Recent Comments

Prev  2274  2275  2276  2277  2278  2279  2280  2281  2282  2283  2284  2285  2286  2287  2288  2289  Next

Comments 114051 to 114100:

114051. miekol at 15:41 PM on 29 July 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        Re: Daniel "The Yooper" Bailey at 13:55 PM on 29 July, 2010 Apology accepted :-) And so as you say, "Back to on-topic: Given that the world is indeed warming, what is to be done? " It truly would be great if we could, in an instant, stop all CO2 production, and sit back and see if in fact CO2 in the atmosphere stabalizes and/or reduces. But we can't. That's the reality. Since the advent of the industrial revolution the so called western society, principally Europe and North America has been getting very rich by pouring CO2 into the stmosphere, and compared to most of the third world have a very high standard of living, I’m Australian. And if it turns out to be fact that it’s CO2 that is causing the temperature increase then we have been inadvertently ‘engineering’ the atmosphere. Surely if we can ‘engineering’ the atmosphere accidentally, then with all our wealth and science resources we can ‘engineer’ a correction, without having to impede the economic progress of the third world, in particular China and India. They are not going to reduce their CO2 production anyway. There is lots of ways we can accommodate CO2 increase. Here’s one idea. Isn’t it a fact plants need CO2 and if you increase CO2 their growth becomes prolific. So why not green the Earth? As the Earth’s atmosphere and seas warm there will be lots more precipitation, all very condusive to turning the Earth into the fabled “Garden of Eden.” But what of coastal cities? We can dyke them. If the Netherlands can do, I’m sure the rest of the world can. Plus per tonne of carbon, forestry is the cheapest method of reducing CO2 polution. Its about $10.00 per tonne.
114052. muoncounter at 15:41 PM on 29 July 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        #8: "deftly shift to NH sea ice. Cherry-picking?" If picking one out of two is cherry-picking. But we've only got two hemispheres and one is losing ice at an increasing rate. But I'll see your graph and raise you this one, also from Cryosphere Today. In fact, from the same page as the one graph you picked. Be sure to zoom in; its a big one.
114053. Daniel Bailey at 15:36 PM on 29 July 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        Re: Humanity Rules @ number 8 above: You are linguistically correct in that Arctic sea ice by itself would not be a global indicator. It is directly reflective, however, of a global disequilibrium response to a planetary forcing due to rising CO2 concentrations from fossil fuel emissions and other, subsequent, positive forcings. And in that regard a significant indicator of global climate change/warming. Using the Cryosphere Today graphic for global sea ice trend is a bit of a straw-man argument. That graphic focuses on global area. No considerations are given to extent or thicknesses/volumes. As the NOAA report makes clear, Arctic sea ice trend IS in decline. Multi-year, thicker ice, is almost gone, replaced with seasonal ice, resulting in greater seasonal melt oscillations. Polar amplification of warming due to climate change will keep it moving in that direction as well. Pray for a continued weak Arctic DiPole this year and next to slow the export of the remaining ice out the Fram Strait... For various reasons (winds, ozone, weather), portions of the Antarctic sea ice are in stages of decline, stasis or growth, with a net inconsistency overall. John's article doesn't even mention the net multi-gigaton mass loss of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets themselves, as documented in the NOAA report. Again, the need for brevity in a summary article. But that's why he included the link to the source report. Arctic sea ice Trend vs global sea ice Trend = apples & oranges comparisons. Sobering report from NOAA. The Yooper
114054. HumanityRules at 15:34 PM on 29 July 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        I've only read one section in the full report so far, Ocean Heat Content OHC (page S56 onwards). Some fasinating images of the patterns of changing heat content of the oceans. The text seems to primarily concern itself with the regional nature of the OHC anomolies and how that's changed over time. It seems to spend a long time connecting this to regional climate features such as NAO and PDO. Can we be sure that the overall change in OHC from 1993-2009 truely is a sign of a warming world or just a measure of the shift of warmth around the oceans? Or maybe more likely a combination of both. How do we prise apart the two features in the data? (if they exist)
114055. muoncounter at 15:22 PM on 29 July 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        #6: I fail to see how an average value is determined from the isolated bits of data in "the plot". One of the nice things about the Law Dome ice core is that 280ppm is a very consistent value for the first 800 years. There's enough data to state that even the standard deviation of the CO2 concentrations is a consistent 2.8 ppm or less during that time period. This isn't a graph I made from these data (and I have made quite a few), but it gets the point across: I question the significance of the ice-house/hot-house simplicity of climate reconstruction over geologic time. Unless you factor in the plate-tectonic setting during the relevant time periods, a simple hot/cold temperature graph doesn't tell the whole story. Same objection applies to the final graph you cite. As far as a relationship between CO2 and temperature, see below: Again, not my work, the source is shown and here is a link to the host page. #5: Hang around a while, you'll see all three styles of denial in action. What is nice about this site is that at least most people remain polite.
114056. HumanityRules at 14:55 PM on 29 July 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        It's a shame that they start talking about planet-wide indicators then deftly shift to NH sea ice. Cherry-picking? Global sea ice seems to have had little trend over the past 30 years as this Cryosphere Today graphic shows.
114057. Daniel Bailey at 13:55 PM on 29 July 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        Re: miekol at 13:17 PM on 29 July, 2010, who said: "Four is not science at all, its a disparaging comment." Just trying to give straightforward responses to what I thought was a straightforward question. Apologies if I misinterpreted your question (in retrospect I perhaps went a bit snarky with the "silly" reference at the end). Apologies, then, for the attempt at levity. But as a short summary of root cause, for each point, my earlier comment still stands. As far as John's post, I understand his need for clarity and brevity in his article, hence the not addressing the point-by-point attribution of cause to each indicator (which would require a separate post on each). But this has been done, both here and elsewhere. Back to on-topic: Given that the world is indeed warming, what is to be done? Unless the discussion now turns to this, versus an endless rehashing and rebunking of memes, nothing will get done. We must lift our vision, for the weeds no longer matter. And the world, she burns. The Yooper
114058. Geo Guy at 13:18 PM on 29 July 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        Ok..but that is not the crux of the debate. The cause is what is being debated IMHO. Now IF CO2 increases were the cause, then the documents at the following links would seem to refute this: The first is a plot of atmospheric CO2 records reported in five separate studies which indicate that the CO2records from ice studies are understated. The Plot: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image354_lg.gif The Paper: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html The next link is to a page that includes a plot of climate change over geologic time. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm The next link is to a plot of avg global temperature over geologic time. From this plot it is evident that there is little relationship between atmospheric CO2 and average global temperatures. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
114059. miekol at 13:17 PM on 29 July 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        Comments three and four are off topic. This is a science discussion site. Three is a science topic, its not climate change science, its the science of psychology. Four is not science at all, its a disparaging comment. Both ought to be deleted. The 'Response' to comment two correctly 'on topic'.
114060. Daniel Bailey at 11:30 AM on 29 July 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        Re: miekol at 11:20 AM on 29 July, 2010 said: "Now what are the 10 possible causes? " Causes 1-10: 1. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 2. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 3. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 4. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 5. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 6. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 7. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 8. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 9. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 10. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. Ask a silly question... The Yooper
114061. michael sweet at 11:28 AM on 29 July 2010
        It's waste heat
        Baa Humbug: I would say the same as KR. Keep in mind that a single photon does not make the whole path, this is a simple model. If the path is longer, with most of the time spent absorbed by a molecule, it will take the heat longer to escape. The speed of the photon does not matter. When the path is longer for heat to escape but the source of heat (the sun) stays the same that means heat accumulates in the atmosphere. I am sure that the time delay could be calculated, but what scientists find useful is the forcing. Cooling overnight is a different process. The time for the heat to escape is longer at night with more CO2 just like during the day. The situation is complicated by water but the essential details are the same.
114062. muoncounter at 11:26 AM on 29 July 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        Excellent summary. Will the 'oh, no its not crowd' note that some indicators are up while others are down and hence there's no consensus? Here is a relevant definition of 'denial': Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence (emphasis added). The subject may use: * simple denial - deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether * minimisation - admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalisation), or * projection - admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility. All three sound all too familiar.
114063. miekol at 11:20 AM on 29 July 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable. Fantastic. Now what are the 10 possible causes?
        Response: When I wrote this blog post, I actually wrote a paragraph about causes but for the sake of focus and brevity, decided not to include it. But here it is for sake of completeness:

        Now let me anticipate the immediate objection: "skeptics aren't disputing whether global warming is happening, just that humans are causing it". This is not the case. The bulk of the skeptic arguments I encounter these days are actually attacks on the surface temperature record, claims that glaciers are growing, disputes that the ice sheets are losing mass - generally attempts to cast doubt on any empirical data that indicates a warming trend.
        
        So while there are many skeptics who agree that global warming is happening but question the cause, the bulk of energy spent by global warming skeptics is to attack the evidence for global warming. The most popular skeptic argument reported via the iPhone app since February is attacking the surface temperature record. So while I would love to move on from the issue of whether global warming is happening, the fact that the majority of skeptic activity is focused on this question prevents me.

114064. Bern at 11:10 AM on 29 July 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        That's a nice graphic! I'm going to forward it to a few friends of mine, along with some useful links. Sadly, I'm fairly confident of the response I'll get. :-( Oh, and your first link points back to this page.
        Response: Thanks, fixed the link error
114065. michael sweet at 11:07 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        KR: Great data on collisions and vibrational frequency. I wondered what that data was but didn't know where to find it.
114066. David Horton at 08:19 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        "we can spread sea water in the desert of the Sahara" - and in doing so lay waste to the whole area so that no vegetation could grow and no animals could live there. Remember how the Romans ensured the Phoenicians would never rise again - they sowed the fields with salt. And after destroying the Sahara (deserts are not empty of biodiversity, they have quite high biodiversity of species adapted to that environment) where do you move on to as temps continue to rise - Australia? Central Asia? Western America? The problem with all these "geo-engineering solutions" is that they involve a cloud of unintended consequences. It seems there are people who are content with any solution that involves, say, the destruction of the living contents of the Sahara, as long as it doesn't involve a switch from coal fired power stations and massive SUVs.
114067. kdkd at 07:42 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Ned #96 Thank you very much. I've been trying to get Ken to give me an estimate of what the TOA imbalance means for over a year, in terms of climate sensitivity or other temperature measurements, and for all that time he has refused to answer that question. Now thanks to your digging around, we know why ... it's because the energy balance model shows that the risk of serious climate change is the same as the other available evidence.
114068. KR at 05:11 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP - to address the other direction (CO2 having plenty of time to heat the air mass having been discussed here): A heated (high energy) N2 or O2 molecule, given 10^9 collisions/second and 390 ppm of CO2, will strike 390,000 CO2 molecules per second on average, heating them if they are cooler. Temperature therefore equalizes between the N2, O2, H2O, and CO2 molecules.
114069. CBDunkerson at 04:57 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP asked: "Can GHG radiated heat from the atmosphere cause heating of something that is hot? ... like an asphalt highway midday? or an air conditioners heat exchanger?" I'm not sure how you are defining 'heating' here so I'll explain the full process. Yes, energy which GHGs prevent from leaving the atmosphere does excite the molecules of already heated solids (e.g. asphalt under the noon sun). There is no magical force which prevents photons from approaching an already 'heated' substance. However, all matter also dissipates heat constantly... the hotter the object the more heat it gives off (obviously). Thus, under normal circumstances the heat coming off the asphalt (mostly generated by absorption of visible light) will be greater than the heat retained due to GHG going into the asphalt. The asphalt will be hotter than it would have been without the GHGs (because solar radiation + GHG radiation is greater than solar radiation alone), but it will not continuously accumulate heat ad infinitum. Rather incoming energy and outgoing energy will be equal... and since GHGs increase the incoming energy the 'heat' of the object also increases. Also: "Along that same idea, the warmer the air (due to whatever) the less effects GHG have." Um... no. The warmer the air the GREATER the effects of GHG. More IR photons inherently means more IR photons being delayed from escaping the climate system by GHGs. Finally: "Overall power normally attenuates when it traverses space. If one square KM of ocean water radiates heat upward, and it hits even a perfect mirror, whatever comes back will be a weakened version of that powerwise." What? You're suggesting that energy just... ceases to exist? If so, you are VERY mistaken. If X photons hit a perfect mirror then exactly X photons will bounce off of it. The only way your statement could make any sense is if you are suggesting that some of the energy will disperse through the atmosphere... which is of course true, but doesn't change the fact that it is remaining in the climate system regardless of where it originated.
114070. Doug Bostrom at 04:31 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Another meta-comment since there's nothing fundamental left to say about science here. A reasonable person (me, I'm ever so reasonable) might argue at this point-- 104 comments into explaining something that was comprehensively handled with the arrival of Ned's #22-- that RSVP is not practicing skepticism but instead is enjoying a wind-up. If that's the case, he should be thanked for turning the crank because while he's forced the expression of a lot of redundancy he's also managed to uncover several useful mental models for helping people to think about why anthropogenic greenhouse gases warm the planet. If I'm wrong, I don't think RSVP is reachable but nonetheless further synthesis of mental models may be helpful. Are there any more? Maybe RSVP is awaiting the arrival of a molecule of thought of just the right shape so as to click into place.
114071. Doug Bostrom at 04:17 AM on 29 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        Thanks, Peter. I spend maybe too much time on climate blogs and noticed Rancourt suddenly popping up of late. Morano gave Rancourt's opinions a push just recently and so apparently his name has been reverberating quite a bit. DenialDepot tickles me pink, JMurphy. The actual subject is not so funny but laughter is good for us and in any case the articles there are yet another method of explanation, more enjoyable for some than unadorned recounting of facts and finger-wagging. Friends of Gin and Tonic and its specialist auditing efforts is also good for a laugh as well as being indirectly informative.
114072. Tarcisio José D at 04:06 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        NED #100 "That would cool the Sahara, yes. What happens to the latent heat when the resulting water vapor condenses and precipitates somewhere else? Again, there's a reason it's called the hydrologic cycle. Imagine a cubic meter of air heating. Immediately he begins to radiate this thermal energy, respecting the law of Stefan-Boltzmann. I wonder, how many feet it can travel up to dispel any ernergia absorbed?? Already the steam carries the energy packed in the form of latent heat, and will only release this energy whem has its temperature reduced to the dew point. So the task of redistributing the energy the water vapor is the most efficient system. Atention....for to divide by 4 is mandatory the distribution before.
114073. Ned at 03:36 AM on 29 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Speaking of questions of expertise and the benefit of a deep understanding of one's subject matter ... There is a really neat post today over at RealClimate, in advance of the 35th anniversary of the first (known) paper to use the term "global warming": Broecker, W. 1975. Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? Science 189:460-463. Wally is one of the half-dozen or so people who would absolutely have to be included on anyone's list of "authorities" or "experts" on the earth's climate. In the 1975 paper he leads off the abstract with "[...] a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide." That of course is exactly what happened. Interestingly, in the paper he made predictions for various climate-change-related parameters from 1900 through ... 2010. Broecker slightly overestimates fossil fuel usage and CO2 emissions, predicting 403 ppm for the CO2 concentration in 2010 compared to the actual value of 392 ppm this year. He makes several errors that cancel out, and ends up with a value for climate sensitivity of 2.2 C per doubling of CO2 -- near the low end of the IPCC range, but not bad at all. Finally, he missed the thermal inertia of the climate system and assumed the rise in temperature would be basically instantaneous, leading to an overestimate of the temperature increase (+1.1C in 2010, versus around +0.8C in reality). Still, not bad considering that in 1975 nobody had ever compiled a global temperature reconstruction! It's a remarkably prescient paper. Check out the post over at RC.
114074. Tom Dayton at 02:52 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        I think y'all have now focused on RSVP's main contention: RSVP contends that the delay of energy getting from non-GHGs to GHGs is sufficiently long that it acts as a bottleneck in that energy escaping via IR radiated by GHGs. RSVP analogizes that with the GHG-induced delay of energy escaping via IR being a bottleneck. But as has been pointed out, the delay of energy transfer from non-GHGs to GHGs is inconsequential.
114075. KR at 02:23 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        As an aside: the mean vibrational equilibrium time for CO2 is ~10^-6 second (1 ms), rotational equilibrium time is ~10^-7 second (100 ns), while time between collisions with other molecules is ~10^-9 second. This means that an excited CO2 molecule, on the average, has 100-1000 collisions with other molecules at surface pressure before it has a chance to emit an IR photon. CO2 molecules will be kept at the temperature of the air mass, whether losing or gaining energy for the air mass as a whole.
114076. KR at 02:09 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP - I believe I have a better understanding of the issues you are trying to raise. The core problem with your formulation, however, is that there is only one account, one collection of energy in the atmosphere, not two separate accounts as you describe here. First case: Take a large air mass. Heat in some fashion that only excites, say, just the N2 and O2 (perhaps a magic electrode, perhaps just statistical chance in convection/conduction). Heat it with enough energy to raise that air mass 1oC in temperature. Now the N2 and O2 molecules have high thermal energy, and are moving faster. This is your car radiator case. Given that air molecules at surface pressure collide with other molecules 10^9 times per second, this energy is rapidly distributed to all the molecules in the air mass - N2, O2, CO2, Ar, H2O, etc. And once the GHG's in the air mass reach the higher temperature, they will radiate IR at the appropriate rate for that temperature. AND the air mass is now 1oC warmer. Second case: Apply a heat lamp to your air mass. CO2 and H2O heat up, N2 and O2 don't since they don't absorb IR. Heat it with enough energy to raise that air mass 1oC in temperature. Some of the CO2 and H2O molecules will just re-emit the IR, which likely gets caught by other molecules in the air mass (i.e., it doesn't leave). If your air mass is over 100m in size, that's almost an absolute certainty; it certainly is for the atmosphere as a whole. The high energy GHG molecules collide at 10^9 times per second, distributing the heat evenly through the air mass. AND the air mass is now 1oC warmer. Now what about the IR absorbed/emitted by the GHG's in your air mass? Well, if the surroundings are cooler, a net number of photons will leave, and the air mass will cool - in both cases. If the surroundings are warmer, a net number of photons will enter the air mass, and the air mass will warm - in both cases. There is no difference, RSVP. All the energy goes into the same account, whether through conduction, convection, or radiation. It all heats up the entire air mass via thermal diffusion, or cools the entire air mass via thermal diffusion, regardless of the energy pathway. There are no separate energy accounts for radiation and convection - thermal diffusion redistributes the energy efficiently and very quickly regardless of energy pathway.
114077. Ned at 01:43 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Our climate handles 1370 watts per square meter Divide by 4 to distribute across the globe. Multiply by 0.7 to account for albedo. That gives you the actual solar input (240 W/m2). It varies by less than 1% peak-to-trough of the solar cycle. And of course the solar cycle is a cycle. we can spread sea water in the desert of the Sahara. With an evaporation potential of 10 liters per day per square meter will be converted to 25.08 MJ day of latent heat and will be redistributed to higher latitudes. That would cool the Sahara, yes. What happens to the latent heat when the resulting water vapor condenses and precipitates somewhere else? Again, there's a reason it's called the hydrologic cycle.
114078. Tarcisio José D at 01:34 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Dear contenders. Their views suggest that the land is or was in perfect thermal equilibrium. (John R # 70) Our climate is a function of many variables such as solar flux, the evaporation of water, the dissipation by convection, the transfer of energy, the rain, etcetera, Do all these variables are perfectly in balance? Our climate handles 1370 watts per square meter and an error of 1% is already 13.7 W/m2 and making negligible the 0.028 W/m2 discussed here. I want to warn their friends that this error actually exists in our system. The soil is being impermeabilisad by ammonium created in the soil by the decomposition of organic matter. (A natural process). Due to this impermeabilisation not have enough water to keep the indices of evaporation. This problem is to be resolved. But while this have not a solution, we can spread sea water in the desert of the Sahara. With an evaporation potential of 10 liters per day per square meter will be converted to 25.08 MJ day of latent heat and will be redistributed to higher latitudes. This equates to 290.27 W/m2 of desert. Watts is Watts who is not Joule but Joule per second.
114079. Paul D at 01:30 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP said: "The reason less energy comes back over the same area (assuming an infinite sized mirror and no losses) is that it disperses." A mirror with no losses would be perfect so there would be no dispersal of photons. eg. a perfect mirror would 'knock' every photon back and there would be no dispersal of photons or weakening of the 'signal'. But in any case if you have a mirror enveloping the planet (which is what you are suggesting the analogy was), it doesn't matter if there are 'optical' faults in the mirror or dispersal, the energy reflected will be retained whether there is 'dispersal' or not. In fact because of imperfections and 'dispersal' you would actually get 'hot spots' and 'cool spots'. I would really like to know your profession RSVP, are you an engineer?
114080. Albatross at 01:17 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP, Maybe I'm wrong, but it seem that you and Ken are trying to minimize or even dismiss the role of GHG forcing and are suggesting that "waste heat" is responsible for the observed warming. Sorry if you have already addressed this, but given that you believe that the contribution of waste heat to the earth's energy budget is detectable, how much of the observed warming (of the biosphere) over the last century do you attribute to "waste heat". Please explain how you arrive at that number and also specify whether or not you take into account the fact that GHGs were released in the production of said "waste heat"?
114081. Ned at 01:07 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Ken, I addressed that point when you made it the first time, on the first page of this thread. If you want to look at the net forcing that the climate is actually experiencing, then yes, you need to add up all the positives and negatives. If you want to answer the question "is forcing A (waste heat) larger than forcing B (greenhouse gases)?" then you need to ... look at the magnitudes of the individual forcings A & B. That's what this thread is about. It is a good thing that we don't have a net TOA radiative imbalance of 2.9 W/m2. The estimated actual TOA imbalance of 0.85 W/m2 corresponds to a climate sensitivity of 3.1C per doubling, basically the IPCC consensus value. That is bad enough, IMHO.
114082. Ken Lambert at 00:50 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Ned #82 and many other threads: Sorry Ned, the Earth system is not accumulating 2.9W/sq.m of heat flux. The purported figure is 0.9W/sq.m. The critical measurement is the TOA imbalance which nets all the heating and cooling forcings. Ref Fig 2.4 of AR4 which gives a total net anthropogenic forcing of +1.6W/sq.m. To this number is then added the climate responses which mainly consist of radiative cooling (from a raised Earth temperature of 0.75 degC as per S-B) of about -2.8W/sq.m and WV and Ice Albedo Feedback of about +2.1 W/sq.m. (Ref Dr Trenberth Fig 4 'Tracking the Earth's global energy) The sum is then +1.6 -2.8 +2.1 = +0.9W/sq.m It is misleading to claim that +2.9W/sq.m is 'entering the atmosphere' from absorption of IR when all the heating and cooling forcings are acting in concert. S-B is emitting IR, Aerosols and clouds are reflecting incoming Solar heat, while CO2GHG are supposedly trapping Solar heat at lower levels (the mechanism may be slowing down the transfer rather than 'trapping' heat) which tends to raise the equilibrium temperature as the analogy of a better insulator increases the T1-T2 temperature difference for a given heat flux transferred. What is certain is that CO2GHG forcing (currently at about 1.6W/sq.m) is logarithmic with CO2 concentration, and S-B radiative cooling is exponential (proportional to T^4). Where these forcings cross is where the forcing imbalance is zeroed and the new equilibrium temperature approached. The CO2GHG theory hangs on the interaction of WV and CO2 in the atmosphere and what will be the surface temperature rise for a unit rise in the IR emitting temperature of the earth as seen from space. For the first law to be satisfied, most of heat flux 'imbalance' of 0.9W/sq.m should show up in the oceans due to the tiny relative storage capacity of the land and atmosphere. OHC is proving most elusive to measure.
114083. KR at 00:26 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Arkadiusz - you have some excellent points about the localization of urban heat islands (UHI). I do find it interesting that land use changes (albedo changes, microscale wind changes, etc.) are as large or larger effects than energy usage. To some extent these complex UHI's could be considered to be stationary thunderstorms - multiple convection cells of heat input. However, as with real thunderstorms, they occupy a very small area! There may be 100 W/m^2 in some urban areas, but the global average is only 0.028 W/m^2. Much as thunderstorms, which are very powerful redistributors of latent heat, occupy a very small percentage of the atmosphere at any one time. I would readily believe that UHI's produce local effects on weather. However, the land usage change and the anthropogenic heat flux (AHF) of energy usage won't have a major effect on global temperatures, as they are two orders of magnitude smaller than GHG entrapment. We must always be careful not to mistake impressive local events for more dominant (but quieter) global events which are much larger. Size does matter!
114084. Ned at 00:19 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP writes: Photon radiates off a lizard's back. Hits a CO2 molecule on the way to Pluto (which is now no longer a planet. Oops!). The CO2 writhes, bounching one million times per second and kinetically energizes its nearby N2 neighbors. If it werent for man, this CO2 molecule would not have been there and Pluto would have received the lizard's warmth. However man has been polluting for hundreds of years and the chance is now higher that Pluto will have to wait. This is exactly right. Everything up to here is fine. And the key point is that there's no difference between (a) an N2 molecule warmed by collision with a CO2 molecule that once absorbed an IR photon, and (b) an N2 molecule warmed by collision with another N2 molecule that once was heated by collision with an engine radiator. With that established, let's return to RSVP's entertaining story of the lizard, the atmosphere, and the former planet Pluto: A millionth of a second later, a different CO2 molecule comes to the rescue. It picks up this energy. This time the photon shoots upward. Instead of Pluto, it ends up in an uncatalogged black hole. This is OK too. But the exact same thing happens with the energy from waste heat! The N2 molecules share their energy with CO2 molecules, and the process proceeds exactly as you described. Thank you for taking the time to organize this into a series of clear physical steps. It seems like we might be starting to get somewhere.
114085. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:07 AM on 29 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        1. It is obvious that this is not waste heat caused the current warming, but largely responsible for its “unprecedented”. I had a "reservation" to the Dutch (de Laat), not citing this work: Modeling the impacts of anthropogenic heating on the urban climate of Philadelphia: a comparison of implementations in two PBL schemes. Fan and Sailor, 2005: “Results from a case study series of simulations for Philadelphia suggest that anthropogenic heating plays an important role in the formation of the urban heat island, particularly during the night and winter. Control simulations (without anthropogenic heating) CONSISTENTLY UNDERESTIMATED urban air temperatures and the observed urban heat island effect. Simulations for winter suggest that anthropogenic heating contributes 2–3 °C to the nighttime heat island. In addition, anthropogenic heating is also found to have impacts on the nocturnal PBL stability and PBL structure during the morning transition. The choice of PBL scheme affects the magnitude of these modeled impacts.” 2. The waste heat is present in the atmosphere much longer than it seems to us (A) and present a significant - a long way there is finally somewhere “scatter” (B). A. The waste heat, like solar energy, is difficult to escape the UHI (where it produces the most): „When natural land cover, such as parks, is decreased and replaced by buildings, the cooling process through evaporation is reduced. As well, when rural areas that surround cities are urbanized, the atmospheric circulation systems that carry cooler air to city centres are restricted. These atmospheric cooling systems are normally generated by the temperature differences which exist between cool rural and warm urban environments. Furthermore, the arrangement and size of buildings along narrow streets forms a so-called URBAN CANYON that inhibits the release of the reflected radiation from urban surfaces back to space. This radiation becomes absorbed by the building walls.” (based on: Urban Heat Island Mitigation in Canadian Communities., Forkes, 2009 - I recommend drawing showing URBAN CANYON as a store of energy, of course + NBL, smog, air pollution, etc.). B. The waste heat is obviously “Thermal Plumes” (Rail, 2007, Urban Thermal Plume; Rail, 2010, Anticarbonism: exposing the carbon dioxide myth.) ... here I will give “excerpts” to Wikipedia: “In 2007, Anthony Rail, postulated that London's urban thermal plume, say, will generally have a detectable impact, and at times have a significant impact on the macrometeorology of Northern Europe, and may play as significant a role in Climate change as the anthropogenic augmentation of atmospheric CO 2 . A thermal plume from a large urban area is much more complex than that from, say, a large chimney stack. It is better regarded as a concatenation of several separate thermal plumes, their turbulence increased by the presence of cool-spots such as parks and, especially, lakes within the urban environment. A geographical area such as the British Isles has a thousand urban areas and many industrial sites, all of which will at times produce thermal plumes of different magnitudes. Their effect on the wider meteorology will be cumulative, through interaction between plumes, interaction between local wind variations as affected by plumes, and the influence of other topographical effects, not least of which are the cool areas of estuaries, lakes and man-made reservoirs. Absolute modelling of these collective effects is in a sense impossible, in that we cannot know the dynamics of the native geometeorological system in, for example, the British Isles. We can't model the innate wind patterns, because the innate wind patterns no longer exist. We can't 'turn off' all the anthropogenic thermal influences to rediscover the geometeorological systems before industrialization, urbanization, and large-scale water management; and then turn man's influence back on to observe the differences.[...]” “While recognising that the steady lessening of vertical motion towards the edges of urban thermal plumes will have an ameliorating effect, Rail proposed that such urban thermal plumes play a critical part in producing the changes in ambient wind direction over the ARCTIC and have had a direct impact on Arctic shrink. The impact of urban thermal plumes will vary depending on a large variety of factors including the diameter and temperature gradient of the Urban heat island , the latitude, the thermal stability of the stratiform, the synoptic wind , &c. Thus, for example, urban thermal plumes will have far greater impact at higher latitudes (above 40°N and above 40°S), where the Earth-atmosphere system undergoes net cooling by radiation.” Remember that CO2 can more or less constant throughout the RF of the Earth, causing waste heat (and a small area) differences over 100W (...). Thus, in a waste heat - 1 W heat - many times more (through feedback) efficient than the 1 W in the CO2 from its conjugates by positive feedback (a mailing - we might add) ...
114086. KR at 00:03 AM on 29 July 2010
        It's waste heat
        Baa Humbug - The transit time of a photon in flight isn't going to be very long; but the number of absorption/emission events will certainly increase. Each absorptio/emissionn takes some time, with a probability of transferring that energy to other gas molecules instead of re-emitting; each emission (from the same GHG molecule or another one excited to emit by the thermal state of the air mass) takes some time as well. So longer transit distance = more absorption events = more chances to heat the air rather than just being re-emitted.
114087. adelady at 23:58 PM on 28 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        Ned@141 Sorry Ned. Morano brings out the worst in me.
114088. RSVP at 23:56 PM on 28 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Ned #87 "Both of those packets of heat are now in the atmosphere." Are they? We know the waste heat is, that is for sure. What about the virtual heat due to GHGs??? Where exactly is that? Photon radiates off a lizard's back. Hits a CO2 molecule on the way to Pluto (which is now no longer a planet. Oops!). The CO2 writhes, bounching one million times per second and kinetically energizes its nearby N2 neighbors. If it werent for man, this CO2 molecule would not have been there and Pluto would have received the lizard's warmth. However man has been polluting for hundreds of years and the chance is now higher that Pluto will have to wait. A millionth of a second later, a different CO2 molecule comes to the rescue. It picks up this energy. This time the photon shoots upward. Instead of Pluto, it ends up in an uncatalogged black hole. Now, for I billionth of a second, AGW supporters are vindicated. If you call this the same thing, I think then we do agree.
114089. DrTom at 23:40 PM on 28 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room? Forced-air heating.
114090. DrTom at 23:38 PM on 28 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room? Anthropogenic room warming.
114091. RSVP at 23:36 PM on 28 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Ned #87 Careful. You dont have to declare the money you find on the street. ;)
114092. RSVP at 23:32 PM on 28 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        The Ville #84 The reason less energy comes back over the same area (assuming an infinite sized mirror and no losses) is that it disperses. So to find it all you would then have to examine a larger area depending on how far away the mirror. If the entire globe was completely water, GHG would simply dull the energy emission profile such that instead of more radiation from the equator vs poles, it would even out some. This however does not support the idea that GHG cause overall warming.
114093. Paul D at 23:27 PM on 28 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        But without using analogies. AGW climate models themselves rely on the term "Radiative" budget. Most of waste heat does not involve radiation, except in the terms that I have done in order to generously accomodate AGW theory. The radiative budget refers to energy entering and leaving the planet. It isn't a case of 'relying' on it. There is only one mechanism for energy entering and leaving the earth. At some point, energy that isn't in the form of radiation has to be converted to it. The alternative is to lose atmosphere, but that is a bit short term.
114094. Ned at 23:26 PM on 28 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP: The former is like money going into a savings account, the latter a running expense budget. Nonsense. They're both sources of income going into the same account, just that one is your paycheck and the other is the spare change you pick up on the street. There are not two separate atmospheric heat reservoirs. AGW climate models themselves rely on the term "Radiative" budget. So? Why is that significant? Most of waste heat does not involve radiation, except in the terms that I have done in order to generously accomodate AGW theory. We have 0.028 W/m2 of heat entering the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources ("waste heat"). We have 2.9 W/m2 of heat entering the atmosphere from absorption of IR. Both of those packets of heat are now in the atmosphere. Please explain the difference between what happens to packet A and what happens to packet B.
114095. Paul D at 23:14 PM on 28 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Actually adding to my previous post. There are only 'losses' in the beam from the mirror described by RSVP because of imperfections in the mirror, or the mirror is curved (convex) or because there is something between the mirror and the ocean (an atmosphere), or ultimately the photons are bent by gravity. eg. there is only attenuation because of imperfections and other issues. It is attenuated by intervening matter. Assuming the mirror was smaller than the ocean, then even if the 'signal' was attenuated, the energy would be returned towards the ocean and it remains in the system.
114096. RSVP at 23:10 PM on 28 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Ned says... "Not a useful analogy. [referring to stadium] If that's how you're envisioning the atmosphere, you're bound to be misled." If anything, I have had to use this analogy consistent with AGW maintains. Maybe you can describe it better. ----- "We know how much waste heat is being produced -- around 0.028 W/m2. We know what the climate forcing is from CO2, CH4, halocarbons, etc. -- around 2.9 W/m2." The former is like money going into a savings account, the latter a running expense budget. Just because you have more expenses doesnt mean you are getting richer. Its funny how even economist use the term an economy as "over heating". But without using analogies. AGW climate models themselves rely on the term "Radiative" budget. Most of waste heat does not involve radiation, except in the terms that I have done in order to generously accomodate AGW theory.
114097. Paul D at 22:52 PM on 28 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP said "Overall power normally attenuates when it traverses space. If one square KM of ocean water radiates heat upward, and it hits even a perfect mirror, whatever comes back will be a weakened version of that powerwise." erm, I'm no expert in quantum physics and I agree at our bigger scales of observation that is true. But my understanding of physics is that at the quantum level it is impossible to lose anything. eg. the loses you refer to go somewhere. A beam of sunlight disperses over a certain distance, but no photons are lost to the system (universe). It is just that the observer has only collected a smaller number of photons at the particular position. I think there are problems with a lot of engineers and scientists when they start working at a high level and think of things in terms of over arching equations and models, or as one type of energy transport or another. If there are 'losses' at the mirror, those losses go somewhere.
114098. Paul D at 22:39 PM on 28 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Oh this is getting really boring RSVP. All you have succeeded in doing is stating what is known about energy and that something 'warm' can not move energy to something 'hot'! Big deal. Great, I now know a hot road or runway (heated by sunlight normally) will dissipate to the cooler surroundings!
114099. Ned at 22:34 PM on 28 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        I have to say that RSVP's comments in this thread seem to be getting increasingly disjointed and incoherent. The "mainstream physics" view of this, as expressed by John Cook's post at the top of this thread, is quite clear and succinct. We know how much waste heat is being produced -- around 0.028 W/m2. We know what the climate forcing is from CO2, CH4, halocarbons, etc. -- around 2.9 W/m2. Since the former is two orders of magnitude smaller than the latter, the former is essentially irrelevant to climate (at the global scale; it's not irrelevant in local areas). Until RSVP can clearly express and preferably quantify an alternative to this -- without relying on inappropriate analogies to traffic jams, stadium crowds, etc., just a clear and simple statement of the proposed physics -- I don't think she/he is going to learn anything. If you cannot express your ideas clearly you cannot test them.
114100. Ned at 22:27 PM on 28 July 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP writes: Please answer this question... Can GHG radiated heat from the atmosphere cause heating of something that is hot? ... like an asphalt highway midday? or an air conditioners heat exchanger? That is getting dangerously close to the Gerlich & Tscheuschner "Second Law of Thermodynamics" nonsense. If you want to get into that, it's discussed elsewhere on this site. (The one-line answer is that warming the atmosphere reduces the rate of cooling of the surface.)

Prev  2274  2275  2276  2277  2278  2279  2280  2281  2282  2283  2284  2285  2286  2287  2288  2289  Next