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  652  653  654  655  656  657  658  659  660  661  662  663  664  665  666  667  Next

Comments 32951 to 33000:

  1. CO2 effect is saturated

    MA Rodger, thanks for the link to Nasif Nahle's claim that CO2 is cooling the planet.  On that thread, a commenter named Neutrino heroically corrected Nahle's "logic."  After revealing many of Nahle's astonishingly sloppy transcriptions of equations, misplacing of parentheses in equations, inconsistencies in units, and more, Neutrino summarized the crux of Nahle's error as treating the emissivity of one meter of atmosphere as if it is of the entire atmospheric column.  Nahle then vanished from the discussion.

  2. One Planet Only Forever at 01:29 AM on 17 November 2014
    2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #46B

    Common sense based on a reasoned evaluation of available information  would conclude that the likes of the Republicans are irrationally pursuing the maximum possible short term benefit for a select portion of current day humans to the detriment of all other humans and the future of humanity.

    Common sense would say the actions they want to get away with are not just harmful but are ultimately unsustainable ways of living well that only a few on the planet can be allowed to benefit 'most vigorously' from, with people fighting any way they can get away with to benefit the most, with some people not getting any net benefit, and many people and other life being harmed without getting any benefit.

    And the most galling of the string of actions by this group of deliberate trouble makers is their attempt to claim that the made-up claims they want believed are 'common sense', which they hope will mena people accepting them without reasoned evaluation of available information. What they really hope is to keep a large percentage of the population inclined to want a better present for themselves rather than caring about the development of a sustainable better future for all.

    Their ability to prolong the poppularity of such damaging ultimately unsustaiable beliefs is a greater threat than the rapid production of excess CO2. And they probably understand that rational thoughtful 'common sense' gaining enough popularity threatens their ability to get away with their many deliberate misleading claims attempting to support their many harmful and ultimately unsustainable pursuits of profit. Hence. their attempts to abuse and ruin the term 'common sense', to try to make it mean something you believe without really thinking about.

  3. CO2 effect is saturated

    Satoh,

    Citing unpeer reviewed internet blogs that claim everyone else is wrong is not very useful in a scientific discussion, although it is better than nothing.    Please raise your game.  Nahles claim that his "paper" was "peer reviewed" by his friends in the Physics department is not a  suitable scientific citation.  Think: if this is the best you can find, is it really comparable to the recent AR5 report?  That report was written by several thousand specialists and peer reviewed by tens of thousands of scientists.  You must provide stronger evidence to get informed people to believe what you say.

    You will look better if you think longer before you post.  Tom's graphs A and B were clear to me.

    Tom: thank you for defining emissivity and emission.

  4. Not a cite for Soare eyes

    They just asked me to review a paper about the Earth's magnetism. That is about all I got from the abstract; hardly understood anything. Almost looks as if they send the manuscripts to random scientists.

  5. CO2 effect is saturated

    Tom@351

    Yes, of course, if the partial pressure goes up, the path length goes down. Naturally.

    I still need to know why you said 10,000 feet and why you used the top curve on graph 1.

  6. CO2 effect is saturated

    Nahle claims to disprove AGW by pointing out that the earth is not an actual physical greenhouse, which suggests the concept of metaphor is completely lost on him.  

  7. CO2 effect is saturated

    Satoh @349/350.

    That paper you cite manages to conclude saying:-

    "By considering also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total emissivity than the water vapor I conclude that the carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth."

    This is not the only argument from the author Nasif S. Nahle that purports to have  disproved AGW. He has even shown that CO2 is cooling the planet, rather than warming it. This, of course, is 'men-in-white-coats' territory and not the stuff that should be presented here at SkS.

  8. CO2 effect is saturated

    Satoh @347:

    "The mean path length at sea level for photons between CO2 molecules was 33 mm years ago but I'm saying 30 mm now which is .03 m. The emissivity of CO2 at sea level goes along the curve of .0004 x .03 which is the .000021 I mentioned, which is not on the graph but you can visualize it."

    Ah!  So because partial pressure has increased from 360-400, pathlength has decreased from 0.033 to 0.03, or in other words (on your interpretation) atmosphere meters is a constant for any given gas at a constant temperature.  Do you perhaps want to rethink that?

  9. CO2 effect is saturated

    The paper I just cited says the emissivity of CO2 is .0027 (no units)

  10. CO2 effect is saturated

    I see what you did. You randomly picked the top line and said "it's 4 foot atmospheres which is .0004 X 10,000 feet" so it would point to the 0.2 mark. That's pretty arbitrary. The mean free path length of 15 micron photons at sea level is definitely not 10,000 feet so you can't use that line.

    This paper has been floating around the web which says the mean path length for photons in CO2 at sea level is 32 meters. I don't buy it. They first measured it many years ago and it was in millimeters. I'd like to know what the latest calculations are for that.

    Mean path length applies to absorption, and it also applies to emission. They are inverse of the same process.

  11. CO2 effect is saturated

    Wait, did you think that 10,000 feet was the length the photons went, the column of air, from surface to top of atmosphere or something? There is no possible way an IR photon at 15 microns is going through 10,000 feet of air. It's blocked right near the ground. Gee whiz. Blocked and turned into kinetic heat. Please tell me where your 10,000 feet comes from.

  12. CO2 effect is saturated

    I don't know where your 10,000 feet comes from. I think you are confused by path length. When a solid or liquid emits a photon, it emits from a patent surface, the solid surface or the liquid surface, but when a gas emits a photon, being a gas, it emits from a region of space. Emissitivy is not calculated the same for a gas. The path length refers to the length between emitting molecules, in a straight line. The shorter that path, the greater the emissivity. The mean path length at sea level for photons between CO2 molecules was 33 mm years ago but I'm saying 30 mm now which is .03 m. The emissivity of CO2 at sea level goes along the curve of .0004 x .03 which is the .000021 I mentioned, which is not on the graph but you can visualize it.

  13. CO2 effect is saturated

    Satoh, you're acting a lot like the Black Knight.

  14. CO2 effect is saturated

    Satoh @343:

    "... using 400 ppm and sea level path length of 33 meters you'd get a line that would read .0000121 atm m"

    It is atmosphere - meters, not "atmosphere/meters".  Ergo 400 ppmv (= 0.0004 atm) with a path length of 33 meters equates to 0.0132 atmosphere meters.  The closest contour shown to that is 0.012 atmosphere meters (ie, pathlength of 30 meters with current atmospheric concentration of CO2).  15 degrees C (=288 K) is 519 Rankine, at which temperature the 0.012 contour approximates to an emissivity of 0.06.  That is, just 30 meters of atmosphere at current CO2 concentrations and excluding the effects of water vapour eliminates 6% of upward surface emissions.

  15. CO2 effect is saturated

    Satoh @341, at one point I refer to the graph posted by DeWitt Payne as the "second graph".  That was potentially ambiguous, but was intended to refer to the graph with units of degrees Rankine on the x-axis (which is for CO2).  Fig 1 (b) is, of course, for H2O, while figure 1 (a) is also for CO2.  Refering to that, and considering the upper most line (4 foot atmospheres).  With a CO2 partial pressure of 0.0004 (ie, 400 ppmv), that equates to 10,000 feet or 3,048 meters.  As can be seen, that approximates to an emisivity of 0.2.

    For the same distance, a pressure-distance of 20, corresponds to a partial pressure of 0.002 atmospheres which is a very low value for water vapour concentration, yet yields an emisivity of approx 0.6.

    Cearly there are overlaps between CO2 and H2O absorption bands, but given the depth of the atmosphere, these are underestimates of the emissivities of the two gases for the full depth of the atmosphere.  Therefore, as a reasonable sanity check on your claims, we can simply combine them by addition for a combined emissivity of 0.8 - indicating just 20% of surface emissions escape to space - and that in clear sky conditions.  Therefore, correctly used as a sanity check, the Hotel emission graphs support the findings of Khiel and Trenberth.

  16. CO2 effect is saturated

    Ok see now, when you said 2nd graph you meant the 3rd graph at the bottom. Looking at that graph, which is for high pressure industrial use and doesn't come close to the atmospheric value, using 400 ppm and sea level path length of 33 meters you'd get a line that would read .0000121 atm m

  17. CO2 effect is saturated

    I meant @332

    Convert 1 foot = .3 meters and visualize the line

  18. CO2 effect is saturated

    Tom, excellent work, except the second graph is for water vapor. The first is for CO2, which demonstrates the sea level values, seasonally averaged, that I gave in @322. I don't mean to criticize, it's a simple mistake.

  19. CO2 effect is saturated

    As the discussion has turned to Hottel Emissivity, graphs, here are two, one for CO2 and the other for H2O:

    And another with metric units for pressure length, but degrees Rankine for temperatures, CO2 alone:

    I have been unable to find graphs with metric units both for pressure-length, and temperature (or Imperial units for both).  The second comes from a comment by DeWitt Payne on Science of Doom.

    Elsewhere DeWitt Payne has two comments on how to interpret, and use such graphs.  In the first, he attempts to clariffy a misconception about how to use the charts:

    "It’s only low for a short path length. I’ve had this discussion before. If the path length is 1 m and the partial pressure is 0.00038 atmospheres then the Hottel emissivity curve to use is the one for 0.00038 atm m. If the path length is 10 km, then the mass path length is 3.8 atm m, which is well above the range of the Hottel charts I’ve seen, but puts the emissivity value for CO2 at ~0.2."

    That clarrifies the relevance of the units of the curves, ie, the pressure-length, atmospheres per meter in the graph shown by DeWitt Payne (ie, the second graph above).  That is, to determine the emissivity of CO2 at a given temperature, you determine the atmosphere-length by multiplying the partial pressure of the CO2 in atmospheres by the path length in meters.  If the path length is 10 horizontal kilometers, and the partial pressure is 0.0004 atmospheres, the atmosphere-length is 4 atmosphere-meters (and hence well of the charts above).  In an earlier post (@322) Satoh referred to "...the fact that at normal pressures and temperatures CO2′s emissivity is somewhere around 0.0019".  The lowest line on the second graph above shows a atmosphere-length of 0.0003 amtmosphere meters (ie, about 300 ppmv over one meter).  At 1500 Rankine (560 C), its lowest temperature value it shows an emissivity of 0.005, or about 2.5 times that quoted by Satoh.  I presume the chart Satoh used had a shorter unit than a meter.  Regardless he is clearly making the error DeWitt Payne attempts to correct in his discussion on SOD.

    Having said that, DeWitt Payne's estimate of a 0.2 emisivity at standard pressures and temperatures for the full height of the atmospheric column is probably fairly close.  That is because the emissivity is the total irradiated energy divided by the total irradiated energy of a black body with the same temperature.  (See DeWitt Payne's worked example.)  The consequence of this is that as temperature rises, total emission of a black body rises with the fourth power of temperature.  Total emission of CO2 as a thermal emitter will also rise, but in bandwidths in which it already radiates strongly, at a far lower rate than with the fourth power of temperature.  The result is a general decline in emissivity even while emissions at every wavelength in which emissions exist actually increase.  The general decline is not absolute.  If a potential emitting wavelength comes within the range of thermal radiation, it will initially increase its emissions at faster than the 4th power of temperature resulting a temporary rise in emissivity with temperature, as can be seen on the CO2 charts for temperatures between 1000 and 2000 Rankine (280-840 C).

    The upshot of all this is that emission at a given wavelength for thermal emission always increases with increased temperature.  When Satoh claims that "We all know, 200 K is very cold. If the elevation of this emitting layer of CO2 climbs higher, and therefore becomes colder, it makes the temperature closer to 200K and therefore the emission would be STRONGER, not weaker" (@320, refuted @321) he is simply wrong, and is not supported by the Hottel charts in that conclusion.  On the other hand, when he says, as @334, "... the emissivity of CO2 goes up as the temperature goes down", he is (in general) correct, but it does not have the consequences he assumes.  Put simply, emission is not emissivity.  Satoh incorrectly assumes they are.

    This diversion has not been without benefit, however.  Contrary to his claim @337, his reference is a good one, showing Hotel charts for H2O alone (Figure 2) and CO2 alone (Figure 3) as well as both combined in other figures.  I also claims that the Exponential Wide Band Model (EWBM) as well as Narrow Band Models (NBM) perform well, with accuracy primarilly limited only by the accuracy of the original spectral absorption lines in such databases as Hitran.  Satoh, apparently, did not notice the endorsement, and that he has cited in his argument against the results of NBMs a paper that endorses them.

  20. CO2 effect is saturated

    Satoh,

    While I am not expert in IR spectroscopy, it flys in the face of reason for the total emmisivity to increase as the temperature decreases.  The percent of emmisivity at a single wavelength could increase, but if the total emmisivity increased than a colder body would heat a nearby hotter body.  That violates the first law of thermodymanics.  Perhaps you need to review your posts and ensure you are not accidently claiming total emmisivity is increasing when you really mean relative emmisivity is increasing.  But perhaps I misunderstand emmisivity since I am not an expert.

  21. CO2 effect is saturated

    Satoh,

    In general, in a scientific argument you must provide citations for any claim you make that is in dispute.  If you say that Tom's claim is a "Brazen Bluster" you must provide support for your claim, which you have not done.  Tom provided data to support his claims.  If you fail to provide support (as you have done so far for all of your arguments), I presume that the support does not exist. 

    The unsupported claim of a random internet guy is not worth anything in a scientific discussion.  When you finally provide a citation and it is the incorrect graph that does not make you look very well informed.  I am not expert in IR spectroscopy, but I can read and understand the references.  You must provide those references to support your claims to be taken seriously.  It is not my job to Google all your claims.

  22. CO2 effect is saturated

    OK I checked my reference, those charts were for a mixture of H2O and CO2, with an emissivity 10 times higher than that of CO2 alone. I'll try to find a link to the Hottel charts. Otherwise, if you need citations, can you please tell me what information you need a citation for? I don't know what needs references and what is "widely known" and/or can easily be googled or wikipedia'd

  23. CO2 effect is saturated

    Michael, the classic reference that CO2 emissivity increases with decreasing temperatures is the Hottel charts, in use for at least 50 years and still the benchmark. I think this has them on page 552 of this old gem:

    LINK

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Fixed link that was breaking page format. Please check out the link feature on the second formatting tab above the text box.

  24. CO2 effect is saturated

    Satoh,

    If you could provide some citations to support your claims it would be helpful.  Tom has provided copius graphs and citations to support his claims.  You have only your unsupported word.  If you provided citations to support your claims it would be easier to judge them.

  25. CO2 effect is saturated

    Brazen bluster is saying that 80% transmission in the N band doesn't matter because sometimes it's cloudy, and making the straw man "when it's cloudy, transmission through the N band is essentially zero". Is there anybody who doesn't know about clouds? Since clouds cover around half the sky, that cuts it from 80% to 40% but it does the same to all other radiation. It's a complete straw man, tin man, and cowardly lion in one swell foop, and you can throw in the man behind the curtain.

    Brazen bluster is claiming that CO2 is a grey body. Emissivity of a perfect black body is 1.0 (no units), so anything slightly less than that is a grey body. What shade of grey is 0.009 (no units). There are 50 shades of gray and that one wasn't in the book. Claiming CO2 acts like a bb radiator at the top of the atmosphere is brazen bluster, especially since the emissivity of CO2 goes up as the temperature goes down.

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Please ratchet the tone down a few notches. 

  26. Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong

    Neither the US or China are global leaders on energy effeciency or carbon cuts but they could be if they wanted to.

    An analysis by European climate science institutes:

    Good Twins or Evil Twins? U.S., China Could Tip the Climate Balance

  27. One Planet Only Forever at 00:55 AM on 16 November 2014
    Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong

    wili,

    The range of interpretation of the term 'low carbon' is indeed what I was highlighting. That term has traditionally been used to refer to an entire socioeconomic system implying that less carbon is emitted. Even in that context it is open to interpretation. A better use of the term is in reference to the direction of development, such as developing to a lower carbon emissions impact way of doing things.

    However, I must clarify that questioning the intent of the term in relation to China's commitments is not meant to seriously diminish the significance of the commitment made by China. I just wanted to point out the need to clarify points that can be 'open to misleading claims'. China has clearly stated they will be capping their impacts by 2030 which is significant. However, in the full presentation of the details of the commitment which will be part of the 2015 formal commitments I wold want to see that the maximum per-capita level of China's impacts will be lower than the levels the USA developed to.

    My main point was about the irrefutable fact that the USA and a few other countries increased their emissions after globally admitting that already well developed nations doing so was unacceptable, after agreeing hat those alreday well developed nations would be the leaders and needed to show leadership. The actions of those nations to further increase their unaccepable impacts over the for 15 years after declaring how unacceptable it would be to do such a thing provides an irrefutable basis for the likes of China and India to thumb their noses at requests for them to cap their emissions before their nations reach the level of development that the USA had reached by 1990.

    The fact that the likes of the Repubican Leadership have tried to claim the USA should not be reducing its emissions unless nations like China and India also have caps set at lower per-capita emissions than the USA developed to in 2005 is incredibly galling since these are people fully aware of all the facts and very aware of the claiims they make. Their behaviour on this issue indicates that the USA has the potentially stopped being a global leader toward a better future for all, and maybe that end of USA global leadership pre-dates 1990. Maybe the USA never was leading toward the development of a sustainable better future for all. And as seen in the chart in the article China will be setting a 2030 per-capita cap on their emissions that is signficantly lower than the level the USA was at in 1990. The USA 5000 Mtonnes (6127 Mtonnes GHG equiv), for 250 million matched matched by China's current population of 1400 million would be 28,000 Mtonnes CO2 (34,000 Mtonnes GHG equiv), and China will not be near that number by 2030. As indicated in the chart in the article the BAU expected emissions in China by 2030 would be about 16,000 Mtonnes CO2 which would be 40% less than the USA per-capita impacts in 1990. So China is showing more global leadership than the USA commitment.

    p.s. I have presented information on a per-capita basis which I know raises challenges that global population growth is 'the problem'. While there are many things affected by global population growth the CO2 emissions problem is caused by the people with high per-capita impacts. And what is clearly indicated is a need for a global maximum cap on total accumulated emissions in the near term with a low total global allowance per year after that time for humanity to sustainably develop a beter future for all.

  28. Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong

    I assumed "low carbon sources" meant essentially all non-fossil fuel sources--hydro and nukes as well as wind, solar and other renewables. But perhaps the openness of the term does leave them some wiggle room for interpretation.

  29. More research confirming large methane leakage from shale boom

    Moderator Response @21.

    The document rather confusingly has the title "Introduction", it being Chapter 1 of IPCC AR5 WG1. I am at a loss as to the relevance of the point the commenter Russ R. is attempting to make. The IPCC themselves describe in that reference that estimates for as-then future CH4 emissions in AR4 were too low. Russ R. presents this as the IPCC being "wrong," saying "methane is turning out to be not as big a climate issue as we were told it would be." Yet I fail to see any "big climate issue" that has been mis-described. Whatever the point he attempts to make, the "issue" Russ R. describes can only amount to an underestimation in climate forcing of some 0.02Wm^-2 which is not what anybody would call "big" in climate terms.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Thank you for identifying the document. Not all of our readers are climate science-wonks who would recognize the document by merely viewing its content.

    Re Russ R's modus operandi: As noted by gws @22, he/she seems to be fishing for red herrings. Some might call that trolling which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. 

  30. CO2 effect is saturated

    Satoh @332:

    "The newer ambient temperature microbolometers are sensitive to the entire range of CO2′s emission wavelengths and they work perfectly, due to the fact that at normal pressures and temperatures CO2′s emissivity is somewhere around 0.0019."

    We have long passed the point where Satoh is ready to say any absurd thing to defend his clearly mistaken original claims.  One of those original claims was, in support of a merely distracting (and confusing if adopted) terminological preference, that "the 15 micron IR band radiates from earth's surface and is absorbed to extinction by CO2 in the lowest level of the atmosphere (the elevation of extinction is around 500 feet)".  As the 15 micron bandwidth is significant for any near room temperature thermal emission, this contradicts his claim about the emissivity of CO2 "at normal pressures and temperatures".  He may be misleadingly citing CO2's emissivity across all wavelengths rather than relative to wavelengths with significant thermal emissions at room temperatures, but then his claim is misleadingly phrased (at the least).

    More to the point, IR microbolometers typically are tuned to the 7.5-14 micron bandwidth (ie, the atmospheric window as shown in the graph at 329).  This is claimed to be the case by wikipedia, by Laser Focus World, and by Optics.org.  While micro-bolometers can be, and have been tuned to other wavelengths, I have not found a single example tuned to dominant wavelengths for room temperature thermal emission which was not also tuned to the atmospheric window.  Unless Satoh can provide citations with wavelengths specified in microns to at least one decimal place (or equivalently accurately specified frequencies), I have to suspect his claim is bogus.

     "Your argument where you discount the N band because some days are cloudy is what we all know of as straw man argument. We obviously are not talking about cloud."

    As we are discussing globally averaged emissions to space, the claim that clouds are a "straw man argument" can be dismissed as rather brazen bluster.  That is, unless Satoh is going to seriously argue either that the Earth has no clouds, or that clouds no not absorb IR radiation ;) 

  31. CO2 effect is saturated

    I suggest you familiarize yourself with all the bands. J, K and N are not the only ones. The newer microbolometers don't operate in the J or K band anyway, the energy consumed by the cryogenic cooling system proved prohibitive, even if you cool with liquid helium the weight would not permit use on drones. The newer ambient temperature microbolometers are sensitive to the entire range of CO2′s emission wavelengths and they work perfectly, due to the fact that at normal pressures and temperatures CO2′s emissivity is somewhere around 0.0019. The only thing operators ever worry about is water vapor, and never breathe a word about CO2, because the relative contribution of CO2 to skyglow is nill compared to H2O. Your argument where you discount the N band because some days are cloudy is what we all know of as straw man argument. We obviously are not talking about cloud.

  32. One Planet Only Forever at 11:13 AM on 15 November 2014
    Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong

    Another point to keep in mind about the planned USA emissions reductions is the choice by the US to talk about reductions relative to 2005 levels. Though European emissions in 2005 were not significantly lower than they were in 2005, the US emissions in 2005 were about 17% higher than 1990. So the US reductions of 17% by 2020 and 27% by 2025 may seem comparable to the EU reduction of 40% relative to 1990 levels by 2030, but it really isn't. The use of 1990 as the basis for reporting emissions does not 'suit the interests of the USA' since it deliberately increased its activity to benefit from burning the stuff after admitting such activity was unacceptable.

    Canada behaved even worse. In 2005 Canada's emissions were more than 25% higher than they were in 1990. And Canada isn't even close to meeting the commitment made by its Conservative government, 17% reduction by 2020. And Canada's Conservative Government has not only failed to reduce Canada's emissions, they are pushing the sale of buried hydrocarbons from Canada to other places to be burned.

    I am also a little suspicious that the agreement says China will have 20% of its energy from 'low carbon' sources. Why does that mean? Why does it not say '20% of its energy from sources that do burn fossil fuels'? Burning natural gas still produces half the CO2 impact of burning coal. But is 50% of the impact of coal, which really is still creating significant impact, what they mean by 'low carbon'?.

  33. More research confirming large methane leakage from shale boom

    Russ, you made a point, but your comments remain pushing a red herring.

    While the natural sources in the global budget dominate, they are less constrained than the man-made sources. The review paper I suggested reading, which was published after the IPCC AR5 report, shows that the global wetland source is the one typically overestimated. Since the projections can only rely on the bottom-up models, and those are overestimating emissions mostly due to the natural wetland source, the projections are too high (models assume the wetland source to increase with increasing T).

    The projection for the man-made sources was also slightly overestimated in the past, while the estimate for fossil fuel related emissions remained nearly constant (and the source was likely near constant in teh last 30 years), and one can speculate about why pre-AR5 projections did not take that into account (one reason is that most of this is very new research, not available before 2008). But that is irrelevant with respect to the renewed increase.

    Using the fallacy of harking on a point at best remotely related to this article, you are seen as attempting to distract from the facts I outlined above. I consider that trolling and thus will not respond further to that line of "argument".

  34. Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong

    TallDave @24:

    1)

    "Emissions (especially of CO2) rose like Scenario A."

    Not according to Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate:

    Or  Tamino at Open Mind:

    Or Dana at Skeptical Science:

    Or Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:

    What distinguishes all four from TallDave is that they have actually consulted the concentration data for the three scenarios, and done the calculations and compared them to observed changes in radiative forcing.  All show actual forcings due to greenhouse gases slightly less than that for Scenario B, with the exception of Tamino who compares to all forcings (except volcanic) and finds the result slightly less than scenario C.  (Note: he is not in disagreement with the others, he merely makes a different comparison.)

    As can be seen from Steve McIntyre's graph, and in the following graph from Dana, while growth in CO2 (and NO2) was close to that predicted in Scenario A, growth in other greenhouse gases was way below that predicted for scenario A so that the total forcing was significantly less than that in Scenario A.

     

    (Note with respect to Dana's graph:  Hansen 1988 included the value of a host of minor greenhouse gases by the expedient of doubling the concentration of CFC 11 and CFC 12.  Because Dana compares to the actual values of CFC 11 and 12, he leaves out these other minor gases.  The actual growth in GHG radiative forcing is slightly greater than shown in Dana's graph.)

    The growth in CO2 concentration is close, but not the same as that in Hansen's scenario A.  Specifically, throughout the 1990s growth in CO2 was less than projected in scenario C.  Since then, the growth rate has exceeded that in Scenario A so that concentrations have recently risen to about the scenario A level (and will soon exeed it if it has not already) - a pattern that can be seen in the EPA graph.  The lower initial growth results in a lower initial radiative forcing, and hence a lower initial temperature growth that will not be eliminated for several years due to the thermal inertia of the ocean.

    This is one of many topics in climate science where the common pseudo-skeptical opinion (as presented by Dave) cannot be honestly sustained except by the expedient of not checking the data.  Comments such as Dave's are therefore always either insincere, or misinformed.  Given the copious sources of information to the contrary, if misinformed by somebody who maintains some knowledge on the topic (as TallDave clearly does), then they are negligently misinformed.

    2)  TallDave quotes a small portion of the congressional testimony from a section of which I have already quoted at length.  It comes just before the section I bolded, a section which makes quite clear that the the purpose in mentioning the scenarios was simply to explain the features of the graph, not to draw any conclusions from it.  In other words, in response to my extensive quotation, TallDave's only response is a small out of context quotation that fails to address any of the points I raised.  Therefore it requires no further refutation.

    His rhetorical question regarding Scenaro C is shown to be less than candid by the fact that the common opinion of those who have analysed the data is that the observed GHG forcings most closely match scenario B.

    3)

    "Obviously because they're the only ones that can be tested on any meaningful time scale. Contra this site, the ability of a model to hindcast a highly complex phenemonen gives little confidence in its forecast (something painfully well-known in other fields)."

    Contrary to TallDave's missinformed epistemology, there is no logical difference between forecasting and hindcasting.  The only additional epistemic support to be obtained from successfull forecasting is forecasting is by its nature immune to overfitting the data.  With GCMs, the number of parameters is very small relative to the number of predicted variables.  That is not the case if you only pay attention to GMST, which is why pseudo-skeptics only consider GMST (plus a few other cherry picked data) for comparison to models, whereas climate scientists validate models against a large range of observed data.  That is also, by the way why there is an approximately 15% mismatch between hindcast GMST model and observed trends over the last thirty years.  The models are not fitted to obtain that result (for if they were, they could get a better match), but obtain that near match anyway.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] To all commentators on this thread. Please note the comments policy:

    "No profanity or inflammatory tone. Again, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around."

    The tone in this thread is getting heated. Please step back, concentrate on the science and avoid throwing accusations around. This will ensure noone oversteps the mark.

  35. Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong

    "Stephen — Of course emissions are central to his testimony. Without the assignment of emissions scenarios, A B and C are just random points on a graph, chosen for no particular reason, with no relevance to policy."

    Not if his main point, As Tom C points out, was establishing the role of humans in climate change to that point, and not on the future projections. TC has deliberated on the testimony itself. You should address his points, not simply make an assumption based on your impression of the role the graph must have played based on what is in it. I'm not saying that his presentation was not intended to get congress to act on emissions, mind you, just that his testimony focused on whether the observed temp change was human caused, and not on those scenarios.

    "Exactly my point, thank you. Hansen made predictions about things he could not know."

    As KR points out,  he used what-if scenarios precisely because he could not predict future GHG development. That is the whole point of scenarios, and lack of certainty about the future is implicit in their use. Tell me, what would you do in this situation? Assume no change? That would be highly unlikely.

    BTW...one scenario he didn't have involved a management decision (the Montreal protocol) that he himself would have approved of because of his model results. Does that mean he didn't think it was a good idea, or he didn't believe that such an action would have no effect on GHG forcing? Of course not.   That would be akin to saying that because the model was right the model was wrong.  Scenarios can't be thought of in that way.

  36. CO2 effect is saturated

    Satoh

    The N Band is the only one relevent. J & K bands are at wavelengths too small to have any meaningful impact. They are used in Infrared Astronomy because they are studying stars. These obviously have surface temperatures much higher than the Earth so their Planck curves are shifted to lower wavelengths and the J&K bands then sit above regions of the planck curve where the intensity of radiation is significant. However at the Earth's temperature the amount of energy being radiated in those bands is utterly negligible. Look at the graphs Tom showed from SOD. 2.5 μm for one of those bads would be a wave number of 4000 - of the right of the graph where the intensity is utterly negligible.

    Where I think you are perhaps tripping yourself up is just thinking about transmittance. What also has to be considered is how much energy is available at each wavelength. J & K bands allow 60-80% transmission; 60-80% of virtually nothing.

    Also, even within the N band window, that still only allows 80% transmission in clear sky conditions. Under cloudy skies, clouds absorb across the entire spectrum and contribute to the GH effect. Clouds are estimated to contribute 25% to the GH effect. When there are clouds present transmission through the N band is essentially zero. Again what then escapes through the N bamd is reradiation from the clouds.

  37. More research confirming large methane leakage from shale boom

    JH,

    "Because at the time the scenarios were developed (e.g., the SRES scenarios were developed in 2000), it was thought that past trends would continue, the scenarios used and the resulting model projections assumed in FAR through AR4 all show larger increases than those observed (Figure 1.6)."

    Projections > Observations.  

    Wrong.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] You link to the pdf of a report that does not include a title page. What is the title of the report and when was it published? 

  38. Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong

    TallDave - You appear to have rather completely misunderstood my comment and the graph therein (not putting the graph in this comment, as it's right up there in @22). Concentrations of GHGs are well below what would result from Hansen Scenario A, and in fact below Scenario C, and the concentrations listed in that graph for the scenarios is what results after emissions and after accounting for the carbon cycle in the model. 

    "Emissions (especially of CO2) rose like Scenario A" - False. Look. At. That. Graph. 

    CO2 has been reasonably close to the Hansen scenarios, in fact to all of them, because there is little difference (at this early date) between A, B, C, and observed CO2. But there have been far fewer emissions of CFCs, CH4, NO2, and hence lower total GHG concentrations remaining than in any of the Hansen scenarios. To a large extent the 1987 Montreal Protocol limiting CFCs is responsible for that difference, rather than cuts in fossil fuels. 

    "Hansen made predictions about things he could not know" Bzzzzt!!! You are attacking something other than the subject of Hansens climate model. Hansen made projections of climate response, not predictions of economic development, demonstrating the modeled climate responding to various GHG changes. The scenarios were presented to map the response space. He wasn't, and isn't, speaking in the business of economics, but rather in the science of climate. If the relationship between observed emissions and climate change match that of his model, then it's skillful. 

    Attacking a climate model because economic development and the ensuing emissions didn't exactly match the economic scenarios posed to map the input/output of those climate models is just absurd. That criteria would only be applicable to economic models, to economists, not climate science. 

    The best test is to run the model against observed emissions and see whether it matches observed temperature response, and [with the more correct CO2 direct forcing incorporated from Myhre 1998] Hansens model does that quite well. 

  39. Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong

    Stephen — Of course emissions are central to his testimony.  Without the assignment of emissions scenarios, A B and C are just random points on a graph, chosen for no particular reason, with no relevance to policy.

    "Hansen could not know that methane would show it's odd pattern over time"

    Exactly my point, thank you.  Hansen made predictions about things he could not know. 

    "You're argument for your fixation on old models doesn't ring true. More sophisticated GCMS produced later have plenty of new data they can be compared against."

    I don't think you quite understand the problem.  Models may produce any arbitrary amount of data, but reality produces one year of results to compare their predictions against per year, and that only after the prediction.  

  40. Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong

    Writing "Republican Leaders" next to "wrong" is getting to be something of a tautology these days.

  41. Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong

    Tom C is not saying Hansen did not mention emissions, just that they were not central to Hansen's testimony, and did not figure into his main points which were about whether observed warming had happened and whether it could be linked to GHGs and therefore be tied to humans.

    What matters in any climate model is the GHG forcing, which is a function of concentrations.  Emissions affect that, but indirectly and in a lagged fashion, so the timing of emissions and their makeup affect the realized concentration.  

    Hansen could not know that methane would show it's odd pattern over time, that CFC's production would be curtailed by the Montreal protocol a few years later, and that the Soviet bloc would collapse, along with it's industry.  Current emissions of CO2 in particular could be pretty high, but if the timing of those emissions was backloaded, you will not see the overall forcing.

    You're argument for your fixation on old models doesn't ring true.  More sophisticated GCMS produced later have plenty of new data they can be compared against.  Nobody gauges what you can do with a current computer based on what the Commodore Amigo could do in 1988. That is a crazy idea.

  42. Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong

    Tristan/KR — as I pointed out in my original post, you're making the usual mistake of confusing "emissions" for "concentrations" or "forcings."  Again, Hansen made predictions explicitly based on emissons to Congress, see his full remarks in the pdf below.  Indeed, the purpose of the hearing was to persuade Congress to take action on emissions.

    Emissions (especially of CO2) rose like Scenario A.  Don't take my word for it, ask the EPA:

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/TrendsGlobalEmissions.png

    Tom: Here is the entire text of Hansen's remarks.  Note this passage:

    "We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is Scenario A, to draconian emissions cuts, Scenario C..."

    http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf

    Surely no one seriously argues there were draconian cuts in emissions after 1988.   

    "Which leaves one wondering why purported skeptics spend do much time criticizing obsolete (by many generations) models."

    Obviously because they're the only ones that can be tested on any meaningful time scale.  Contra this site, the ability of a model to hindcast a highly complex phenemonen gives little confidence in its forecast (something painfully well-known in other fields).

  43. Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong

    Two further points to bolster Dana's case:

    1. China's carbon footprint is only 1/4th America's.

    2. The EU has already pledged a 2030 target of 40% (down from 1990 levels).  Hopefully, all these falling domino's will encourage more commitments.

  44. CO2 effect is saturated

    The irony is that you would include a graph that shows 80% transmittence in the N-Band (8 to 13 microns) which is a big fat region smack in the middle of the strongest part of earth's radiation curve, and use it as part of your argument that Trenberth's 10% figure, of blackbody surface radiation making it to space, is correct. I won't link to the article on the N-Band in Wikipedia, I'll let you do it, but if you add that to the J Band and the K Band, I just don't believe it's only 10%. There are more windows in the atmosphere than there are in Notra Dame. If we account for clouds, which cover roughly half the sky, then the figure would be 20%, half blocked by cloud, but that still seems way too low.

  45. New study shows warm waters are melting Antarctica from below

    Thanks for another great article from JA. Toward the end he says: " I have a paper in press with Dr. Ted Scambos that identifies the potential for rapid sea level rise based on Antarctic melting."

    I, for one, look forward for this update, though not without some dread!

  46. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download

    Actually, graafderaaf, you've apparently failed to read the Handbook.  It is not based on the 97% consensus.  The 97% graph is used to illustrate one method (of many noted) of working with the general public.

  47. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #46A

    GISTemp is out for October: .76C — tied for warmest October on record (2005).  2014 is on track for warmest year on record.  Sept-Oct ENSO (MEI) = .36.  

  48. One Planet Only Forever at 03:34 AM on 15 November 2014
    Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong

    Predictably the claims by the Republican leadership-of-the-moment have little merit, just potential popular appeal. After all, they are trying to promote activity that has no real merit, just potential short-term popular appeal.

    Those who only care about getting the best possible present benefit for themselves are the real problem. They will constantly fight to try to win what they want any way they they can get away with. A better future is of little interest to them. And fighting to keep others from 'developing to live the way they do because there is not enough opportunity for everyone to live that unsustainable damaging way' is an obsession for them. And in many cases the actions that would develop a sustainable better future for all of humanity are contrary to 'their interests'.

    A lack of interest in the development of a sustainable better future for all clearly has a potential for short-term competetive advantage and potential regional popular support. And the damaging consequences of those attitudes and actions continuing to succeed is becoming clearer. Yet they remain 'popular and profitable'. Their popularity and profitability is what needs to change and that will only happen with the success of decent reasonable leadership examples. Other types of leadership succeeding will be unsustainable and damaging as much as they can get away with.

  49. More research confirming large methane leakage from shale boom

    CBDunkerson,

    You're evading the question.

    The SRES Scenarios are "If-Then" statements.   If the world's population and economies play out a certain way, then emissions will be a certain amount.  In your own words:

    "If X then Y. Not, 'the result will be Z'."

    One again, and for the record, I'm saying that the IPCC overestimated methane emissions (for whatever scenario we can test), or residence time, or both.  And they admit that they got the trend wrong.  

    So, as it stands today, methane is turning out to be not as big a climate issue as we were told it would be.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] You assert that the IPCC admits "that they got the trend wrong" re methane emissions. Please document with specific source reference or references.

  50. CO2 effect is saturated

    Satoh @327, I was going to quote exactly the same secton from wikipedia as Glenn.  To make the point clearer, however, here is the IR atmospheric transmittance from wikipedia:

    You will notice that both IR camera frequency bands (3-5 micron and 8-12 microns) have relatively high transmittance.  Indeed, the average transmittance over the 8-12 band is probably better, but atmospheric radiation is very low in the 3-5 micron band making it more suitable for long distance viewing.  The difference between the two bands is that between looking through fog (3-5 micron) and looking through a glowing fog (8-12 microns).

    The irony of your argument is that the chief database of emission frequencies for atmospheric gases (the HiTran database) was generated by the USAF in order to determine which frequencies were suitable for IR cameras (and heat seakers) and which were not.  Having constructed their cameras using information from that database applied to radiative models equivalent to those which show the greenhouse effect (as shown above), you now cite the effectiveness of those cameras as disproof of the database and theories used in constructing them.

Prev  652  653  654  655  656  657  658  659  660  661  662  663  664  665  666  667  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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