|
|
Post by socold on Jun 19, 2009 9:38:32 GMT
LOL, according to them it's 3.4 for a 280ppm to 600ppm (3.17 for 300 > 600) increase and only 1.987 for going from current levels to 600ppm or 3.297 if we somehow managed to find enough fossil fuels to go to 800ppm. So...since we've only had about .8C of warming (smoothed warm period peak to warm period peak) on the way to 390ppm, we shouldn't hit more than 1C higher by the time we hit 600ppm (about 2.15X pre-industrial levels). Of course, we're pretty sure some of that was just a recovery from the little ice age so... An interesting side note...offsetting the ground temperature by .97C offsets 280 to 600ppm's absorption completely and 1.35C offsets the 800ppm CO2 absorption. For 390 to 600ppm it's only .55 to offset the "imbalance" and .93 offsets the 800ppm levels So... you agree (since this IS your source) that we shouldn't really expect to see more than an additional 1C, right? Edit: Oh, and just to drive this point home...if the temperature of the earth went up by 4C at 600PPM the radiative output would actually INCREASE by 11 watts per square meter! I pointed out that model to show that the co2 bite doesn't have to drop below 220K. No comments on that? Are you still sticking to your original argument that depended on (the incorrect claim) that forcing is too high because of this coolest part of the atmosphere? In response to your new arguments. Remember that this model is a light java applet. It's not state of the art. It can show you rough results but not precise. Part of this roughness is also that it gives you results for different localities with different cloud conditions. Try "midlattitude" winter for example and you will get different results. Secondly you have to set "hold water vapor" dropdown to "relative humidity" to get the water vapor feedback. If you leave it on "pressure" then you have preloaded the model to ignore water vapor feedback. Thirdly the model does not include ice albedo feedback on any timescale. If you want to get a climate sentivitiy you need the processes represented more accurately and you have to use a GCM. This kind of model is okay for deriviving forcings though (roughly), although a GCM can do that too. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 19, 2009 10:47:24 GMT
I pointed out that model to show that the co2 bite doesn't have to drop below 220K. No comments on that? Are you still sticking to your original argument that depended on (the incorrect claim) that forcing is too high because of this coolest part of the atmosphere? Actually it shows a doubling of CO2 (you use more than doubling) of 3.1, but yeah, I guess THAT model includes it. Of course most figures used by AGW proponents are wrong and even you keep gravitating back to 3.7 for some reason even though even a 300 to 600 increase is 3.4 watts. Yeah...are you sure you're using the same page for your stuff? When I try relative humidity it LOWERS the affect of CO2. Mid latitude winter with relative humidity and a standard cloud model yields a 2watt/meter difference, which would be offset by 1C of increase. Since the standard AGW model says it will warm more away from the equator this works out to a MASSIVE negative feedback. Less affect farther from the equator, greatly increased emissions farther from the equator. You keep doing this...you show us to "evidence" and it points the opposite way. You find it necessary to even ask why feedbacks can't be greater than 1 to 1 when higher feedbacks mean ANY change is run-away. And if you want it modeled you need to understand WTF you're modeling in the first place. No understanding...no modeling accurately. Oh, and BTW...thanks for the link. It's a handy site. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 19, 2009 13:40:41 GMT
I pointed out that model to show that the co2 bite doesn't have to drop below 220K. No comments on that? Are you still sticking to your original argument that depended on (the incorrect claim) that forcing is too high because of this coolest part of the atmosphere? Actually it shows a doubling of CO2 (you use more than doubling) of 3.1, but yeah, I guess THAT model includes it. Of course most figures used by AGW proponents are wrong and even you keep gravitating back to 3.7 for some reason even though even a 300 to 600 increase is 3.4 watts. Because modtran is a rough model, it's not the best of the models which are used to calculate the forcing. The results from those models give it to be about 3.7wm-2 Also you should set the sensor height at the tropopause - say 15km, where radiative forcing is defined. The default of 70km is looking at outgoing emissions from space. That is a minor point though. Relative humidity affects the feedback not the forcing. If you increase from 300ppm to 600ppm you'll see that the forcing increase is the same with or without constant relative humidity. The surface temperature increase needed to return to equillibrium is greater though. The standard AGW model is based on state of the art models which include more than modtran does (eg again modtran does not include ice cover and albedo feedback). Modtran can give you estimates. Go to that thread, you'll see this is just due to the way you are defining "1 to 1". Note that I only brought up modtran to show you that the forcing from doubling co2 was not based on "half the math". The additional forcing from co2 doubling is not based on the co2 bite in the spectrum falling lower, only widening. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 19, 2009 18:43:50 GMT
Relative humidity affects the feedback not the forcing. If you increase from 300ppm to 600ppm you'll see that the forcing increase is the same with or without constant relative humidity. The surface temperature increase needed to return to equillibrium is greater though. However that assumes feedback is positive. If feedback is negative like it likely is any broad surface temperature increase results in increased evaporation and the surface cools exactly like a human body cools after it issues some perspiration in response to a warming stimulus. The only difference being that the human body conserves water and only makes the coolant available upon sufficient stimulus (or else we would have to move around with larger water reservoirs, kind of like a fish) the earth keeps the water freely available and evaporates at an accelerating rate as temperature rises. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 19, 2009 21:51:01 GMT
Relative humidity affects the feedback not the forcing. If you increase from 300ppm to 600ppm you'll see that the forcing increase is the same with or without constant relative humidity. The surface temperature increase needed to return to equillibrium is greater though. However that assumes feedback is positive. If feedback is negative like it likely is any broad surface temperature increase results in increased evaporation and the surface cools exactly like a human body cools after it issues some perspiration in response to a warming stimulus. The only difference being that the human body conserves water and only makes the coolant available upon sufficient stimulus (or else we would have to move around with larger water reservoirs, kind of like a fish) the earth keeps the water freely available and evaporates at an accelerating rate as temperature rises. More evaporation leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. You see where this is going. |
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 19, 2009 23:15:27 GMT
soclod; "More evaporation leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. You see where this is going.'
Where it is going is your problem, warmista. Have you ever heard of clouds, convection, condensation, thunderstoms, cold rain, SNOW, transpiration, perspiration? You should at least have an idea on the effect of that last one. Show us the calculations that prove that the water cycle is a strongly positive feedback.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 19, 2009 23:29:35 GMT
I am not the one who has made the calculations. There are studies that have attempted to constrain climate sensitivity either through calcualtions of the physics or by looking at past climate changes. The majority show strong positive feedback exists in climate.
For example see table 8.2 on page 631 of AR4
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 20, 2009 1:35:04 GMT
Relative humidity affects the feedback not the forcing. If you increase from 300ppm to 600ppm you'll see that the forcing increase is the same with or without constant relative humidity. The surface temperature increase needed to return to equillibrium is greater though. However that assumes feedback is positive. If feedback is negative like it likely is any broad surface temperature increase results in increased evaporation and the surface cools exactly like a human body cools after it issues some perspiration in response to a warming stimulus. The only difference being that the human body conserves water and only makes the coolant available upon sufficient stimulus (or else we would have to move around with larger water reservoirs, kind of like a fish) the earth keeps the water freely available and evaporates at an accelerating rate as temperature rises. More evaporation leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. You see where this is going. More evaporation leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. You see where this is going. It's called rain. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2009 2:01:00 GMT
so it will rain at "an accelerated rate"? sounds bad
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 20, 2009 2:35:10 GMT
so it will rain at "an accelerated rate"? sounds bad You appear to think a trace gas with a specific heat capacity of 0.843 Joule / g degC can explain ocean warming. Do you have any idea how much heat we are talking about here? To put in perspective, the red dot is representative of the 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 (~100 ppm), a fraction of which is supposedly responsible for OHC from 1993-2003.  How did 10-20 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from 1993-2003 cause the oceans to warm more than direct solar radiation? Would you happen to have the calculations for the specific heat capacity of CO2 and absorption coefficient of water as a function of wavelength for the LW IR that CO2 is "trapping" and re-emitting? In other words, how far can LW IR penetrate water (hint: it's not much) even if CO2 could absorb the required amount of heat (an enormous amount) to transfer to the oceans? You claim this small amount of CO2 can inhibit more heat leaving the oceans than the sun can put in. Where are the freaking numbers? I'm not intentionally putting you on the spot, but the hand waiving is getting old and its time to get some answers. If it's simple high school physics, find the reference and post. |
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 20, 2009 3:58:47 GMT
soclod: "I am not the one who has made the calculations. There are studies that have attempted to constrain climate sensitivity either through calculations of the physics or by looking at past climate changes. The majority show strong positive feedback exists in climate.
For example see table 8.2 on page 631 of AR4"
I saw your response before you added that "see table 8.2" BS. I was too disguted to reply at the time. You are really a piece of work. Table 8.2 doesn't show any stinking calculations. What it shows is the range of cooked questimates that the IPCC approved climate models come up with, for what they call "Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity". The range for about two dozen models is 2.1C to 4.4C. Which one is right soclod? I will help you. If any were a reflection of reality, you and the other warmistas wouldn't be spinning around like tops trying to explain the missing heat.
Carry on with your foolishness soclod. I won't be bothering you anymore. You are a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2009 4:35:20 GMT
so it will rain at "an accelerated rate"? sounds bad You appear to think a trace gas with a specific heat capacity of 0.843 Joule / g degC can explain ocean warming. Do you have any idea how much heat we are talking about here? It's the radiative properties of co2 that make it a significant player, rather than it's specific heat capacity. Over 99% of the area of that grid is composed of gases that don't even absorb infrared. A better perspective would be to draw co2 in relation to it's contribution to the greenhouse effect. The question is more general. How does rising co2 warm the oceans? The answer is that rising co2 enhances the greenhouse effect. This does warm the top of the ocean surface and as a result the ocean gains heat. Yes it isn't much, hardly any. But it doesn't have to penetrate the surface much to warm the ocean below it. No it just inhibits some heat leaving the oceans. Noway near as much as the ocean puts in. But the ocean must be in energy balance too. For all the energy the sun adds to the ocean, the ocean must lose as energy out. If the surface of the water warms this reduces heat flow across it. I'm not intentionally putting you on the spot, but the hand waiving is getting old and its time to get some answers. If it's simple high school physics, find the reference and post.[/quote] Actual numbers rather than a general description involve more than high school physics. It's very complicated and involved physics which I don't even start to understand at all. Some of it specifically relating to climate. Eg: www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/pop/doc/manual.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2009 4:49:23 GMT
soclod: "I am not the one who has made the calculations. There are studies that have attempted to constrain climate sensitivity either through calculations of the physics or by looking at past climate changes. The majority show strong positive feedback exists in climate. For example see table 8.2 on page 631 of AR4" I saw your response before you added that "see table 8.2" BS. I was too disguted to reply at the time. You are really a piece of work. Table 8.2 doesn't show any stinking calculations. What it shows is the range of cooked questimates that the IPCC approved climate models come up with, for what they call "Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity". The range for about two dozen models is 2.1C to 4.4C. Which one is right soclod? I will help you. If any were a reflection of reality, you and the other warmistas wouldn't be spinning around like tops trying to explain the missing heat. Carry on with your foolishness soclod. I won't be bothering you anymore. You are a waste of time. Of course a table doesn't show any calculations and I think it was clear from my reply that the table was a reference to the calculations. The table shows various models and the net positive feedback they find. That net positive feedback finding is of course based off the calculations those models have performed. If you want to see those calculations you can backtrack the references and seek out individual model documentation. I haven't done so myself because I know I won't understand the calculations at that level. If you are expecting a single simple calculation for each particular element of climate then you will be disapointed. The climate itself isn't compartmentalized and each part bears on another. The model behavior in one particular area like ocean warming from rising co2 is not based on a single equation. The behavior in any part of the model is emergent from all of the physics in the whole model. So it isn't as straight forward as just copy pasting an equation for one particular behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 20, 2009 15:02:39 GMT
I hear the sound of a butterfly's wings flapping in the breeze. No, it's the flapping of little loose lips. And it's not a butterfly, it's a pesky mosquito. Anybody got DDT?
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 20, 2009 16:48:47 GMT
You appear to think a trace gas with a specific heat capacity of 0.843 Joule / g degC can explain ocean warming. Do you have any idea how much heat we are talking about here? It's the radiative properties of co2 that make it a significant player, rather than it's specific heat capacity. Over 99% of the area of that grid is composed of gases that don't even absorb infrared. A better perspective would be to draw co2 in relation to it's contribution to the greenhouse effect. The question is more general. How does rising co2 warm the oceans? The answer is that rising co2 enhances the greenhouse effect. This does warm the top of the ocean surface and as a result the ocean gains heat. Yes it isn't much, hardly any. But it doesn't have to penetrate the surface much to warm the ocean below it. No it just inhibits some heat leaving the oceans. Noway near as much as the ocean puts in. But the ocean must be in energy balance too. For all the energy the sun adds to the ocean, the ocean must lose as energy out. If the surface of the water warms this reduces heat flow across it. I'm not intentionally putting you on the spot, but the hand waiving is getting old and its time to get some answers. If it's simple high school physics, find the reference and post. Actual numbers rather than a general description involve more than high school physics. It's very complicated and involved physics which I don't even start to understand at all. Some of it specifically relating to climate. Eg: www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/pop/doc/manual.pdf[/quote] I don't care about garbage-in-gospel-out climate models. We've been lectured for years that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the troposphere in the tropics will warm per the climate models warmologists worship; simple high school physics we're told. As the atmosphere isn't warming as advertised, the oceans became the focus in Hansen 2005. Where are the high school physics that explain how CO2 can transfer heat to water to equal that of the amount reported from 1993-2003 by Hansen et al 2005 (IPCC AR4)? It should be very simple and straight forward. Hansen does not explain how heat can be transferred from 10-20 ppm CO2 to the oceans, just that the OHC increase is proof of AGW. In the past this would be viewed as junk science, but in today's politically charged world of climate "science", qualifications for published papers appear to be only that it agrees with consensus views on global warming. The truth is basic physics does not allow such heat transfer from CO2 to water. This was one of my challenge questions and after all this time it still has not been addressed. Ocean surface "mixing" has been contrived, but it still is an unphysical process as water not only absorbs, but emits heat. No, only direct solar radiation penetrating to 100+ meters can warm oceans to a measurable amount, and even if the sun (not well understood) doesn't change enough to account for it, a small change in cloud cover can account for virtually all warming. If you don't understand the content of the material you link to, it must a matter of faith. Here, a technical but easy to follow explanation of ocean heat content, or are you afraid you might understand it? wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/ |
|
