Negative Feedback, Explaining the Lack of Warming

[northsphinx]

Another negative feedback is the pure radiative model.
If we for a while leave AVERAGE temperature thinking for real temperatures is that showing us a real negative feedback.
Calculating with average temperature in the atmosphere give us an average net radiative value to space.
With the same average but with larger difference between minimum and maximum temperature will that increase radiation to space.
Because radiation is a function of T⁴

If of any reason temperature differences increase above average between polar and tropical latitudes will that despite a warmer tropical be a global cooling. On the other hand will a smaller difference than average between poles and tropics will generate a global heating. Same net heat balance with sun and space. But large differences in climate at higher latitudes

And what transport heat polewards?
The global water balance.
Its all about the clouds.

[glc]

So we have:

- observation that TSI changes (as we measure them) are small
- observations from long term metrics that apparent ocean responses to TSI changes are 5 to 7 times larger than expected from the small size of the TSI changes

Nir Shaviv - TSI is small - ocean responses are larger than expected - we are researching this as there are some possible ways we can think of that might explain this effect but more research is needed

glc - TSI is small - ocean responses are larger than expected - but no-one appears to know a mechanism, so disregard the observations as we cannot balance the maths.

Not strictly true. We could balance the maths if we include ghg forcing.

[sigurdur]

Feb 21, 2010 16:28:07 GMT glc said:

So we have:

- observation that TSI changes (as we measure them) are small
- observations from long term metrics that apparent ocean responses to TSI changes are 5 to 7 times larger than expected from the small size of the TSI changes

Nir Shaviv - TSI is small - ocean responses are larger than expected - we are researching this as there are some possible ways we can think of that might explain this effect but more research is needed

glc - TSI is small - ocean responses are larger than expected - but no-one appears to know a mechanism, so disregard the observations as we cannot balance the maths.

Not strictly true. We could balance the maths if we include ghg forcing.

GLC:
I am not a rocket scientist, just an older farmer. Explain to me if you would, how including ghg would explain the mechanism.

[glc]

GLC:
I am not a rocket scientist, just an older farmer. Explain to me if you would, how including ghg would explain the mechanism.

The calculated forcing due to extra CO2 over the past 50 years is ~1.1 w/m2. Shaviv has found that additional heat in the oceans (over the same period) is equivalent to ~1.3 w/m2. TSI (over the same period) is responsible for ~0.2 w/m2.

[icefisher]

Feb 21, 2010 20:09:27 GMT glc said:

GLC:
I am not a rocket scientist, just an older farmer. Explain to me if you would, how including ghg would explain the mechanism.

The calculated forcing due to extra CO2 over the past 50 years is ~1.1 w/m2. Shaviv has found that additional heat in the oceans (over the same period) is equivalent to ~1.3 w/m2. TSI (over the same period) is responsible for ~0.2 w/m2.

Anybody can parameterize any calculation to match a single observation. No challenge in that at all.

Where it gets sticky for CO2 is in explaining warm periods without CO2 forcing. . . .like how it got so warm in the MWP and why it warmed up virtually as much as recent from 1911 to 1940 or why there was a thousand years of no ice in the Arctic as little as 6 millenia ago at the dawn of civilization.

Give me some calculations on any of those and then you can take your hat away from in front of your mouth.

Of course you have been asked that dozens of times and have yet to oblige.

Of course if anybody could do any such thing there would be no need for mega-grants to trot the globe in exhaustive searches for a handful of stessed trees to deny the existance of previous warm periods. And for 6,000 years ago, beyond the lifespan of single organism biological stress the response is to. . . . just ignore it.

You picked a single 50 year period. A single time window proves nothing. It can only be strengthened on either its ability to recreate the past or predict the future.

Your theory has been failing to predict the future and so the focus has turned to a remanufacturing of the past. Something that has put the whole theory into a poor light as a result of the manipulations going on. All that has done is make the CO2 theory look like a Ford Bronco traveling the highways of southern California obeying the speed limit with a flotilla of police cars behind it. Why on earth would people do such boneheaded things you ask?

Because they see no other argument to make?

[nautonnier]

Feb 21, 2010 20:09:27 GMT glc said:

GLC:
I am not a rocket scientist, just an older farmer. Explain to me if you would, how including ghg would explain the mechanism.

The calculated forcing due to extra CO2 over the past 50 years is ~1.1 w/m2. Shaviv has found that additional heat in the oceans (over the same period) is equivalent to ~1.3 w/m2. TSI (over the same period) is responsible for ~0.2 w/m2.

What Shaviv ACTUALLY found was _variance_ in the 'ocean as a calorimeter' that correlated with the variance in TSI but to levels 5 to 7 times more than would be explained by the VARIANCE in the TSI.

So glc - tell us again how ghg explain this _variance_

[hiddigeigei]

So glc - tell us again how ghg explain this _variance_

[Pooh]

Jan 29, 2010 5:58:12 GMT gfw said:

All models are wrong. Some models are useful.

Wrong models are particularly useful when they tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree. To mix metaphors, long ago I heard a useful rule:
"The most important thing in research is to recognize you are beating a dead horse. Take it out and bury it with as little fanfare as possible."

[Pooh]

Biello, David. The Complex Physics of Clouds, February 21, 2010. Scientific American
www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=the-complex-physics-of-clouds-10-02-22

Biello writes: "clouds actually involve a complex interplay of fluid dynamics, turbulence, convection and mixing".

An interesting hint at an awakening to albedo is at the end of the piece: "Fortunately, new lab facilities dedicated to the study of clouds will soon wrest that field from poets, the geophysicists argue. And perhaps refine our understanding of whether a cloudy day is indeed, as Shelley called it, "sunbeam proof ."

Svensmark, anyone? Anyone? David?

[glc]

Feb 22, 2010 3:12:20 GMT hiddigeigei said:

So glc - tell us again how ghg explain this _variance_

Tell us how the Sun explains it. Over the past 2-3 years the sun's magnetic flux (and therefore GCR count) have been at the same level as 100 years ago - yet sea levels are 200 mm higher.

Of course - you'll no doubt tell me I forgot about the 'lag'. What happened to the lag in the Shaviv 'correlation'.

[northsphinx]

I finally got it
Sea level rise according to this site for example
www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_drives_longer.html show a strong correlation of stored heat in the upper 700 m and sea level rise.
That is sea level is a primarily a function of average temperature in the top 700 m of the oceans.
as: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page5.php
The average temperature for this amount of ocean seems to be very low.
polar.ncep.noaa.gov/ofs/viewer.shtml?-natl-temp-500-small-rundate=latest
For the entire ocean is the average temperature about 3.5C

Let us first use the so popular top 700 m.
A 200 mm expansion during 100 years tell us that volume have increased 0,2 m of 700 m. That is a expansion of 0,2/700 or 0,0285%
Water do have a coefficient of volumetric expansion of about 200 10⁻⁶/C° or 0,2/1000
That show us a temperature rise of about 1 degrees C if the temperature is raised only in the top 700 m. But the average depth is 3700 m...
If the entire volume is heated that average less than 0,2 C over 100 year.

The sun cant heat the oceans at these depth direct so it must be heated by convection. That is warm surface water do heat colder layer.
Or the opposite. Cold deep water reach the surface and are been heated.
Convection in oceans is primarily WIND driven.

To be able to heat the ocean as these depths is a strong convection needed. That convection is wind driven.

But what happens if You heat the oceans?
You will release CO2.
;D

[scpg02]

Feb 22, 2010 6:07:59 GMT Pooh said:

Jan 29, 2010 5:58:12 GMT gfw said:

All models are wrong. Some models are useful.

Wrong models are particularly useful when they tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree. To mix metaphors, long ago I heard a useful rule:
"The most important thing in research is to recognize you are beating a dead horse. Take it out and bury it with as little fanfare as possible."

[glc]

But what happens if You heat the oceans?
You will release CO2.

Virtually all the additional atmospheric CO2 above pre-indusrial levels comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

[scpg02]

Feb 22, 2010 23:09:33 GMT glc said:

But what happens if You heat the oceans?
You will release CO2.

Virtually all the additional atmospheric CO2 above pre-indusrial levels comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

I think you should site something to back that up. OR are we to take your word for it?

[glc]

Today at 6:09pm, glc wrote:But what happens if You heat the oceans?
You will release CO2.

Virtually all the additional atmospheric CO2 above pre-indusrial levels comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

I think you should site something to back that up. OR are we to take your word for it?

There are several lines of evidence which can be broadly split into 2 parts.

Part 1

This part looks at the CO2 response to temperature change, i.e. how much the atmospheric CO2 concentration varies in response to a change in temperature. The following 3 'cases' show that this is unlikely to be more than 15 ppm per deg C.

1. From WUWT ( wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-amplification-its-less-than-we-thought/ )

"In this week’s Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7"

2. Hans Erren's 'quick and dirty' approach using vostock ice core data yields a temperature response of ~10 ppm per deg C.
see members.multimania.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/howmuch.htm

3. Temperatures during the last ice age dropped by around 6 or 7 degrees. CO2 fell by about 100 ppm. This implies a response of ~15 ppm per deg C.

The temperature rise over the past 100 years has been less than 1 deg C which means that it can only be responsible for a small fraction of the CO2 increase.

Part 2

The second part of the argument concerns the 13C/12C isotype ratio. Basically vegetation growth prefers to use 12C and therefore has low 13C readings and, since fossil fuels were formed from vegetation, CO2 from this source is identifiable in the atmosphere (and in the oceans). The decreasing 13C/12C ratio provides a clear signal that the increase in CO2 comes from fossil fuel burning. There is much literature on the subject, but this piece from Ferdinand Engelbeen explains the issue as well as any.

www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#The_13C12C_ratio