|
Post by steve on Jul 24, 2009 10:57:08 GMT
Observational data to test a hypothesis; what a novel idea. Great! The science is now settled. Criticism of this paper should be criminalised.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 24, 2009 11:59:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 24, 2009 12:45:10 GMT
I think deniers should be punished! They should be given homes and jobs on those awful tropical island paradises that are so horribly threatened by global warming. That'll learn 'em.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 24, 2009 13:40:36 GMT
. Since Marc Morano may be helping to condemn millions to death and starvation in his dissembling of the facts, I don't tend to regard anything he has to say. Probably I would have preferred it if you'd given your own summary and thoughts on Lindzen's paper rather than attack the people who might justifiably discuss and criticise it.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 24, 2009 14:38:56 GMT
. Since Marc Morano may be helping to condemn millions to death and starvation in his dissembling of the facts, I don't tend to regard anything he has to say. Probably I would have preferred it if you'd given your own summary and thoughts on Lindzen's paper rather than attack the people who might justifiably discuss and criticise it. ......may be helping to condemn millions to death and starvation...... As you didn't clarify your position and apparently have no problem with the extreme and draconian rhetoric bandied about by those in the examples given, your above snippet pretty much sums it up. The bark has been stripped from tree. Millions will be condemned to death and starvation if whackjobs like you get their way. www.co2science.org/education/truthalerts/v12/morality.phpProbably I would have preferred it if you'd given your own summary and thoughts on Lindzen's paper rather than attack the people who might justifiably discuss and criticise it. That coming from a master at posting old obsolete papers and expect us to read it for you. I've commented in earlier threads directly to you about Lindzen and quoted him in reference to this paper. I'm waiting for your immense knowledge of atmospheric physics to put Lindzen in his place; maybe it's equation #5 ;D. What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 24, 2009 15:15:59 GMT
. Since Marc Morano may be helping to condemn millions to death and starvation in his dissembling of the facts, I don't tend to regard anything he has to say. So that means yes. Right?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 24, 2009 17:46:42 GMT
"If you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then the amount of radiation into space will (all things being equal) reduce. The TOA balance will be lost. That's Myrhe for you."Steve the problem that Jim is pointing out is that all things are NOT equal. Nautonnier, Most of the above was about all the possible things that are not equal, so I don't need you to tell me that. But Jim has never really reflected back the understanding that you can very reasonably calculate the so-called "forcing" from doubling of CO2 prior to then wondering about what the result of that forcing will be. You are getting this wrong. These clouds exist now. They existed in 1750. They will exist in 2100. They will be a negative feedback if their numbers increase as a result of warming. They will be a positive feedback if their numbers decrease as a result of warming. The surface will warm, but so will the rest of the atmosphere, so an increase in convection and an increase in these clouds is not a given. The theory does not have tunnel vision. People are spending their lives studying the potential changes of clouds as a response to warming. You appear to be the one with all the weight on one end of the seesaw by assuming that any feedback will be a negative feedback. I don't think Jim has pointed that out at all. And what else does all this convection carry? More water vapour. What is water vapour? A greenhouse gas. Yes the response should be examined to see if it will restore balance. No there isn't much evidence that it will. [irony]Obviously this extra convection pumping the heat away is what has led to the fact that satellite observations of the tropical mid-troposphere show it warming at a faster rate than at the surface[/irony] Sorry the response here is later than normal - I have just spent a few hours at the tropopause in and out of the cloud tops - with a haze above.... "Nautonnier, Most of the above was about all the possible things that are not equal, so I don't need you to tell me that. But Jim has never really reflected back the understanding that you can very reasonably calculate the so-called "forcing" from doubling of CO2 prior to then wondering about what the result of that forcing will be"I think that because like me, Jim feels that the ‘its only radiation that matters’ approach is incorrect. So the calculations of ‘forcing’ using a slab atmosphere and an instantaneous doubling of CO2 that has no response to heating at the surface and no convection, may be a nice mathematical exercise but it bears absolutely NO relation to reality. Perhaps you can invent a coefficient to show the differences using this mathematical-flight-of-fancy between CO2 and CH4 so taxation of farmers can be justified, but it is NOT physics. As Jim said physics is the development of a hypothesis based on previous experimental findings, followed by an experiment to falsify the hypothesis. As the slab atmosphere is an unreal invention then this methodology can _never_ be followed. This is Jim’s main point – there are no experiments and no experimental evidence behind the quantification of forcing; merely unfalisifyable mind games with imaginary atmospheres (and yes Socold I know that they are using simple physics but they are also ignoring the complexity of the activity of the atmosphere – this is the entire reason the modelers make the atmosphere a constant they cannot cope with the complexity. So this approach both simplifies and makes unreal the outcome of the calculations.) "You are getting this wrong. These clouds exist now. They existed in 1750. They will exist in 2100. They will be a negative feedback if their numbers increase as a result of warming. They will be a positive feedback if their numbers decrease as a result of warming. The surface will warm, but so will the rest of the atmosphere, so an increase in convection and an increase in these clouds is not a given."No YOU are misunderstanding the point. The assumptions made in the current set of GCM on the effects of clouds are being shown by experiment to be simplistic and often grossly incorrect. It is not only the amount of cloudiness it is the _type_ of clouds that is important. As some ERBE experiments have shown some of these clouds raise albedo to a level equivalent to more than 100WM -2 NEGATIVE forcing. The reason for convective clouds is not solely warmth (that is just one of the triggers) but water vapor changing state which gives up heat and reduces the adiabatic lapse rate of the volume of moist air compared to the basic lapse rate. This means that rising moist air does not cool as fast as the basic adiabatic lapse rate leading to instability and convective updrafts which only need a trigger to start them. This convective activity can be triggered directly due to warmth but can also be orographic, or frontal uplift, The atmosphere gets its warmth and energy FROM the surface and loses it RAPIDLY to space. Much of this is water evaporating from the surface and from plants cooling the surface or the plants as it changes state then condensing and warming the air causing convection currents then changing to ice and increasing the convection. Some updraughts in convective weather can be extreme leading to water still being liquid at higher than 30,000 feet as there has not been time for it to cool. (See recent North West Airlines major icing report just recently with ‘rain’ on the aircraft at 38,000 ft) This is all part of the hydrologic cycle which AGW both requires to be valid (see your last ironic comment) and yet wants to ignore for all other reasons as the energy involved probably easily overwhelms the minor warming effect of CO2 "The theory does not have tunnel vision. People are spending their lives studying the potential changes of clouds as a response to warming. You appear to be the one with all the weight on one end of the seesaw by assuming that any feedback will be a negative feedback."There _are_ people doing just as you say but the IPCC IR4 admitted that clouds are still poorly understood in their impact on the climate. I do not assume that all feedback will be negative – but much of it IS negative without negative feedback with all the heat trapped in the atmosphere we would go into Hansen’s tipping point. (He has recently been stating ‘that it may already be too late’ etc. www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4585&print=1 ) The point that I was making was that convection of water vapor is far more important than you state – you will _always_ revert to the Stefan Boltzmann radiation formula, talk of radiative forcing and discard any transport of heat by state changes in water – even up into the stratosphere where it causes noctilucent cloud. "I don't think Jim has pointed that out at all.
And what else does all this convection carry? More water vapour. What is water vapour? A greenhouse gas. Yes the response should be examined to see if it will restore balance. No there isn't much evidence that it will.""[irony]Obviously this extra convection pumping the heat away is what has led to the fact that satellite observations of the tropical mid-troposphere show it warming at a faster rate than at the surface[/irony]"Steve you prove my point by going straight back to radiation and the fact that water vapor is a green house gas. This is true but it also is carrying heat in a way that NO OTHER GREEN HOUSE GAS DOES as when it changes state it gives up heat. So it can transport heat in and of itself something that CO 2 does not do. This release of latent heat causes the convection to accelerate carrying the warm O 2 N 2 and CO 2 along with it and due to the adiabatic lapse rate all these gases start cooling - radiating away their heat as water vapor continues to condense out giving up even more heat – forming droplets – clouds – that continue upward with the extra heat from the water – and raise the earth’s albedo. The rising clouds pass the freezing level and the water droplets and remaining water vapor change state again to ice crystals increasing the albedo further and releasing more latent heat increasing the speed of the convection. Indeed if the atmosphere is sufficiently unstable due to water vapor then the updrafts can move at significant speeds – sufficient to carry liquid water up to close to the tropopause where the water rapidly freezes and releases more heat well above the majority of the ‘green house gases’ and again increasing the albedo. Big weather systems of the type that drive the Hadley cells pick up huge amounts of energy from the surface. All the rain that has ruined barbecues in the UK this July was at one stage evaporated into the atmosphere. Radiation is obviously important at the TOA (if that can be a sensible concept) but the way the heat transits the troposphere is repeatedly and continually misstated. Probably because most of it gets there without need of radiation. The use of a slab atmosphere has colored the logic of the AGW proponents. Why is there so much hesitation to take on the amount of energy picked up from the surface by weather systems? They end at the tropopause after all – is it because the amount of CO2 below the tropopause makes the calculations in favor of AGW that much more impressive – even if they are incorrect?
<<<<<<< Some interesting information on convective energy >>>>>>
*Examples of Convective Energy*
"Energy from a Thunderstorm “If the quantity of water that is condensed in and subsequently precipitated from a cloud is known, then the total energy of a thunderstorm can be calculated. In an average thunderstorm, the energy released amounts to about 10,000,000 kilowatt-hours (3.6 × 1013 joule), which is equivalent to a 20-kiloton nuclear warhead. A large, severe thunderstorm might be 10 to 100 times more energetic”" Wikipedia – Convective Weather
Energy from Hurricanes "Total energy released through cloud/rain formation: An average hurricane produces 1.5 cm/day (0.6 inches/day) of rain inside a circle of radius 665 km (360 n.mi) (Gray 1981). (More rain falls in the inner portion of hurricane around the eyewall, less in the outer rainbands.) Converting this to a volume of rain gives 2.1 x 1016 cm3/day. A cubic cm of rain weighs 1 gm. Using the latent heat of condensation, this amount of rain produced gives 5.2 x 1019 Joules/day or 6.0 x 1014 Watts.
This is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity - an incredible amount of energy produced!
Total kinetic energy (wind energy) generated: For a mature hurricane, the amount of kinetic energy generated is equal to that being dissipated due to friction. The dissipation rate per unit area is air density times the drag coefficient times the windspeed cubed (See Emanuel 1999 for details). One could either integrate a typical wind profile over a range of radii from the hurricane's center to the outer radius encompassing the storm, or assume an average windspeed for the inner core of the hurricane. Doing the latter and using 40 m/s (90 mph) winds on a scale of radius 60 km (40 n.mi.), one gets a wind dissipation rate (wind generation rate) of 1.3 x 1017 Joules/day or 1.5 x 1012Watts.
This is equivalent to about half the world-wide electrical generating capacity - also an amazing amount of energy being produced!" Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory FAQs
Climatology of deep, moist convection
"It is of interest to develop a synoptic-scale sense of the climatological occurrence of DMC. A way of viewing the existence of convection within midlatitudes is that convection develops whenever the redistribution of heat by synoptic-scale processes is not sufficient to mitigate the imbalances resulting from differential heating at the surface. Extra-Tropical Cyclones produce prodigious meridional and vertical heat transports; Palmén and Newton (1969, p. 301 ff.) estimate that the poleward heat transport per cyclone across 45°N on an April day is about 1012 kJ s-1 and they note that about six such disturbances around the globe at any one time would suffice to compensate for the associated meridional imbalance in radiative heating. They also estimate the upward heat transport across 500 hPa per cyclone to be about 2 x 1011 kJ s-1. Again, they note that this amount is roughly comparable to that needed to balance the excess heat input at low levels.
EXTRATROPICAL SYNOPTIC-SCALE PROCESSES AND SEVERE CONVECTION Chapter 2 in Severe Convective Storms A Meteorological Monograph Published by The American Meteorological Society May 2000
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 24, 2009 21:54:55 GMT
Your post is filled with strawmen about models.
You clearly vastly underestimate the complexity of processes the models implement.
They don't have "slab atmospheres" or even slab oceans anymore. They don't just look at radiation. They include all the physics you mention involving the hydrological cycle and convection plus more.
The "AGW result" that such models produce is simply reflecting the result of human understanding of physics in the climate (radiation, convection, clouds, the lot)
Imagine your description implemented with the equations describing those processes plus more. That's the models.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 25, 2009 0:43:12 GMT
Your post is filled with strawmen about models. You clearly vastly underestimate the complexity of processes the models implement. They don't have "slab atmospheres" or even slab oceans anymore. They don't just look at radiation. They include all the physics you mention involving the hydrological cycle and convection plus more. The "AGW result" that such models produce is simply reflecting the result of human understanding of physics in the climate (radiation, convection, clouds, the lot) Imagine your description implemented with the equations describing those processes plus more. That's the models. SoCold: The reason the models are so junk science is that they can't incorporate H2O vapor well. I admire them for admitting that flaw, but to not understand the strongest greenhouse gas of all and try to make a model of climate?....ROFLMAO. Good luck is all I can say....(and for sure don't put yourself to ridicule publishing nonsens)
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 25, 2009 12:04:51 GMT
Nautonnier
You are wrong in suggesting that there is any "only radiation that matters" approach. It *is* a nice mathematical and physical exercise. It bears relation to reality in much the same way as quite reasonable suggestions that the earth would probably get warmer if the sun's output increased.
You have your theories for how convection and transport of heat by water vapour are important. But so do others who disagree with you. Simply stating them as though they are obvious doesn't prove you right any more than if I were to state the other theories. The problem is not obvious.
You keep talking about these hundred watt clouds as though they are a new phenomenon. They are not a new phenomenon.
Now I don't think you have mentioned Lindzen, but Lindzen might feel that his results show that in the tropics such clouds might increase when warming occurs and that longwave output also increases (possibly as a result of the processes you describe).
But Lindzen's findings are arguably as unrealistic as what you claim forcing arguments are given that they are based on forcing from sea surface temperature changes over short periods. In essence Lindzen's observations are similar to what slab models aim to do.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 25, 2009 12:48:26 GMT
Your post is filled with strawmen about models. You clearly vastly underestimate the complexity of processes the models implement. They don't have "slab atmospheres" or even slab oceans anymore. They don't just look at radiation. They include all the physics you mention involving the hydrological cycle and convection plus more. The "AGW result" that such models produce is simply reflecting the result of human understanding of physics in the climate (radiation, convection, clouds, the lot) Imagine your description implemented with the equations describing those processes plus more. That's the models. SoCold: The reason the models are so junk science is that they can't incorporate H2O vapor well. I admire them for admitting that flaw, but to not understand the strongest greenhouse gas of all and try to make a model of climate?....ROFLMAO. Good luck is all I can say....(and for sure don't put yourself to ridicule publishing nonsens) Another strawman. The models do incorperate H2O well. Not perfectly. But well.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 25, 2009 13:16:35 GMT
Your post is filled with strawmen about models. You clearly vastly underestimate the complexity of processes the models implement. They don't have "slab atmospheres" or even slab oceans anymore. They don't just look at radiation. They include all the physics you mention involving the hydrological cycle and convection plus more. The "AGW result" that such models produce is simply reflecting the result of human understanding of physics in the climate (radiation, convection, clouds, the lot) Imagine your description implemented with the equations describing those processes plus more. That's the models. Socold The very DEFINITION of radiative forcing is using a static slab atmosphere specifically WITHOUT ANY CONVECTION this is why they call it RADIATIVE forcing from Wikipedia: "The term “radiative forcing” has been employed in the IPCC Assessments with a specific technical meaning to denote an externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of the Earth’s climate system, which may lead to changes in climate parameters [1]. The exact definition used is: The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values."www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/214.htm#611This slab of unresponsive atmosphere cannot show any heat transfer due to convection as " tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values". Yes people are starting to TRY to model convective processes but not particularly well it is extremely complex and there are too many simplifications involved for the modeling of chaotic atmospheric turbulence to be accurate. So every time YOU and others use the term 'Radiative Forcing' you are using a metric based on the myth of a slab atmosphere. You may not want to admit it - but that is the case. All I was pointing out is that there is an extremely large and variable fraction of the heat energy at the surface being transported to the tropopause without radiation being involved. 'Radiative Forcing' AS DEFINED BY THE IPCC *cannot* be used to quantify the total heat energy transport from the surface to the tropopause as it EXPLICITLY disregards any heat that is transported by convective or hydrologic processes. If the total heat transport through the atmosphere is to be quantified another metric is required that includes atmospheric convection. Ideally this would be an objective metric similar to OLR but which also includes measures of albedo effects. The choice of Radiative Forcing as a metric is a deliberate way of amplifying the effect of radiative absorption by explicitly disregarding everything else.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 25, 2009 13:22:56 GMT
SoCold: The reason the models are so junk science is that they can't incorporate H2O vapor well. I admire them for admitting that flaw, but to not understand the strongest greenhouse gas of all and try to make a model of climate?....ROFLMAO. Good luck is all I can say....(and for sure don't put yourself to ridicule publishing nonsens) Another strawman. The models do incorperate H2O well. Not perfectly. But well. By their own admission, the IPCC states that is has a very poor understanding of h2o vapor.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 25, 2009 14:06:56 GMT
Nautonnier
Fine. But radiative forcing *is not being* used by the IPCC to quantify heat transport. It is a metric that, arguably, enables different perturbations to the atmosphere to be compared including solar incidence, aerosols and greenhouse gases.
Metrics are used when you need to compare two or more things. What would such a metric compare?
The choice of radiative forcing is not surprising given that essentially we have an engineering problem with a known boundary condition.
A very similar thing is done when designing central heating systems. You calculate the volume to be heated and the heat transport characteristics of the boundaries: the walls, floor, ceiling and windows. This enables you to estimate the power of your heating source required to warm a room during likely minimum temperatures outside. Since there is air circulating between inside and outside, you have to take this into account too. With the earth you don't have the problem of losing energy by other methods.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 25, 2009 14:32:46 GMT
Your post is filled with strawmen about models. You clearly vastly underestimate the complexity of processes the models implement. They don't have "slab atmospheres" or even slab oceans anymore. They don't just look at radiation. They include all the physics you mention involving the hydrological cycle and convection plus more. The "AGW result" that such models produce is simply reflecting the result of human understanding of physics in the climate (radiation, convection, clouds, the lot) Imagine your description implemented with the equations describing those processes plus more. That's the models. Socold The very DEFINITION of radiative forcing is using a static slab atmosphere specifically WITHOUT ANY CONVECTION this is why they call it RADIATIVE forcing You are confusing radiative forcing with climate response. How the climate changes when a forcing is applied is the response. Changes to convection are part of the response, not part of the forcing. The forcing is a measure of the energy inbalance caused by a change. The climate will respond to reduce that energy inbalance, including changes in convection. But those changes in convection don't alter the initial amount of energy inbalance caused. How convection changes doesn't alter the initial forcing. Why is it called a "radiative" forcing? Because the Earth can only gain and lose energy by absorbing radiation from space and emitting radiation to space. The Earth cannot gain or lose energy by convection and conduction because it's surrounded by a vacuum. Therefore any change to the Earth's energy balance can be described entirely in terms of the change in radiation out vs in. For example if the sun increases output by 2% that causes the Earth to gain 4wm-2 more radiation than it emits. The Earth will respond in a way that reduces this inbalance back to zero. How it responds to do this (increased convection, warmer surface, whatever) doesn't alter the fact of the 4wm-2 initial inbalance. Another example if co2 in the atmosphere is doubled that also causes the Earth to be gaining 4wm-2 more radiation than it emits. Again the Earth will respond in a way that reduces this inbalance back to zero. How it does so doesn't alter the fact of the 4wm-2 initial inbalance. Both cases highlight an important use of radiative forcing - they allow seperate causes to be compared, because generally the overall climate response to a forcing is pretty much the same irregardless of the cause. They aren't starting, they've been doing it for decades and the laws governing it are not extremely complex, they are just computationally intensive. The modelling is accurate. No we are describing the change in energy in vs out caused by a change, such as a 2% increase in solar output or a doubling of co2. We can for example see that a 2% decrease in solar output would roughly cancel out a doubling of co2. Without the concept of radiative forcing such a comparison between solar output and greenhouse gas changes would be made far more difficult. Radiative forcing isn't used to "quantify the total heat energy transport from the surface to the tropopause". It's used to quantify the initial change in energy in vs energy out of the Earth system due to a forcing event. After the intial change there will of course be internal changes to reduce the forcing, such as changes in convection, clouds, etc, but that is response not forcing. Everything else isn't disregarded, models calculate how convection responds to the forcing, but that is not the forcing, it's the response
|
|