. The many references that Chris likes to list are evidence of the group-think mentality that permeates the climate scientist community who benefit from dire predictions.
  3. Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    Chris: Whether an extinction of a species is 'good' or 'bad' really depends on whether it's you or not, in other words, on your personal perspective. From a world view, the best thing might just be the extinction of Homo Sapiens Civilis!
  4. What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    Philippe; In general I agree with what you are saying, but life started with very low biodiversity and until cyanobacteria started putting O2 into the atmosphere remained so. Since then, as Chris has adequately pointed out, various catastrophes have severely affected life in terms of diversity and quantity. Curiously,most of the life forms on earth seem hell-bent on overwhelming anything else ( particularly the smaller varieties) regardless of the consequencies? And you final comment is in agreement with my view that life adapts to fill any and all possible vacuums, so that loss of one species is an opportunity for another to take over that niche.
  5. There is no consensus
    #83. Yes that claim WAS made..."The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. " from Daily Tech.. so you got it wrong, again. and Mizimi, scientists have come to a consensus BECAUSE of the haed, irrefutable facts. and it's a growing consensus because of there continues to be more hard, irrefutable evidence uncovered. meanwhile, the other side consists mostly of former big tobacco schills who once told us there is no science to link smoking with lung cancer. remember that when you're picking your team.
  6. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    Some figures from the World Water Council on evaporation from human sources (not abstraction which is much much higher) 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 50...80..155..245.. 285..320..515 figures in cubic k's and exclude agriculture and domestic/municipal usage. Including these quadruples the figures. It is clear from the data that AWV has been steadily increasing since 1940 and thus the average global atmospheric water content will have risen since the atmosphere is not saturated. This addition occurs at low altitudes...precisely where one expects the warming effect of GG's to be the greatest.
  7. HealthySkeptic at 15:01 PM on 3 December 2008
    What 1970s science said about global cooling
    Re #17 That's nonsense of course. To critically question scientific evidence is not the same as denying it. It's part of the scientific method. However;- To deny a scientific fact is indeed undeniably stupid. To deny an unproven hypothesis is healthy skepticism. Let me know when AGW becomes a scientific fact.
  8. HealthySkeptic at 14:30 PM on 3 December 2008
    Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
    Re #14 That's rubbish of course. What has that load of "schoolboy pseudo-psychoanalysis" have to do with "atmospheric, ocean and radiative physics"? -)
  9. HealthySkeptic at 14:09 PM on 3 December 2008
    The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
    Chris, Get down off your high horse for a minute and calm down a bit. Wildly accusing people of having "creepy agendas" is in itself more than a bit creepy. The source you ask about is Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner. Specifically, comments he made in an interview which appeared in Executive Intelligence Review, June 22, 2007 An abridged version can be found here;- http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm No doubt you will denegrate the poor man severly, as you seem to do with any researchers who disagree with your AGW paradigm. Yet, it still seems strange that if there is such a supposed “scientific consensus” on AGW that so many prominent scientists (especially those in directly-related fields of research) are having second thoughts. Perhaps it's the early signs of a forthcoming paradigm shift. ;)
  10. HealthySkeptic at 13:03 PM on 3 December 2008
    Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
    Re #16, Chris, Despite a very verbose reply in refering to #14, you totally ignored the point of my post, which was in direct response to John's claim that; "They (Fawcett and Jones) find the linear trend over 1998 to 2007 is a warming trend in all three data-sets." My point was that, based on the data sets presented in figure 2 above, the linear trends only appear to trend very slightly upward because of the skewing effect of the two lowest points in 1999 & 2000. There is therefore no credible warming trend in the data presented at all.
  11. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Yes there's no doubt that the effects of the solar cycle are "overshadowed" by internal variations in the climate system. After all the peak to trough surface temperature variation between the solar cycle max and min is around 0.1 (maybe as much as 0.18) oC. Since year on year variation in the Earth's temperature anomaly can easily be 0.1 oC, the solar cycle doesn't really show up in the surface temperature record without efforts to deconvolute this. In general we expect the sun to contribute a little cooling during the solar minimum and a little warming (supplementing greenhouse gas warming) around the solar max. But just like the damped solar cycle contribution to the Earth's surface temperature, so the seasonal temperature variation is damped. For example if, rather than a seasonal drop in insolation where you live, the sun changed its output to give a constant insolation corrsponding to the cold season insolation, the water in the sea where you live would get a whole lot colder than 17 oC. But it would take a while for this new horribly cold temperature to settle at a new chilly equilibrium temperature.....
  12. It's the sun
    Not really Mizimi. The chemistry performed by living organisms is catalyzed by enzymes. Enzymes can be exquisitively sensitive to the chemical nature of their substrates, able to distinguish between stereoisomers (e.g. L- or D-amino acids) and showing rather significant preferences in relation to different isotopes of atoms such as 1H/2H; 12C/13C; 16O/18O and so on. The deposition of carbonates, for example, is thermodynamically controlled by the solubility properties of the salts which are very little affected by isotopic composition (12CO3-- cf 13CO3--). That's not to say that physical process don't result in some useful "fractionation" of molecules according to their isotopic composition. For example during cold periods, snow and rain from evaporated water tends to be very, very marginally enriched in 16OH2 since it takes a tiny bit more thermal energy to evaporate an 18OH2 molecule cf a 16OH2 one, and this can be used to determine paleotemperatures in ice cores, for example. However the fractionation of 12C over 13C by photosynthesising organisms is much larger.... We don't expect to see a measurable difference in 12C vs 13C in sea water except to the extent that the exchange of aqueous CO2 [CO2(aq) <--->H2CO3] and atmospheric CO2 results in a tendency for the oceanic CO2 to equilibrate with the continually-less-depleted 12C in the atmosphere that results from the return of long, long-sequestered 13-C-depleted carbon back into the atmosphere from burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.
  13. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Not really Mizimi... Our understanding of the natural world is not defined by one individual's ignorance! If you don't know very much about a topic why not make an effort to inform yourself befoe sounding off? Try googling "dynamic equilibrium". Far from being an "oxymoron" it's a fundamental descriptor of phenomena that involve the summation of a number of (opposing) processes whose net effect constitutes a balance to an extent that is further definable by the amplitude of variation around the equilibrium position. When applied to reversible chemical reactions the variation around the equilibrium (concentration of reactants and products, for example) can be small small. When applied to Earth processes it can be somewhat larger.. ...it would be foolish to "invent a new word" for such a well-characterized phenomenon as "dynamic equilibrium". The temperature in a room that results from the opposing forces of heat loss and heat input controlled by a thermostat is an example of a "dynamic equilibrium". If one needed further description of the nature of the fluctuations around the equilibrium one could explore/measure these. Likewise with the Earth's atmopheric CO2 concentration. For millions of years the earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration has been in dynamic equilibrium between the forces of volcanic influx into the atmosphere and the efflux from weathering and carbonate "fixing" (supplemented during the last couple of million of years with glacial cycles that temporarily perturb the equilibrium CO2 concentration downwards during glacial periods). In other worlds, since the atmospheric CO2 concentrations haven't varied very much during this period as far as we can tell (apart from the ice age excursions), the evidence indicates that the atmospheric CO2 levels have been in "dynamic equilibrium" (until recently, when they've started progressing upweards at a very very fast rate). Incidentally your misinformed request for semantic rigour on the subject of equilibria is rather out of keeping with your craven acceptance of the most ludicrous and blatant tosh on plaeotemperature data or pre-present atmospheric CO2 data, and so on. You need to come to some decision about where your "standards" lie science/evidence-wise, and then apply these across the board!
  14. Temp record is unreliable
    We're not talking about modeling Mizimi. We're talking about measuring.
  15. It's the sun
    Question: plants show a preference for C12 - true. But plants only have chemistry to work with ( not nuclear processes) so how do they manage that? And if they do it solely by chemistry then it follows other chemical processes can do it too.?? Oceanic plant life also prefers C12, so we should see the amount of C13 dissolved in sea water increase in respect of C12....is this the case??
  16. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:43 PM on 2 December 2008
    It's ozone
    „while temperature trends continue upwards” - I don’t see it. And I looking in: the 1996-2008 period ( see for example http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/to-tell-the-truth-will-the-real-global-average-temperature-trend-please-rise-part1/)) GISS , HadCRUT, UAH_MSU and RSS_MSU - cumulative seasonal differences temperature. The trends is reverse, not upwards, but same decreased or = 0, ± as exactly the ozone trend. All arguments for “It's the ozone…” are on: http://omsriram.com/GlobalWarming.htm. About UV radiation on the Earth surface, decide a ozone concentration with lover stratosphere, so temperature in this layer (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/1385.jpg - it’s same different than above-mentioned Figure).
  17. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    "Thus it makes some sense that a 'gradient wind balance',"..."total effective local f value (f_loc, see Bluestein p. 190) equal to f + 2*V/R"... Actually it is some aspect of the gradient wind balance, and of course, to make complete sense of that requires some other math...
  18. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    I just realized I made a mistake in describing vorticity in comments 284, 287: pure orbital/curvature vorticity is NOT equivalent to solid body rotation. Solid body rotation requires a shear vorticity that is equal to the orbital/curvature vorticity, so that the total vorticity is equal to twice the value of either component. But it is true that fluid motion locally equivalent to solid body rotation occurs when dv/dx = - du/dy and regionally equivalent over some region in which both are constant in space. Suppose an x,y system is chosen not with respect to north and south but with respect to wind direction at a point O, so that the wind is in the x direction; v = 0 at O. If the wind is along concentric circlular streamlines (or locally fit a portion of such a pattern) centered at distance R in the y direction from O, so along the y axis, the wind is in the +/- x direction. If the wind speed does not vary along streamlines, then in this case, the shear vorticity is -du/dy. For solid body rotation, it can be shown that along y, u is linearly proportional to the distance R from the center of rotation (the center of curvature of the streamlines), so that -du/dy = u/R. For solid body rotation, the wind speed is the same along a streamline, and thus the spatial rate of change of wind direction along a streamline is proportional to dv/dx at the point O where the axes were defined. In this case dv/dx is the orbital/curvature vorticity. If A is the angle around a circle about the center of streamline curvature, then dx = R*dA; the change in the wind dv over a differential angle dA for constant wind speed equal to u is dv = u*dA; hence, dv/dx = u*dA/(R*dA) = u/R. The total relative vorticity = dv/dx - du/dy, which for solid body rotation is u/R + u/R = 2u/R. The coordinates defined above are called natural coordinates, and in general distance in the direction of the wind velocity is s and distance to the left (when the wind blows from back to forward) is n (See Holton and/or Martin). In general, when V (note the change in variable) is the wind speed, and R is the radius of curvature of a streamline, positive if the streamline curves to the left and negative if to the right, then the orbital/curvature vorticity = V/R and the shear vorticity = -dV/dn, and for equivalent solid body rotation, -dV/dn = v/R. planetary vorticity f could also be said to have an orbital/curvature and shear components, but they should at any one location always be equal since the Earth (and many other such bodies) spins essentially as a solid body (for atmospheric and oceanic dynamics purposes). Thus it makes some sense that a 'gradient wind balance', which is a balance in which the acceleration of the wind perpendicular to itself (proportional to orbital/curvature vorticity) and the coriolis acceleration and pressure gradient acceleration all sum to zero, can be defined and mathematically expressed using a total effective local f value (f_loc, see Bluestein p. 190) equal to f + 2*V/R (as opposed to f + V/R). But it is important to note that R in this case must be the radius of curvature of a trajectory - which may be different and often opposite the curvature of a streamline, although trajectories match streamlines in steady-state flow (in which streamlines do not vary in time over some region).
  19. Temp record is unreliable
    Chris: we cannot adequately model climate right now, let alone model climate 'that was' millions of years ago. We assume land mass distribution, oceanic currents, atmospheric conditions and movement, biomass activity etc and then use proxy records to pin down climatic conditions. The best we can actually expect is an intelligent estimate of trends.
  20. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    Sorry!! got my powers screwed up again, and having re-checked the sums there appears to me to be some overestimates in the AWV basic data, especially in respect of agricultural 'evapotranspiration' and the total for evaporation from reservoirs. So let's drop these out and concentrate on industrial figures which are a lot 'harder'. 90 billion tonnes of WV from industrial use ( excluding water from combustion) is 9 x 10E13 kg /annum or 3 times that produced by CO2 warming. AND it is increasing. There is still the 30% rise in usage recorded from 1980 to 1990 which just happens to coincide with the upturn in GMT. Just a coincidence? Also your figures comparing the 'turnover' of WV in the atmosphere (5 x 10E17kg/annum) only use the WV reckoned to be evaporated from cooling towers, not ALL AWV.
  21. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    Re #12: In fact we do know quite a bit about climate, atmospheric composition, temperatures and so on in the deep past. There are two points about the "graph" in post #8. First of all it's obviously incorrect, even for someone with an interest in these issues (anyone that posts here), but lacking detailed knowledge of the subject. For example we all know that the temperature hasn't dropped smoothly from "22 oC" to "12 oC" during the past several million years! And if we were skeptical we might question those long, long 10's and even 100's of millions of years of rock steady temperature. We might want to see the data points! The second point about the "gaph" is that it bears very little relationship to our real knowledge of any link between the Earth's temperature in the deep (and not so deep) past and the atmospheric CO2 levels determined from paleoproxies. In fact, these show a rather strong correspondence between atmospheric CO2 and the Earth's temperature over more than 500 million years. The data that informs us (anyone who wishes to be informed, including policymakers and their advisors) is cited below (see bottom of post). And anyone can find out about this themselves, for example by looking at University researcher or research institute web sites, or the IPCC reports, or even going to their local university library. It really depends on: (a) how well-informed one wishes to be (b) whether one wishes to address the science on these issues, or whether one has other agendas to pursue! --------------------------------------- The paleoproxy data for contemporaneous CO2 and temperature data is reviewed in detail here: D.L. Royer (2006) "CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic" Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 70, 5665-5675. Even more recent studies supplement the information in Royers compilation and cover additional periods with new data sets right through the past several hundreds of millions of years: R.E. Carne, J.M. Eiler, J. Veizer et al (2007) "Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era" Nature 449, 198-202 W. M. Kurschner et al (2008) “The impact of Miocene atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuations on climate and the evolution of the terrestrial ecosystem” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 499-453. D. L. Royer (2008) “Linkages between CO2, climate, and evolution in deep time” Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 407-408 Zachos JC (2008) “An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics” Nature 451, 279-283. Doney SC et al (2007) “Carbon and climate system coupling on timescales from the Precambrian to the Anthropocene” Ann. Rev. Environ. Resources 32, 31-66. Horton DE et al (2007) “Orbital and CO2 forcing of late Paleozoic continental ice sheets” Geophys. Res. Lett. L19708 (Oct. 11 2007). B. J. Fletcher et al. (2008) “Atmospheric carbon dioxide linked with Mesozoic and early Cenozoic climate change” Nature Geoscience 1, 43-48.
  22. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:39 AM on 2 December 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    …about “historical paleotemperatures in Fontainebleau” - The delta 13C indexes according to IPCC experts opinion, they are very reliable. Gamon, Fraser (1985) in “History of carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere” writing about this method: separating periods - annual (for example ice core 20-300 y), accurate to 5 percent (2% in future). Many of papers are cited in the IPCC experts publications: Freyer, Balacy - 1983; Marino et al. 1992, Lauerberger 1992, Ferency 1998; Arus et al 1993, 7; Ferio et al., 2001; Keeling, C. D. m. fl., 2005: (Monthly atmospheric 13C/12C isotopic ratios for 10 SIO stations). More Data is in tree, but They are also at shallow water (Pedro Bank), deep water (Jamaica 150 m). However no about this dates don’t have annual separating periods, as in Fontainebleau… δ13C in research “crude” dates by Fontainebleau its very interesting: increase 1950 to 1960 has shape as increase 1985 - 2000; and the “slump” after around 1960 identically as Beck analyses. Becks picks specially: 1860, 1920; they are in Fonteinbleau too! Here also (as in Beck) increase of temperature (δ18O) preceded a δ13C increase… In the Beck analyses are a few errors - too higher CO2 level in 1820, no have s. d.…, However better that it’s, then nothing… Recollecting Gamon, Fraser (1985) writing about chemical methods: accurate to 3 percent…, besides the Results of research in 1920 - 1935 y, are very concentration - they have very small deviations - it’s confirm only 3% errors; as majority Becks date included in a photosynthesis researches - confirmed by photosynthesis product. Meijer and Keeling said, at Beck analyses: no background: “A quick tour through my car-traffic-saturated home town, Paris, can give us a good first impression: • Jardin Luxembourg (major but still tiny green spot in the center of Paris) 425ppm • Place de la Bastille: 430ppm • Place de l’Etoile (the crazy huge roundabout around the Arc de Triomphe): • 508ppm • And the winner was Place de la Nation: 542ppm (160ppm over background!).” (measurements by David Widory and Marc Javoy) but They give arguments for Beck. The differences dated only from present enhanced traffic of car !!! Difference between Mauna Loa - Jardin Luxembourg about CO2 concentration = 40 ppmv. Before 1950 y I think a background was not higher then 20 ppmv. Even however 40 ppmv background, gives for around 1940 y, 360 - 370 ppmv CO2… Besides, old universities were from car traffic, in the distance. "The persistency of the late 20th century warming trend appears unprecedented." writing i.e. N. Etien et al. I see on Fig 3b. - only “trend appears unprecedented” only in 1970 - 2000 period (likely: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp2_e.php), but temperature records are in 1911; 47; 49. 2003 is only fourth. Average in around 1950 is smallest in comparison 2000, only about 0,2oC… And here it is not possible to blame only “metal type screens “… The temperature biases in Fontainebleau are likely as in USA (by NASA)… “against the use of delta-13C measurements for long term temperature reconstructions” - I’m against too… None too big warming = more activity soil microorganisms - more CO2, 12C (correlations T - delta 13C, is high); only the big warming is can starts up the oceanic - TH circulations (= no correlations T - delta 13C). Unprecedented here is it, that delta 13C in 1950-60 period, violently fall off, as CO2 at Becks analyses, as mass moments the largest planets… - this last is accidentals ? Maybe, I don’t known… I’m only applied scientist – adviser for agro-meteorology…
  23. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:37 AM on 2 December 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Thanks, Patrick, Chris, Philippe Chantreau I can’t agree with You, The stomatal pores, their density in fossil plant leafs, it’s a fundamental legal instrument (not only in ice core context), that We not have a real unbalanced surplus of anthropogenic CO2, that CO2 don’t have long live of atmosphere, likely as present, variability of GHG was always; in finish: confirm it that first growing temperature, later CO2 concentration of air…, summary: not only man-mode melting glaciers… The density of stomata varies with such factors as: the temperature, humidity, and light intensity around the plant and also the concentration of carbon dioxide. The mature leaves on the plant detect the conditions around them and send a signal that adjusts the number of stomata that will form on the developing leaves. Not all plants We can take on experiments. Only some species have of the line relationship CO2 – stoma. They are tested in greenhouse - very wide range conditions – calibrated. First research works about it, makes in 1974… The results reported by Gregory Retallack (in Nature , 411 :287, 17 May 2001), his study of the fossil leaves of the ginkgo, was cited in the IPCC elaborations… “The reliability of this method testing on a total of 285 previously published SD and 145 SI responses to variable CO(2) concentrations from a pool of 176 C(3) plant species.” – Wagner said for students… A resolution this method is limited and "smoothed" because “…although the mechanism may involve genetic adaptation and therefore is often not clearly expressed under short CO(2) exposure times.” – “…don't show wild and massive up and down jumps…” (Wagner et al, 2002) “…to vary by around 295 +/- 10 ppm over a period of around 2000 years” – It is inadmissible “shortening”. Observed the variability in Fig. 2. is between ~ 275 – 330 ppmv CO2, and with standard deviation ~245 – 340 ppmv (the greatest down - certainly + s. deviations; in a few years ! ~7750 BP = 280 – 340 ppmv CO2, in a ~30-40 years 250 – 320 ppmv around 8700 BP; at the greatest grove – ~ 245 – 320 ppmv CO2 in < 150 years - ~ 8450 – 8600 BP). The range of variability in analyzed period for ice core is ~10 ppmv…, even around 55 ppmv (95 ppmv to vary range with s. deviation) contra 10 ppmv, is it: “relatively small disagreement”? Very interesting is comparison it with Fig. 3C in Baker at al. 1998. Correlation, even r-squadron, between a Europe fossil stoma and % C4 in America should be > 80 percent… If its true the range of variability CO2 in Holocene will be between ~200 – 340 ppmv CO2 with specially very quickly and big change between 4800 – 3400 BP. It is fine confirmation by the δ13C composition of stalagmites calcite (Fig. 3A) and… … for example, from news - about this variability; but “sedimentary total organic” is in „Holocene weak summer East Asian monsoon intervals in subtropical Taiwan and their global synchronicity” (http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/929/2008/cpd-4-929-2008.pdf - see specially Fig. 3). The four centennial periods: ~8–8.3, 5.1–5.7, 4.5–~2.1, and 2–1.6 kyr BP – “of relatively reduced summer East Asian monsoon” having a very interesting mark of reference whit all index in Baker et al., and Wagner at al.… Finished, I think percentage C4, maybe will by “fairest” proxy for reconstruction CO2 level (small influence of warm, rain, other falls, etc.) E. Steig i J. Severinghaus 27.04.2007 y. on RealClimate say: However very important is it, then concentration CO2 in last 650,000 years wasn’t never above 290 ppmv…, “I'd be very interested to know what they thinks will be achieved trying to cheat us in this way”… T. B. van Hoof et al (2008) – “CO2 levels varied by around +/- 10-15 ppmv” (often > 30 ppmv - more in s. d.; by a few years !) to base at early studies: “Coupling between atmospheric CO 2 and temperature during the onset of the Little Ice Age (van Hoof 2004)”. There is one: the shapes confirmations by D 47 core (however it’s only ± 6 ppmv); both: comparisons in other researching studies at fossil stoma (into L. Kouwenberg dissertation). Interesting is Fig. 2.6 (chapter 2) – growing of temperature with reconstruction Man and Jones 2003 (likely Moberg, Esper, etc.) ~ 1180; 1250; 1320 AD preceded a increase CO2 level… - “a temperature response rather” ? Kouwenberg in here research conclusion, said: “Four native North American conifer species (Tsuga heterophylla, Picea glauca, P. mariana, and Larix laricina) show a decrease in stomatal frequency to a range of historical CO 2 mixing ratios (290 to 370 ppmv). [!]” Well, well…
  24. It's the sun
    Not really Mizimi. The GISS update for October erroneously included September data for a number of Russian stations. The error was highlighted and the data corrected. So it's not a big issue is it! There are always errors in every endeavour in life. Science isn't an exception...it doesn't proceed without errors. The important point is that errors of substance are identified (they were) and corrected (they were).
  25. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    As a reconstruction of past T and CO2 levels I would ignore it as it is predicated on a lot of (intelligent) guesswork. We simply do not know what the climate system as a whole was really like in the dim distant past. In addition, distribution of land mass was totally different and that affected climate. As an indication of trend (no absolutes here) it has uses.
  26. Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    FYI; The sea of Cortes, off the coast of California, has been seriously overfished for many years, resulting in the loss of predators for the Humboldt squid. Because of this, and the squid's own predatory nature, its population has 'explode' to an estimated 20million+. (Much dismay and gnashing of teeth amongst marine biologists) However, the Right whale, which uses this sea as a stopover on its annual migration considers this squid as a great delicacy...as a result, Right whale numbers are increasing...........serendipity? Or 'nature' doing a balancing act?
  27. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    "a significant part of the water vapour contribution arises as a feedback to CO2-induced warming," If we allow CO2 alone is responsible for a 0.17C rise/decade in GMT as per GISS data, and we allow ALL of the heat associated with that temp rise to evaporate water then an estimate of the increase in WV is around 0.07gm/kg of dry air. The atmosphere contains an estimated 5.135x10E18 kg of dry air (National Centre for Atmospheric research) which gives us a possible 5.135x10E18 x .07x10E-3 kg of WV added by this temp rise. Which ( providing I get my powers sorted out his time!) amounts to some 36x10E13 kg, PER DECADE. The current estimate for mm WV additions is 2360 cubic k's which is 2.36x10E12 kg....PER ANNUM. So over a decadal period we would add WV equivalent to 6.5% of that caused by CO2. Not insignificant. Dismissing AWV on the basis it precipitates out within 7-14 days does not do away with the fact that it does have a warming effect during that time period and it is a continuous effect at that.
  28. It's the sun
    "What errors have there been in the GISS record?" Had a look at October's Giss data? Trivail? I don't think so. Look up Wattsupwiththat latest post on Russian data included by GISS.
  29. CO2 lags temperature
    Has anyone discussed the possibility of bias between the two different ways of measuring CO2 and temperature as the source of the big jump near the end of the hockey stick graph? Thanks.
  30. Temp record is unreliable
    Yes, don't allow yourself to be taken in by "rhetoric" beam! In science it’s all about the evidence. I'm sure nobody would suggest that it doesn't matter if we "lose the validity of the surface temperature record". I've had a look through the thread and haven't found any post which claims that, let alone "claiming that you "Don't need" the temperature record"...that would be an odd claim indeed! Notice that in order to take action in response to real world observations we don't need "proof". Proof is a mathematical/philosophical concept. What we need is strong evidence. So the pertinent question is: "is there strong evidence that the temperature record is robust to the extent that we can reliably assess the Earth's temperature response in relation to our understanding/predictions of massive enhancement of greenhouse gas concentrations". The answer is yes I suspect we would agree for some of the reasons already outlined on this thread: (i) The record is independently assessed by three different organizations. Although there are differences in data compilation/analysis methods and some differences that relate to the nature of covering sparsely-monitored regions, the different compilations yield a consistent interpretation of the surface temperature evolution over the last 100 and a bit years. (ii) the surface record seems not to have significant contamination from the UHI since (a) a number of direct analyses indicate that the UHI isn’t significant [comparison of temperatures on windy days (with rapid excess heat dispersal) cf calm days, and other types of analysis, for example as described here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-Urban-Heat-Island-effect-add-to-the-global-warming-trend.html, or in John Cooks introductory summary on this thread]; (b) one can remove all of the urban records from the analysis, and the temperature profile is pretty much unaffected; (c) those regions showing the largest warming are far, far away from urban centres and generally there is no correlation between local temperature evolution and local urban density [see for example: http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm] (iii) completely independent records of the consequences of a warming Earth are consistent with the surface record [these include high latitude ice recession; independent temperature scales constructed from the record of high altitude glacier recession; tropospheric warming; enhanced tropospheric absolute humidity and so on]. So the evidence supports the interpretation that the temperature record is robust. Your point about scaling of the record with respect to the Earth’s “total existence” isn’t an important comparison with respect to the question of the consequences of massive enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at this particular time in the Earth’s long history. In any case we have a huge amount of information about temperatures in the recent and much more distant geological past. This also informs our understanding and provides strong evidence in support of the expected surface warming response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. For example there is a good correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the Earth’s “temperature” in proxyCO2 and proxytemperature data stretching back right through the Phanerozoic So in general, the paleorecord reinforces the data from our contemporary temperature record and all of the vast amount of information from understanding of basic atmospheric physics, to the spectroscopy of greenhouse gases, ice core records and so on and on, that informs us on the consequences of massive enhancement of greenhouse gas concentrations. That’s not to say that there isn’t much more work to be done!
  31. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    " “The loss of ozone allowed more UV light to pass through the stratosphere at a sufficient rate to warm the lower troposphere plus 8-3/4" of the earth by 0.48 o C (1966 to 1998).” " Now spread that heat out over the top 100 m of ocean and see what happens. ( 100 m * 70 % of area + 10/4 m** / (8.75 in* 2.54 cm/in + 10/4 m** (**water depth equivalent to atmospheric heat capacity)) = 72.5 m / 2.72225 m = 26.6 0.48 deg C / 26.6 = 0.018 deg C. But the quote refers to the lower troposphere, in which case the result is less; if the lower troposphere is the air below about the 500 mb level, for example, then I get 0.48 deg C/ 48.4 = 0.0099 deg C. )
  32. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    A few of the problems with this: http://omsriram.com/GlobalWarming.htm 1. (at least one of) the IPCC figures are incorrectly interpreted - tropospheric ozone is increasing, NOT decreasing - this is also an anthropogenic effect. 2. some temperature graphs are off. 3. CO2 graph is off (though not as far off as another one I've seen). 4. The evidence really does justify a conclusion that significant CO2 increases cause significant global (tropospheric and surface) warming.
  33. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Chris, I'm not sure I accept your view of solar cycle 'damping'. The annual response to orbital & axis fluctuations (which are basically the same as increasing/decreasing TSI) is quite rapid, even for large masses of water. I live on the coast and the seasonal fluctuation in sea temp is quite pronounced and predictable...peaking at around 27C and dropping to around 17C in the summer/winter cycle. These seasonal fluctuations are much greater than the solar cycle and I suspect the small warming of the solar cycle gets overshadowed somewhat rather than retarded.
  34. Models are unreliable
    Don't be silly Dan. You don't need to point out that you're parotting phrases from post to post..we can see that ourselves! The point is that your parroted phrases are illogical. The fact that insolation effects drive downtrends in temperature while CO2 levels remain high doesn't necessarily say anything about the net feedbacks to raised CO2 levels at constant insolation. This is explained in my post #64. You could look at the papers cited in that post which will enlighten you considerably about the rather straightforward phenomenon of Milankovitch-forced warming/cooling transitions. Look at the papers John Cook links to here, for example: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm (Petit et al, 1999 and Shackleton, 2000 are two helpful papers.) You would also benefit from reading: Kawamura et al (2007) Northern Hemisphere forcing of climate cycles in Antarctica over the past 360,000 years. Nature 448, 912-918. Although your conundrum has been resolved by explanation several times already, here's another explanation: (i) raised CO2 levels stay raised for long periods, since CO2 is drawn out of the atmosphere rather slowly, for example in response to temperature downtrends. (ii) therefore if insolation effects (due to Milankovitch cycles) reduce critical insolation, the Earth's temperature will drop even 'though CO2 levels remain high. (iii) therefore during the ice age cycles, insolation changes that drive temperature changes will precede the CO2 responses. (iv) this doesn't mean that variation of atmospheric CO2 at constant insolation doesn't have associated positive feedbacks. All of the evidence (that we can measure in the real world, including an increase in tropospheric humidity as a feedback response to raised tropospheric warming, and reduced albedo due to surface ice recession and so on) indicates that the effects of CO2 variations are amplified by net positive feedbacks. (v) one can point out a simple analogy of the day/night cycle. Although atmospheric CO2 levels don't change overnight and remain very very high, as the sun goes down, the temperature measured at the Earth's surface drops. (vi) In other words a temperature downtrend at high/highish atmospheric CO2 levels only means that the particular driver of the temperature trend at that paticular time is variation in insolation. (vii) which we all know very well since it's rather obvious and well characterized!
  35. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak - "The annually production anthropogenic CFC = 750,000 T pure Cl, = one week by Mount Erebus productions…, at the all a World volcanoes, have a annually production 36,000,000 T Cl" CFCs are generally very unreactive until they reach the stratosphere and are broken down by UV, releasing Cl, etc. Volcanic Cl is probably much more reactive, and more likely to be rained out before reaching the stratosphere. I don't have time to read those papers right now, but I'll just note that the stratospheric cooling associated with AGW, (and also polar stratospheric cooling associated with increasing AO, which may or may not be a seperate matter, depending...) will make polar ozone holes more likely to result from any given ozone-depleting emission. Ozone depletion itself, while warming the troposphere below, cools the stratosphere by reduced UV absorption there, and also lets more longwave radiation from the surface escape to space, reducing any tropospheric warming that would result.
  36. Temp record is unreliable
    I'm amazed at the rhetoric. If you lose the validity of the surface temperature record, your hypothesis, that warming is greater than expected, is invalidated. It is a logical fallacy to claim that it doesn't matter if one of your premises are proven false. It is impossible for the conclusion to be correct if the premises do not hold. Here in lies the crux of the problem. --------------------------------------------------------- So If I'm not mistaken this is the AGW Hypothesis: 1. The world has been warming for a century, and this warming is beyond any cyclical variation we have seen over the last 1000 or more years, and beyond the range of what we might expect from natural climate variations. 2. Almost all of the warming in the second half of the 20th century, perhaps a half a degree Celsius, is due to man-made greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 3. In the next 100 years, CO2 produced by man will cause a lot more warming, from as low as three degrees C to as high as 8 or 10 degrees C. 4. Positive feedbacks in the climate, like increased humidity, will act to triple the warming from CO2, leading to these higher forecasts and perhaps even a tipping point into climactic disaster 5. The bad effects of warming greatly outweigh the positive effects, and we are already seeing the front end of these bad effects today (polar bears dying, glaciers melting, etc) 6. These bad effects, or even a small risk of them, easily justify massive intervention today in reducing economic activity and greenhouse gas production [1] http://www.conservapedia.com/AGW_hypothesis --------------------------------------------------------- In order for this to be proven true at this point in time, the surface temperature record needs to be accurate, because the other forms of temperature data collection have not been around long enough to be relied on. We simply do not have upper atmospheric temperature measures for long enough to see any long term trends. Let alone trends that are not expected. This is also true of the surface temperature record, although it is slightly older. Let's put it into perspective, if we scaled earth's total existence in time to a period of 1 year, the 50-100 years of data collection we now have would still be a fraction of a second on that time scale. So... claiming that you "Don't need" the temperature record is simply an act of hand waving by those too stubborn to admit defeat. At least for now, there is more work to be done.
  37. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:07 AM on 28 November 2008
    Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    John Cook said: “There are two skeptic approachs to volcanoes: high volcanic activity causes global warming and/or low volcanic activity causes global warming” - I say: “two skeptic approachs to volcanoes”, don’t excluded… „On the contrary, relatively frequent volcanic activity in the late 20th century may have masked some of the warming caused by CO2.” - I think - it’s not “all” right… 1.In IV report IPCC, chapter 2, p. 194, is Fig. 2.18 - distinctly differ from John’s Fig whit volcanic - optical depth… 2. In this IV report on p. 195-6 is writing about “chemical destruction of stratospheric ozone”. Here is, in references, one interesting position: Tabazadeh at al, 2002… I remind You, what Tabazadeh was said then - in 2002 y: "Both the 1982 El Chichon and 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruptions were sulfur-rich [not only S, but else Cl2 ,B(OH)3,NH3,CH4, Cl, F by metals compounds] , producing volcanic clouds that lasted a number of years in the stratosphere," "A 'volcanic ozone hole' is likely to occur over the Arctic within the next 30 years, [!!!]" “Between about 15 and 25 kilometers (9 to 16 miles) in altitude, volcanic Arctic clouds could increase springtime ozone loss over the Arctic by as much as 70 percent, according to Drdla” (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0203/05volcano/ and http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2002/20020304volcano.html) The annually production anthropogenic CFC = 750,000 T pure Cl, = one week by Mount Erebus productions…, at the all a World volcanoes, have a annually production 36,000,000 T Cl… Results about It , is visible here http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/SP_Dobson_Oct15-31_2007_mod1.gif, and of stratosphere temperature in: http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/1385.jpg, Robert A. Ashworth in papers: CFC Destruction of Ozone - Major Cause of Recent Global Warming! (2008; http://omsriram.com/GlobalWarming.htm - all paper is very interesting) say: “The loss of ozone allowed more UV light to pass through the stratosphere at a sufficient rate to warm the lower troposphere plus 8-3/4" of the earth by 0.48 o C (1966 to 1998).” IPCC said: global anthropogenic GHG effects in this period = ~ 0,5 dg. C, Ashworth said: “anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons”, it’s the reason it… …I say: volcanic S, Cl, F - emissions, dear Mrs. Ashworth… I propose else this image: http://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png. It’s worth seeing.
  38. Models are unreliable
    Post #75 was a repeat of the statement in #69 that followed the statement quoted in #76. It is unclear why you did not appear to notice this before and now do not seem to be able to see the difference between the two statements.
  39. It's not bad
    Can Carbon Dioxide Be A Good Thing? Physicist Explains Benefits Of Carbon Dioxide June 1, 2007 — A physicist from Colorado State University and his colleagues from the North American Carbon Program (NACP) have discerned and confirmed the unforeseen advantages of rising carbon dioxide levels. Through the processes of photosynthesis and respiration, scientists have been able to elucidate why plants are growing more rapidly than they are dying. The NACP is employing methods, such as the use of cell phone and aircraft towers to monitor and retrieve carbon data for their continuing study.
  40. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    A thermostat 'cycles' around a predetermined temp within defined limits; design limitations normally restrict this to 2C. So, for example, a simple heating system will show a more or less sinusoidal curve around the setpoint with an offset of around 2C. This curve can be limited by the use of predictive electronics, but not completely negated. Electronic and compressed air temperature controllers modulate continuously as the detected temp fluctuates and provide closer control, BUT still show a sinusoidal fluctuation around the set point even though much lower than a conventional thermostat (industrial standards of around 0.5C). There is no equilibrium. Semantics is about the meaning of words; once you start to misuse words then communication is degraded. Better to invent a new word than to misuse an existing one..and science is historically pretty good at inventing new ones.
  41. It's the ocean
    chris Compare the charts of "hot spots" to a good map of the ocean floor such as Nat. Geo. maps. Also see post 115 in the volcano thread.
  42. It's Urban Heat Island effect
    According to WikiP the land surface area of the earth is 148,939,100 sqkm and the total area of deserts (not chocolate flavoured desserts) bigger than 50,000 sqkm amounts to 31,678,000 sqkm...about 21%. This however includes Antartica which if you remove from the list reduces the total to 17,849,000 sqkm.....more than 10% of the earth's land area and that only includes those over 50,000 sqkm. Googling 'African deserts' gives 25% of Africa is listed as desert....hardly tiny.
  43. Evaporating the water vapor argument
    Thank you, Chris. Mizimi's little docudrama is telling because its humor depends on the listener being scientifically illiterate or willing to make oneself temporarily illiterate for the sake of an ideology.
  44. Models are unreliable
    Come on Dan. You provided your own answer to that illogical mantra in your first paragraph of your post #69: [Dan ".....a temperature down trend is insufficient to prove that net positive feedback does not exist. My bad to have overlooked this before."] You were right in your post #69. Why change your mind again??
  45. It's the sun
    Not really WA What errors and corrections in the GISS record? There have been some truly trivial errors. Science doesn't proceed without errors. When these are identified they are corrected..it's not really a big deal oddly in your last paragraph, you contend that the satellite record is consistent with the hypothesis that there is no positive feedback. But in fact you are quite wrong. The satellite record is consistent with surface warming as a result of enhanced greenhouse warming of the atmosphere. The predicted enhancement of troposheric water vapour has been identified (see post #173 above). How could you have come to a completely incorrect notion of the satellite record? Probably because one or two less than honest scientists (Roy Spencer is one) have repeatedly made massively profound errors during the last nearly two decades of "analysis" of this data. And although their errors have been repeatedly corrected in the scientific literature, Spencer has taken to presenting falsehoods and misrepresentations directly to the public on dodgy website and suchlike. That's what I found astonishing about your viewpoint. On this and other threads you embrace embarrasingly erroneous nonsense (The Scotese paleotemperature/paleoCO2 sketch; a German schoolteachers pathetic misrepresentation of early CO2 measurements; hearsay notions about satellite measurements)...and yet you make dull attempts to trash the pukka science. If you have evidence that "we have ice ages with high CO2 and warm eons with low CO2", why not show us? If you've evidence that "The satellite record is to an even greater extent consistent with the hypothesis that there is no positive feeedback due to increased CO2", why not show us? If you've evidence that (the satellite record) "is also consistent with the hypothesis that human activities have no measurable effect on world temperature", why not show us? We want to see your evidence Wondering Aloud. We're skeptical of individuals that embrace errant and obvious nonsense and yet attempt to downplay pukka science. We're not concerned with proof. We're interested in the science and therefore we want to see your evidence.
  46. Wondering Aloud at 05:56 AM on 26 November 2008
    It's the sun
    Chris Re:218 This is a splinter in your neighbors eye issue if I have ever seen one. Especially in light of the errors and corrections in the GISS record. Is it your contention that it is incompetance in that case or bias? Ice core samples show that the warming happens first, our host claims a natural delay accounts for this. I think having a reversed order of cause and effect should give anyone pause, and let's not fool ourselves that is what we have there. It most certainly does not support the correlation you claim. Unless you would also contend that I ate too much junk food because I had gained weight. As to the more distant past while very uncertian I don't see how anyone could get anything like a correlation from what is there, we have ice ages with high CO2 and warm eons with low CO2. The satellite record is to an even greater extent consistent with the hypothesis that there is no positive feeedback due to increased CO2. In fact it is also consistent with the hypothesis that human activities have no measurable effect on world temperature. I think I am saying that isn't really much of a proof.
  47. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    This article Prehistoric Climate Can Help Forecast Future Changes ScienceDaily (Nov. 25, 2008, includes an interesting graphic. The "hot spot" anomalies in ocean temperatures are all very geologically active areas of volcanism/plate tectonics. While the article itself is worth reading, it's the illustration that stands out.
  48. Models are unreliable
    During the last and previous glacial periods the temperature changed from an uptrend to a down trend with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level higher during the down trend than it had been during the uptrend. That could not happen if there was significant net positive feedback and proves that significant net positive feedback does not exist. Without the imposition of substantial net positive feedback the GCMs do not predict significant global warming.
  49. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    Not really Mizimi: (i) The CDIAC is exactly about anthropogenic greenhouse gases. That's why they reference them with respect to pre 1750 levels (zero for the CFC's but not for CO2, methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide). (ii) both sites (EPA and CDIAC) don't include water vapour because they are considering anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings. The EPA site has a specific section about water vapour. As they state (and we've already established this point in numerous posts above on this thread), human activities aren't believed to directly affect water vapour concentrations (it's not a forcing, it's a feedback), but the warmer atmosphere from anthropogenic greenhouse gases results in a water vapour feedback that amplifies the anthropogenic forcing from enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. That's all very straightforward and easy to understand. (iii) Otherwise your numerology is suspect. In fact it's not possible to partition greenhouse effect contributions from the individual greenhouse gases in the manner that you have done, since the greenhouse gases don't act independently, especially when water vapour is considered. removing CO2 from the atmosphere results in a very large cooling, since a significant part of the water vapour contribution arises as a feedback to CO2-induced warming, and if you remove the CO2 you remove a lot of the water. Do you see why that makes a linear, discrete "partitioning" of the greenhouse effect to individual components inaccessible to simple-minded arithmetic? In fact this issue has been dealt with many times through the use of modelling of the effects of removing various components of the atmosphere. An early example is: Ramanathan V, Coakley JA (1978) Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models. Rev. Geophys. 16, 465-489. For example if you remove CO2 from the atmosphere the greenhouse effect is reduced by 9% and if you remove water vapour it's reduced by 36%. But if you removee CO2 and water vapour it's reduced by more than 45% (the sum of the two). Likewise if you remove everything but CO2, 26% of the longwave IR is still absorbed in the atmosphere. So if one wanted to put numbers to the contribution of CO2, it's somewhere between 9-26% of the greenhouse effect.... If you find Ramanathan and Coakley heavy going, Wikipedia has a goodish account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Water_vapour_effects
  50. Models are unreliable
    Re #70 I wouldn't really say that's a modelling error Quietman. Have a read of the original article in Nature Geosciences. A very small amount of carbon from inefficient burning of fossil fuels (that isn't captured in catalytic converters!), or from forest fires under oxygen-deficiency, or from people that use inefficient wood-burning stoves in the less-developed world, may be retained in the soil for long periods, and thus the amount released into the atmosphere may be reduced somewhat. Remember that no one expects the GCM models to be perfect. We know that they're not. That's not really the point of modelling. We know already from basic atmospheric physics and from numerous studies of the real world that the Earth responds to enhanced greenhouse gases with a warming somewhere of the order of 3 oC per doubling of atmospheric CO2. That's completely independent of models. The models help us to predict the spatial distribution of this warming, its effects under different emission scenarios and such like. As new information is obtained about contributions and their paramaterization, so the models are iteratively improved. So the work just published in Nature Geoscience will be explored further no doubt, and when it's sufficiently characterized/parameterized will be incorporated into the models... ..that's how science works!

Prev  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  2610  2611  2612  2613  2614  2615  2616  2617  2618  2619  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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