|
Post by steve on Jun 25, 2009 15:12:35 GMT
Get with the thread dmapel - the sun is not strong enough!
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 25, 2009 15:52:50 GMT
People are suggesting that there is no way that the radiation emitted by the atmosphere can have an influence on ocean heat content. If that is true, then what is stopping Loch Ness from freezing. No Steve, I am suggesting that there is no way the additional co2 in the atmosphere can account for rises in ocean heat content over the last 50 years. Definitely not via radiation. How you got from there to 'no way that the radiation emitted by the atmosphere can have an influence on ocean heat content.' I'm not sure, but it is certainly true that long wave radiation emitted by co2 cannot penetrate the ocean to any depth beyond a few millimetres at most. Clearly warm water vapour will condense on the sea surface and the hydrological cycle is a big player in the game. Co2 is along for the ride. Also if you look at the pdf I linked, you'll see the ocean must be getting rid of an extra 30W/M^2 the oceanic model can't account for just to not heat up beyond observed levels. ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/12/9/pdf/i1520-0442-12-9-2856.pdf
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 25, 2009 16:13:34 GMT
You seem to have misunderstood me. Oceans do not "seek equilibrium" by radiating. They will simply radiate according to the temperature they are. Obviously they are approximately at equilibrium, so either my calculations that solar incidence is lower than the radiation they emit is wrong, or something is providing a balance to the 80-odd watts difference (plus energy lost through evaporation). This discussion has gone on a bit, so let me be blunt by restating the context. People are suggesting that there is no way that the radiation emitted by the atmosphere can have an influence on ocean heat content. If that is true, then what is stopping Loch Ness from freezing. No I think you completely misunderstood what people said Steve. You are trying to set up one of your typical strawmen. Nobody I heard suggested that atmospheric radiation has zero influence on ocean heat content. . . . what people are objecting to is your hypothesis that recent changes in ocean heat content are primarily due to changes in the small amount of radation emitted by the atmosphere. The fact is this theory was established a number of years ago and predictions for the amount of warming the planet would experience in recent years recieved a considerable amount of scientific criticism over the assumptions of on how fast the oceans would reach equilibrium and not act as a cooling influence on the atmosphere. A vigorous argument ensued with the AGW alarmists pushing for low influence of the oceans on the environment. Well that has been falsified and is the primary reason alarmist models are falsified. From observations the models were wrong about the oceans. And by being wrong about the oceans two truths arise. The first truth is that global warming will not be as drastic as predicted. The second truth is that ocean equilibrium changes occur over a period of centuries. . . .meaning that one cannot conclude that recent warming has to be caused by a recent change. Thats a huge falsification of the primary argument for CO2 being the cause, namely that the cause must be within the period of careful atmospheric observations and that changes in CO2 is the only known explanation. Everything else about CO2 is theoretical from rather good theoretical radiative models down to theoretical sensitivity models built entirely on the slope of recent warming as depicted by Dr. Akasufo. Since the radiative models did not come close to providing that slope the models were tuned to recent warming and announcement made that the recent warming was due to CO2. What is occuring now is mostly damage control as these people continue to defraud the people paying their salaries. I have little doubt that guys like Bernie Madoff start out with an investment theory they really believe in and when it doesn't pan out they kind of go for a rob Peter to pay Paul fraud scheme to keep the sweet fruit rolling in. Attach a life in prison potential for defrauding people about the atmosphere and the ranks of scientific advocates would vacate like a burning auditorium and all that would be left would be a few Bernie Madoff's:
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 25, 2009 16:27:09 GMT
People are suggesting that there is no way that the radiation emitted by the atmosphere can have an influence on ocean heat content. If that is true, then what is stopping Loch Ness from freezing. No Steve, I am suggesting that there is no way the additional co2 in the atmosphere can account for rises in ocean heat content over the last 50 years. Definitely not via radiation. How you got from there to 'no way that the radiation emitted by the atmosphere can have an influence on ocean heat content.' I'm not sure, Some people on this thread are stating this. I don't think you are the target for my thought experiment. The 30Watt discrepancy seems to be the result of the difficulty of interpreting the observations. I'll see if I can get hold of the paper they site to compare with my rough estimate: On estimating the atmospheric longwave flux at the ocean surface from ship meteorological reports Simon A. Josey et al 1997 www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97JC02420.shtml
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 25, 2009 16:53:45 GMT
www.loch-ness.org/climate.html"At 56o north, the Great Glen has long summer days and winter nights, but overall, owing mainly to the warmth of the Gulf Stream, the climate is quite pleasant. Rainfall is high, but winters are not particularly severe. In the last twenty-four years the main loch-side A82 between Fort Augustus and Inverness has not been blocked by snow for more than an hour or two, landslips and fallen trees causing far more disruption. With the bulk of Loch Ness holding an even 42oF (5oC) it acts like a giant radiator helping to reduce the amount of ice and snow on the loch-side roads." Giant radiators usually don't freeze, steve. Long summer days have a lot of, what steve? Do you know where that warmth in the Gulf Stream comes from steve? Hint: it's a big ball of fire in the sky. Can you explain why the Sahara Desert cools off so quickly and extremely, when there ain't no sun around? Isn't there supposed to be a lot of CO2 hovering over the Sahara beaming back all that heat accumulated during the day?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 25, 2009 17:08:53 GMT
You seem to have misunderstood me. Oceans do not "seek equilibrium" by radiating. They will simply radiate according to the temperature they are. Obviously they are approximately at equilibrium, so either my calculations that solar incidence is lower than the radiation they emit is wrong, or something is providing a balance to the 80-odd watts difference (plus energy lost through evaporation). This discussion has gone on a bit, so let me be blunt by restating the context. People are suggesting that there is no way that the radiation emitted by the atmosphere can have an influence on ocean heat content. If that is true, then what is stopping Loch Ness from freezing. No I think you completely misunderstood what people said Steve. You are trying to set up one of your typical strawmen. Nobody I heard suggested that atmospheric radiation has zero influence on ocean heat content. . . . what people are objecting to is your hypothesis that recent changes in ocean heat content are primarily due to changes in the small amount of radation emitted by the atmosphere. Alright - I'll restate. People are attempting to avoid, belittle or misstate the way in which the ocean heat content is influenced by the atmosphere. Rather than focus on the mechanism of how the influence is applied, I was focussing on why it must apply. The proposition put originally by socold and supported by me is that IR emitted by the atmosphere influences the ocean (in some way) such that it remains warmer than it would be without the IR. The corollory is that if the atmosphere warms or if its emissivity increases it will emit more IR and may (in some way) result in the ocean getting warmer. Some people have been insisting on proving a link between the extra IR from the CO2 in the atmosphere having an effect "Still waiting for real world observational results of the warming effect of back radiation of co2 onto the oceans." Some have tried to belittle the impact of CO2 "10-20 ppm atmospheric CO2 causes more warming than direct solar radiation? Really?". But whether the extra emission is from CO2 or water vapour is not an issue that we've discussed. And my thought experiment was in direct response to this "The math is quite basic really by constructing a simple model to calculate how much heat is required for CO2 to absorb and transfer to the ocean surface to raise its temperature 1 degC. I will wait a few days more for someone else to run the numbers, then will post." Personally, I think this is another diversion - though be happy to see Magellan's analysis so we can discuss its worth. Even you are talking about changes in the "small amount of radiation emitted by the atmosphere" when recently cited was a paper that did observations and confirmed the amount of IR is larger than solar SW flux. You can only believe that if you focus on a very short period in the ocean heat content record. Haven't you got that the wrong way around. The slower the ocean response, the more "heat in the pipeline" (I use that phrase purely to irritate). Check out that Schwarz paper.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 25, 2009 17:11:57 GMT
IceFisher, good post.
Steve, take home facts:
Longwave radiation from Co2 doesn't penetrate into the oceans.
The oceans have been cooling since 2003 despite the continued rise of Co2
During the 1979 - 2003 period, different oceans warmed at different rates, some cooled.
Co2 is according to the alarmists 'a well mixed gas'.
If it isn't, the fact that only Mauna Loa is used as the measure of Co2 smacks of fraud.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 25, 2009 17:15:22 GMT
No Steve, I am suggesting that there is no way the additional co2 in the atmosphere can account for rises in ocean heat content over the last 50 years. Definitely not via radiation. How you got from there to 'no way that the radiation emitted by the atmosphere can have an influence on ocean heat content.' I'm not sure, Some people on this thread are stating this. I don't think you are the target for my thought experiment. The 30Watt discrepancy seems to be the result of the difficulty of interpreting the observations. I'll see if I can get hold of the paper they site to compare with my rough estimate: On estimating the atmospheric longwave flux at the ocean surface from ship meteorological reports Simon A. Josey et al 1997 www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97JC02420.shtmlSince the full article is not available it's usually not wise to rely on the abstract. Yet, did you notice? parameterizations assumed for the effect of clouds and atmospheric humidity
Still, have you ever calculated the how much heat would be needed to raise the temperature of water based on the heat capacity of 10-20 ppm of CO2? Edit: Tallbloke has correctly noted LW IR does not penetrate water. Think about that if you ever go in for laser surgery and wonder why your blood doesn't boil
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 25, 2009 17:15:43 GMT
www.loch-ness.org/climate.html"At 56o north, the Great Glen has long summer days and winter nights, but overall, owing mainly to the warmth of the Gulf Stream, the climate is quite pleasant. Rainfall is high, but winters are not particularly severe. In the last twenty-four years the main loch-side A82 between Fort Augustus and Inverness has not been blocked by snow for more than an hour or two, landslips and fallen trees causing far more disruption. With the bulk of Loch Ness holding an even 42oF (5oC) it acts like a giant radiator helping to reduce the amount of ice and snow on the loch-side roads." Giant radiators usually don't freeze, steve. Long summer days have a lot of, what steve? Do you know where that warmth in the Gulf Stream comes from steve? Hint: it's a big ball of fire in the sky. dmaple, what you are ignoring is the fact that Loch Ness radiates its 300-odd watts per metre squared all year every year. Please calculate the average solar flux onto the surface of Loch Ness spread over a year. Define "so quickly and extremely". Ref back to our discussion about the dark side of the moon and Antarctica.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 25, 2009 17:40:21 GMT
I don't feel a need to calculate anything. You asked why Loch Ness doesn't freeze. You have the answer. Now why don't you explain why lakes at lower latitudes do freeze.
I assumed that you know how quickly and extremely the Sahara cools after sunset. If you don't, just forget about it.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 25, 2009 18:32:19 GMT
dmaple, what you are ignoring is the fact that Loch Ness radiates its 300-odd watts per metre squared all year every year. Well I'll tell you what Steve, I stopped my bike and had a smoke by the Loch during my ride down the great glen, and I can assure you there wasn't a bar fire's worth of heat coming off the three square metres I was stood next to. Your sums are wrong, my empirical observation guarantees it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 25, 2009 18:35:03 GMT
And my thought experiment was in direct response to this "The math is quite basic really by constructing a simple model to calculate how much heat is required for CO2 to absorb and transfer to the ocean surface to raise its temperature 1 degC. I will wait a few days more for someone else to run the numbers, then will post." Personally, I think this is another diversion - though be happy to see Magellan's analysis so we can discuss its worth. You see Steve thats exactly what the AGW models did. They arrived at the part of the graph of Akasofu within the observation window in line with their longterm prediction and declared that warming as being caused by CO2. Thus from that they built their sensitivity assumptions on top of a reasonable theoretical radiation model. In modeling its incredibly easy to insert reasonable components and still have the model fly completely off the handle. So a number of years ago a debate emerged about how such warming could be realized so quickly considering the moderation effect of the oceans. The answer provided by the modelers was the ocean heated quickly because of a low total realistic heat content. That assumption was essential in maintaining the slope of warming because to recognize a higher storage potential from climatic change would tip the warming line down towards much lower projections for a century outward and open the door to causes that could have occurred prior to careful observations (i.e. the cause of the little ice age). Akasofu suggest two things in his model. First is the absurdity of using the periodic ocean oscillations upperward phase as being caused by CO2. The second one he introduces is exactly what I am saying about here the implications of lowering the slope due to greater than century long "pipelines" is that moves back into a pre-observation period (e.g. all the warming we see now could have been caused by an anomalous cooling no observable). With the more accurate ocean heat content measurements than we had when those models were created those assumptions used by the modelers (all Akasofu does is show the empirical warming it was built on) have been totally, unequivocally, and forever falsified. So Hansen has run for refuge to heat in the pipeline but has yet to recant the slopes of the models, instead looking for refuge in the pipeline and suggesting the total warming of their models will still occur as the IPCC originally predicted. By the way this is the classic tact of a Bernie Madoff. When the next assessment report comes about they will probably get there by either throwing the lower slope modelers out of the process or getting their authors recant on other ranges of possibilities and lining up with the more radical modelers. The net result will be with the next assessment largely agreeing with the previous assessment. But this is nothing more than a complex conspiracy to commit fraud on the citizens of the world and can be totally expected when you consider the financial/punishment system we have in place. That is the complete bottom line there. . . .no accountability. Thats exactly what I am saying but you are the failing to recognize the implications of that change in assumptions on the underlying models and other assumptions like feedback and sensitivity. Its convenient for these fraudsters to overlook the implications this has on such topics a sensitivity and feedback and pretend like they do not need to go back and recreate those portions of the their models and instead they are just making the absurd response of trying to just tack that warming on to the end when in fact those numbers were arrived at as a result of assumptions directly related to what they ascribed as the cause of recent warming. Some one needs to tap them on the shoulder and remind them that this fact is like their favorite view of an IR photon running around their entire model zapping an assumption reemitting it and zapping another. . . .proving that while perpetual motion machines are impossible, perpetual studipity is not.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 25, 2009 18:46:04 GMT
IceFisher, good post. Steve, take home facts: Longwave radiation from Co2 doesn't penetrate into the oceans. It doesn't need to do so to warm the oceans. It's not long enough to demonstrate anything. It was a period of negative ENSO for one thing and also a descent into solar minimum. You'd have a point if the oceans had been cooling since 1990, or if we were sitting here in 2020 and they had been cooling since 2003. But 6 years isn't enough to convince me as it is both less than a full solar cycle and short enough to be influenced by ENSO. The climate is connected, heat flows. In a warming world some areas will warm up more than others. Some will even cool. No suprise really. It is well mixed, you can have that as one of the "take home facts"
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 25, 2009 18:46:59 GMT
I don't feel a need to calculate anything. You asked why Loch Ness doesn't freeze. You have the answer. Yep, the greenhouse effect.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 25, 2009 19:05:59 GMT
I hear the flapping of little lips again.
|
|