|
Post by tacoman25 on Nov 1, 2008 16:21:36 GMT
You're not already getting the littlest bit doubtful after 6 or 8 or 9 or whatever years, which would be at the very extreme end of the scale for a cooling period in any model??? No as it isn't long enough. The last 2 years with the La Nina are write off anyway, they were always going to be lower than previous years whether or not there is a ~0.2C/decade longterm trend. So shouldn't we then also "write off" the .2C/decade rise seen in the 1990s, since that was largely created by the huge 1997-98 El Nino?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 1, 2008 21:10:37 GMT
You're not already getting the littlest bit doubtful after 6 or 8 or 9 or whatever years, which would be at the very extreme end of the scale for a cooling period in any model??? No as it isn't long enough. The last 2 years with the La Nina are write off anyway, they were always going to be lower than previous years whether or not there is a ~0.2C/decade longterm trend. I shall type this slowly.... The La Nina and El Nino and PDO and AMO etc etc are all rearrangements of heat within the system. They are not added heat or lost heat they are showing that the ocean is venting heat and warming the atmosphere with El Nino and positive PDO or that the ocean is NOT warm and is taking heat from the atmosphere La Nina and negative PDO. But the global heat content may be the same. When El Nino warms the atmosphere it is actually ocean heat escaping and eventually radiating to space. Like a safety valve - interesting that a really strong one occurred at the end of the last warming period in the 1990s. So blaming El Nino for cooling the earth shows a lack of understanding of the heat distribution. The Earth's heat content atmosphere, land and ocean is reducing - therefore temperatures are dropping. This is despite the CO2 continually rising above the levels that got Al Gore his Nobel Prize. You should be less worried about winning this argument than about what you are going to do when the bottom falls out and it gets really cold. I am worried that we have not seen anything yet.
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Nov 1, 2008 21:41:58 GMT
I don't buy it Nautonnier,
The head content of the atmosphere is nearly insignificant compared to the heat content of the ocean. The ocean being a lot colder except for the surface. One turn over from the bottom of the ocean would put us into a real ice age. As far as the solid planet itself? We are insulated from the core. Oceans are probably insignificant to the planet. Only exposure via volcanic and similar activity seems to effect the climate. That is why the THC is extremely important in at least decadal oscillations.
We could loose all our atmosphere and not measureably change the heat content of the planet and oceans, even if they were to totally freeze up.
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Nov 1, 2008 21:42:08 GMT
I shall type this slowly.... Since you went to that much trouble, I went ahead and read it slowly, too... I am worried that we have not seen anything yet. Me, too. Personally, I don't think we've got a hell's chance in a snowball.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Nov 1, 2008 22:04:51 GMT
DD, you seem to be implying we need to treat above mantle systems as separate from below mantle - is that what you're saying?
To me that doesn't make sense - the heat from the core has to make it's way through to surface because mantle rock is not that good an insulator. Heat sink it may be but even heat sinks warm up.
It seems to me it would be the external cooling of heat leakage out to space that is slowly cooling the planet & the main reason why we can live here.
What I got from nautonnier's ideas is that the effects across the face of the planet are tied together as heat transport mechanisms but not heat generating mechanisms. So, for example, to say el Nino 'causes' a heat wave isn't correct, as el Nino is itself an effect of a deeper process.
Equally, the agw CO2 hypothesis seems to me to be a level above where we should be looking. The facts seem to say that if CO2 IS creating noticeable warming (& the dropping of the agw is deliberate here) it acts more as a magnifier than a cause - when the real cause drops below a threshold, the magnifying from CO2 stops as well (or drops below visibility)
I haven't seen anything tying in the elNino/la Nina cycle to a causative effect but it has to be there somewhere. The distraction of the agw CO2 argument is probably preventing serious research into how the cycles change the planet.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 2, 2008 1:15:09 GMT
No as it isn't long enough. The last 2 years with the La Nina are write off anyway, they were always going to be lower than previous years whether or not there is a ~0.2C/decade longterm trend. So shouldn't we then also "write off" the .2C/decade rise seen in the 1990s, since that was largely created by the huge 1997-98 El Nino? Okay but I don't see what you gain or lose by doing that. So we throw the years 1997 and 1998 out, how does that change anything?
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Nov 2, 2008 1:20:28 GMT
So shouldn't we then also "write off" the .2C/decade rise seen in the 1990s, since that was largely created by the huge 1997-98 El Nino? Okay but I don't see what you gain or lose by doing that. So we throw the years 1997 and 1998 out, how does that change anything? your window of 'proof' on the theory you say neednt be proven keeps shrinking
|
|
|
Post by ron on Nov 2, 2008 1:22:21 GMT
You're not already getting the littlest bit doubtful after 6 or 8 or 9 or whatever years, which would be at the very extreme end of the scale for a cooling period in any model??? No as it isn't long enough. The last 2 years with the La Nina are write off anyway, they were always going to be lower than previous years whether or not there is a ~0.2C/decade longterm trend. So then if it goes just one more year, THEN you'll be doubtful? No models show cooling of this length AT ALL, so already this is outlying by a huge amount. What are the odds that it would, by natural chance be cooling for SO MANY years AND by enough to COMPLETELY MASK the forcing for an entire decade at the end of the period AS WELL AS sowing the continuing trend of cooling at the end? How many flips of the coin are we up to?
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Nov 2, 2008 1:23:02 GMT
So shouldn't we then also "write off" the .2C/decade rise seen in the 1990s, since that was largely created by the huge 1997-98 El Nino? Okay but I don't see what you gain or lose by doing that. So we throw the years 1997 and 1998 out, how does that change anything? I don't suggest we throw them out. I am just pointing out that ENSO events can be a big part of temperature trends, and therefore the 2007-08 La Nina can be looked at as part of a larger trend this decade, just as the 1997-98 El Nino is recognized as part of the trend seen in the 1990s.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 2, 2008 2:10:28 GMT
I don't buy it Nautonnier, The head content of the atmosphere is nearly insignificant compared to the heat content of the ocean. The ocean being a lot colder except for the surface. One turn over from the bottom of the ocean would put us into a real ice age. As far as the solid planet itself? We are insulated from the core. Oceans are probably insignificant to the planet. Only exposure via volcanic and similar activity seems to effect the climate. That is why the THC is extremely important in at least decadal oscillations. We could loose all our atmosphere and not measureably change the heat content of the planet and oceans, even if they were to totally freeze up. Thanks Acolyte... DD - think of the entire Earth and its atmosphere as a closed box "the box". Heat goes into the box and heat comes out of the box. The heat content of the box is dependent on the heat that is intrinsic to its content and the balance between the rate of heat put into the box and the rate of heat out of the box. El Nino and La Nina, PDOs etc are heat rearrangements inside the box and nothing to do with the total amount of heat in the box. The AGW argument is that by increasing the amount of CO2 the rate at which heat can exit the box is reduced so given an equal amount of heat being put into the box - the box heat content will increase. This will be shown by an overall temperature rise in the box. Well the CO2 levels have increased and the temperature in the box - the heat content - has gone down. Saying well the heat content in the box has gone down because of El Nino is illogical - as EL Nino is inside the box and cannot alter the total heat content. It is just a rearrangement of heat inside the box. So if the heat content in the box has dropped the only reason that can happen is because heat output rate is now higher than heat input - but the CO2 levels have risen supposedly dangerously reducing heat output. Therefore - either CO2 does not have the radiative forcing effect to reduce heat output - OR - contrary to the claim that TSI has not changed the heat INPUT rate has reduced. From my perspective the heat input has reduced, the heat output capacity is the same or higher - so The Box is cooling.
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Nov 2, 2008 2:42:59 GMT
So if the heat content in the box has dropped the only reason that can happen is because heat output rate is now higher than heat input - but the CO2 levels have risen supposedly dangerously reducing heat output. Therefore - either CO2 does not have the radiative forcing effect to reduce heat output - OR - contrary to the claim that TSI has not changed the heat INPUT rate has reduced. From my perspective the heat input has reduced, the heat output capacity is the same or higher - so The Box is cooling. The net heat loss is pretty obvious just watching the OLR anomaly charts. For instance, here's today's 90-day version: Seems pretty damned obvious to me what's going on...
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Nov 2, 2008 3:04:29 GMT
All of that may be mathematically true. The earth gets heat from the sun and it radiates heat out to space. Eventually the sun will burn out or expand beyond earth's orbit or whatever but eventually the second law of thermodynamics will triumph. That has virtually nothing to do with the temperature of the atmosphere and sst's over short time spans (like less than a million years probably). Not sure what agw's think about this because they don't think much to being with. We also aren't sure what causes big or little iceages. The sun may be very significant along with orbital issues, but non of that is anything more than a hypothesis that I know off. PDO's and AMO's may only move heat from ocean to atmosphere and back but that (if something extreme happens to THC) is more than enough to change climate for possibly 100's of years. And what else are we talking about here?
I don't believe that the heat content of snowball earth was any different from what it is today. I mean we are talking about changing a few degrees the head content of the ocean and atmosphere which are insignificant fractions of the mass of the planet.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 2, 2008 8:48:57 GMT
All of that may be mathematically true. The earth gets heat from the sun and it radiates heat out to space. Eventually the sun will burn out or expand beyond earth's orbit or whatever but eventually the second law of thermodynamics will triumph. That has virtually nothing to do with the temperature of the atmosphere and sst's over short time spans (like less than a million years probably). Not sure what agw's think about this because they don't think much to being with. We also aren't sure what causes big or little iceages. The sun may be very significant along with orbital issues, but non of that is anything more than a hypothesis that I know off. PDO's and AMO's may only move heat from ocean to atmosphere and back but that (if something extreme happens to THC) is more than enough to change climate for possibly 100's of years. And what else are we talking about here? I don't believe that the heat content of snowball earth was any different from what it is today. I mean we are talking about changing a few degrees the head content of the ocean and atmosphere which are insignificant fractions of the mass of the planet. The point of my posting was that there are some here that say that ENSO events are masking the AGW - If the G stands for Global - then that is logically inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Nov 2, 2008 10:58:12 GMT
The box is cooling, the oceans are cooling and there is less heat to redistribute around the box. Until the sun increases output and the oceans start warming again we will continue to cool.
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Nov 2, 2008 11:52:43 GMT
All of that may be mathematically true. The earth gets heat from the sun and it radiates heat out to space. Eventually the sun will burn out or expand beyond earth's orbit or whatever but eventually the second law of thermodynamics will triumph. That has virtually nothing to do with the temperature of the atmosphere and sst's over short time spans (like less than a million years probably). Not sure what agw's think about this because they don't think much to being with. We also aren't sure what causes big or little iceages. The sun may be very significant along with orbital issues, but non of that is anything more than a hypothesis that I know off. PDO's and AMO's may only move heat from ocean to atmosphere and back but that (if something extreme happens to THC) is more than enough to change climate for possibly 100's of years. And what else are we talking about here? I don't believe that the heat content of snowball earth was any different from what it is today. I mean we are talking about changing a few degrees the head content of the ocean and atmosphere which are insignificant fractions of the mass of the planet. The point of my posting was that there are some here that say that ENSO events are masking the AGW - If the G stands for Global - then that is logically inaccurate. I agree with that.
|
|