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 Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

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
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Recent Comments

Prev  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  Next

Comments 61551 to 61600:

  1. Eric the Red at 21:22 PM on 7 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Agree sky,
    The sensitivity is not a constant, but a value for here and now. This is part of the reason why calculations based on data during the last glacial maximum different from those millions of years ago. Sea ice is one issue, vegetation is another, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations also comes into play. The sensitivity is lowest during the last millenium, but that could be data limited.
  2. Can we trust climate models?
    Dikran Marsupial
    I'm not even sure that the paper's conclusions are flawed. They might be ambiguos when they do not explictly say that they're talking about decadal forecasts. Here I see more of a misinterpretation than a flaw, given that the authors consider a decade as the policy relevant time range; I disagree on this, but the authors explicitly express their point of view in the paper. The authors also note that on longer time scales GCM do a good job, as I quoted in a previous comment.

    I think that this paper is a contribution to the understanding of the weaknesses of the DePrSys GCM (and probably of any GCM) when modified to try decadal projections. If I understand correctly what they say, their suggestion is to re-initialize the GCM each year with the measured status of the climate system, one thing that current GCMs don't do by construction. This might be a good way to improve GCMs when dealing with decadal projections, but it doesn't have much to do with long term climatic trends.

    A general point on the noise skeptics are making. Why should I be surprised if an athlete trained to run a marathon runs 100 m and doesn't win?
  3. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    #6 - what Dikran said, and to add to the equilibrium climate sensitivity's uniqueness, it's value is not the same every time the Earth is forced from 280-390ppm. In a future Earth, where the Greenland Ice Sheet and Arctic sea ice have been melted, yet we return CO2 levels to pre-industrial values, Earth's equilibrium sensitivity will be different because of the lack of ice sheet and sea ice, even if all the other forcings were the same. Each particular state of the Earth (continent configuration, ice sheet configuration etc) has a particular equilibrium sensitivity to CO2 forcing. It's highly likely that ours is high enough to be very concerned about the quantity of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere.
  4. Dikran Marsupial at 19:54 PM on 7 June 2011
    Can we trust climate models?
    Charlie A wrote "Are you saying that we should not trust the climate models to make reliable decadal projections?"

    I think the point that Riccardo was making is that the accuracy of decadal predictions is not necessarily a useful indicator of the ability to make reliable projections on the centential time scale that is relevant to any polity decision. The Fildes and Kourentzes paper is deeply flawed because it tries to cast doubt on the IPCC use of model based predictions on the grounds that statistical methods make better decadal predictions. This is a non-sequitur, the conclusion is not justified by the premise.

    On a decadal scale, the observations are dominated by sources of natural variability such as ENSO. This is the reason why claims like "no global warming since 1998" are bogus. Decadal observations tell you very little about forced climate change. Thus statistical methods are as good as anything for decadal predictions.

    Now climate models do not attempt to directly predict the observed climate, they attempt to estimate only the forced component. The ensemble mean is a prediction of the forced change, the error bars (formed by the spread of the ensemble predictions) is an indication of what climate change we are likely to actually observe (taking natural variability and other uncertainties into account). On a short timescale (e.g. decadal), the effects of forced climate change are small compared to natural variability, so one should expect the forced climate change to be different from the observations. However on a decadal scale the error bars will be very wide, so the models are still reliable (as they tell you how uncertain their prediction is).

    GCM predictions of decadal climate are reliable, provided you bear in mind that it is something they are not really intended for, and you take into account the error bars.

    Essentially decadal predictions are long timescale weather prediction, not climate projection.
  5. Dikran Marsupial at 19:37 PM on 7 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    okatiniko@6 "Climate sensitivity" refers to the equilibrium sensitivity of the climate to a change in the forcings, i.e. it describes the change in global average temperatures once all regional variations (due to a change in forcings) have had time to balance out. Climate sensitivity describes long term changes in climate due to a change in forcings.

    Unforced variations are indeed not described by climate sensitivity. Unforced variations cause short term quasi-cyclic changes in climate.

    Your surprise about Hansen's averaging appears to be due to not appreciating what climate sensitivity actually describes. The discussion of "the" sensitivity is not confusing once you know that it refers to the equilibroum sensitivity of globally averaged temperatures to a change in forcings. Of course you could define many other sensitivities if you so desired, but the reason climatologists discuss "the" equilibrum climate sensitivity is that it is the definition that is relevant to a discussion of long-term climate change.
  6. Can we trust climate models?
    Charlie @87:
    His simple single time constant lag model has 0.99+ correlation with the output of two different AOGCMs. Like you, he doesn't believe this is likely to be a good replica of the real, complex response fuction of the real climate system.

    That was the point of that series of articles. He was surprised at well the GCM model outputs (on a global average) could be replicated by simply multiplying the forcings by a constant, or multiplying by a constant and then a lowpass filter.
    Sorry, I must have mis-expressed myself. That is not my position at all.

    I think it is completely unsurprising, indeed inevitable, that a lag-model of some sort will duplicate the behaviour of both models and the temperature record. Why? Because conservation of energy trumps chaos. So I think Eschenbach surprise springs from a failure to go back to the physics. My comment about the model being too simple applied to his single-box model only, and the resulting need to adjust the forcings, not to lag models in general.

    The only question is over what time scale conservation of energy trumps chaos. Clearly averaging over the globe, a year, and an ensemble of model runs is plenty (hence my correlation to the ModelE ensemble is 99.3%, haven't tried CCSM).

    It would be interesting to compare against individual runs to get an idea of the range of variation, and see if that compares to the variation in the real temperature series. My understanding is that much of the remaining variation arises from energy 'sloshing about' inside the system, coupled with the facts that we only observe a tiny part of that system and that we look at temperature not energy.
  7. Ari Jokimäki at 17:31 PM on 7 June 2011
    Poleward motion of storm tracks
    Stevo #15, in my opinion, the size of the effect might not yet be very certain but it seems that the effect is ongoing. There are some other studies showing that Hadley Cell is expanding and that supports the results of this study. Additionally, also another study (Zhou et al. 2011, also full text is available) published recently gave very similar results to this study. So, I think it is quite safe conclusion that this study along with other studies seem to give a robust picture of atmospheric zones travelling polewards. How fast they are travelling might be more uncertain.
  8. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    I don't really understand why we speak of "the" climate sensitivity, as if it were a unique "scalar" , like the electron mass. When applied to intra-annual variability (comparing summer to winter) , the boreal summer/austral winter is warmer than the austral summer, although the solar input is significantly lower (more than 6 % = 20 W.m-2 less ! ). This means that the "sensitivity" would be negative, which is absurd. This is due of course to the fact that lands reacts much more than oceans, and that they represent a larger area in the Northern hemisphere. So the average temperature doesn't depend only on "global" energy input, but also on its spatial repartition (which varies following the astronomical variations). In the same way, the fact that climate has delayed responses implies that the "sensitivity" is actually frequency dependent (much like a complex impedance). This is not T=S.F but rather T(omega) = S(omega).F(omega) (relations between Fourier components) , which is not the same at all and does not imply a proportionality between instantaneous values. And I even don't speak about unforced variations that cannot be described by "sensitivities" at all, since the global temperature can change with little or no change of forcings.


    So I'm rather surprised to see Hansen computing an "average" sensitivity by summing forcings that don't have the same spatial pattern (GHG and snow albedo for instance), which means actually adding apples and oranges, and even more surprised to see him comparing sensitivities on very different timescales. I think these discussions about "the" sensitivity are actually very confusing.
  9. Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
    Here's another set of results that folks here might want to take a look at...

    Down at the bottom of this post is another interesting little plot I generated. This one shows what happens when you throw out 90 percent of the temperature stations at random (with no attempt to maintain uniform geographic coverage).

    What I did here was to generate a random integer (with a pseudorandom number generator) between 0 and 9 (inclusive) for each temperature station. If the integer value was 9, I included the station in the computations; otherwise, I threw it out. I repeated this 10 times (each time throwing out a different random "9 out of 10" selection of stations) -- this effectively ruled out a "lucky hit" cherry-pick situation.

    The official NASA/GISS land-station results (with all temperature stations) are shown as the dark-red plot line in the foreground of the figure below; all the other plot lines are results from my "throw out 9 out of 10 stations" processing.

    As you can see, my results are quite consistent, although they do tend to show a bit *more* warming than the official NASA "all stations" results. This is probably a result of NH overweighting; throwing out 90 percent of the stations will create more coverage gaps in the SH (where there has been less warming) than in the NH (where warming has been more pronounced). Just speculating here; I haven't really investigated this.

    These results show two things -- (1) the GHCN temperature record really is robust (and oversampled), and (2) if anything, it appears that NASA goes out of its way to avoid exaggerating the global-warming trend -- if NASA were really "cooking the books" to exaggerate the warming trend, at least some of my runs would have shown a smaller warming trend than NASA's. But that is obviously not the case here.

    (Ignore the details of the plot legend; the legend labels are cryptic abbreviations of some processing-run parameters that are of no consequence here.)
    And that about says it all wrt you.

    " If Tom does not want to continue this discussion - that's fine with me, but I can't help but to interpret his self removal as defeat."
    Yes, much like refusing to engage the raving derelict on the street corner is an admission of defeat and that his conspiracy is Truth.
  10. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Sphaerica (RE: 1059),

    I don't understand the assignment as you've laid it out. Thanks for the interest though.
  11. IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
    Tom - I'm surprised that you get enough air flow for modern steel but your comment sent me rushing to google to see if anyone was doing it. I couldnt spot any large scale operation (though I was interested to see how much pig iron Brazil was producing by this process) - do you know of one?
  12. Bob Lacatena at 13:57 PM on 7 June 2011
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1,
    It is my view that the overwhelming majority of people at this site do not understand the information in tables and diagram from Trenberth's 2009 paper, nor do they understand the constraints COE puts on the boundary between the surface and the TOA, so I'm presenting evidence and logic in support of these things.
    Here's a homework assignment for you to work out entirely on your own, without assistance.

    This is a fairly simple assignment. I'm pretty sure just about everyone in my town middle school (6th to 8th grade) could get it right.

    The Trenberth energy budget has three layers: space, atmosphere, ground.

    It has 6 distinct paths of energy flow; space/sun to atmosphere, space/sun to ground, atmosphere to space, atmosphere to ground, ground to atmosphere, and ground to space.

    Please identify the components and individual and sum values for each of these elements (meaning in/out for each layer [3 pairs of values, in and out], and in/out for each interface between layers [6 pairs of values, in and out] ), identify which balance, and where you would expect the system, based on these numbers, to get out of balance.

    This is not a post that requires any response other than the answers. Until you arrive at these answers on your own, no one has any reason to listen or respond to you.
  13. Bob Lacatena at 13:43 PM on 7 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    431, J. Bob, and DB...

    431, J. Bob, and DB...

    Because it's a computer. A curly quote is an entirely different encoded character than an ASCII quote. The HTML standard is to recognize ASCI single ' or double " quotes as delimiters for HTML tag attribute values, but not curly “ ” quotes, which shouldn't be generated anyway in a browser text box, but would be if you, for instance, composed your message in Word and then tried to copy/paste (because Word very helpfully converts your quotes to pretty curlies for human consumption, but the computer puts into the same category as bullets and all sorts of other characters, meaning it ignores them).
    Response:

    [DB] Thanks for filling my daily quota of learning 1 thing.  Time for bed.

  14. Poleward motion of storm tracks
    Given the innaccuracies due to satelite viewing angles and cloud thickness, how confident can we be storm track data?

    Yes, the trend would fit well with climate theory but I'm not sure how confident we be at this point in time. Would we not need a better method of measurement over a significant period of time to draw any real conclusions here?
  15. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis (RE: 1048, 1050),

    ""The difference is 1.2 rather than 0.9, but Trenberth et al use 0.9 because:

    a) The difference between 1.2 and 0.9 is well within experimental error;"


    So what you're saying is Trenberth lists 0.9 as the "NET Down" in table 2b because it's arbitrarily within 'experimental error' of 1.2 W/m^2 and not because it means the same thing as "NET Down" in table 2a?

    OK, I'm perfectly willing to let this stand against what I've presented and everyone can make up their own mind.
  16. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1 - "If Tom does not want to continue this discussion - that's fine with me, but I can't help but to interpret his self removal as defeat."

    Actually, if Tom decides he doesn't want to continue the discussion with you, I would congratulate him.

    You have consistently and repeatedly dismissed/ignored proven physics, cycled over and over on ideas that have been notably contradicted by actual measurements, and stated that:

    "...I'm not really interested in being helped per say. I'm a staunch skeptic of AGW, so my purpose here is to present contradictory evidence and logic that disputes the theory. That's what I'm doing."

    In my eyes, RW1, that makes you a troll, not someone actually interested in the science. Your arguments (and conclusions) are driven by your position, which is exactly backwards from how the scientific method works. And your comments on these posts illustrate that clearly to the unbiased reader - a self correcting issue.

    Folks, DNFTT.
  17. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    pbjamm (RE: 1052),

    "Are you trying to learn about a subject you do not understand or do you think you understand it better than anyone else?"

    I admit I'm not here specifically to 'learn' per say, but I am fully capable of changing my mind on things when evidence dictates. I even changed my mind on something here due to evidence presented by Tom Curtis in regards to insolation in the Artic. I couldn't deny the evidence he presented to the contrary and acknowledged I was wrong.

    It is my view that the overwhelming majority of people at this site do not understand the information in tables and diagram from Trenberth's 2009 paper, nor do they understand the constraints COE puts on the boundary between the surface and the TOA, so I'm presenting evidence and logic in support of these things. Everyone here is free to make up their own mind, of course. If Tom does not want to continue this discussion - that's fine with me, but I can't help but to interpret his self removal as defeat. But again, everyone should make up their own mind.
  18. IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
    scaddenp @48 charcoal made from plantation timber can substitute for coal in steel manufacture. At what carbond price that would become economically viable I do not know; and whether it would ever be ecologically a good idea is also on open question for me.
  19. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric the Red @ 421,
    Smoothing, or filtering of data can have an effect of how results are interpreted. The following shows how different smoothing intervals, of filter cut-off frequencies can lead to different interpretations. Three different smoothing, or filtering methods are used:
    Moving average (MOV) centered
    Recursive forward & reverse [“filtfilt” MATLAB] (Chev ff)
    Fourier Convolution (FF)


    In the top figure a 10 yr. or 0.1 cycle/yr. cut off was used. In the lower figure, a 30 yr., or 0.03 cycle/yr was used. As expected, the top figure is more responsive to the input data, then the lower. So while the top figure might indicate a flattening or dipping of the global temperature, the lower on would indicate the temperature is continuing to rise.


    Filter effects on HadCRUT3 Data


    Kind of like results can be in the eye of the beholder.
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed image (you used ” instead of "...makes a difference[don't ask me why]).  Please remember to keep image widths below 500 pixels.

  20. IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
    Since solar cells produce more energy (by considerable margin) than is consumed in making them, you dont have to burn coal to make them at all. All renewables (including hydro and geothermal) and solar cells themselves can be used to create more. Coal is for foreseeable future needed to create steel.
  21. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis (RE: 1051),

    "In response RW1 accuses me of saying the Net Down means something different for the TOA and Surface tables, and suggests the identity of the values is unexplained."

    I'm not accusing, just asking for clarification because I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If you agree that "NET Down" means the same thing in both tables, why not just acknowledge it?

    I specifically asked about the data in the table of 0.9 W/m^2, not the 0.3 W/m^2 discrepancy relative to the numbers in the diagram, which I am aware of.

    I'll ask one more time. What does "NET Down" mean in tables 2a and 2b? If they mean the same thing, there is only one possible answer.
  22. IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
    There is no doubt that there is enough solar energy at the top of the atmosphere to provide for all of humanity's energy needs, including a margin for bringing the third world up to western living standards.

    Has anyone calculated the amount of coal that would need to be burned to produce the solar cells and windmills to access this?
  23. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1@everywhere

    Are you trying to learn about a subject you do not understand or do you think you understand it better than anyone else?
  24. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Fairly clear evidence that RW1 is trolling rather than debating:

    Me @1048:

    "The difference is 1.2 rather than 0.9, but Trenberth et al use 0.9 because:

    a) The difference between 1.2 and 0.9 is well within experimental error;

    b) The TOA balance has smaller experimental errors (+/-3% for individual components), and hence is considered more accurate than the surface balance (+/-5% for individual components except for Surface Radiation and Back Radiation which are +/-10%); and because

    c) If the surface was absorbing 0.3 Watts/m^2 more than was the planet (TOA) over a five year period, the excess energy would need to come from the atmosphere, plummeting atmospheric temperatures by about 24 degrees C over that period, whereas atmospheric temperatures increased over that period."


    RW1 @1050:

    "how is it that the 'NET Down" in the surface components table 2b and the TOA components table 2a is exactly the same (0.9 W/m^2?)?

    Are you saying that 'Net Down' means something different in each table?"


    So, in the post to which RW1 is responding I indicate that Trenberth et al use the Net Down calculated from the TOA at the surface rather than that calculated at the surface. I give sound reasons for that decision. In response RW1 accuses me of saying the Net Down means something different for the TOA and Surface tables, and suggests the identity of the values is unexplained.

    Either RW1 is deliberately misrepresenting the content of my (and e, and Sphaerica, and whoever else has been mad enough to try and clear up his "confusion" in this 1050 post thread) and of Trenberth et al; or he is terminally stupid; or he simply does not bother reading the responses in any event.

    All of RW1s confusions have been cleared up multiple times before, including by myself in the last 24 hours. If he really wants to understand, he can reread those posts and try to understand them.
    Response:

    [DB] When dealing with RW1, remember his own words:

    "I appreciate that you seem to be interested in helping me, but I'm not really interested in being helped per say. I'm a staunch skeptic of AGW, so my purpose here is to present contradictory evidence and logic that disputes the theory. That's what I'm doing."

    We deal with a closed-minded individual who is here for the sole purpose of wasting as much of as many people's time as possible.

    Solution

    Ignore him.  DNFTT.

  25. Poleward motion of storm tracks
    "Despite numerous studies, it is not clear exactly why the storm tracks move polewards in models."

    Mid latitude cyclones are inherent it the earth's climatic zones. It has been a first principle of climatology for a very long time that these zones migrate poleward in the summer and equatorward in the winter.

    It follows, and has been a first principle of paleoclimatoly and paleoecology since at least the early 20th century that climatic and ecological zones migrate poleward (and higher in altitude on mountains)during warm periods in earth history.

    The attribution may be disputable, but very few reasonable people dispute that we have been in a warming trend, and the models certainly predict this warming trend, so it should be no surprise that the models predict a poleward movement of the storm tracks, nor that such movement has been observed.
  26. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis (RE: 1048),

    ""Solar Absorbed" which is solar energy absorbed in the atmosphere, and hence not part of the surface balance (78.2)"

    Not directly, no. It gets there indirectly, as I explained in #1038. Why even include it in the table?

    If the 78.2 W/m^2 does not get to the surface as you claim, how is it that the 'NET Down" in the surface components table 2b and the TOA components table 2a is exactly the same (0.9 W/m^2?)?

    Are you saying that 'Net Down' means something different in each table? Is it a coincidence that 161.2 + 78.2 = 239.4 W/m^2 and this is exactly the same as the ASR in table 2a?

    All I'm saying is that 239.4 W/m^2 from the Sun has to get to the surface one way or another if energy is to be conserved. Maybe you agree with this and we are just talking past each other, but it doesn't sound like it to me.
  27. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Also, here again is the Trenberth paper we keep referring to.
  28. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1 @1043, for casual readers who may be confused by RW1's trolling:

    The columns of the table (and values in brackets) are:

    "Solar Absorbed" which is solar energy absorbed in the atmosphere, and hence not part of the surface balance (78.2);

    "Net Solar" which is the solar energy absorbed by the surface (161.2);

    "Solar Reflected" which is the solar energy reflected at the surface (23.1);

    "LH evaporation" which is the latent heat carried into the atmoshere by by evaporation or transpiration (80);

    "SH" or sensible heat, which is given as Thermals in the diagram (17);

    "Radiation Up" which is the Long Wave radiation from the surface, or Surface Radiation (396);

    "Back Radiation" which is, unsurprisingly, the Back Radiation (333);

    "Net LW Radiation" which is the Radiation Up - Back Radiation (63);

    "Net down" which is the total increase in energy at the surface per second per square meter (0.9)

    The casual reader should now be able to match these values to the surface components of the diagram in post 1019. They will therefore recognise that I have already met RW1's challenge in section (3b) of post 1025. But seeing as how RW1 presents himself as struggling with simple arithmetic and reading comprehension, the balance on the table is:

    Net Solar = 161.2 =~= 17 + 80 + 63 = SH + LH evaporation + Net LW.

    The difference is 1.2 rather than 0.9, but Trenberth et al use 0.9 because:

    a) The difference between 1.2 and 0.9 is well within experimental error;

    b) The TOA balance has smaller experimental errors (+/-3% for individual components), and hence is considered more accurate than the surface balance (+/-5% for individual components except for Surface Radiation and Back Radiation which are +/-10%); and because

    c) If the surface was absorbing 0.3 Watts/m^2 more than was the planet (TOA) over a five year period, the excess energy would need to come from the atmosphere, plummeting atmospheric temperatures by about 24 degrees C over that period, whereas atmospheric temperatures increased over that period.
  29. The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
    An interesting article which reveals the conservatism of the Climate Commission, particularly in relation to predicted SLR of 0.4m by 2050 and 1m by 2100 shown at Fig 15. The Commission rightly points out that these estimates are likely to result in significant damage to buildings and infrastructure in coastal regions. As others have pointed out, one does not “adapt” to repeated flooding other than by abandoning the flooded area – but abandoning it for what, to go where?

    What I question – as does the Commission - is the reliability of its SLR estimates. Fig 15 suggests an almost linear rise in sea level, a view held by some climate scientists, eg. Archer but disputed by others, Hansen. SLR is related to melting of ice, particularly polar ice which in turn influenced by a number of factors such as rise in temperature of ocean water and the atmosphere. In the Arctic slow (but accelerating) methane feedback will prove important.

    Hansen et al 2011 expresses the view that, taking these factors into account, it can be expected that the rate of melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) can be expected to double each decade, increasing from its present level (250 Gt/year) to ~130,000 Gt/year by 2100. He argues that since the main cause of SLR is non-linear, SLR itself can not be linear and concludes that a SLR of 0.5m by 2080 will be followed by a very rapid rise of 4.5m before 2100, resulting in a 5m. rise this century, consistent with polar ice loss.

    Although Hansen qualifies his conclusions by stating that more data is needed to verify decadal doubling of GIS ice loss, he has been proven right on too many occasions to ignore. While one might cautiously accept the Commissions’ 2050 SLR estimate, it would seem unwise to rely on its forecast of a 1m rise by 2100. It will certainly be much higher.
  30. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    e (RE: 1039)

    "You are tying yourself in knots making this more difficult than it needs to be.

    Before we move on, please answer the question posed by this simple analogy:

    Suppose I have two bank accounts. Now suppose you pay me $240, and I in turn spend $239 dollars, leaving $1 in bank account #2.

    From this information alone, can you tell me what the deposit amounts will be for each bank account? (Assumptions: I cannot create or destroy money, and nobody is paying me except you.)."


    I know the diagram is depicting an energy imbalance of about 1 W/m^2. This is not related to the issues of COE in the diagram that I am addressing.
  31. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1> is it just a coincidence the 'NET Down" in the surface components table 2b and the TOA components table 2a is exactly the same (0.9 W/m^2?).

    No it is not, but consider my question @1039 to see why this does not support the claim you are making.
  32. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1>show me how numbers from the row of "this paper" yield a 'NET Down' of 0.9 W/m^2?

    Seriously, think of energy absorbed at the surface as "gross income", and energy emitted or transferred via latent heat as "gross expenditures", and the answer to this will be obvious.

    The first column applies to the atmosphere not to the surface and is simply shown for reference, so we won't add that in. We will also ignore "Solar reflected" as that is neither absorbed nor emitted. Our "gross income" comes from "Net solar", and "Back radiation". Our "gross expenditures" come from "LH evaporation", "SH", and "Radiation up". From here the math is easy:

    "net income" = "gross income" - "gross expenditures" = ("Net solar" + "Back radiation) - ("LH evaporation" + "SH" + "Radiation up") = (161.2 + 333) - (80.0 + 17 + 396) = 1.2. The .3 difference comes from measurement uncertainty. Also note that the "Net LW" field is just "Back radiation" - "Radiation up" which we already accounted for in the equation.
  33. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis (RE: 1040)

    Also, is it just a coincidence the 'NET Down" in the surface components table 2b and the TOA components table 2a is exactly the same (0.9 W/m^2?).
  34. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis (RE: 1040),

    "RW1, as e has pointed out, the correct values are listed in the paper on tables 2a and 2b under "this paper" for the TOA and surface respectively, with the solar radiation absorbed in the atmosphere listed with the surface values for convenience. Your apparent inability to read the paper or distinguish between TOA and surface values is not a problem with the paper."

    From table 2b "Surface components of the annual mean energy budget for the globe", show me how numbers from the row of "this paper" yield a 'NET Down' of 0.9 W/m^2?
  35. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1,

    Your post @1041 illustrates continued misunderstanding about how these numbers should add up. It is really much much simpler than you are making it. Since physical explanations are failing to make this clear to you, I think it might help if you thought of the diagram as illustrating the gross flow of money between three accounts: sun, atmosphere, and surface. You can start by answering my question @1039.
  36. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Sphaerica (RE: 1037),

    "I've explained this to you before. You are ignoring the 80 W/m2 from evapotranspiration and 17 W/m2 from thermals, or 97 W/m2 more. 396 W/m2 + 97 W/m2 = 493 out. 161 W/m2 + 333 W/m2 = (surprise) 494 in."

    I have not ignored the 97 W/m^2 from latent heat and thermals. It's a net zero flux at the surface. The diagram has 97 W/m^2 leaving the surface and 97 W/m^2 coming back as part of the 333 W/m^2 designated as 'back radiation' as explain in my post # 1038.

    Subtract 97 from 493 and you get a net flux of 396 W/m^2 - the amount emitted at the surface.
  37. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1, as e has pointed out, the correct values are listed in the paper on tables 2a and 2b under "this paper" for the TOA and surface respectively, with the solar radiation absorbed in the atmosphere listed with the surface values for convenience. Your apparent inability to read the paper or distinguish between TOA and surface values is not a problem with the paper.

    If you read my 1025 (sections (3b) and (4) I clearly do include atmospheric absorbed solar radiation, thermals and evapo/transpiration as sources of energy which is later reradiated to the surface as back radiation. Further, I included them as specific terms in the slab atmosphere model I mention in my section (4). Your insistence on attributing to me a view that would involve non-conservation of energy despite the evidence to the contrary is again your problem, not mine.

    Frankly your claim that, "the surface cannot be receiving a net energy flux above 396 W/m^2 in the steady-state" makes no sense. In the steady state (no change in the energy stored in the climate system), the net surface energy flux must be zero (ie, energy in - energy out = zero). Trenberth et al are claiming the climate system is not in a steady state. If your claim is about total energy flux, the downward energy flux at the surface by best estimate (excluding reflected solar, which self cancels) is 494 Watts/m^2 which almost exactly matches the net upward flux (excluding reflected solar) of 493 Watts/m^2.

    Your 1031 is an even more bizzare misunderstanding. Frankly your style of analysis seems to consist of taking a figure at random from what somebody writes and simply asserting a random falsehood about it, then attributing that falsehood to your opponent. I do not have the time to continuously rebut such inane ramblings. Nor should I need to as it is an obvious trolling strategy. I will not feed the troll, but request that the moderators also no longer permit you to troll this site.
  38. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1,

    You are tying yourself in knots making this more difficult than it needs to be.

    Before we move on, please answer the question posed by this simple analogy:

    Suppose I have two bank accounts. Now suppose you pay me $240, and I in turn spend $239 dollars, leaving $1 in bank account #2.

    From this information alone, can you tell me what the deposit amounts will be for each bank account? (Assumptions: I cannot create or destroy money, and nobody is paying me except you.).
  39. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    e,

    Table 2b in the paper does not define 'back radiation' as the downward emitted LW from the atmosphere that last originated from surface emitted. It just defines it as "LW downward radiation to the surface". The problem is as I said in post #1027, not all of this is 'back radiation' as defined as that which last originated from surface emitted radiation. Some of it is LW 'forward radiation' from the Sun that has yet to reach the surface.

    What Trenberth does in the diagram is lump the 78 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere from the Sun and the 97 W/m^2 of latent heat and thermals all in the same return path of 333 W/m^2 designated as 'back radiation'. This is highly misleading and why everyone is so confused.

    157 W/m^2 from surface emitted (396 - 239 = 157) + 78 W/m^2 from the Sun designated as "absorbed by the atmosphere" + 97 from latent heat and thermals = 332 W/m^2 all lumped in the return path as 'back radiation'. Trenberth has an extra watt in there for at total of 333 W/m^2 to account for the NET Down of 0.9 W/m^2.
  40. Bob Lacatena at 09:51 AM on 7 June 2011
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1,

    I've explained this to you before. You are ignoring the 80 W/m2 from evapotranspiration and 17 W/m2 from thermals, or 97 W/m2 more. 396 W/m2 + 97 W/m2 = 493 out. 161 W/m2 + 333 W/m2 = (surprise) 494 in.

    They balance. Minus, of course, the net 0.9 which is being absorbed by the planet and thus increasing its temperature.

    You can't just ignore the thermals and evapotranspiration/latent heat because they are not in the form of radiation. They still represent energy transfer.
  41. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    e,

    How can the surface be receiving 161 W/m^2 from the Sun and 333 W/m^2 of 'back radiation' from the atmosphere when it's only emitting 396 W/m^2? The surface cannot be receiving more than a net flux of 396 W/m^2 unless it is warming, but we are referring to the system in the steady-state (or at least an imbalance less than 1 W/m^2).
  42. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    e,

    You do know that the atmosphere cannot create any energy of its own, right?

    If, of the 396 W/m^2 emitted at the surface, 70 goes straight to space, then 326 W/m^2 is the amount absorbed by the atmosphere (396 - 70 = 326). Are you saying that this energy never leaves because there is 333 W/m^2 of 'back radiation' from the atmosphere? Where does the difference of 7 W/m^2 go? Where is the 169 W/m^2 emitted to space from the atmosphere coming from then?
  43. Bob Lacatena at 09:34 AM on 7 June 2011
    Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1,
    Even if the claim is warming causes decreasing clouds for positive feedback, how is this consistent with increasing water vapor from warming? Does increasing water vapor from warming cause decreasing clouds? That doesn’t make any sense since water vapor concentration drives cloud formation.
    Your overly simplistic model of the system completely fails. It doesn't properly consider how clouds form, it doesn't understand that clouds do not need to decrease to provide a positive feedback, it doesn't account for the many varieties, locations (in space, meaning 3 dimensions, and time) of clouds, it fails on many, many other levels.

    At the same time, your interpretation of Dessler 2010 is flawed. You should probably read the paper several more times before commenting on it again.

    My advice would be to read more on the subject, and post less. Kitchen table science may make perfect sense to a lot of people, but it's still wrong, and your analysis is kitchen table science.
  44. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    e (RE: 1028),

    What do you think a NET Down of 0.9 W/m^2 means?

    It's showing a positive energy imbalance at the surface of 0.9 W/m^2 - meaning more energy is entering the surface from the Sun than is leaving at the TOA as OLR (239.4 - 238.5 = 0.9 W/m^2).

    It's quite apparent to me that few people here actually understand the data in that paper and the constraints Conservation of Energy puts on the boundary between the surface and the TOA.

    Part of the problem is the diagram itself, which is only loosely connected to the text and details presented in the paper.
  45. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1@1031

    You are not understanding, please read carefully: TOA measurements do not distinguish between the surface of the earth and the atmosphere. They treat the entire surface/atmosphere system as a black box emitting and absorbing energy. The 239.4 W/m^2 could be absorbed by the surface or it could be absorbed by the atmosphere. The table you are looking at does not tell you how much is absorbed by each.

    For that you need to take a look at table 1b or 2b which treat the surface separately from the atmosphere. It shows that only about 160 W/m^2 of solar energy is absorbed by the surface.

    The 0.9 W/m^2 is just the difference between the energy entering the surface/atmosphere system and the amount of energy leaving. Again, it says nothing about where within the earth the energy goes.
  46. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    It's great that we're living in a global CO2 experiment so will be able to see for ourselves the results of significant increases in CO2
    Response:

    [dana1981] Lucky us?

  47. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    e (RE: 1028),

    Furthermore, if you look at the surface components in table 2b, you see 161.2 W/m^2 of "Net Solar" and 78.2 W/m^2 of "Solar absorbed". Is it just a coincidence that 161.2 + 78.2 equals 239.4 W/m^ and this is exactly the same as the ASR at the TOA?

Prev  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  Next



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2016 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us