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

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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.

Recent Comments

Comments 38751 to 38800:

Vonnegut at 02:21 AM on 5 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

Its in part 6 of the part 1 summary, It isnt clear how much co2 is being consumed by natural rocks.

This leads to mildly acidic rainwater (pH 5.7). Weathering consumes CO₂ and means that river water contains a lot of bicarbonate. The amount of bicarbonate added to the ocean by rivers is equal to the amount of CO₂ consumed and is sufficient to remove all CO₂ from the atmosphere in 3500 years. Plainly this hasn't happened in the past. Something is returning CO₂ to the atmosphere. That something is Eq. 1 for calcification

Moderator Response:

[PW] Vonnegut, this will be your first and *last* warning, from me: your repeated violations of the Comment Policy of this blog will no longer be tolerated. do it again, and your subsequent posts will be deleted in their entirety, and no explanation will be given. You've been repeatedly warned, yet persist in sloganeering. Cease.

Dikran Marsupial at 02:07 AM on 5 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

vonnegut, it might be best to deal with one question at a time. What "missing CO2" are you referring to and what sort of reaction with limestone do you have in mind? I suspect this might not be the most appropriate thread for this particular question.

Vonnegut at 02:02 AM on 5 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

Is the missing co2 reacting with all the limestone across the globe?

Ive not seen any science where marine animals have been grown in a carbonate saturated and co2 heavy atmosphere to know if its true or not.do you?

Sorry to say it bu Palau comes close to an experiment doesnt it?

dana1981 at 01:58 AM on 5 February 2014

Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

Thanks heb0, fixed.

Dikran Marsupial at 01:55 AM on 5 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

vonnegut, I am happy to hear that trolling was not your intention, however your behaviour on the thread so far is just what you would expect to see from someone who was trolling, so perhaps you may want to revise your posting style. Science is a search for the truth, so nobody here is going to give you a hard time if you ask specific direct questions to help you understand the arguments, and give direct answers to direct questions.

heb0 at 01:53 AM on 5 February 2014

Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

It looks like the "Click here to read the rest" link is broken.

Vonnegut at 01:42 AM on 5 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

I didnt know I was disagreeing with anyone. I wasnt aware the sea was in a state of saturation regarding carbonates.

Anyway I was wrong, please stop accusing me of trolling Im trying to learn thats all.

Dikran Marsupial at 01:19 AM on 5 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

vonnegut wrote "Co2 for shell making...indirectly not directly. I saw the arguments posted on the first few pages, dont need to revisit thse do we?"

No, I didn't think you would admit you were wrong, I didn't think you would be able to prove Doug Mackie wrong either, and oddly enough you didn't. The fact that you blustered on anyway demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that you are not here for a rational discussion of the science and are just trolling.

Vonnegut at 01:14 AM on 5 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

Ive not seen any science where marine animals have been grown in a carbonate saturated and co2 heavy atmosphere to know if its true or not. Sorry to say it bu Palau comes close to an experiment doesnt it?.

Vonnegut at 01:01 AM on 5 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

Co2 for shell making...indirectly not directly. I saw the arguments posted on the first few pages, dont need to revisit thse do we?

Is the missing co2 reacting with all the limestone across the globe?

Dikran Marsupial at 00:46 AM on 5 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

vonnegut, You will note that I pointed out that you had made a statement that was factually incorrect, namely " I think most things in the ocean will be just fine, some even better for the extra co2 for shell making and food production," (emphasis mine), which is directly contradicted by the part 1 of the summary.

There is no point in discussing science with someone that can't admit when they are wrong, so I shall leave it at that unless:

(i) you can show that Doug Mackie's chemistry is incorrect and that OA will make more CO2 available for shell making (and that of the many other researchers who have published papers on OA)

(ii) you admit that you were incorrect and that the additional CO2 won't be useful for shell making.

There is nothing wrong with making incorrect statements, but there is everything wrong with not being able to admit it.

Vonnegut at 23:49 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

(1) so whats going to happen to those creatures in Palau being that theyre creating a more acidic environment? Surely the extra co2 pressure is imparted on their piece of ocean too? They must run out of carbonates soon?

(2)you can grow algae in abundance in a bucket of clean water and sunlight, and get it to flourish with co2 injected without knowing what else it needs.

(3)It wasnt intended to do anything except highlight the way 'may' can be used to demonstrate doubt and could be substituted with 'may not'.and still demonstrate doubt.

Saying Palau is deeply unrepresentative is a surprise, testing creatures in a lab is unrepresentative sometimes. I dont know for sure but I guess that the species in there are the same as other species locally that dont live in that particular reef, being that the creatures themselves are making the water more acid means its happening very fast? apart from the fact that its a great place to study the effects of OA even if they are created by the creatures within.

Dikran Marsupial at 22:50 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

vonnegut@48

so we are back to where we started with unsupported assertions.

(1) Had you read part 1 of the summary on OA is not OK, you would know that although there is additional carbon in the oceans, it is not in the form that can be used for shell making (so I do have reason to think that OA is not OK, your opinion that most things in the ocean will be just fine on the other hand is unsupported opinion):

"Another effect of ocean acidification is to reduce the amount of carbonate that is available to marine organisms, such as shellfish, for making their calcium carbonate shells."

(2) Try living for a year on as much refined sugar and water as you can eat and drink (which will supply all of the carbon, oxygen and hydrogen you can use) and see how you feel afterwards. If you don't have suitable supplies of nitrogen and phosphorus you will not grow or flourish. The algae will only make use of the "free meal if one passes" if carbon is the rate limiting factor.

"Youre fixated on algae", this is a well known rehtorical technique of trying to wind your opponent up and irritate him. Sorry won't work on me, been discussing climate online long enough that this sort of nonense doesn't bother me. It does however demonstrate that your main interest is rehtorical rather than scientific. It was you that brought up the subject of algae, I am just asking you to justify your assertions on that subject.

(3) I did read it, and as I demonstrated it didn't support uour contention. Blustering about it doesn't change that. Again your tone seems intended to irritate, again it failed. If you have evidence, give a specific quote from the paper (and to show that you are not quote mining, mention any quotes from the paper that would not support your contention).

@47 no, I am saying that it doesn't support your assertion because it is a discussion of one reef that is deeply unrepresentative of the worlds reefs in general.

"I think youre confusing extra co2 with pollution we have plenty of pollution problems more damaging to reefs than co2."

This is a transparent attempt to divert the discussion away from OA. No, I am not talking about pollution, I am talking about OA.

Vonnegut at 22:36 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

(1) I think most things in the ocean will be just fine, some even better for the extra co2 for shell making and food production, you dont .

(2) Youre fixated on algae im sure they wont pass up a free meal if one passes.

(3) you didnt read 3 did you? theres a clue in it ;)

@47 you are saying OA will destroy reefs Palau is a prime example of how it wont.

I think youre confusing extra co2 with pollution we have plenty of pollution problems more damaging to reefs than co2.

MA Rodger at 22:20 PM on 4 February 2014

Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating

grindupBaker @14.
Your -15ºC figure sounds about right for fresh water, so is probably okay for salt water as well. Ice changes its structure at about 200 bar so fresh water freezing would be coldest at about 2,000m, something below -20ºC.

Such values for freezing remain entirely academic outside an 'ice cube' earth which would be when the ocean waters become a part of geology.

chriskoz @13.
I hope you agree that it is quite simple to establish that the deep ocean is cold because of the cold polar winter atmospheres. Once people know this reason for cold oceans they should be less inclined to say:-
"Ha, ha. Idiot! If AGW causes deep ocean warming, so what? It's too cold down there. It can't come back and warm anything once its mixed in. Don't you know anything? Haven't you ever heard of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?"
This becomes silly because, evidently, the warmer deep ocean water is not too cold to provide warming in a polar winter, an environment that doesn't just cool water down, it freezes it solid.
And that warmer deep ocean water doesn't even have to get back up to the Arctic/Antarctic to do so. If deep waters are warmer, they will be less dense than before. To cool the oceans, the cold polar waters drop into the depths because they are more dense. An increase in that relative density can only strengthen that ocan cooling process. By thus creating cooler oceans, the atmsphere will experience a warming. Or haven't you head of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, ha ha.

Of course this is ridiculously simplisitic. But it is being aimed at simpletons.

Dikran Marsupial at 22:17 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

voneggut wrote "It isnt 'resistant' to OA it creates its own and its still connected to the ocean so whatever the mean ph is , its going to be on the receiving end."

this is pathetic quibbling, if the Palau reef creates its own OA it must also be resistant to OA as otherwise it would be poisoning itself. You are just trying to evade the fact that the reference you provided (again) did not actually support your argument. If you had more sense you would have just let it drop, rather than draw attention to that fact once more.

Dikran Marsupial at 22:15 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

vonnegut

(1) You claimedthat the diurnal range of pH from 8.6 to 7.6 at Lady Elliot Island reef flat (Great Barrier Reef, Australia) answered by challenge " If you want to argue that this is not a problem, it is incumbent on you to provide the evidence that changes in pH will not result in ecologial change.". That coral reef us unquestionably adapted to that range of DIURNAL pH, just as UK fauna and flora is well adapted to a 15 degree change in DIURNAL temperature. So the 15 degrees is not a big change in diurnal temperatures, for the U.K it isn't at all unusual. It would however be a big change in MEAN temperatures. You STILL have not established that OA that would result in large long-term changes in MEAN ocean pH would be tolerable for ocean flora and fauna that are adapted to the mean pH in their current environment, so the Lady Elliot island reef figures do not answer the challenge.

(2) You still have not addressed the point that CO2 may not be the rate limiting factor for growth of algae in coral reefs. If you want to find out what causes algal blooms, you could try looking it up on the WWW using google (e.g. Wikipedia - hint nitrogen is also needed to make proteins as well as carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and notrogen and phosphorus to make DNA).

(3) It is your responsibility to be able to provide support for your position, not mine.

Vonnegut at 22:02 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

.In other words, the reef at Palau is resistant to OA because of its geology and if you took the corals to some other location where the acidity was due to other factors they may not survive.

It isnt 'resistant' to OA it creates its own and its still connected to the ocean so whatever the mean ph is , its going to be on the receiving end.

Vonnegut at 21:55 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

(1) You misunderstood my reference, I know they describe the ph drop as becoming more acidic. It was reference the huge disparity between 15c mean temp change being the same as water going from alkaline past neutral to acid.

Its not about a particular reef and Im not suggesting all creatures can cope with changes such as those living around the barrier reef can, The ocean is an immense place with much variability in so many aspects. A whiting fish for instance would experience a change in ph from 8 to 6 and saltwater to esturine youre telling me that a change in mean ph of 0.1 will matter to him?

(2)we are discussing the effects of more co2 not a lack of nutrients for algae , Im guessing algal blooms happen because there is an excess of something. Im guessing its co2, it could be something else.

(3)You may know where to find the Annual mean ph you may not, does this mean you will find them or you wont?

Dikran Marsupial at 21:47 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

To give another example of vonnegut's quote mining, (s)he uses the web page here to support the claim "extremes of ph will have more effect on life than a change in mean". However the sub-title of the article is "Corals living in more acidic waters are healthy, but is the situation one-of-a-kind?" and later in the article it says:

Palau is the exception to other places scientists have studied.
Through analysis of the water chemistry in Palau, the scientists found that the acidification is primarily caused by the shell-building done by organisms living in the water, called calcification, which removes carbonate ions from seawater.
A second reason is the organisms' respiration, which adds carbon dioxide to the water when they breathe.
"These things are all happening at every reef," said Cohen. "What's critical is the residence time of the seawater."
"In Palau's Rock Islands, the water sits in the bays for a long time before being flushed out," said Shamberger. "This is a big area that's a maze with lots of channels and inlets for the water to wind around.

.In other words, the reef at Palau is resistant to OA because of its geology and if you took the corals to some other location where the acidity was due to other factors they may not survive.

"It doesn't mean that coral reefs around the globe are going to be fine under ocean acidification conditions. It does mean that there are some coral communities out there--and we've found one--that appear to have figured it out. But that doesn't mean that all coral reef ecosystems are going to figure it out."

Thus the article provides no real support for the contention made, whatsoever. Voneggut should be ashamed of him/herself for stooping to that sort of behaviour.

Dikran Marsupial at 21:34 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

vonnegut

(1) again you have missed the point that saying that a coral reef can withstand a particular range of pH over the course of a day does not mean that they can withstand the more permanent change of that size that would result from OA. You still have not addressed this point.

BTW "Acidification" means to become more acidic, if you go from a pH of 12 to a pH of 11, that is more acidic, and less alkaline, even though both pHs are alkaline. Please no quibbling on this point, it has been addressed repeatedly.

(2) You wrote "(2) well apart from sunlight and water what else do algae need?" they need nutrients other than carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, just like any other organism consisting of proteins. Thus the factor limiting growth of algae is not necessarily carbon dioxide. My objection is relevant as it is the answer to your question.

(3) you STILL have not specified the annual mean pH gvining the working range for coral and your answer is yet more evasion.

@41 "no it isn't does it need to be". Yes, that is the way scientific discussion works, if a direct question is posed, you give a direct answer, and admit when you are in the wrong rather than engaging in evasion. If you want to have a rhetorical argument instead, then evasion is sufficient, but you will find that it won't go down well here.

Scientists don't use "may" to be deliberately vague, they use "may" when the evidence is anything but completely unequivocal. The article you post states that OA is projected to cause coral dissociation, and contains no statement that casts doubt on that projection. This means that trying to use it to suggest otherwise is quote mining.

Vonnegut at 21:19 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

@ 39 No it isnt, does it need to be? "may" sounds about as vague as it gets. No evidence it will or it wont.

Vonnegut at 21:14 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

(1) Sorry I missed the "mean" but a 15 degree change in mean temp is not the same as a change in ph changes we are discussing. thats equivalent of the sea becoming acidic which its not.

(2) Ive ignored the point because its not relevant, whatever else they need is there already obviously or we wouldnt get algal blooms would we?

(3) extremes of ph will have more effect on life than a change in mean

nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?org=NSF&cntn_id=130129&preview=false

iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/2/024026/article

Some fauna seems to do well with more food available

Dikran Marsupial at 20:54 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

vonnegut @ 37 Sorry that is plain evasion, I asked a straightforward question, to which the answer is "no, the opening sentence of the abstract is not refuted by anything in the paper", but you were not able to acknowledge that. This gives the strong impression that you are just trolling. Life is too short to waste discussing science with people who can't admit to shortcomings in their arguments. I suggest we all ignore vonnegut.

Dikran Marsupial at 20:51 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

vonnegut

(1) I said much of UK flora and fauna would be unable to withstand a 15 degree change in MEAN temperature, of course they can and do withstand that sort of variability over the course of a day. I suspect the last time mean U.K. temperatures were 15 degrees lower than today, much of the country was under an ice sheet. Do you think that U.K. flora and fauna could withstand that?

(2) you have just completely ignored the point on this one. I said that algaes need more than carbon, oxygen and hydrogen to survive, you have not addressed that point in any way.

(3) Ph may vary around the globe, but then again so does the flora and fauna, which are adapted to local conditions, so you still haven't established that OA will not take sea creatures out of their "working range". Lets make it easy and stick with the barrier reef, what is the working range for the barrier reef in terms of annual mean pH?

Vonnegut at 20:43 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

@35

It uses the scientific get out clause "may"

I wonder how they can tell the difference between natural and anthropogenic co2?

Vonnegut at 20:34 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

(1) yes its one location among the barrier reef one of the most diverse sources of tropical aquatic life on the planet , If Uk flora and fauna are not tolerant to 15c change they wouldnt be in the UK so I would call them tolerant.

(2) No the planet would explode but thats not relevant. co2 is food for algae if its not used by them directly, its used in building the reefs

(3) Its the sea, its alkaline, across the globe it varies between those figures.

www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/water-quality/wq9_6.htm from around the UK look at the differences

Dikran Marsupial at 20:29 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

BTW, the first line of the abstract of the paper voneggut mentions reads as follows: "Ocean acidification is projected to shift coral reefs from a state of net accretion to one of net dissolution this century", is this projection explicitly refuted anywhere in the paper? Not as far as I can see.

Dikran Marsupial at 20:20 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

vonnegut

(1) that is one location only, it is also variation over one day, that sort of variability does not mean that a change of that size in mean pH is tolearble. In the U.K. temparatues often vary by 15 degrees C or more during the course of 24 hours. That does not mean that all of our fauna and flora are tolerant to a change in average temperatures of 15 degrees C.

(2) if you increase the amount of oxygen in the air to 100% do we use all of it? No. Algae do have requirements for other nutrients, they are not wholly composed of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen.

(3) again that applies for one location only, and as I pointed out the variability is diurnal, so it is not a reasonable guide to the "working range".

You have not yet provided evidence that actually justifies your position.

Vonnegut at 20:09 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

(1) Lady Elliot Island reef flat (Great Barrier Reef, Australia)
can range from preindustrial values pH 8.6 to future ocean acidification scenarios pH 7.6) over the course of a day.

www.biogeosciences.net/10/6747/2013/bg-10-6747-2013.pdf

(2) well apart from sunlight and water what else do algae need?

(3) For the working range for the ocean we could use the figures above i.e alkaline

Dikran Marsupial at 19:48 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

vonnegut, in your post at 31 you make several unsupported assertions, please provide references to support the contention that:

(1) creatures are well adaptend to variability in pH. I don't doubt that some creatures are well adapted, but that does not mean that all are well adapted. If you want to argue that this is not a problem, it is incumbent on you to provide the evidence that changes in pH will not result in ecologial change.

(2) More Co2 means more food for algae which coral need to survive. You need to show that CO2 is the rate limiting factor for this to be relevant.

(3) drop in pH is going inside the working range not outside it. This is a very specific claim, please provide references detailing the "working range".

Vonnegut at 19:31 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

The reason Im questioning is because ph and temp are very variable in the oceans, creatures are well adapted to that variability, for instance ph can and does change with the tides sometimes over 0.8 ph, there is also the fact more co2 is more food for algae which coral need to survive. The drop in ph is going inside the working range not outside it.

Rob Painting at 19:14 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

Vonnegut - "@27 yeah easier said than done when you have a bank account."

......Or know how to use Google apparently. A free copy is available here: Extensive dissolution of live pteropods in the Southern Ocean - Bednarsek (2012).

As for CO₂ in the Southern Ocean during the last ice age - that's somewhat of a mystery. How was it stored? What caused it to be released back into the atmosphere? We don't yet have suitable answers for that.

If, as suggested, this CO₂ was stored in the Southern Ocean (in whatever form) and then vented into the atmosphere as the Earth warmed it would have become well-mixed in the air and thus raised the partial pressure of CO₂ in the atmosphere. Consequently more CO₂ would dissolve into the oceans - lowering pH in the surface ocean.

It only seems counterintuitive to you because you are (I suspect) thinking the CO₂ (supposedly) stored in the Southern Ocean during the last ice age is well-mixed throughout the surface ocean. That's not correct, and is not the idea put forward.

chuck101 at 19:05 PM on 4 February 2014

A Historical Perspective on Arctic Warming: Part One

Maurice Winn,

I too have trouble with parsing your "land mass surrounding the Arctic area is ill defined comment". After looking very carefully at both maps, sure there are a few areas of difference along coastal inlets, but they are minor innaccuracies. Certainly not enough to dismiss the whole 1938 ice reconstruction as innaccurate.

Also, there are better ways to analyse the data than just eyeballing it. Did you even read the main part of the post?

This is typical of "Fake Skeptics", trying to use minor discrepancies to discredit anything to do with Global Warming. Also, there are better ways to analyse the data than just eyeballing it. Did you even read the main part of the post?

Just looking at the map shows a massive loss of ice by 2012, and I really can't believe that you can't see it. A visit to Spec Savers is required perhaps?

Vonnegut at 18:22 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

After the ice age I guess the oceans outgassed co2 as the seas would have been almost saturated due to temperature? wouldnt the sea then be closer than we are today to ph neutral?

Vonnegut at 18:16 PM on 4 February 2014

OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2

@27 yeah easier said than done when you have a bank account.

jja at 16:12 PM on 4 February 2014

Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance

Tom,

I wasn't selecting the data for any reason except to duplicate the graphic produced in Nuttecelli 2012. in this effort I was (mostly) successful

click for larger image
http://oi57.tinypic.com/2iu2gs9.jpg years 1978-2008

http://oi62.tinypic.com/2jfg4tk.jpg years 1978-2048

bf at 16:05 PM on 4 February 2014

Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect

Thanks, for the correction, Tom.

I'd read David Randall's "Atmosphere, Clouds and Climate" last year, but clearly need another go-through for it to begin to stick. Maybe this time I'll work through some of the equations instead of just filing them under "more greek symbols".

Tom Curtis at 14:12 PM on 4 February 2014

Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance

jja @49:

1) I did not consider the 2002-2008 period because it was significantly less than a decade. If even decadal values are eratic, as is apparent, than a seven year interval is also going to be eratic, and not necessarilly projectable for future trends.

2) I did not question your calculation of the correct values for the episodes you chose. I questioned your projection from three decadal averages when decadal averages obviously vary substantially depending on start date. Decades are obviously too short a period to be projectable on this data.

3) If you want to project the data, you need to calculate the change in heat year by year over the whole interval, and find which curve is the best fit to that data. (Make sure you use a test that accounts for the loss of simplicity by introducing greater curvature to the fit.) Reducing the data to three decades when the choise of a different three decades on which to make the fit would radically alter the result is not good science, and not informative.

Tom Curtis at 14:03 PM on 4 February 2014

Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect

bf @8, clouds are (depending on thickness) almost perfect black or grey bodies in the IR spectrum. That is, they absorb and radiate equally at all IR wavelengths. So also does the ground and and water at the surface. In contrast, CO2 and H2O in gaseous form only absorb and radiate at certain wavelengths. Satellites designed to observe clouds will almost certainly have instruments tuned to wavelengths at which CO2 and gaseous H2O do not absorb. That is so that clouds at even low levels of the atmosphere can be detected. Consequently, while the satellite imagary of clouds you link to is impressive evidence that the upper troposphere is cooler than the surface, it is not evidence of the greenhouse effect. Of course, evidence that altitude cools is abundant, the most obvious example being snow capped mountains.

All else being equal, the greenhouse effect would actually cool the atmosphere with altitutude faster than it does, but convection results in a much warmer upper troposphere. Howeve, convection by itself would also cool with altitude. The reason is simple conservation of energy. As gas particles rise higher in the sky, they gain gravitational potential energy. Because of conservation of energy, that energy gained must come from somewhere else, and typically comes from the kinetic energy - that is the energy of motion plus energy of vibration - of the molecules. If the rising air column contains water vapour, the water vapour will precipitate out as it cools, also providing energy, and therefore allowing a slower loss of temperature with altitude.

Below the tropopause, vertical transfer of energy via convection dominates over vertical transfer by radiation. The result is that the loss of temperature with altitude is governed by convection and the loss of latent heat as water vapour precipitates, such that the loss of temperature with altitude would be the same even with no greenhouse effect.

jja at 13:14 PM on 4 February 2014

Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance

Tom,

why did you not include the 2002-2008 value of .73?

The calculation of flux that you use is full of assumptions and neglects significant potential errors, plus it is unnecessary. The total heat accumulation, averaged over the decade yeilds the average TOA flux for that period. correct?

The change in average decadel flu that you list is total AF forcing, right?

Again, I don't see why that is important. The total net heat content increase in Nuttecelli produces the average TOA value for the time period.

I checked the climateskeptic letter to PLA and found their algorithm to TOA as

TOA = 0.62[d(OHC)/dt] I used this to check my math and found the following average forcing values to match my calculations.

decade         average TOA
1978-1988    9.32E-02
1988-1998    2.17E-01
1998-2008    5.90E-01

The correct function that graphs these values is the binomial that I quoted in 46. (y=.1243*x^2 - .2485*x +.2175)

The first order derivative of the function shows the instantaneous decadel rate of change of TOA. (y=.2486*x - .2485) -- The rate of change of TOA at the end of each decade.

The binomial function produces the following average TOA values for each year as noted:
TOA 1983 0.0933, delta = .0933
TOA 1993 0.2177, delta = .1244
TOA 2003 0.5907, delta = .373
TOA 2013 1.2123, delta = .6216
TOA 2023 2.0825, delta = .8702
TOA 2033 3.2013, delta = 1.1188
TOA 2043 4.5687, delta = 1.3674

The (average decadel) rate of change of TOA for each year is

dTOA/dt 1983 = 0.1244
dTOA/dt 1993 = 0.373
dTOA/dt 2003 = 0.6216
dTOA/dt 2013 = 0.8702
dTOA/dt 2023 = 1.1188
dTOA/dt 2033 = 1.3674
dTOA/dt 2043 = 1.6160

which happens to equal the delta values shown above.

Moderator Response:

[PW] Unnecessary white space removed.

bf at 12:42 PM on 4 February 2014

Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect

Doug, the link to Met Office's world IR satellite imagery might help to make the greenhouse/IR link clear to people. Looking at it in this season, Australia provides a good example of hot land, and overlying cloud tops being much cooler due to the warmth being trapped at lower levels due to the greenhouse action of water vapor.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/satellite/ shows the world, but you can click to select parts of the planet, and look at differences between daytime and nighttime, too.

Matt Fitzpatrick at 10:50 AM on 4 February 2014

Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect

It's not just physics that's studied infrared (IR).

In chemistry, the interaction between IR and matter is studied in great detail. Today, IR spectroscopy is routine in any chemistry lab. It helps identify unknown compounds, because we know which IR absorption peak shapes (similar to Figure 4) correspond to many types of bonds between specific atoms. Even a C student in undergrad organic chemistry can tell an alcohol from an aldehyde by glancing at the IR signatures.

How would those who deny the basic physics of IR-matter interaction propose we identify chemical unknowns? Look them up in a scratch and sniff index?

Tom Curtis at 09:47 AM on 4 February 2014

Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance

jja, from table 1 of Nucutelli et al, we have the following average TOA energy imbalance for various periods:

Interval------ Flux
1970-2008--- 0.31
1980-2008--- 0.37
1990-2008--- 0.46
2000-2008--- 0.53

From that you can calculate the total energy input over the intervals 1970-1979, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, and 2000-2008, and from them the average flux in W/m^2 over those intervals, which are in order:

1.36 W/m^2
1.99 W/m^2
3.97 W/m^2
4.77 W/m^2

The last three of these approximately correspond to the three intervals you examine @45, but vary significantly from them. In particular, your 1978-1988 average is less than half of the 1980-1989 average, despite the very substantial overlap. Looking at the graph shows the disparity arises primarilly from your choice of start year, which is obviously well above trend. There is not suggestion this was a deliberate cherry pick. Rather it results from simply taking each successive decade back from the final year. Never-the-less, it does mean your result is primarilly the product of a short term fluctuation.

Using the figures from the table, the change in average "decadal" TOA flux (with, of course, only 9 years for the final "decade") are:

0.63 W/m^2
1.98 W/m^2
0.8 W/m^2

These values certainly do not support your quadratic curve. Indeed, I doubt they can be sensibly extrapolated. Given all values in the data, a sensible fit might be obtained, but it would clearly not support increases in the TOA energy imbalance of 0.3 W/m^2 per decade.

It should be noted that the 1970-2008 rate is 0.31 W/m^2. It is possible that the authors intended to quote this rate, and mistated a rate as an acceleration.

Tom Dayton at 08:23 AM on 4 February 2014

Corals are resilient to bleaching

Vonnegut: Temperature of ocean water is not the only factor affecting the pH of the oceans. Among other factors, an important one is the partial pressure of CO2 in the air. You've already been pointed at the thorough explanation in the series of posts OA Is Not OK. Read them, please, and if you have relevant questions after reading, then post questions there.

Rob Honeycutt at 07:38 AM on 4 February 2014

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Vonnegut... Out of 8500 emails sent out we received responses from 1500 scientists.

For an email blast, 15% is a very high response rate! Remember, researchers tend to be under paid and over worked. Lots of them are going to be out doing field research at any given time (when you're working in Antarctica on an ice core, you're not spending a lot of time going through emails). Lots of the emails are going to have just been bad addresses. Lots probably went straight into spam filters.

Most mass email blasts would expect less than 1% response rate. Anything over 1% would be considered highly successful. The fact that we got a 15% participation rate suggests to me, exactly what you're saying, that scientists believe this is a very important issue.

Vonnegut at 07:32 AM on 4 February 2014

Corals are resilient to bleaching

I know there are other factors which can change the ph levels but bear with me.

The ph level in seawater changes with temperature, warmer water holding less co2 than cold water meaning in tropical areas the ph level should hardly change if the water is warmed and co2 level rises (there is more likelyhood of tropical waters outgassing)
In polar waters, its already co2 rich so the ph level should be very low in comparison to tropical waters.
If it gets colder the polar seas will become more acid ......if it gets warmer they will become less acid

What am I not understanding?

jja at 06:58 AM on 4 February 2014

Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance

correction, taking the first order derivative of the polynomial function directly above yeilds the instantaneous accumulation rate at the end of each decade. The derivative function is y=.2486*x - .2485

this yeilds the actual instantaneous value (the values directly above were decadel averages)

1E-04 1978-1988
0.2487 1988-1998
0.4973 1998-2008
(0.7459 2008-2018)
(0.9945 2018-2028)
(1.2431 2028-2038)
(1.4917 2038-2048)

incidentally, using this derivative function, the actual TOA at the end of 2013 was

0.57188 Watts/Meter Squared

Tom Dayton at 06:57 AM on 4 February 2014

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Vonnegut, you should use the interactive widget that shows the evolution of the numbers of papers across the many decades. It illustrates the point that CBDunkerson made to you. It is the Interactive History of Climate Science widget that is linked from the graphic in the left margin of every Skeptical Science page.

jja at 06:50 AM on 4 February 2014

Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance

However, a second order polynomial function fits the data with an R^2 value of 1.0

the equation for this function is y=.1243*x^2 - .2485*x +.2175

the values of this funciton shows the expected increase in TOA watts/meter squared based on the previous 3 decades of data going forward the decadel rate of TOA based on accumulation rates are (will be):

0.0933 1978-1988
0.1244 1988-1998
0.373 1998-2008
(0.6216 2008-2018)
(0.8702 2018-2028)
(1.1188 2028-2038)
(1.3674 2038-2048)

all values in watts/meter^2 TOA instantaneous value at the end of each decade

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments