Recent Comments

Prev  2579  2580  2581  2582  2583  2584  2585  2586  2587  2588  2589  2590  2591  2592  2593  2594  Next

Comments 129401 to 129450:

129401. NewYorkJ at 14:58 PM on 27 May 2009
        Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
        UAH data, (Christy,Spencer) have seen correction after correction, nearly all in the upward direction, and many errors discovered by others. I don't particularly trust their data.
129402. Patrick 027 at 14:57 PM on 27 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Gord - "Instead of, rationally, questioning if their average Earth temperature is correct or if they have under-estimated the energy provided by the ONLY energy source (the SUN), they immediately assume this difference in energy is due to the effects of the GHGs, convection, evaporation of water from the oceans, clouds, aerosols, etc." Immediately assume? No, the optical properties of CO2 and H2O, clouds, etc, have been studied, and from that, calculations - which require much number-crunching but are based on very straightforward mathematics and physics - result in a greenhouse effect model. Futhermore, we have the observations that the Earth's surface temperature is warmer than it would be, by approx. 30 or 33 K (yes, there is a little uncertainty), than it would be if there were no greenhouse effect, PLUS observations from space that show that the emissions to space are as if the Earth were much colder at some wavelengths and where there are high clouds then the temperature of the surface below is, and yet as if the Earth is not so cold between about 8 and 12 microns where there are not clouds - and this is of course because the temperature of the air, and thus the clouds and the gases in the air, are generally colder than the surface, especially higher in the troposphere and lower stratosphere - while no sizable dip in LW surface emissivity - such as a huge drop near 15 microns or whereever there are high cloud tops - has been found. AND THERE IS NO CONFLICT WITH THERMODYNAMICS OR CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. "Are GHGs, convection, evaporation of water from the oceans, clouds, aerosols, etc. energy sources?"..."The inference that GHGs etc can somehow "create" energy is not only an obviously wrong assumption...it violates the Law of Conservation of Energy."..."Further, the assumption that the cooler atmosphere can transfer heat energy to a warmer Earth is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics." You're still saying this stuff? - you must either be really stupid, really not want to learn, or have a lot of time to waste. 1. The energy budgets such as those of Kiehl and Trenberth, for an equilibrium climate, show energy fluxes whose convergences or divergences all sum to zero. That is, take each component besides the sun (effectively the ultimate source) and space (ultimate sink) - the surface, the atmosphere as a whole or in seperate layers - and add all energy inputs and add all energy outputs and subtract the outputs from the inputs and for each component you get zero. Furthermore, if you got something other than zero, this alone does not constitute creation or destruction of energy - energy can be assumed conserved, implying that what you have is a rate of energy storage, generally (except for phase transitions) corresponding to a rate of temperature change - this would occur over long time periods for a non-equilibrium climate, or for shorter time periods for the daily and annual cycles and for some internal variability. Your insistance otherwise shows an unwillingness to do simple arithmetic when the results would not support your desired conclusion. 2. This bit about the second law - I and many many others would disagree and have reason to do so (such as the emission or nonemission, and absorption or nonabsorption of a photon being dependent on local conditions and not some event in the future or something far away that an individual photon carries no information about - except maybe where quantum entanglement is involved (?), which is not really applicable here so far as I know), BUT we could agree to disagree about whether each individual 'opposing field' constitutes an energy flux in its own right or whether the resultant is the only real flux - the mathematics about the net energy flux works out the same either way. Except for the microscopic processes involved, and assuming approximately steady state conditions relative to the time it takes for photons to travel through the atmosphere, our disagreement could be treated as philosophical and not affecting the measurable outcomes, greenhouse effect or not. You seemed to allow that a hot object loses heat radiatively more slowly to a cooler object if the cooler object is made warmer. You could choose to understand the backradiation from the atmosphere to the surface as being an opposing field whose effect is merely to slow the 'actual' heat loss from the surface. Mathematically, you really have no basis for claiming that the greenhouse effect violates any physical laws because that is ultimately what it is about; the net radiant heat flux from hot to cold depends on each layer's temperature, each layer's emissivity, and the transparency of whatever is between them - how could you deny that? "Actual measurements conclusively show that the back-radiation cannot reach and heat the Earth. (see my post #246)."..."In fact, all the back-radiation measurements done by the AGW'ers use instruments that comply with the 2nd Law: 1. Direct measurements require the detector to be cooled below the atmospheric temp. 2. Indirect measurements measure the loss of energy (eg.Thermistor) to the cooler atmosphere."..."You would think that these "scientists" would be aware that the operation of their measuring instruments contradict the theory they are trying to prove!" All those examples you provided are at best (for you) qualitatively ambiguous with regards to who's version of the climate system energy flow is correct, though it's possible, depending on heat capacity and thermal conductivity, that the enhanced cooling of an object in the mirror that shields it from radiation from near the horizon actually proves that there is backradiation from the atmosphere (or an opposing field that would slow the cooling of the object, if you prefer). But from other physics knowlege, we know how things work... "They seem oblivious to the fact that if back-radiation energy actually reached the Earth's surface our energy problems would be over."..."All Solar Ovens (Parabolic Mirrors that concentrate Solar and IR energy at a focal point), including the major Mega-Watt installations, would produce energy at NIGHT!"..."In fact, they would produce MORE energy at NIGHT than they do during the DAY.....because the Back-Radiation (324 w/m^2) EXCEEDS the Solar Energy reaching the Earth (235 w/m^2)!" NO, 1. during the day, the total downward radiation would be solar + backradiation, not just solar, and while most of the atmopshere has a very small diurnal temperature range, the lowest part of the atmosphere would tend to add a diurnal cycle to the backradiation. 2. Backradiation, as with solar radiation filtering through thick clouds, is diffuse and cannot be focussed much (you could focus radiation scattered by a cloud that does not take up the whole sky, but only to the point that it would take up an entire hemisphere of view from the focal point; likewise, the greater dimness of backradiation from straight up relative to closer to the horizon is what is being focussed by solar ovens used to cool at night; this is much more spread out then the direct rays of the sun, and even if the atmosphere were removed entirely, the maximum possible cooling rate is set by the temperature, size, and optical properties of the object being cooled. 3. The relative inability to focus diffuse radiation is related to the entropy of the radiation; blackbody radiation from a colder surface has greater entropy per unit energy and thus less of it can be converted to useful work by a heat engine (or photovoltaic device, chemical reaction, etc.) for a given heat sink temperature. If the heat sink is near the surface temperature of the Earth, then except in an inversion, atmospheric radiation could not be converted to work at all. However, a fraction of heat in general from the Earth to the atmosphere can be converted to work, and while this doesn't happen naturally with radiation, a fraction of the convective flux is converted to the kinetic energy we observe as wind (it still ultimately ends up as heat because of where the energy from the winds goes).
129403. Patrick 027 at 14:06 PM on 27 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Dan Pangburn - I responded to you at: http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/ But I will also post it here: Dan Pangburn - you misunderstood the intent of the labels and flows shown. 1. clarifications: At each wavelength and along each direction, each layer of air emits and absorbs in proportion to (1-transmissivity) (setting aside scattering, which is a minor issue for longwave radiation under Earthly conditions). Thus the portion of energy from any one layer that reaches any one other layer (or surface) decays exponentially with optical path length, and the portion that is absorbed over a distance is equal to the decay over that distance. When integrating over wavelengths and directions, the decay is not quite exponential, though it tends to be qualitatively similar (the exponential decay rate decreases since the remaining portion is increasingly at wavelengths where there is greater transparency, and is increasingly concentrated into the range of directions (solid angle) closer to vertical (optical path length per unit vertical distance is inversely proportional to the cosine of the angle from vertical). Even without clouds and aside from horizontal differences in humidity, optical path length per unit vertical distance also varies with height. This is partly because some gases - water vapor and ozone in particular, vary in relative concentration greatly with height; water vapor concentration relative to air tends to decrease roughly exponentially with height within the troposphere, and has less effect on radiation that is emitted directly to space than it would if it were evenly distributed (the CO2, etc, and any high level clouds are 'in front' of the lower-lying H2O, etc, in as far as upward radiation to space is concerned). This is also because the spectra of gases is affected by pressure and doppler broadening of absorption/emission lines, and these things vary with height - within the troposphere, they both decrease with height, so that the absorptivity and emissivity of an optically thin layer is more concentrated toward line centers higher up. (I think the effect of pressure broadenning dominates even into a portion of the stratosphere - not sure where doppler broadenning becomes more important, but it might be where the air is too optically thin for it to make much difference (?).) 2. More to the point of your question: The fluxes that are shown are not to and from each layer of air or clouds, but the total that reaches the surface and that reaches space from all layers of air, and the total from the surface that is absorbed over layers of air, and does not explicitly show the radiative energy transfers between different layers of air, and thus does not show the fluxes from layers of air that are absorbed by other layers of air. 1. - on line broadenning consequences - lack of broadenning increases the tranmission in more transparent gaps between line centers and concentrates emissivitity/absorptivity of a thin layer toward the line centers. When, over a sufficient distance, the absorptivity at and near line centers approaches 1 (when the optical path length gets large), increasing the absorptivity of thinner layers does not contribute much more to the absorptivity over such a distance because of overlap (saturation), so the effect of reduced broadenningover a larger interval of wavelengths is to increase transmission. 2. - For example, of the radiation from the atmosphere that reaches the surface, some portion of that is from any given layer of air; the portion that is from a layer of air is only a fraction of the total emitted by that layer of air in the direction of the surface. ----------------------- "K&T also assume an emissivity of one which would be correct if earth was a perfect black body. It is close but noticeably different (14 W m-2 less) at a more realistic emissivity of 0.98." Kiehl and Trenberth do use the surface = perfect blackbody simplifying assumption, but not because they don't know it not to be true; it is just a useful approximation. (Though perhaps not so useful in this case, considering it should be relatively easy to use a non-unity emmisivity in calculations, especially if it is wavelength invariant, though it probably varies a little bit... well, there's the complexity, I guess; still, the results are approximately correct in that regard - Kiehl and Trenberth also explicitly note some other simplifications; this calculation is not for an actual 4-dimensional (time included) climate system but for representative conditions for all global area over the full day and full year, represented as a single column of atmosphere in steady-state optical and temperature conditions. They discuss this in their paper. They also mention that the apportionment of solar radiation absorption between the surface and atmosphere is particularly uncertain, as it is hard to constrain by observations thus far, although it must be in balance with convective and radiative fluxes between the surface and atmosphere and radiative fluxes to space. (Note this, Gord: Kiehl and Trenberth use conservation of energy to construct the energy budget.) ) I have actually been uncertain about the emmissivity of the surface. A LW emmisivity of 0.98 raises the equilibrium temperature of the surface by roughly 1.5 K in the absence of a greenhouse effect (with temperatures roughly near 300 K; it is proportional to the surface temperature). With a greenhouse effect, the effective emitting temperature of the Earth to space is less affected by the surface LW emissivity because it is partly hidden by the atmosphere's own LW opacity; thus, a nonzero LW albedo somewhat reduces the warming from increasing atmospheric LW opacity (by no more than about 1.5 K (in total relative to the temperature with no greenhouse effect, not for each increase that is made in the greenhouse effect) if the surface emissivity is 0.98 and the surface temperatures involved are roughly near 300 K). Between the surface and the distribution of absorption of surface radiation within the atmosphere, the reduction in net upward LW radiation between due to the reduced emmission from the surface is partly compensated by the reflection of downward atmospheric radiation back up by the (1 - LW emissivity) LW albedo. In W/m2: with radiation emitted from the surface = 390 (350 to the atmosphere and 40 to space)with emissivity of 1 and radiation from the atmosphere to the surface being 324 (so the net upward LW flux at the surface is 390 - 324 = 66), a reduction in surface LW emissivity from 1 to 0.98 results in (with temperatures held constant): surface emission = 382.2 (reduction of 7.8) (343 to the atmosphere (reduction of 7) and 39.2 to space (reduction of 0.8)); atmospheric emission downward at the surface still 324; atmospheric emission to the surface (and absorbed) = 317.52 (reduction of 6.48), and atmospheric emission reflected at the surface = 6.48; so the net upward LW flux at the surface is 382.2 - 317.52 = 64.68, a reduction of 7.8 - 6.48 = 1.32. Some portion of the atmospheric radiation reflected at the surface goes to space; it is not necessarily the same fraction as the fraction of surface emission that reaches space, because the spectral distribution is difference because the atmosphere - even the part(s) radiating to the surface, are a bit cooler (generally) than the surface, and it is also likely less than the fraction of surface radiation that reaches space because it will be somewhat concentrated into wavelength intervals where the atmosphere is more opaque. But assuming that the fraction of radiation emitted from the surface that reaches space (40/390 = 39.2/382.2 ~= 10.3 %) is an upper limit, of the 6.48 of atmospheric radiation reflected at the surface, less than about 0.65 would go to space. That would partly offset the reduction in radiation to space from surface emission. --------- "In the thermodynamic sense, one must attend to where the system boundary is drawn." Of course. Climate scientists would readily understand where the boundaries are in such a diagram, and reading the accompanying text would illuminate that to others (I realize the updated version is only the diagram and not the text; I can tell you that this diagram treats the atmosphere for the most part as a single component that emits in either direction from varying depths within itself (hence it appears colder to space than from below because the colder part is more visible from space, etc.) as opposed to seperate layers with their own fluxes, except with the portion of radiation to space that comes from clouds being identified seperately).
129404. Patrick 027 at 08:53 AM on 27 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "- The calculation takes the Earth temperature to a level above some of the known Ice Age temperature's when an atmosphere was clearly present." ... Actually, you'd just barely make it to ice age global average temperature if the emissivity in LW were about 0.96, so that the temperature would be about 9 deg C. Or, allowing some uncertainty in the absolute global average temperature ('absolute' - not because deg C is more accurate; I mean 'absolute' as opposed to relative - ie warming or cooling), maybe you just get into the possible range... maybe (?). But that's all undone by the fact that there is an albedo of 0.3, which would be slightly larger during the ice ages than now.
129405. shawnhet at 06:11 AM on 27 May 2009
        Does ocean cooling disprove global warming?
        Ok, that makes sense, if one assumes that El Nino/La Nina etc... fluctuations are independent of the global heat imbalance. It seems to me though, that it is equally likely that EN/LN etc... are one way in which the global heat imbalance is moved closer to equilibrium. I will wait to see the followup. Cheers, :)
129406. Patrick 027 at 05:51 AM on 27 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Gord - "You should recognize this number (342 w/m^2) from Trenberth's Energy Budget" I do recognize the number. "1367 w/m^2 is not an average and I did not identify it as such." Good, but it seems like you expect the average temperature of the Earth to be proportional to solar flux at one location at one time - which could work if the rest of the Earth were wrapped in aluminum foil (in which case the temperature of the surface of the Earth would approach the temperature corresponding to the solar flux at that one location/time) or a very thick blanket or subject to a strong greenhouse effect... ------- "First, this calculation is the one the AGW'ers use for an Earth without a "Greenhouse Effect", ie. no atmosphere:"...""Average Temperature of Earth = 255K or -18 deg C (240 w/m^2) due to the Sun and Earth's albedo = 0.3"" The albedo and greenhouse effect are partly linked by atmospheric components and behavior that contribute to both, but they are not automatically proportional to each other, and it is useful to identify their seperate roles. "There is absolutely no evidence that the Earth had an albedo of 0.3 before the Earth had an atmosphere." And who ever said otherwise? (Without an atmosphere, offhand I think it's somewhere around 0.1). "The AGW'ers have assumed the Earth, without an atmosphere, has an albedo of 0.3, exactly what they assume the Earth's albedo is with an atmosphere." NO, that is NOT what 'AGW's' are assuming at all. The albedo is known to be about 0.3 (PS this is a global time and area average weighted by TOA insolation, hence equal to the global time average reflection/backscattering to space of all solar radiation intercepted by the Earth.). Since the albedo is known seperately from how the greenhouse effect is known, it can be used in an equation to estimate the greenhouse effect. IN OTHER WORDS, The approx. 33 K warming effect is not from the difference between the atmosphere as it is and no atmosphere, it is the difference between the atmosphere as it is and the atmosphere as it is except for the greenhouse effect! ------- "- My calculations of the average temp of the Earth without an atmosphere would be +6 deg C, uses exactly the same method as the AGW'ers have used." Which is the (maximum possible global time average surface) temperature (when LW emissivity = 1; you can add about approx. 0.75 K for each 1 % decline in LW emissivity up to a point) with ZERO albedo AND ZERO greenhouse effect. THIS OFFERS YOUR ARGUMENT ZERO SUPPORT, BECAUSE YOU ARE SAYING THAT THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT WHILE NOT DISPUTING THAT THE EARTH HAS AN ATMOSPHERE AND DOES HAVE AN ALBEDO OF ABOUT 0.3. "- My assumption that the 1367 w/m^2 would produce additional average warming (above the +6 deg C) is valid because the oceans would already be in liquid form and capable of heat storage and heat transfer by conduction and convection to the polar regions." Additional average warming relative to what? If that is additional, then remove the 1367 W/m2 insolation at noon at the equator from the global average insolation that you used to calculate global average temperature. The resulting average temperature will be lower, and then when you add the 1367 W/m2 over a limited area, you will get back to the same average temperature (or not, if you allow temperature variations over space, for reasons I previously explained). When the surface has a nonzero temperature, it emits radiation; in the approximation of a perfect blackbody at all LW wavelengths, it emits radiation in proportion to the fourth power of the temperature, in a relationship of which you evidently are aware. However heat is distributed from the locations where the temperature may get higher than 279 K (following your calculation for no atmosphere, zero albedo, zero greenhouse effect, LW emissivity = 1, for a temperature in radiative equilibrium with the global time average insolation), whereever the temperature is higher than 279 K, it will emit more radiant heat flux per unit area than is gained from the global time average solar heating. IF the global average temperature is greater than 279 K (for the given assumptions), then the Earth will be losing more heat than it is gaining from the sun and the temperature will drop until it reaches 279 K - or even lower if there are temperature variations, because the emitted energy flux increase for higher temperatures is greater than the decrease for lower temperatures, and thus temperature variation requires a lower global time average temperature for equilibrium. "- The calculation takes the Earth temperature to a level above some of the known Ice Age temperature's when an atmosphere was clearly present." And when there was clearly higher albedo from snow and ice, and clearly less CO2. By the way, maybe I neglected to mention this earlier, or maybe I didn't bother to here because it is in one of my comments elsewhere that I suggested to you, but NOT ONLY CAN THE ALBEDO BE OBSERVED DIRECTLY, the GREENHOUSE EFFECT CAN BE OBSERVED DIRECTLY. SATELLITES CAN MEASURE THE LW FLUXES IN SPACE FROM THE EARTH BELOW AND THE COOL ATMOSPHERE CAN BE SEEN - ON AVERAGE AND IN GENERAL THE EARTH LITERALLY LOOKS COLDER FROM SPACE THAN THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE IS - THERE ARE NOTABLE VARIATIONS IN THIS EFFECT, SPATIALLY in part DUE TO CLOUDS (THOSE INFRARED SATELLITE IMAGES SEEN IN WEATHER REPORTS SHOW CLOUD TOP TEMPERATURE) AND OVER THE SPECTRUM where the SIGNATURES OF H2O vapor and CO2, and some other gases, ARE READILY IDENTIFIABLE - IT CAN BE SEEN FROM SPACE THAT CLOUDS, CO2, H2O, etc, BLOCK THE GREATER RADIATION FLUX FROM THE WARMER SURFACE. THIS CAN ALSO BE SEEN ON OTHER PLANETS (WITH VARIATIONS DUE TO LACK OF H2O, DIFFERENT TEMPERATURE PROFILES, ETC.). ------------------ "Like I said: Who needs a "greenhouse effect" to explain the warming of the Earth?....it can easily be explained that all the warming came from the SUN....the ONLY energy source! " Maybe you've been getting confused between ultimate source (not quite, since the energy from the sun's surface comes from nuclear fusion, that comes from nuclear potential energy that came from the big bang...) and proximate source. The Earth and atmosphere have some internal energy and enthalpy stored up, and can at any one moment act as proximate heat sources. This is obvious at night, since the Earth continues to radiate to space on its dark side. The atmosphere can in times and places (most obviously whenever a low level inversion occurs) transfer heat to the surface. IF the sun's heating were taken away, the Earth and atmosphere would not go to near absolute zero temperature (or its new colder equilibirum temperature, given geothermal and tidal heating) instantly; the temperature would decay (roughly exponentially) in time toward the new equilibrium as heat leaves the Earth and atmosphere; the geothermal and tidal heat supply to the surface is roughly 1/2400 (or a bit less) of the solar heating of the Earth and atmosphere, so the new equilibrium temperature (with no greenhouse effect) would be approx. 1/7 of 255 K, or about 36 K. "- The other energy source available (the Earth's molten core) and subsequent Earth warming due to Volcanic activity and heat vents would also contribute to the Earth's warming. (This was ignored in my analysis because the AGW'ers have also, wrongly, ignored this energy source in their "faulty" analysis)" NOT WRONGLY IGNORED, JUSIFIABLY IGNORED BECAUSE IT's ONLY ABOUT 0.1 W/m2. "The SUN and the Earth's Molten Core (the ONLY energy sources) are responsible for the Earth's temperature not some "perpetual motion machine in a postive feedback loop"." AND WHO IS SAYING OTHERWISE BESIDES YOU? "- The "greenhouse effect" is clearly a perpetual motion machine in a postive feedback loop....an IMPOSSIBLE occurance." THE SAME LOGIC SUGGESTS THAT IF YOU WRAP HOT CHICKEN IN ALUMINUM FOIL, THE CHICKEN STILL COOLS OFF AS RAPIDLY, EVEN IF CONDUCTION AND CONVECTION HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THE SAME LOGIC SUGGESTS THAT ... WELL, WE'VE BEEN OVER THAT AD NAUSEUM. -------------------
129407. Patrick 027 at 05:43 AM on 27 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "The Climate Scientist’s use of their definition of feedback allows introduction of feedback factors that may express incorrect amplitude or failure to incorporate feedback factors that would significantly alter the results." Presumably the application of feedback factors is consistent with the definition used. I haven't seen anything to the contrary. "Also, their use allows that feedbacks can have different time constants so that the value of net feedback can vary with time. None of this is applicable to the definition of feedback as used in Control Theory." In that case, Control Theory is not applicable to climate. So what's your point.
129408. Mizimi at 04:42 AM on 27 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Part of the problem is that the flux model does not relect reality. Solar heating of the earth is cyclical and only during a portion of the 24hrs does incoming energy exceed outgoing ( that includes GG effects). Ground surface Tmin just before dawn and Tmax at solar noon. Very roughly some 20 degrees after dawn (angle1) incoming radiation begins to exceed outgoing; at around 35 degrees after noon the situation is reversed.(angle2)If Tmin rises the difference between A1 and A2 decreases in compliance with BB radiation laws. So there is no average flux; even in clear sky conditions it varies continuously. There is nothing like a few direct measurements..... Lat 65N Lon 0(the place so beloved by climatologists) TOA max in June 10.6kw/msq Average daily flux at surface 4.99kw/msq/20hrs =average 399w/msq Lat 37N Lon 0 TOA max in June 11.5kw/msq ADF at surface 8.49kw/msq/13.5hrs =average 628w/msq I guess this is what drives atmospheric/oceanic circulation which of course is impossible using averages.
129409. Gord at 22:33 PM on 26 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Now, if the Earth's average temperature really is +15 deg C, then maybe time could be much better spent looking for evidence that the Sun and the Earth's molten core (the only energy sources) can account for the +15 deg C temperature. Here is one source of evidence: Sea surface temp http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/geology/hh1996/ocean.html Look at the graph showing Sea Surface Temperature (Mean) vs. Latitude. (It's the first graph in the second row) If you take the area under the curve (which I have done using Autocad) you will find an average-mean Sea Surface temperature of +18.69 deg C = 292 deg K. This average Sea Surface temperature corresponds to about a +40 deg latitude. In watts/m^2 this means that the Average-Mean watts/m^2 is (292)^4 X (5.67 X 10^-8) = 412 watts/m^2 at a +40 deg latitude. The Max-Mean Sea Surface temperature is +29 deg C = 302K at a Latitude of 0 deg (the Equator). And the Max-Mean watts/m^2 is (302)^4 X (5.67 X 10^-8) = 471 watts/m^2 at the equator. Further, the Sea Surface Temperature (Mean) vs. Latitude. shows that a +15 deg temp occurs at about a 48 deg latitude and, obviously, the sea surface temp never drops below zero deg C at any latitude. --- Here is another source of evidence: Basics of Solar Energy "Under optimum conditions, one can achieve fluxes as high as 1000 Watts per sq. meter" "8 hour summer day, 40 degree latitude, 600 Watts per sq. meter" http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph162/l4.html --- The average Ocean temp (covering about 70% of the Earth's surface) is +18.69 deg C, at a 40 deg Latitude and this corresponds to 412 w/m^2 of Solar energy (which is within the 600 w/m^2 range of land measurements taken at a 40 deg Latitude). I would say that this is strong evidence that the average Solar energy warming the Earth has been vastly under-estimated by the AGW'ers (they claim an average of about 168 w/m^2!). --- I think this type of evidence and more research done on the effect of under-sea volcanos and heat vents (a largely unknown quantity) should be investigated instead of producing the countless papers that continually violate basic Laws of Science and actual measurements.
129410. Gord at 21:38 PM on 26 May 2009
        It's the sun
        SIZE OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT "Incoming solar energy amounts to 342 Watts per square metre (W m–2) of which 107 W m–2 are reflected by the atmosphere or the surface. Thus, 235 W m–2 contribute to the warming of the Earth. On a long-term basis, the Earth is in radiative equilibrium, i.e., it loses the same amount of radiation to space as it receives." "The emitted radiation has an intensity given by the product of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67 ´ 10–8 W m–2 K–4) and the fourth power of the temperature of the blackbody. Taking the Earth’s emission as approximately blackbody radiation, the output of 235 Wm–2 is equivalent to a temperature of 253.7 K. The Earth’s surface temperature is generally agreed to be 288 K, thus the resultant global warming due to the effects of the GHGs, convection, evaporation of water from the oceans, clouds, aerosols, etc., is 288 – 253.7 = 34.3 K." http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf Here is the fundamental problem with all these papers: The SUN is the ONLY energy source (used in this paper and others) and it can only provide 342 w/m^2 and only 235 w/m^2 is attributed to actually heating the Earth. The Earth temperature is identified as being 288K and would have to radiate about 390 w/m^2. Question: How can a body that only absorbes 235 w/m^2 radiate 390 w/m^2? In fact, the 390 w/m^2 exceeds the entire amount Solar energy entering the atmosphere (342 w/m^2)! Instead of, rationally, questioning if their average Earth temperature is correct or if they have under-estimated the energy provided by the ONLY energy source (the SUN), they immediately assume this difference in energy is due to the effects of the GHGs, convection, evaporation of water from the oceans, clouds, aerosols, etc. Are GHGs, convection, evaporation of water from the oceans, clouds, aerosols, etc. energy sources? No, they are NOT energy sources since their temperatures would rapidly decrease to near absolute zero if the Sun's energy were removed. ---- The inference that GHGs etc can somehow "create" energy is not only an obviously wrong assumption...it violates the Law of Conservation of Energy. Further, the assumption that the cooler atmosphere can transfer heat energy to a warmer Earth is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Actual measurements conclusively show that the back-radiation cannot reach and heat the Earth. (see my post #246). In fact, all the back-radiation measurements done by the AGW'ers use instruments that comply with the 2nd Law: 1. Direct measurements require the detector to be cooled below the atmospheric temp. 2. Indirect measurements measure the loss of energy (eg.Thermistor) to the cooler atmosphere. You would think that these "scientists" would be aware that the operation of their measuring instruments contradict the theory they are trying to prove! They seem oblivious to the fact that if back-radiation energy actually reached the Earth's surface our energy problems would be over. All Solar Ovens (Parabolic Mirrors that concentrate Solar and IR energy at a focal point), including the major Mega-Watt installations, would produce energy at NIGHT! In fact, they would produce MORE energy at NIGHT than they do during the DAY.....because the Back-Radiation (324 w/m^2) EXCEEDS the Solar Energy reaching the Earth (235 w/m^2)!
129411. Dan Pangburn at 13:37 PM on 26 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Should say about 35 w/meter sq gets all the way to the ground FROM THE CLOUDS through the 'window'.
129412. Dan Pangburn at 12:46 PM on 26 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick 027, 401 “It doesn't seem like Control Theory has anything additional to add to climate science…” Control Theory, with paleo temperature data shows that there is no net positive feedback from temperature. Climatologists believe that temperature increase causes global warming to be enhanced. Control Theory shows that this perception is a mistake. “…since climate scientists are fully aware of feedback loops and how they work.” Climate Scientists appear to be unaware of Control Theory (which is understandable since it is not in their curriculum) and their perception of feedback is not directly applicable to Control Theory. The calculations that you presented are not directly applicable to Control Theory except that zero net feedback has the same effect in both. The Climate Scientist’s use of their definition of feedback allows introduction of feedback factors that may express incorrect amplitude or failure to incorporate feedback factors that would significantly alter the results. Also, their use allows that feedbacks can have different time constants so that the value of net feedback can vary with time. None of this is applicable to the definition of feedback as used in Control Theory. Chris 402 “…we can address your confusion.” Failure to understand Control Theory can apparently lead to the misperception that a discussion by someone who does is ‘confused’. “Here’s what the data show.” Instead of all the words that followed it would have been more enlightening to just look at the data which is graphed in the pdf file linked to http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . The sources of the data, all credible, are listed. “…even smaller variations.” Since atmospheric carbon dioxide level lagged temperature change, what initiated the changes? And don’t say Milankovitch because the trends as identified at 414 and others are way too short to couple significantly with even the shortest Milankovitch cycle of about 23,000 years. However, you did concede that “These [trends] seem to occur independently of Milankovitch cycles.” With knowledge of dynamic systems analysis it is immediately obvious that these cyclic entities with substantially different frequencies will not have significant coupling. Then you switched to talking about Dansgaard-Oeschger events, prominent in Greenland ice cores, but, as you correctly imply, barely detectable in the Antarctic ice core data (see a comparison at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard-Oeschger_event)/ . The temperature trends, as archived in the Antarctic ice cores (with or without the questionable DO tickle in Antarctica) are part of the basis for the discovery that added carbon dioxide has no significant effect on average global temperature. Paragraph 8 in 402 is an interesting exercise in creative rationalization. Be cautious of being influenced by the writings of people whose future paychecks depend on continuation of the AGW mistake. Gord 403 I think I get it. The clumsy description of the greenhouse effect in http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html is bogus (I agree). The cartoon at http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/ipcc_oven.html ridicules this description. The graphic produced by Kiehl and Trenberth which has been updated as shown at http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/ is still misleading. The graphic shows the 356 W m-2 going all the way to the clouds and from the clouds 333 W m-2 all the way back to the ground. Contrary to what the graphic depicts, since GHGs absorb the IR, the intensity has to decline along the way. Barrett calculates 72.9% is absorbed within 100 meters, http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf using the HITRAN database. K&T also assume an emissivity of one which would be correct if earth was a perfect black body. It is close but noticeably different (14 W m-2 less) at a more realistic emissivity of 0.98. Energy balance is achieved with 59 W m-2 of the 382 W m-2 being thermalized, 40 going out through the ‘window’ (as K&T show) and 283 being radiated back to the surface from the atmosphere. For yuks, 283/382 = 74% radiated back. Only about 35 W m-2 gets all the way to the ground through the ‘window’. In the thermodynamic sense, one must attend to where the system boundary is drawn. Patrick 027 405 I don’t doubt that Climate Scientists are sure about “what CO2 does”. However, the science that they are unaware of shows that they are wrong. What they perceive as “already a known explanation” results from incomplete understanding. What is called scientific findings are ‘findings’ by Climate Scientists whose paycheck depends on finding them. The missing science, Control Theory, shows that they have made a mistake. thingadonta 409 I share your insight as to human nature and the instinct to control others that exists in varying degrees in different individuals.
129413. shawnhet at 02:19 AM on 26 May 2009
        Does ocean cooling disprove global warming?
        Yes, I understand about least squares - however, in this case, the conclusion is misleading at best, at least IMO. You have statistically created a situation where the "trend" is positive over the period, while the actual level of steric sea rise has fallen. What physical meaning does the trend have in this context?
        Response: The physical meaning is that ocean heat is gradually building up more energy due to the planet's radiative imbalance and hence is gradually warming. However, upper ocean heat also undergo internal variations through processes like the El Nino Southern Oscillation. So you find these short term cycles imposed over the long term trend. Currently, we've been in moderately strong La Nina conditions which imposes a cooling influence on global ocean heat. I will be adding a new post that goes into more detail on this phenomenon later this week, time permitting.
129414. Gord at 21:02 PM on 25 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - First, this calculation is the one the AGW'ers use for an Earth without a "Greenhouse Effect", ie. no atmosphere: "Average Temperature of Earth = 255K or -18 deg C (240 w/m^2) due to the Sun and Earth's albedo = 0.3" --- Second, this calculation is the "Earth Equator Temp" (as I stated) and is without an atmosphere: "... at the equator the w/m^2 would be the Solar Constant of 1367 w/m^2 and would produce an Equator Earth temp of 394 K or 121 deg C!" Even, with an atmosphere, this quantity is presently measured as 1000 w/m^2. Basics of Solar Energy "Collection of Solar Energy Amount of captured solar energy depends critically on orientation of collector with respect to the angle of the Sun. Under optimum conditions, one can achieve fluxes as high as 1000 Watts per sq. meter" http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph162/l4.html (see my post#244 for more info) 1367 w/m^2 is not an average and I did not identify it as such. It does represent a maximum heating of Earth (at the equator) due to Solar Energy and will affect the average temperature by heat transfer (conduction and convection) by the liquid Oceans. --- Third, this calculation, is the Average temp of the Earth, , exactly as I stated, without an atmosphere, and assumes an albedo of zero: "However, if the albedo were set to zero the 240 w/m^2 would jump to 342 w/m^2 and the average temp of the Earth would jump to 279K or +6 deg C!" You should recognize this number (342 w/m^2) from Trenberth's Energy Budget, it is the in-coming solar radiation above the atmosphere. --- Further, like I said, the albedo in my calculation is set to zero rather than 0.3, and this assumes no atmosphere for both values of albedo. The AGW'ers have assumed the Earth, without an atmosphere, has an albedo of 0.3, exactly what they assume the Earth's albedo is with an atmosphere. There is absolutely no evidence that the Earth had an albedo of 0.3 before the Earth had an atmosphere, so my assumption of zero albedo is just as valid. ------ Summary: - My calculations of the average temp of the Earth without an atmosphere would be +6 deg C, uses exactly the same method as the AGW'ers have used. - My assumption of a zero albedo is just as valid as the AGW'ers assumption of albedo = 0.3 for an Earth without an atmosphere. - My assumption that the 1367 w/m^2 would produce additional average warming (above the +6 deg C) is valid because the oceans would already be in liquid form and capable of heat storage and heat transfer by conduction and convection to the polar regions. - The calculation takes the Earth temperature to a level above some of the known Ice Age temperature's when an atmosphere was clearly present. Like I said: Who needs a "greenhouse effect" to explain the warming of the Earth?....it can easily be explained that all the warming came from the SUN....the ONLY energy source! And I will add that: - The "greenhouse effect" is clearly a perpetual motion machine in a postive feedback loop....an IMPOSSIBLE occurance. - The other energy source available (the Earth's molten core) and subsequent Earth warming due to Volcanic activity and heat vents would also contribute to the Earth's warming. (This was ignored in my analysis because the AGW'ers have also, wrongly, ignored this energy source in their "faulty" analysis) ------------------- The conclusion is obvious: The SUN and the Earth's Molten Core (the ONLY energy sources) are responsible for the Earth's temperature not some "perpetual motion machine in a postive feedback loop".
129415. Patrick 027 at 11:25 AM on 25 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "the HIGHEST global time average temperature you can get" ... without a greenhouse effect, that is!
129416. Patrick 027 at 11:23 AM on 25 May 2009
        It's the sun
        ... Let S = insolation at the top of the atmosphere (incident solar radiation), S0 = 'solar constant' So S = S0 when the sun is directly overhead and when the Earth is on the minor axis of its orbit. (for small ecc = eccentricity values, S directly facing the sun goes from about (1+2*ecc)*S0 at perihelion to (1-2*ecc)*S0 at aphelion. Currently ecc is less than 0.02. Annual average direct normal S is affected very little by eccentricity (for the range of values for Earth's orbit). Aside from the effects of eccentricity, S=S0 is only experienced once a day at one particular latitude that shifts between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn over the year. At the equator, the highest daily average S occurs at the equinoxes. Interesting fact: the tilt (obliquity) of the Earth's axis is sufficient for the highest daily average S at any time of year to actually occur at the polar regions at their summer solstices (the sun angle is low but there is 24-hour daylight). ----- I think there are sizable portions of the low-latitude oceans with surface temepratures warmer than 23 deg C year-round (so eccentricity doesn't account for it). How could that be if, with zero albedo, the highest daily average temperature one can get is 23 deg C? More to the point: 1. Who are you to deny that the Earth has nonzero albedo? Did you think those pictures of the Earth from space were fakes? Those white things are called clouds, snow, and ice. 2. On a related point, it is also true the the emissivity of the surface in the LW part of the spectrum is not perfectly 1. Suppose it is 0.96 - in that case, the equilibrium temperature will be about 1% higher than that of a perfect blackbody emitting the same radiant flux - about 3 K or 3 deg C for Earthly conditions. (The effect is less when the 0.04 LW albedo is reflecting atmospheric radiation back to the atmosphere and the atmosphere's own opacity partly hides the 0.04 surface LW albedo from space...) (PS I'm not quite sure if that is the actual LW emissivity, but... LW albedo is most definitely less than SW (solar wavelengths) albedo.) 3. Heat capacity and heat transport are very real - otherwise, night time and polar winters would be close to absolute zero. 4. You can't just pick one point on Earth where solar heating could raise it above the global average temperature and say that accounts for all warmth (unless the entire rest of the Earth is hidden from space - a greenhouse effect, perhaps? - you could wrap it in aluminum foil, leaving a hole facing the sun). What happens where the sun doesn't shine so much? Heat is stored from when it is recieved (tending to delay and reduce the maximum and minimum temperatures) and is transported from where it is recieved. The entire night side of the Earth is in the dark; the dayside average S is half of S0. 3. But let's suppose we don't know how readily the heat is distributed in time and space. There is some variation of surface temperature over space and time. But spectrum-integrated blackbody emission varies with the fourth power of the temperature. This means that variations in temperature raise the global time average emitted flux for a given global time average temperature. If we introduce temperature variations T' from the global time average, their weighted sum (by area and time interval) must be zero to keep the same average T. But, weighting by area and time interval, the positive T' values add more to the emitted radiant flux than the negative T' values subtract, so their is a net global time average increase in emmitted radiant flux due to the temperature variations for a given average temperature. In conclusion, the HIGHEST global time average temperature you can get that is in equilibrium with solar heating is that which occurs when the temperature is the same over the globe over time. And thus, the highest global time average temperature you can get would be that which is in radiative equilibrium with S0/4 * (1-albedo), with some adjustment for the surface's nonzero LW albedo. (PS and for wavelength-dependent emmissivity? Well, the same logic applies to emission at any one wavelength, because at any one wavelength, blackbody radiant flux increases more for a given change in temperature at higher temperature - although I think it may approach (but not quite reach) a linear proportionality at long wavelengths and/or high temperatures.)
129417. Patrick 027 at 04:16 AM on 25 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Gord - You do realize that 1367 W/m2 (setting aside the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit) is the absorbed solar flux if there is no albedo only when the sun is directly overhead. Even at the equator at an equinox, you must divide by pi to find the daily average: 435 W/m2, which corresponds to a temperature of 296 K, or 23 deg C.
129418. Gord at 23:12 PM on 24 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Without a "greenhouse effect" the AGW'ers use this logic to determine the Earth's temperature. Average Temperature of Earth = 255K or -18 deg C (240 w/m^2) due to the Sun and Earth's albedo = 0.3 However, if the albedo were set to zero the 240 w/m^2 would jump to 342 w/m^2 and the average temp of the Earth would jump to 279K or +6 deg C! And, at the equator the w/m^2 would be the Solar Constant of 1367 w/m^2 and would produce an Equator Earth temp of 394 K or 121 deg C! With the liquid oceans storing energy and transfering energy between the Equator and Poles the average temp of the Earth would increase above +6 deg C. ----- In fact, during the Ice Ages the Earth average temp was as much as 10 deg C colder than now or +5 deg C! ----- Who needs a "greenhouse effect" to explain the warming of the Earth?....it can easily be explained that all the warming came from the SUN....the ONLY energy source!
129419. Gord at 22:51 PM on 24 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - You missed the POINT again! Free Energy Oven http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/ipcc_oven.html The POINT is the very real similarity of the Greenhouse Effect description AND Free Energy Oven description of the physics used in both descriptions! (see my post #418) I did not even mention James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt (although they probably agree with the Greenhouse Effect description)! I consider James Hansen, Mike Mann, Gavin Schmidt and other AGW'ers that run and and post on the Real Climate website to be "science deniers". Real Climate should be called Real Comedy. The "greenhouse effect" link, obviously, describes a perpetual motion machine in a postive feedback loop. This is....Real Comedy.
129420. Patrick 027 at 03:03 AM on 24 May 2009
        It's the sun
        That cartoon you referenced, Gord: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/ipcc_oven.html is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen. Replace James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt with people like Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, and Fred Singer, and rewrite: " No [________], this is EXACTLY what the UN IPCC dogma wants you to believe. See The Greenhouse Effect Poppycock for more details." As: " No [________], this is EXACTLY what Gord wants you to believe. See Gord's comments at http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm for more details." and then it would make a lot more sense. Because, Gord, most people would assume, correctly, that thermal radiation emitted by a hot piece of chicken would be reflected back at the chicken if surrounded by mirrors, and would also assume, correctly, that the process doesn't create energy - but that if the chicken is recieving heat from some other source, partly surrounding the chicken with mirrors will reduce the portion of the chicken's radiation that escapes to a cooler environment, so the chicken's temperature will rise until it can radiate enough radiation for the portion that escapes balances the heat input (plus any radiation from the cooler environment, but let's say the environment is absolute zero so we don't have to deal with that issue). Switching from reflection to absorption and emission - Seriously, Gord, what do YOU think would happen if you wrapped some object (with nonzero albedo in solar wavelengths) in a material that is transparent to solar radiation but has some nonzero absorptivity in the wavelengths that are emitted by the object? Even if the material is porous and some convection occurs through it, the rate of convection depends on a temperature gradient - same with conduction; do you not think the temperature of the object would get higher with such a covering material than if it were exposed? So we disagree on whether sets of electromagnetic waves with opposing group velocities can be considered to have their own energy fluxes - which is important to the microscopic processes regarding thermal radiation - but the mathematics for what I call the net energy flux - what you call THE energy flux - is the same, so for Pete's sake, just take the fluxes from Kiehl and Trenberth and subtract opposing fluxes to find the fluxes you would consider to be real, and you wouldn't have a problem - (well you might, since you should really take solar radiation and terrestrial radiation together if their could only be one electromagnetic wave energy flux at a given place and time, in which case you'd find that the surface is being heated by radiation, but it is less than the total heating of the surface by the sun, so maybe you wouldn't have a problem - I don't care because your understanding of this area of physics is absurd, but anyway... - if you lump convection in with radiation, you'd find zero energy fluxes). Do you not feel warmer outside on a cold day if you put a coat on - even though the temperature of the coat never gets exactly as warm as your skin? Or would you rather freeze to death than find out?
129421. shawnhet at 02:30 AM on 24 May 2009
        Does ocean cooling disprove global warming?
        IIRC, I think Pielke's point vis a vis the deep ocean was that if we allow that heat that would otherwise stay in the upper ocean to get sucked down into the deep ocean, then we can no longer trust predictions of future global warming. How long does this heat stay in the deep ocean before it starts affecting the upper ocean again? If it is 500 years our projections for the next 100 years will be way off. If natural variation is much higher than we already assumed, our basis for concluding that average temperatures in 2100 will be 2.5C warming than today is correspondingly weakened. Cheers, :)
129422. Gord at 21:41 PM on 23 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - Gee Patrick, looks like you didn't want to post the most significant parts of my previous post: I will re-post it for you: Greenhouse Effect Summary Ultimately, ALL "greenhouse effect" literature and ALL calculations wind up VIOLATING the Law of Conservation of Energy. (This is the part you missed) They ALL CONCLUDE that the Earth Radiates MORE ENERGY than the Earth receives from the SUN....THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE THAT THE AGW'ERS USE. A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY and VERY COMICAL. --------------- Ever consider "Comedy" as a career?
129423. NewYorkJ at 08:45 AM on 23 May 2009
        There is no consensus
        Cold Beer, One of the reason I don't take climate contrarians too seriously is that they constantly distort reality. "Japan has walked away from the IPCC" is a silly unsupported comment. The Register article is also doing some serious spinning. A distinguished scientist who actually works at JAMSTEC provides some corrections to this bit of misinformation: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/02/much-ado-about-nothing.html Kusano has no climate science cred and this becomes apparent with the comment: "[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis." This individual apparently hasn't even read the IPCC report: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/
129424. NewYorkJ at 08:30 AM on 23 May 2009
        There is no consensus
        This individual has done a remarkable job putting together the long lists of IPCC contributing authors and cited climate scientists. Most entries have a link to the webpage of the scientist, so one can check out their publications. Consistent with other objective studies on the topic, the results indicate once again an overwhelming scientific consensus at the individual level. http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/ http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/AR4wg1_authors_table.html http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html
129425. shawnhet at 07:36 AM on 23 May 2009
        Does ocean cooling disprove global warming?
        I'm confused. For the section titled is the ocean cooling is reference only made to steric sea level changes and none to actual temperatures or heat content? Further, in order for Leuliette to produce a warming trend(from the graph of sea level) you have to start at 2004. If you start in 2005, you have a cooling trend. Certainly, since 2005 the trend per both is cooling of about the same extent. Finally, your final graph seems to show both the green and blue lines below the 2003 level in 2008(just eyballing them) and the red line looks flat. How do you conclude that the last half-dozen years show a warming trend? Cheers, :)
        Response: To determine a trend in a noisy signal, you don't compare one point to another. You need to include all the data, not just the start point and end point. This can be done by various means, the most common being a least squares line of best fit. Cazenave uses this method to find a trend of 0.31 ± 0.15 mm/yr to steric sea level rise (when subtracting ocean mass sea level rise from total sea level rise). The trend from the Argo data is 0.37 ± 0.1 mm/yr. Note: the uncertainty is less than the trend which means it's statistically significant.
129426. chris at 22:40 PM on 22 May 2009
        Does ocean cooling disprove global warming?
        Re #33 There is increasing evidence for enhanced warming of many areas of the deep oceans in recent years. These include the S. Atlantic [*], Pacific [**], Indian Ocean[***], Ross sea [****] (over a longer period), Caribbean [*****]..... Recent evidence indicates a reduced Antarctic Meridonal Overturning circulation with significant Antarctic bottom water warming [******]. Is this a factor in the apparent reduction in the rate of ocean heat uptake in the upper oceans in recent years? I don't think we know yet. [*] Johnson GC et al. (2006) Recent western South Atlantic bottom water warming Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L14614 [**] Johnson GC et al. (2007) Recent bottom water warming in the Pacific Ocean J. Climate 20, 5365-5375. [***] Johnson GC (2008) Warming and Freshening in the Abyssal Southeastern Indian Ocean J. Climate 21, 5351-5363. [****] Ozaki H et al. (2009) Long-term bottom water warming in the north Ross Sea J. Oceanograph. 65, 235-244. [*****] Johnson GC et al. (2009) Deep Caribbean Sea warming Deep Sea Research. 1 –Oceanograph. Res. 56, 827-834. [******] Johnson GC (2008) Reduced Antarctic meridional overturning circulation reaches the North Atlantic Ocean Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L22601 abstracts below: ----------------------------------------------------- Johnson GC et al. (2006) Recent western South Atlantic bottom water warming Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L14614 Abstract: Potential temperature differences are computed from hydrographic sections transiting the western basins of the South Atlantic Ocean from 60 degrees S to the equator in 2005/ 2003 and 1989/1995. While warming is observed throughout much of the water column, the most statistically significant warming is about + 0.04 degrees C in the bottom 1500 dbar of the Brazil Basin, with similar ( but less statistically significant) warming signals in the abyssal Argentine Basin and Scotia Sea. These abyssal waters of Antarctic origin spread northward in the South Atlantic. The observed abyssal Argentine Basin warming is of a similar magnitude to that previously reported between 1980 and 1989. The Brazil Basin abyssal warming is similar in size to and consistent in timing with previously reported changes in abyssal southern inflow and northern outflow. The temperature changes reported here, if they were to hold throughout the abyssal world ocean, would contribute substantially to global ocean heat budgets. Johnson GC et al. (2007) Recent bottom water warming in the Pacific Ocean J. Climate 20, 5365-5375. Abstract: Decadal changes of abyssal temperature in the Pacific Ocean are analyzed using high-quality, full-depth hydrographic sections, each occupied at least twice between 1984 and 2006. The deep warming found over this time period agrees with previous analyses. The analysis presented here suggests it may have occurred after 1991, at least in the North Pacific. Mean temperature changes for the three zonal and three meridional hydrographic sections analyzed here exhibit abyssal warming often significantly different from zero at 95% confidence limits for this time period. Warming rates are generally larger to the south, and smaller to the north. This pattern is consistent with changes being attenuated with distance from the source of bottom water for the Pacific Ocean, which enters the main deep basins of this ocean southeast of New Zealand. Rough estimates of the change in ocean heat content suggest that the abyssal warming may amount to a significant fraction of upper World Ocean heat gain over the past few decades. Johnson GC (2008) Warming and Freshening in the Abyssal Southeastern Indian Ocean J. Climate 21, 5351-5363. Abstract: Warming and freshening of abyssal waters in the eastern Indian Ocean between 1994/95 and 2007 are quantified using data from two closely sampled high-quality occupations of a hydrographic section extending from Antarctica northward to the equator. These changes are limited to abyssal waters in the Princess Elizabeth Trough and the Australian-Antarctic Basin, with little abyssal change evident north of the Southeast Indian Ridge. As in previous studies, significant cooling and freshening is observed in the bottom potential temperature-salinity relations in these two southern basins. In addition, analysis on pressure surfaces shows abyssal warming of about 0.05 degrees C and freshening of about 0.01 Practical Salinity Scale 1978 (PSS-78) in the Princess Elizabeth Trough, and warming of 0.1 degrees C with freshening of about 0.005 in the abyssal Australian-Antarctic Basin. These 12-yr differences are statistically significant from zero at 95% confidence intervals over the bottom few to several hundred decibars of the water column in both deep basins. Both warming and freshening reduce the density of seawater, contributing to the vertical expansion of the water column. The changes below 3000 dbar in these basins suggest local contributions approaching 1 and 4 cm of sea level rise, respectively. Transient tracer data from the 2007 occupation qualitatively suggest that the abyssal waters in the two southern basins exhibiting changes have significant components that have been exposed to the ocean surface within the last few decades, whereas north of the Southeast Indian Ridge, where changes are not found, the component of abyssal waters that have undergone such ventilation is much reduced. Ozaki H et al. (2009) Long-term bottom water warming in the north Ross Sea J. Oceanograph. 65, 235-244. Abstract: We measured potential temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen profiles from the surface to the bottom at two locations in the north Ross Sea (65.2A degrees S, 174.2A degrees E and 67.2A degrees S, 172.7A degrees W) in December 2004. Comparison of our data with previous results from the same region reveals an increase in potential temperature and decreases in salinity and dissolved oxygen concentration in the bottom layer (deeper than 3000 m) over the past four decades. The changes were significantly different from the analytical precisions. Detailed investigation of the temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen and sigma (3) value distributions and the bottom water flow in the north Ross Sea suggests a long-term change in water mass mixing balance. That is to say, it is speculated that the influence of cool, saline, high-oxygen bottom water (high-salinity Ross Sea Bottom Water) formed in the southwestern Ross Sea has possibly been decreased, while the influences of relatively warmer and fresher bottom water (low-salinity Ross Sea Bottom Water) and the Ad,lie Land Bottom Water coming from the Australia-Antarctic Basin have increased. The possible impact of global warming on ocean circulation needs much more investigation. Johnson GC et al. (2009) Deep Caribbean Sea warming Deep Sea Research. 1 –Oceanograph. Res. 56, 827-834. Abstract: Data collected from hydrographic stations occupied within the Venezuelan and Columbian basins of the Caribbean Sea from 1922 through 2003 are analyzed to study the decadal variability of deep temperature in the region. The analysis focuses on waters below the 1815-m sill depth of the Anegada-Jungfern Passage. Relatively dense waters (compared to those in the deep Caribbean) from the North Atlantic spill over this sill to ventilate the deep Caribbean Sea. Deep warming at a rate of over 0.01 degrees C decade(-1) below this sill depth appears to have commenced in the 1970s after a period of relatively constant deep Caribbean Sea temperatures extending at least as far back as the 1920s. Conductivity-temperature-depth station data from World Ocean Circulation Experiment Section A22 along 66 degrees W taken in 1997 and again in 2003 provide an especially precise, albeit geographically limited, estimate of this warming over that 6-year period. They also suggest a small (0.001 PSS-78, about the size of expected measurement biases) deep freshening. The warming is about 10 times larger than the size of geothermal heating in the region, and is of the same magnitude as the average global upper-ocean heat uptake over a recent 50-year period. Together with the freshening, the warming contributes about 0.012 m decade(-1) of sea level rise in portions of the Caribbean Sea with bottom depths around 5000 m. Johnson GC (2008) Reduced Antarctic meridional overturning circulation reaches the North Atlantic Ocean Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L22601 Abstract: Potential temperature differences are computed from hydrographic sections transiting the western basins of the South Atlantic Ocean from 60 degrees S to the equator in 2005/ 2003 and 1989/1995. While warming is observed throughout much of the water column, the most statistically significant warming is about + 0.04 degrees C in the bottom 1500 dbar of the Brazil Basin, with similar ( but less statistically significant) warming signals in the abyssal Argentine Basin and Scotia Sea. These abyssal waters of Antarctic origin spread northward in the South Atlantic. The observed abyssal Argentine Basin warming is of a similar magnitude to that previously reported between 1980 and 1989. The Brazil Basin abyssal warming is similar in size to and consistent in timing with previously reported changes in abyssal southern inflow and northern outflow. The temperature changes reported here, if they were to hold throughout the abyssal world ocean, would contribute substantially to global ocean heat budgets.
129427. chris at 21:50 PM on 22 May 2009
        Does ocean cooling disprove global warming?
        Re #31 The Levitus 2009 upper ocean heat content updated by year is very clearly indicated in their Figure 1. This is the Figure with the legend: "Figure 1. Time series of yearly ocean heat content (10^22J) for the 0–700 m layer from this study (solid and from Levitus et al. [2005a] (dashed). Each yearly estimate is plotted at the midpoint of the year. Reference period is 1957–1990." The value for 2002 is near 8.7 x 10^22 J The value for 2008 is near 14.5 x 10^22 J In other words the added upper ocean heat content in the period end-2002 to end-2008 is 5.8 x 10^22 J It's not a fiction Ron. It's as clear as can be in their data. Of course it might not be completely correct. It's obvious that there is significant uncertainty in the measurement of the upper ocean heat content. In general when there is considerable uncertainty in measurements of parameters in the real world, we refrain from making fundamental interpretations and wait until the issues are better resolved. We're usually much safer in making interpretations based on longer term trends.
129428. Ron Cram at 19:01 PM on 22 May 2009
        Does ocean cooling disprove global warming?
        John Cross, My memory seems to have failed me. If you had asked me which floats could reach 3500m, I would have said the Solo floats, but I would have been wrong. The Solo floats typically drift lower at about 1500m but stop at 2000m just like the Apex floats. I am almost positive some sampling is happening down to 3500m but it must not be from Argo. Regarding warming below 700m, again I am relying on my memory. I believe it was Josh Willis who said there was no significant warming below 700m. I could be wrong. I have not read the Johnson paper. Can you provide a link?
        Response: The paper John Cross is refering to is Recent Bottom Water Warming in the Pacific Ocean (Johnson 2007). It's quite an interesting paper, thanks for bringing it up John. It finds warming below 3000m and discusses mechanisms to transport heat that deep. Interesting stuff.
129429. Patrick 027 at 09:54 AM on 22 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "Ultimately, ALL "greenhouse effect" literature and ALL calculations wind up VIOLATING the Law of Conservation of Energy." You haven't been looking at high quality literature. See what I've written here and at RealClimate (and what some others have written there)(start at this comment and continue: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/olympian-efforts-to-control-pollution/langswitch_lang/fa#comment-115180 ), etc. See Kiehl and Trenberth. See the IPCC. Or see this online textbook: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html (from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/our-books/ )
129430. Patrick 027 at 09:20 AM on 22 May 2009
        It's the sun
        The website quotation provided by Gord: "Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth's atmospheric system." which is more than what left the atmosphere in the same time period if the greenhouse effect was just 'turned on', or if a brighter sun has raised the temperature of the surface. If the description is meant to a apply to a steady state climate, describing what happens to a package of energy, then all temperatures remain constant as each transfer of energy is balanced by transfers of other packages of energy, so it is confusing to say that 'additional heat' has been added anywhere. "The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions." That is inconsistent with the steady state version, but is okay if it describes a change in which the atmospheric temperature has increased. "Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth's surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface." The proportionality given is incorrect, but it is over 50%. The proportionality could vary if the system is reacting to a change. The phrase 'once again' suggests that this is meant to describe the process of a single package of energy as its flow splits, with a portion escaping to space in each cycle between the Earth and atmosphere. (PS if this is meant to follow a single package of energy, then this is also a highly simplified picture that glosses over radiative energy exchanges from air to air, although in the end some portion reaches space and some portion is emitted to Earth, and in infinite time, none would be left in the atmosphere of the original package of energy. Some of these details are more easily glossed over (they can be described as a 'subroutine' in the 'program' that for introductory purposes the student programmer can take for granted) if one is not trying to follow a package of energy but simply trying to look at flows of energy.) "The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption." 'once again', 'repeatedly', and 'again and again, until no more...' make it seem as if this is meant to describe what happens to a single package of energy, in which case, that package of energy is not the cause of its emission from anything; it is emitted because of the temperature, which is either maintained or changed by the totality of fluxes.
129431. John Cross at 09:04 AM on 22 May 2009
        Does ocean cooling disprove global warming?
        Ron Cram: Gotta keep your Johns straight. Yes, as I said I am somewhat familiar with the Argo system. However I am not familiar with the 3500 deep ones you mention. The typical Argos instrument is not designed for anything deeper than about 2,500 m. You also say that there is no evidence for warming below 700 meters. So I assume that someone has found problems with Johnson's paper. Do you have a reference for it? I don't remember reading it, but I easily could have missed it. Thanks, John
129432. Patrick 027 at 06:45 AM on 22 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "adjective 'availability' " Sorry - adjective: available noun: availability
129433. Patrick 027 at 06:43 AM on 22 May 2009
        It's the sun
        thingadonta - (is this a double post?) "Moreover, when people first started noticing that the weather was warming in the 20th century, do you think that the first thing that occurred to them was that it was the sun, or something easier to measure/monitor-eg earth climate? The sun was originally just, if not more, as likely a candidate, however green lobbyists jumped on the oppourtunity to promote their cause by blaming it on humans (the same way old religious leaders did)." And we shouldn't blame some fraction of lung cancer cases on smoking because that's just the instinct of the anti-tobacco lobbyists? Two words: Svante Arhenius (may have mispelled last name). But there were others involved; the point being that scientists were able to anticipate that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause a temperature change, before any robust trend was observed. And people did think of the sun as well, at least in climatology in general. People tried to find correlations between sunspots and economic conditions. But also, scientists have looked into the effects of the Milankovitch cycles (not changes in the sun itself, but in the way the Earth recieves solar energy). "But as data/effects of the sun, which is more difficult to measure, grows, the shift will gradually go back to the sun." How do you know that without the data? What about the CO2 data (including laboratory studies of optical properties, etc.)? "A few other, more scientific points (as this middle age argument is getting old)." Thank you. "You only need to reduce cloud cover by ~1% to explain the rise in temperature since 1980," You also only need to have the changes in the known forcings that have actually occured, plus an oceanic heating rate comparable to what has been observed, plus a climate sensitivity close to what it is expected to be based on models and paleoclimatic studies. "It is important to note that cloud cover has not been measured over a long enough time to correlate with temperature changes." But what we do know is that CO2 has continued to increase, this decreases the escape of heat to space from the surface and troposphere, etc... "If the theory that cosmic rays form more clouds is correct, this would explain the rise in temperature since 1980," Sounds like you don't know if it is true or not. "and it would also be expected that land temperatures would rise faster than the oceans, which is observed," That's a general expectation applicable to any global warming. " whereas with a warming atmosphere due to C02-the atmosphere itself has not warmed in patterns consistent with C02 effects, but it has (?) in regard to reduced cloud cover." If you don't know how cloud cover has changed, you can't conclude that the pattern is consistent with cloud cover changes. But I'm not sure how much is actually known about cloud changes offhand. But the observed changes are consistent with the known forcings - CO2, etc, in their known proportions. The greenhouse forcing in particular tends to cool the stratosphere, which has been observed. Of course, ozone depletion in the stratosphere will tend to do the same thing, though not with the same spatial pattern, I think - and anyway, the total changes can be compared to the combined expected changes from all factors. "C02 has been much higher (well over 2000ppm) for long periods in past geological history," Yes, and it has been warmer too. But to be accurate, you must also keep in mind that the sun has been getting gradually brighter over 100s of millions of years, so a constant temperature over time would require decreasing CO2, or some combination of other changes. " right in the middle of widespread ice ages, including a snowball earth in the Pre Cambrian." Yes/No. Once the Earth is in a snowball state, CO2 has to reach very high levels in order to start the thaw, because the albedo is so high. As for the Ordivician ice age(s?), recent studies suggest that the formation of the Appalacian mountains would have drawn down atmospheric CO2 levels at that time. "The geological record indicates that C02 effect on earth temperatures is very minor, and pales in comparison to changes in solar activity. The 20-21st century is likely to be no different. Climatologists however, don't bother to consult the longer geological record." Wrong, wrong, and WRONG! "As far as I know, not one (?) paleontogist contributed to the IPCC reports (but I could be wrong). To take one example, every palaeontologist knows that sea level rises create diversity and thriving corals, whereas sea level falls create extinction. The climate modellers and the IPCC, who don't bother to consult the long geological record, say the opposite."..."Every palaeontologist knows that warm periods and high C02 tend to correspond to biological diversity and not extinction (eg the Carboniferous period), the IPCC climate modellers, who don't bother to consult the geological record, say the opposite."..."There is barely any reference to the longer geological record in the IPCC report. Rather than look at computer projections, wouldnt it be wiser to actually look at what has actually happened under such scenarios???" They do consult the long geologic record. See in particular chapter 6 of IPCC's AR4 WGI. But I could also suggest looking at the textbooks on paleoclimate, such as "Earth's Climate - Past and Future" by William F. Ruddiman, or a chapter in "Global Physical Climatology" by Dennis L. Hartmann, or look at mentions of climate in a geology-focussed book, such as "Evolution of the Earth" by Dott and Prothero. Any sufficiently rapid sustained change into relatively unfamiliar conditions (as judged by how long ago they last occured) can stress ecosystems to the point of mass extinction. Coral and/or other sea life can die off or be harmed from temperatures that are too high and also from acidification. "No acidicification of oceans occurs with high C02 in geological history, corals and marine life thrive. The IPCC says the oppposite." The pH change caused by a slow rise in CO2 can be buffered by the dissolution of carbonate minerals (including older coral reefs?) and over long periods, the weathering of silicate minerals to wash Ca and Mg (and Na and K) ions into the sea. These processes take time; a sudden injection of CO2 into the water causes a pH reduction because the concentrations of other ions cannot generally turn on a dime. "The geological record shows that warm periods correspond with lower global desertification, the IPCC, which doesn't bother to consult the geological record, projects the opposite." Warming is expected to cause drying on the subtropical edges of the midlatitude storm tracks in general (regional variations may/will occur), but increased precipitation at high latitudes in general, and increased precipitation globally. The spatial variance in the temperature response, along with an increase in water vapor and the resulting changes in convection, will drive changes in atmospheric circulation patterns; regional and seasonal climate patterns will shift or reorganize. It is conceivable that some modes of internal variability may be altered in shape, amplitude, frequency, or existence. There will still be Hadley cells, monsoons, midlatitude storm tracks and jet streams, but they will shift and be altered. Regions and seasons of precipitation will shift. A greater fraction of precipiation will come in high intensity events. Both floods and droughts may/will increase - it depends on where and when. Midlatitude continent winters may get wetter but the summers may get dryer. The problem is that a rapid change can exceed the ability for species to migrate and/or adapt or stress ecosystems when different species do so in different ways or degrees (as in if pollinating birds or insects start missing the timing of flowers). Trees and soil in particular are not known to travel rapidly, and species with long life cycles cannot evolve rapidly. And then there are farmland, buildings, cities, etc. Of course, we can invest in updates to our buildings, are irrigation and aquaducts, etc... but that costs money. I have an idea for who should pay... "Antarctica has been completely free of ice in much the same position it is in now, and the world didn't end. Seal levels rose, animals moved inland, and coral reefs thrived. No mass extinctions occurred. The IPCC completely ignores this data." See above. Seal levels ? :) "My feeling is that the sun will eventually be seen to cause most/all global warming," Why should we pay more attention to your feelings than the scientific knowledge thus far gained? "but not without some bureaucrats trying to force the old religion of 'heavens wrath on sinful humans' on us." Like we shouldn't care about spending more money than we have, or eating too much, because warnings of debt and obesity are just an old religion of a vengeful math and physics?
129434. Patrick 027 at 06:42 AM on 22 May 2009
        It's the sun
        thingadonta - "Moreover, when people first started noticing that the weather was warming in the 20th century, do you think that the first thing that occurred to them was that it was the sun, or something easier to measure/monitor-eg earth climate? The sun was originally just, if not more, as likely a candidate, however green lobbyists jumped on the oppourtunity to promote their cause by blaming it on humans (the same way old religious leaders did)." And we shouldn't blame some fraction of lung cancer cases on smoking because that's just the instinct of the anti-tobacco lobbyists? Two words: Svante Arhenius (may have mispelled last name). But there were others involved; the point being that scientists were able to anticipate that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause a temperature change, before any robust trend was observed. And people did think of the sun as well, at least in climatology in general. People tried to find correlations between sunspots and economic conditions. But also, scientists have looked into the effects of the Milankovitch cycles (not changes in the sun itself, but in the way the Earth recieves solar energy). "But as data/effects of the sun, which is more difficult to measure, grows, the shift will gradually go back to the sun." How do you know that without the data? What about the CO2 data (including laboratory studies of optical properties, etc.)? "A few other, more scientific points (as this middle age argument is getting old)." Thank you. "You only need to reduce cloud cover by ~1% to explain the rise in temperature since 1980," You also only need to have the changes in the known forcings that have actually occured, plus an oceanic heating rate comparable to what has been observed, plus a climate sensitivity close to what it is expected to be based on models and paleoclimatic studies. "It is important to note that cloud cover has not been measured over a long enough time to correlate with temperature changes." But what we do know is that CO2 has continued to increase, this decreases the escape of heat to space from the surface and troposphere, etc... "If the theory that cosmic rays form more clouds is correct, this would explain the rise in temperature since 1980," Sounds like you don't know if it is true or not. "and it would also be expected that land temperatures would rise faster than the oceans, which is observed," That's a general expectation applicable to any global warming. " whereas with a warming atmosphere due to C02-the atmosphere itself has not warmed in patterns consistent with C02 effects, but it has (?) in regard to reduced cloud cover." If you don't know how cloud cover has changed, you can't conclude that the pattern is consistent with cloud cover changes. But I'm not sure how much is actually known about cloud changes offhand. But the observed changes are consistent with the known forcings - CO2, etc, in their known proportions. The greenhouse forcing in particular tends to cool the stratosphere, which has been observed. Of course, ozone depletion in the stratosphere will tend to do the same thing, though not with the same spatial pattern, I think - and anyway, the total changes can be compared to the combined expected changes from all factors. "C02 has been much higher (well over 2000ppm) for long periods in past geological history," Yes, and it has been warmer too. But to be accurate, you must also keep in mind that the sun has been getting gradually brighter over 100s of millions of years, so a constant temperature over time would require decreasing CO2, or some combination of other changes. " right in the middle of widespread ice ages, including a snowball earth in the Pre Cambrian." Yes/No. Once the Earth is in a snowball state, CO2 has to reach very high levels in order to start the thaw, because the albedo is so high. As for the Ordivician ice age(s?), recent studies suggest that the formation of the Appalacian mountains would have drawn down atmospheric CO2 levels at that time. "The geological record indicates that C02 effect on earth temperatures is very minor, and pales in comparison to changes in solar activity. The 20-21st century is likely to be no different. Climatologists however, don't bother to consult the longer geological record." Wrong, wrong, and WRONG! "As far as I know, not one (?) paleontogist contributed to the IPCC reports (but I could be wrong). To take one example, every palaeontologist knows that sea level rises create diversity and thriving corals, whereas sea level falls create extinction. The climate modellers and the IPCC, who don't bother to consult the long geological record, say the opposite."..."Every palaeontologist knows that warm periods and high C02 tend to correspond to biological diversity and not extinction (eg the Carboniferous period), the IPCC climate modellers, who don't bother to consult the geological record, say the opposite."..."There is barely any reference to the longer geological record in the IPCC report. Rather than look at computer projections, wouldnt it be wiser to actually look at what has actually happened under such scenarios???" They do consult the long geologic record. See in particular chapter 6 of IPCC's AR4 WGI. But I could also suggest looking at the textbooks on paleoclimate, such as "Earth's Climate - Past and Future" by William F. Ruddiman, or a chapter in "Global Physical Climatology" by Dennis L. Hartmann, or look at mentions of climate in a geology-focussed book, such as "Evolution of the Earth" by Dott and Prothero. Any sufficiently rapid sustained change into relatively unfamiliar conditions (as judged by how long ago they last occured) can stress ecosystems to the point of mass extinction. Coral and/or other sea life can die off or be harmed from temperatures that are too high and also from acidification. "No acidicification of oceans occurs with high C02 in geological history, corals and marine life thrive. The IPCC says the oppposite." The pH change caused by a slow rise in CO2 can be buffered by the dissolution of carbonate minerals (including older coral reefs?) and over long periods, the weathering of silicate minerals to wash Ca and Mg (and Na and K) ions into the sea. These processes take time; a sudden injection of CO2 into the water causes a pH reduction because the concentrations of other ions cannot generally turn on a dime. "The geological record shows that warm periods correspond with lower global desertification, the IPCC, which doesn't bother to consult the geological record, projects the opposite." Warming is expected to cause drying on the subtropical edges of the midlatitude storm tracks in general (regional variations may/will occur), but increased precipitation at high latitudes in general, and increased precipitation globally. The spatial variance in the temperature response, along with an increase in water vapor and the resulting changes in convection, will drive changes in atmospheric circulation patterns; regional and seasonal climate patterns will shift or reorganize. It is conceivable that some modes of internal variability may be altered in shape, amplitude, frequency, or existence. There will still be Hadley cells, monsoons, midlatitude storm tracks and jet streams, but they will shift and be altered. Regions and seasons of precipitation will shift. A greater fraction of precipiation will come in high intensity events. Both floods and droughts may/will increase - it depends on where and when. Midlatitude continent winters may get wetter but the summers may get dryer. The problem is that a rapid change can exceed the ability for species to migrate and/or adapt or stress ecosystems when different species do so in different ways or degrees (as in if pollinating birds or insects start missing the timing of flowers). Trees and soil in particular are not known to travel rapidly, and species with long life cycles cannot evolve rapidly. And then there are farmland, buildings, cities, etc. Of course, we can invest in updates to our buildings, are irrigation and aquaducts, etc... but that costs money. I have an idea for who should pay... "Antarctica has been completely free of ice in much the same position it is in now, and the world didn't end. Seal levels rose, animals moved inland, and coral reefs thrived. No mass extinctions occurred. The IPCC completely ignores this data." See above. Seal levels ? :) "My feeling is that the sun will eventually be seen to cause most/all global warming," Why should we pay more attention to your feelings than the scientific knowledge thus far gained? "but not without some bureaucrats trying to force the old religion of 'heavens wrath on sinful humans' on us." Like we shouldn't care about spending more money than we have, or eating too much, because warnings of debt and obesity are just an old religion of a vengeful math and physics?
129435. Patrick 027 at 04:42 AM on 22 May 2009
        It's the sun
        ""...free energy is destroyed while entropy is increased, but energy is not destroyed - entropy just 'imprisons' the formerly free energy." "I was laughing so hard, it brought tears to my eyes." Good, because it was a clever analogy. And also dead-on accurate. (Or maybe I should have said the free energy is lost in that the freedom is destroyed, rather than saying that the free energy is destroyed.) (Maybe free energy is referred to as 'available energy' or 'available work' or with the adjective 'availability' in the context of mechanical engineering; in chemistry the term 'Gibbs free energy' is used.)
129436. Ron Cram at 03:33 AM on 22 May 2009
        Does ocean cooling disprove global warming?
        Chris, Re: #22 You keep repeating the fiction "According to Levitus the oceans have absorbed ~ 5.8 x 10^22 J of heat in the period end-2002 to end-2008 (I only bring this up since Pielke made a big issue of the ocean heat content increase expected in that period - 5.88 x 10^22 J!)." This is not correct. The Levitus paper never uses these numbers. Figure 1 that you pointed to shows flat from 2004 to 2008. Contrary to others, Levitus does show a gain in 2003 but not nearly the level you are claiming. As Dewitt Payne pointed out in comment #20, the Cazenave paper shows heat uptake by the oceans was minimal from 2003-2008. In the abstract, Cazenave writes: "Inferred steric sea level rate from (1) (~ 0.3 mm/yr over 2003-2008) agrees well with the Argo-based value also estimated here (0.37 mm/yr over 2004-2008)." This is not significant warming but it is significantly less than the warming projected by Hansen. OHC estimates showing consecutive flat years in earlier (pre-Argo) periods are much more likely to be the result of instrument error or inadequate sampling than during the Argo years.
129437. Ron Cram at 03:11 AM on 22 May 2009
        Does ocean cooling disprove global warming?
        Sorry. My last post was supposed to be directed to John Cross.
        Response: Don't worry, you're not the first to make this mistake and you won't be the last.
129438. Ron Cram at 23:57 PM on 21 May 2009
        Does ocean cooling disprove global warming?
        John Cook, You are correct that Argo floats typically sample to 2000m. The floats drift at 1000m depth and sample from 1500-2000m depth. I believe some floats go as low as 3500m. Most papers analyzing OHC using Argo data only look at the top 700m. Again, there is no evidence heat is being forced to lower depths.
129439. Ron Cram at 23:51 PM on 21 May 2009
        Does ocean cooling disprove global warming?
        Re: Top post and your response to my #17. John Cook, During the period where you say a flattening has occurred, Argo floats were not the main observation network. OHC estimates were based mainly on SST measurements and these have a number of problems, including inadequate sampling. During this period of time when we have the best data, the data does not fit the theory.
129440. thingadonta at 19:01 PM on 21 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick027 and others: In the middle ages, every other weather/climate incident was blamed on God's wrath/favour on what we humans were doing/not doing. Other cultures blamed the sun; these cultures were actually closer to the truth, because they got this tradition through centuries of correlation, rather than bureaucratic expediency. (However, in both cultutes humans were sacrificed/murdered, by the prevailing bureacrats). My point is, the blame for climate/weather change today now goes to a new God- "climate change due to human C02", which is in the same old tradition- that it is something to do with humans being bad and the wrath of the heavens, rather than something which has got nothing to do with us (eg the sun). It is bureacratic expediency to say this, associated with deep seated needs to control others. And the same sort of bureaucrats are now trying to control society using a variation on this same old theme, 'the heavens are angry because we humans have sinned', just the way they did in the past. Moreover, when people first started noticing that the weather was warming in the 20th century, do you think that the first thing that occurred to them was that it was the sun, or something easier to measure/monitor-eg earth climate? The sun was originally just, if not more, as likely a candidate, however green lobbyists jumped on the oppourtunity to promote their cause by blaming it on humans (the same way old religious leaders did). But as data/effects of the sun, which is more difficult to measure, grows, the shift will gradually go back to the sun. A few other, more scientific points (as this middle age argument is getting old). You only need to reduce cloud cover by ~1% to explain the rise in temperature since 1980, when the sun activity-temperature correlation decouples. It is important to note that cloud cover has not been measured over a long enough time to correlate with temperature changes. If the theory that cosmic rays form more clouds is correct, this would explain the rise in temperature since 1980, when the sun-temperature correlation breaks down, as solar activity has remained flat and strong (but has not increased), thereby diffusing incoming cosmic rays, reducing cloud cover and warming the earth. This effect is not immediate, but occurs over time (ie decades), and it would also be expected that land temperatures would rise faster than the oceans, which is observed, whereas with a warming atmosphere due to C02-the atmosphere itself has not warmed in patterns consistent with C02 effects, but it has (?) in regard to reduced cloud cover. You can see the effect of cloud cover on temperature on any normal sunny/cloudy day. 1998 was aparrently, a year of very low cloud cover. Moreover UV has remained strong since 1980. Other points: C02 has been much higher (well over 2000ppm) for long periods in past geological history, right in the middle of widespread ice ages, including a snowball earth in the Pre Cambrian. The geological record indicates that C02 effect on earth temperatures is very minor, and pales in comparison to changes in solar activity. The 20-21st century is likely to be no different. Climatologists however, don't bother to consult the longer geological record. As far as I know, not one (?) paleontogist contributed to the IPCC reports (but I could be wrong). To take one example, every palaeontologist knows that sea level rises create diversity and thriving corals, whereas sea level falls create extinction. The climate modellers and the IPCC, who don't bother to consult the long geological record, say the opposite. Every palaeontologist knows that warm periods and high C02 tend to correspond to biological diversity and not extinction (eg the Carboniferous period), the IPCC climate modellers, who don't bother to consult the geological record, say the opposite. There is barely any reference to the longer geological record in the IPCC report. Rather than look at computer projections, wouldnt it be wiser to actually look at what has actually happened under such scenarios??? No acidicification of oceans occurs with high C02 in geological history, corals and marine life thrive. The IPCC says the oppposite. The geological record shows that warm periods correspond with lower global desertification, the IPCC, which doesn't bother to consult the geological record, projects the opposite. Antarctica has been completely free of ice in much the same position it is in now, and the world didn't end. Seal levels rose, animals moved inland, and coral reefs thrived. No mass extinctions occurred. The IPCC completely ignores this data. I could go on, but i guess i am boring people. My feeling is that the sun will eventually be seen to cause most/all global warming, but not without some bureaucrats trying to force the old religion of 'heavens wrath on sinful humans' on us.
129441. Gord at 17:57 PM on 21 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Speaking about "comical", here is what one AGW'er recently posted: "...free energy is destroyed while entropy is increased, but energy is not destroyed - entropy just 'imprisons' the formerly free energy." I was laughing so hard, it brought tears to my eyes.
129442. Gord at 16:50 PM on 21 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Greenhouse Effect Summary Ultimately, ALL "greenhouse effect" literature and ALL calculations wind up VIOLATING the Law of Conservation of Energy. They ALL CONCLUDE that the Earth Radiates MORE ENERGY than the Earth receives from the SUN....THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE THAT THE AGW'ERS USE. A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY and VERY COMICAL.
129443. Patrick 027 at 14:36 PM on 21 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "Both descriptions produce "free energy" (created energy) " I hope you realize that whereever I used the term 'free energy', I was refering to the energy available to do work - in a heat flow from hot to cold, some of the energy in the hot object is free energy - it could be converted to work by a heat engine; if it is just allowed to flow to the cold object as heat, then free energy is destroyed while entropy is increased, but energy is not destroyed - entropy just 'imprisons' the formerly free energy.
129444. Patrick 027 at 14:06 PM on 21 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Dan - there is much more certainty about what CO2 does than about what the non-TSI solar effects do. It doesn't generally make sense to assume that an unknown is the explanation for something when there is already a known explanation. (I'm not saying non-TSI solar effects have zero importance; I am saying there is reason to think they are not so large based on the known forcings and the response observed.) thingadonta - "With regards to your comment, I would say it is a leap of faith to argue that human affairs and a trace gas is driving global warming to catastrophic global climate change, when human and geological history shows otherwise." See previous portion of this comment. And: 1. modern climatology theories are not rooted in middle age European social and religeous traditions; in fact, the idea of significant human effect on the climate was for a time considered unlikely partly just because 'the Earth is so big and we are so small' (and they initially misunderstood radiative energy transfer, and thought the oceans would just absorb any extra CO2 we put out - partially correct, but 100% wrong in that the remaining change in atmospheric CO2 level is sizable). But that was a belief that people liked because it gave order to their world. And recently, continuing belief in such things and some other disagreements with scientific findings have provided comfort to the fossil fuel industry, giving it a sense of order, the order that they can keep doing what they've been doing. 2. Just because a person believes something - even if it makes their world make sense to them - does not make it wrong. Sure, my own understanding of global warming helps make the world make sense to me, but so does my 'belief' that water is made of molecules that each have two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxgen, bound chemically via electromagnetism, shaped by the quantum mechanical properties of electrons. And so it is for my 'belief' that the moon landings were not faked, my 'belief' that humans descended from other primates, which descended from other mammals, etc, my 'belief' that a rainbow is the result of the way sunlight is refracted and reflected by rain drops, my 'belief' that the Earth is approximately an oblate spheroid that, along with the moon orbiting it, orbits the sun (or some center of gravity between the sun and the Earth-moon system, with perturbations from the other planets), my 'beliefs' that the Earth is a bit over 4.5 billion years old, that North America and Europe used to be adjacent, that there is convection in the mantle, that diamond is the hardest mineral, that stone-age people painted on some cave walls, that dolphins are mammals, that genetics and environment combine to shape an organism's phenotype, that the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII, ... Should I assume that all of these must be wrong just because the world would then make less sense to me?
129445. Patrick 027 at 13:34 PM on 21 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Gord - I went to http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html I skimmed part of it. 1. "Increasing the Earth's temperature would cause the oceans to evaporate greater amounts of water, causing the atmosphere to become cloudier. " That's not necessarily true; more water vapor does not automatically lead to more clouds if the temperature increases. Furthermore, clouds also contribute to the greenhouse effect. Whether adding or removing some cloud causes warming or cooling depends on various factors, including height, latitude, and time of year and time of day. But I'm not going to scour this website for other errors; back to your point: "The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, " Yes, that is inaccurate. I agree. And sorry for not noticing the slip up earlier. (I had somewhere previously identified the other error which was that 90% of the atmospheric radiation to the surface and space is to the surface, which is incorrect as far as I know - it is more than half but not quite so close to 1.) But let's go over what is actually inaccurate about it. It's a clumsy explanation. It is also incomplete because it leaves out the role of convection, and thus may give people the impression that convection is not taken into account; it is - see my previous comments (as in the answer to: why is tropopause level forcing so important?). (You will find that explanations of the greenhouse effect meant for lay audiences are often quite clumsy. Maybe I don't always see how confusing it might sound because, knowing the mechanism as well as I do, I can see what they're trying to say. Climate scientists have a much better understanding than what one would get from websites such as the one you quoted above.) The description they use seems to be for a cold starting point, or at a time when the greenhouse effect is 'turned on'. The sun has heated the Earth and the Earth's surface temperature has risen to reach an equilibrium where it radiates to space at the same rate it is heated by the sun. Now add the greenhouse effect (or add to it). Less heat escapes to space because the colder atmosphere is blocking it. With continued heating by the sun and less heat escaping to space, heat energy is being stored somewhere, and except for phase changes, the temperature will rise. It rises until some part of the atmosphere and surface have increased in temperature enough to increase the radiation to space enough to reach equilibrium with the solar heating. But it is true that if portions of the atmosphere increase in temperature, then the downward radiation to the surface also increases. The surface temperature has to rise enough so that it's emitted radiation plus convective cooling ... ("convection" in this context is meant to include the initial conduction and evaporation and diffusion step that transfers heat from the surface material to the very thin layer of air next to it) ... to the atmosphere and space balances the downward radiation from the atmosphere absorbed by the surface; this includes the initial flux, the increase due to the greenhouse forcing change, and the increase from the temperature increase of the atmosphere. There is no reason to expect that this cannot reach an equilibrium value. Furthermore there is no creation of energy; before (other) feedbacks are considered, the solar heating rate is constant, so the increase in temperature whereever it occurs is the result of imbalances in fluxes where heat is being stored; the increase in emission due to an increase temperature restores balance once heat has been stored to raise the temperature sufficiently. It is like narrowing the width of a river channel; the water levels change until the difference in water levels is sufficient to drive a faster flow through the narrow portion, which then balances the flow so that the water levels stops changing. My description can be described in analogy with a mathematical equation that must be solved for temperature: dS(z)/dz - d[R(T(z'),O(z'),z)]/dz = G(z) + F(z) where R(z) is the net upward LW radiant flux + vertical convective heat flux (in this context, includes evaporation and diffusion of water from the surface into the air, and conduction between the surface and the air) at height z. S(z) is the net downward solar radiant flux at height z thus dR/dz = net LW cooling dS/dz = solar heating G(z) is the heat storage rate, and the time average G(z) = 0 at equilibrium F(z) is the horizontal export of heat, and in the global average, is zero for each value z. T(z) is the temperature at z O(z) is the optical properties of the atmosphere at z ---- Deriving a solution is iteratively follows the natural process of temperature response to heat flux convergence: That is, take (for simplicity of illustration, set F(z) = 0) dS(z)/dz - d[R(T(z'),O(z'),z)]/dz = G(z) And instead of solving the equation for T(z'), just use initial T(z'), and calculate G(z). dT(z')/dt = G(z')/C(z'), where C(z) is the heat capacity per unit area per unit z. For each time step dt, add dT(z') to the previous T(z'), and repeat. ---- What may be confusing about the explanation you were looking at is that, instead of finding T by iteration given the totality of S, R, etc, they instead focus on one package of energy, and look at what happens to it in the process of entering, moving through, and leaving the system, using an iterative description (as I did in comment 274 above: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=11&t=418&&a=18#2884 ). While the iteration is described as steps in a sequence, it must be kept in mind that the steps being described are not happening one at a time; each starts the moment the other is in process (as soon as some of the energy in a package reaches a point, some can start to leave that point). Each step taken in isolation could appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics (especially if a set of proportionalities are assigned to all the points where the energy flow splits where each proportionality is constant from one full cycle to the next), but that is not a problem because the steps can never actually happen in isolation, and a constant proportionality set applies if this is occuring in the context of an equilibrium state where other packages of energy are continually being added so all steps are occuring at a constant rate. And as each step is occuring for one package of energy, a new package of energy is delivered (from the sun), so - if in equilibrium - all the steps are occuring constantly at a fixed rate. For a given package of energy, after each cycle, some fraction has escaped to space. Thus the amount that remains in the climate system decayse exponentially - it never reaches zero but it approaches that value. When packages of energy are delivered continuously (from the sun), then the total energy in the system approaches a constant value (in this simplified description that sets aside daily and annual cycles and internal variability), where the sum of the decay of all remaining portions of all previous energy packages is balanced by the rate of delivery of new packages. This works mathematically: it is possible to reach a finite equilibrium even though none of the packages ever is perfectly 100% gone. Do the summation to prove it: package of energy delivery in time dt: S*dt decay of the remaining portion of any previously delivered package j, where Pj is the size of the remaining portion of package j: Pj * 1/tau * dt Notice that if all Pj are added to get the total energy in the system E, then the decay of E is: SUM(P1 * 1/tau * dt + P2 * 1/tau * dt + ...) = SUM(P1 + P2 + ...) * 1/tau * dt = E * 1/tau * dt Thus, the change in E over time dt is: dE = S * dt - E * 1/tau * dt In equilibrium: S*tau = E Rate of change of E dE/dt = S - E/tau What happens if S = 0? Then E decays exponentially at the same rate that the remaining portion of any individual package would decay: dE/dt = -E/tau E = A*exp(-t/tau)
129446. sentient at 12:19 PM on 21 May 2009
        Climate's changed before
        Burning books, and scientific publications, is necessarily banned due to the carbon emissions this would engender. We are therefore left with Dr. Michael Mann and his statistics to erase the following. And soon! We live today in the Holocene Epoch, or the last 11,500 years since we melted out way out of the Wisconsin ice age. Just like we melted our way out of the previous 7 ice ages dating back to the Mid Pleistocene Transition (where we went from the 100,000 year ice age/interglacial cycle [which matches the eccentricity cycle in our orbit] to the 41,000 year cycle [which matches the obliquity cycle in our orbit]). At 11,500 years old, this places the Holocene at precisely one half of a precessional cycle (23k years). All 6 interglacials dating back to the MPT have lasted roughly one half of a precessional cycles). This is also the interglacial in which all of human civilization has occurred, only cave paintings being found in the "written" record prior to 10k years ago. At the Holocene Climate Optimum, between 7000 and 6000 years ago, sea levels were a mere 6 meters higher than today. This was the time period when the Egyptian civilization erupted onto the scene. According to the National Research Council (NRC, 2002), half of the melting which brought us out of the Wisconsin ice age occurred in less than a decade. Sea level swings between the post MPT ice ages and interglacials result in typical sea level changes of only 400 feet. The previous interglacial, the Eemian or penultimate, also known for the first occurrence of fossils of the species Homo sapiens, ran for about 10,000-10,800 years, or almost half of a precessional cycle. It ended with a LEAP (Late Eemian Arid Pulse). Stable platform sites record at least 3 sea level highstands within the Eemian that were higher than present-day sea level. About 20 meters (~65 feet) is known from the Grand Caymans, 52 meters (~170 feet) is reported from a site in Siberia. Sea levels can and do occur at different relative elevations in different parts of the world at the same time. The Eemian ended in a series of pulses, the LEAP being one of them. It lasted 468 years, with dust storms, aridity, bushfires and a decline of thermophilous trees with the onset of glaciation. The LEAP occurred at a 65o north insolation of 416Wm-2, close to the 2005 value of 428 Wm-2, which may be relevant in terms of understanding present climate variability. The onset of the Leap occurred in less than two decades. It ended roughly 117-118k years ago with the Last Glacial Inception (LGI), the beginning of the Wisconsin ice age (NA nomenclature). During the Wisconsin, 24 Dansgaard-Oeshger events lie well recorded in the Greenland ice cores. These run from 1,000 to 4,000 years long, averaging 1,500 years. They have the same sawtooth shape as the major transitions characterized by on average 8C-10C warmings that occur from years to just a few decades (outliers ranging to 16C), floowed by a very rocky gradual descent to ice age conditions. All distinct pulses that are gradually being verified by sediment cores from ocean deep drilling projects. Evidence for D-O events extends in the sedimentary record as far back as 680 million years. Something, we do not well understand, causes these events. We are left to ponder what anthropogenic effects will, or are, to be overlain on this tapestry. The verdict cannot be said yet given such a AGW signal to the noise of natural, frequent, abrupt and seemingly reliable climate change. But it cannot be discounted quite that easily. Read, and save (in my case), thousands of treatments of this subject from literally all fields of paleoclimatology and what we seem to know for sure is that the shift between the two natural states of climate (cold and warm) seem to be responses far out of proportion to whatever forcing seems the most probable. Meaning that doubling CO2 from less than one tenth of a percent to still less than one-tenth of a percent in s few hundred years could very well release some sort of instability, given climate's real sensitivity. One should not discount the fact that as far as the paleoclimate record is concerned, GHGs may not have triggered these events, ice age cold or nearly instant interglacial. There is strong evidence that they may have amplified, perhaps even dramatically, whatever triggered the sudden increase in temperature. Some orbital models predict that of the next 4,000 years the climate will be in a state of sensitive variability, followed by 55,000 years of interglacial style 65oN insolation. No interglacial for the past 5 million years has lasted near so long. And in the past 3 million years hominid braincases went from an average of 500cc to 2,500cc, which, upon considerable research, you may prize out that frequently, researchers cite significant climate change events as a probable cause. During that 5 million years it is estimated from proxy data, that the earth was in its cold state 90% of the time. If, at the end of this half precessional cycle, the tendency may be towards resumption of our cold state, then GHGs, from paleoclimate studies anyway, may actually be needed, as it does seem that their lingering slows eventual descent into the glacial maximums. On the other hand, we know that for a given known input, climate response can be triggered rather suddenly into its other state. We are therefore left to ponder how best to manage. Given the disparity between 3rd world resource demand, and "American Plush", and the ever-consuming desire to achieve that lifestyle (witness the largest population group aspiring, China), we need to rethink the root of the problem. And that is growth. And not just population growth. Growth itself. Resources on Spaceship Earth are not unlimited. With better extraction, purification and manufacturing technologies, there is only so much naturally occurring and accessible such resources. We may have to not only retool, but our economic models of ever increasing profits may need to be modified. Especially at American Plush resource consumption, growth either entails more consumers of resources at the same rate, or ever greater levels of resources consumption by a static population of consumers. It would be sensible to conclude that neither is really sustainable in the long term. We must therefore work out what is feasible related to reliable, abrupt and seemingly unavoidable natural climate change, which we can reasonably guess to occur, while also paying attention to the fact of outsized forcings from what could be several sources, including GHGs. Pondering this, we must eventually face the connection between resources and population. In order to sustain our current level of civilization will require both resources and energy to sustain even a static population. Perhaps we should spend some time thinking about fusion. It has, afterall, powered the known universe since its beginning, and provided all 92 naturally occurring elements. It has the potential to provide some of the answer. Meanwhile, enjoy the interglacial!
129447. witsendnj at 09:33 AM on 21 May 2009
        Animals and plants can adapt
        I would like to invite readers to my blog witsendnj dot blogspot dot com and especially the early post, Effects of Climate Change, where I give an overview of my concerns. I see very prominent and deleterious effects on vegetation around my home in NJ and I would be very interested to learn of other observers who would be willing to compare notes. Why is this important? Because many of the prominent and influential policy makers live on the Eastern Seaboard and maybe if they become enlightened enough to recognize the collapse of the ecosystem around their own homes, they might finally realize how urgent it is to eliminate carbon emissions. Thank you!
129448. Gord at 07:52 AM on 21 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Some people just don't get it! The Greenhouse Effect "Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth's atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth's surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption." http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html ---- This link is a perfect example of a "positive feedback" loop: 1)The Earth has a starting temperature, TE. 2)The absorbtion of the longwave radiation radiation (provided by the Earth) heats the atmosphere to temperature TA. 3)The heated atmosphere transfers 90% of it's energy back to the Earth, where it is absorbed causing the Earth to heat up even more. The Earth is now warmer than it was in (1) and TE has INCREASED. 4)The now warmer Earth radiates even more energy to the atmosphere where it is absorbed and causes the atmosphere to heat up even more. The atmosphere is now warmer than it was in (2) and TA has increased. 5)The now further heated atmosphere transfers 90% of it's increased energy back to the Earth, where it is absorbed causing the Earth to heat up even more than it was in (3). 6)The now further heated Earth radiates even more energy to the atmosphere where it is absorbed and causes the atmosphere to heat up even more. The atmosphere is now warmer than it was in (4) and TA has increased. The cycle continues over and over again, with each cycle producing more heating of the Earth and the Atmosphere. The link states that "...repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption." which is wrong because it will never happen. Since each heating cycle produces more longwave radiative heat energy, the ultimate outcome is an infinite temperature increase of both the Earth and the Atmosphere. What starting temperature TE, is required to start these constantly increasing temperature cycles? Answer: TE must be greater than "absolute zero"....that is the ONLY requirement! It DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL ENERGY! ------------------ Global Warming Physics Explained Free Energy Oven "Interior has a mirror finish which reflects black body radiated heat back to the chicken, increasing its temperature. Warmer chicken will then re-radiate more infrared energy to the reflecting surfaces with additional heating occurring in a rapid cascade effect. Chicken must be above absolute zero when initially started. (Warning: observe temperature rise carefully and remove when internal temperature reaches 185 degrees). No power required. UN IPCC approved. Chicken not included." http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/ipcc_oven.html -------- The only difference between "The Greenhouse Effect" link process and the "Free Energy Oven" link process is the 90% back radiation vs the 100% reflectivity of the "oven". Both descriptions produce "free energy" (created energy) and both are "positive feedback" systems. Both are perpetual motion machines in a positive feed-back loop. Both are great comedy.
129449. chris at 07:08 AM on 21 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Re #414 O.K. Dan. Now we know what you’re looking at we can address your confusion. A very good data source for understanding what is happening in the Antarctic during these periods is the output of the new high resolution analysis of the European Project in Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) Dome C core. This data resolve temporal relationships between temperature and greenhouse gas forcings (CO2 and methane) in the Antarctic and Greenland, and their relationships with latitude-dependent orbital forcings resulting from slowly varying oscillations of the orbital (Milankovitch) cycles. This is published here (I expect you can find the archived data by Googling): Jouzel, J. et al (2007) Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years Science 317, 793-796. Let’s focus on the glacial period preceding the most recent transition to the current (Holocene) interglacial (around 115,000 to 18,000 BP). This encompasses the time periods that you are exercised over. Here’s what the data show: 1. Outwith the major glacial/interglacial transitions (the intensity of which seems to be a function of the interplay between the obliquity and precession elements of the Earth’s orbital variation – Milankovitch cycles), the Earth’s orbital properties drive periodic “sub-transitions” within the glacial periods associated with small temperature rise and falls over periods of many thousands of years. 2. These are most closely linked with the obliquity component of the Milankovitch cycles. So the last interglacial period pretty much “sits” on top of the rising (warming) part of the obliquity period, and temperatures at the end of the interglacial fall with the falling (cooling) part of the period. The period between around 110,000 and 70,000 BP which saw temperatures rise a bit (by 2-3 oC in the cores, corresponding to 1.5-2 oC gobally) and then fall, associates with the warming and cooling phase of the next obliquity cycle. The last but one obliquity cycle gave rise to the broad warming/cooling sub-transition 65,000-25,000 years ago. Again the global temperature variations were very small (1.5-2 oC globally). This is the period that contains the transitions you are considering. Let’s look more closely: 3. Note that these transitions are very slow and involve very small changes in radiative forcing (around 1 W/m^2 max to min, from the obliquity component itself, but applied over several millenia), and result in very small changes in atmospheric CO2 (20-30 ppm rises taking many hundreds of years) as a feedback. 4. We can calculate the radiative forcing resulting from the changes in very small changes in greenhouse gas levels (Jouzel et al cited above very conveniently do this for us! – see their Figure 3). These are of the order of 0.5 W/m^2. Even at equilibrium, these are expected to give only around 0.4 oC contribution to the small warming during the rising periods of these events, including all the feedbacks associated with an approx 3 oC of warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2 [note that the enhanced radiative forcing arising from raised CO2 during the full glacial to interglacial transition is around 2-2.5 W/m^2 – see Jouzel 2007 Figure 3]. 5. So that explains the general slow rise and fall in temperature over the period that you are considering. These are driven by the obliquity component of the Milankovitch cycles, are associated with very small changes in atmospheric CO2 (around 10 years worth at current rates of anthropogenic release but rising then aroubd 50-100 times more slowly!) with associated small contributions to radiative forcing. 6. Within these temperature sub transitions there are “sub-sub-transitions” with even smaller temperature variations. These are what you are considering. These seem to occur independently of Milankovitch cycles. Analysis of temporal relationships with events in Greenland cores indicates that these match temporally with the Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) events that are prominent in Greenland cores. 7. DO events are not completely characterized but most likely arise from ice sheet dynamics in the Arctic in which glacial expansion and discharge with massive periodic release of meltwater in the high latitudes temporarily shut off the Atlantic conveyer that draws heat from the mid latitudes to the high Northern regions. In time (centennial timescale most likely) the heat transfer resumes, and the high Arctic regions warm suddenly again. These events are “sensed” in the Antarctic cores but are significantly “damped” with respect to the rather abrupt changes observed in Greenland cores. The Antarctic warms a tad and cools a tad in phase (with a lag) relative to the DO events in Greenland. 8. So these phenomena are starting to be reasonably well understood. The main events, and sub-transitions are driven by Milankovitch cycles, with greenhouse gas feedbacks contributing amplification (warming in the warming phase of the cycles equivalent to around 3 oC of warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2 - perhaps more). The transitions within the sub-transitions are seemingly damped responses to DO events in Greenland that likely lead to very considerable and temporary changes in the ocean currents that carry heat from the low to high latitudes.
129450. Patrick 027 at 04:51 AM on 21 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Dan - It doesn't seem like Control theory has anything additional to add to climate science since climate scientists are fully aware of feedback loops and how they work. Of course there are different ways to measure a feedback; as long as the variables are defined, that is not a problem. ( Example: Say a radiative forcing R of 1 W/m2 results in an equilibrium change of 0.3 deg C temperature change T0 without feedbacks. R/T0 = 3.3 W/(m2 K) Now suppose water vapor adds a radiative feeback F1 = 0.5 W/m2 per 0.3 deg C, or F1 = 1/2 * R/T0; then let f1 = F1/(R/T0), so f1 = 1/2. Then the equilibrium change T for a given R is given implicitly by: (T*F1 + R)/T = R/T0 [F1/(R/T0)] * T * (R/T0) + R = T * (R/T0) f1 * T * (R/T0) + R = T * (R/T0) R/T = (R/T0) * [ 1 - f1 ] T/T0 = 1/(1 - f1) So for f1 = 1/2, T/T0 = 2. ) The feedback might also be described by f2 = T/T0. The two descriptions of feedbacks: f1, f2 (with rounding) 0.1, 1.11 0.2, 1.25 0.33, 1.5 0.5, 2 0.67, 3 0.75, 4 0.8, 5 0.9, 10 0.95, 20 0.99, 100 1, infinity or undefined. And you could also use f3 = f2-1.

Prev  2579  2580  2581  2582  2583  2584  2585  2586  2587  2588  2589  2590  2591  2592  2593  2594  Next