jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 19, 2010 14:27:35 GMT
I understand the Bastardi outlooks disappear after a bit, so I'll quote the section that includes his prediction: Joe Bastardi's Europe Column POSTED: 3:44 p.m. August 18, 2010 The 1950's La Niña was negative MEI for about 3 years, including below -1.5 for 9 full months in a row, and were coupled with a temporary temperature drop of about 0.2C. As my 2010 prediction guess differs markedly from socolds, and as glc hasn't made a prediction, there is no "team" here. Also I have said I'm not guessing further till I've watched the La Niña for a bit longer, so my short term prediction is not against Bastardi (even if I think his prediction as a whole is full of it). Hogsh*t...have a go like Joe does. The components are in place.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 20, 2010 19:47:37 GMT
Hadcrut3 2011 0.48C +- 0.1C
|
|
|
Post by dougproctor on Aug 31, 2010 17:31:24 GMT
I've been struggling with the insolation breakdown, finding the pieces difficult to determine from official and non-official sources. This is how I see it: TOA insolation: 1366 W/m2 +/- 6.8% Jan/July (orbital excentricity), +/- 0.08% solar cycle variance; 275 W/m2 atmospheric absorption (clear skies), 7 W/m2 refraction, 290 W/m2 cloud reflection, 114 Not-Cloud reflection; 680 W/m2 ground flux absorbed. Absorbed insolation: 275 + 680 or 855 W/m2 leading to warming of the surface and atmosphere, from non-GWG temp -18 to current global average +15. Clouds/not clouds: 0.59/0.41. Calculated albedos: Clouds 0.360 av, Not-clouds 0.144 (114 back from 794 reaching ground), average global albedo 0.296.
The value of the TOA insolation bothers me, as I have seen other numbers. Also, the annual variation of +/- 46 W/m2 astonishes me that the planet is so well buffered (including inertia) that we do not see an effect, but the approx. 3 W/m2 for CO2 changes are supposed to upset everything.
Comments? Am I missing something here, basically wrong?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 31, 2010 19:25:10 GMT
Well first you have to define what you mean by TOA. The atmosphere has been shrinking see www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=117580&org=NSF&from=newsThen there is the question of whether the solar output changes alter the expansion of the thermosphere or whether the thermosphere shrinking reduces the capture of high energy UV - or both So when I see very precise figures like "TOA insolation: 1366 W/m2 +/- 6.8%" one has to ask: * where were those square meters measured? and * what effect would that have if it changed to 1365Wm -2 +/- 6.9% ? * How would you know it has changed? * How much of that energy is from each wavelength and has that distribution changed? Some of these figures are happily specified with great precision and then multiplied up many many times when they are actually only best guesstimates or simplifying assumptions. Rather obviously there is not a lot of solar energy received on the night side of the Earth what effect does the diurnal variation have? It would be nice for someone to actually model a rotating oblate spheroid with a active chaotic atmosphere and oceans in differential rotation
|
|
|
Post by dougproctor on Sept 1, 2010 15:52:12 GMT
Thanks for the reply. But for the energy balance calculations - even a general calculation - the first thing must be to determine an energy input number. If the IPCC and others can't determine how much comes in then the forcing factors won't mean anything. I understand the problem in terms of a definition, but like the albedo of the Earth being 0.296, some satellite-derived total energy value has been obtained. Just now I was looking at a WUWT discussion and saw that the current irradiance is somewhere in the 1355 W/m2, depending on (I think) wavelength. There has to be a stabilized insolation value or there is no validity in saying the sun doesn't have the overriding temperature control of the earth. And the relative stability of the temp rise suggests that there is a stability in the solar irradiance over periods of years.
So I"m still scratching my head. What IS the input value used in energy balance discussions?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 1, 2010 16:28:07 GMT
You need to divide your 46W/m^2 by 4 to give a comparison with CO2 forcing.
The earth intercepts sunlight according to the size of its disk (pi times radius squared), but the area of the earth is 4 times this.
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Sept 2, 2010 10:51:43 GMT
dougproctor, Came across a statement recently by Judith Lean, the Solar scientist, that Extreme UV varies a hundredfold between periods of high and low Solar activity. This reacts mainly with oxygen in the thermosphere and heats it. This would be the reason that the atmosphere has shrunk recently. My view of this is that the lack of heat in the thermosphere allows the polar jet streams to move equatorwards, and this causes big changes in the temperatures and weather systems in the temperate zones. These jet streams get blocked at times, like recently with the Moscow heat wave, at the same time causing low temperatures in Siberia, and a blocking of the monsoon in Pakistan. In the southern hemisphere we have had record lows in South America right up to the equator and 2 degrees north, with temperatures in Argentina reported lower than Antarctic stations, huge stock losses, 400 people dead of cold in Peru, and upper Amazon rivers in Bolivia choked with dead fish and other aquatic life with water temperatures down to 2°C. And last year the Mongolians lost more than half of their stock in -50°C temps As many have pointed out, temperatures are a poor metric to measure climate, the reason some of the historical cool periods, like the DAlton are memorable is not that the average dropped that much, but the extremes, especially the winter ones are particularly low. It may be that it is a near zero sum game, but the game is still run by the Sun So no temperature predictions from me, just an advisory to get some warm underwear.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 2, 2010 12:37:22 GMT
Temperature is not the most important metric of global climate, and a derived global temperature number is even less so. This thread is about as important as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 2, 2010 16:12:12 GMT
Temperature is not the most important metric of global climate, and a derived global temperature number is even less so. This thread is about as important as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If you aren't interested, then don't comment. The 2010 summer arctic sea ice data is less important and that has over 100 pages of comments.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 2, 2010 17:22:59 GMT
Temperature is not the most important metric of global climate, and a derived global temperature number is even less so. This thread is about as important as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If you aren't interested, then don't comment. The 2010 summer arctic sea ice data is less important and that has over 100 pages of comments. Perhaps we should have a thread on global heat content that would be really useful. After all it is the energy budget that we are meant to be concerned about.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 2, 2010 18:17:27 GMT
If you aren't interested, then don't comment. The 2010 summer arctic sea ice data is less important and that has over 100 pages of comments. Perhaps we should have a thread on global heat content that would be really useful. After all it is the energy budget that we are meant to be concerned about. It is not even the heat content. The question is if the changes in CO2 are going to trigger a climate catastrophe like that poor deluded guy at the Discover channel so fervently believed. Or that family in Argentina that committed suicide rather than face the climate apocalypse they were convinced is coming. Is a great tipping point in the climate imminent,and will it tip us into a disaster? Warmer? Cooler? It has happened before and it will happen again. AGW is selling catastrophe, apocalypse and doom. Dancing around a few tenths of a degree is a joke. REF: the comments on the ice: precisely. AGW true believers have drawn huge Earth shaking conclusions from fluctuations in something that we know fluctuates a lot. It has been fun to read how graywolf pants away for his anti-human future by way of global climate apocalypse.
|
|
|
Post by dougproctor on Sept 4, 2010 18:40:45 GMT
Re: Steve, reply 50
Thanks for the note about comparing the solar variation to CO2 forcing. Still, 46/4, or 10.5 W/m2, is almost 2X the 5.6 W/m2 the IPCC uses as CO2 forcing from 384 ppm to 768 ppm CO2. The 2.3C* temperature counter-intuitive difference between aphelion and perihelion positions gives another 2.8 - 5.6 W/m2 (IPCC thoughts on temperature rise vs W/m2 forcings) to the situation. So we actually have a planetary system that is in equilibrium with a 12- 15 W/m2 seasonal disparity. The general public think of the world being in a static equilibrium whereas it is actually in a dynamic equilibrium, which means it is always adjusting itself. That is where the buffering agents come in, be they atmospheric ciruculation or hurricanes or others. Static equilibrium conditions play well with the IPCC ideas: change the CO2 content and a unique and predictable result arises. Under dynamic equilibrium as this simple insolation variation shows, you cannot predict what is going to happen, but what you can be certain of is not a catastrophic result. The system is buffered against such a thing. At the same time, dynamic equilibrium conditions mean that the ups and downs are not consistent or fixed.
A see-saw with blocks at either end is in static equilibrium. You can walk back and forthnothing happens. If you run back and forth across a see-saw so that as one end goes down you go to the rising end, you will have a dynamic equilibrium, but one in which a distraction might make you slow down one way or the other and find your see-saw rising higher or lower than normal. I think the insolation difference says the planetary temperatures/energy budget is a see-saw in which the balancing forces are running back and forth very studiously. Changes in the radiative forcing components of the atmospheric gases must be viewed in terms of adding to the existing buffered energy imbalance. Considering the relatively stable temperature profile of the last few thousand years, the buffering is very robust. I expect an additional forcing of a few W/m2 will be buffered down. If 10.5 W/m2 is buffered to - 2.8 (or so) W/m2, I can't see the additional 5.6 (probaly, way less) doing much. And for CAGW, it has to do lots.
I`m thinking this through. If I`ve missed some neuron-connections, I`d be interested in knowing. And, BTW, the energy flow is, of course, THE important thing. If heat is redirected from the equator to the Arct
|
|
|
Post by dougproctor on Sept 4, 2010 18:45:10 GMT
Sorry - new keyboard and some key I hit by mistake sends things. Very annoying.
To finish: If energy from the equator is redirected to the Arctic, then temperatures go up and big anomalies occur, whereas the energy budget in total is hardly effected. All due to the different heat capacities of water and air in a generall cold area. But we can measure temperatures easily, and notice then and it is the temperature that effects the biopshere, not the energy distribution (except as a driver).
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Sept 5, 2010 3:03:37 GMT
Humans have a remarkable ability to feel temperature changes; by some studies as little as 2/1000th of a degree. That itchy feeling you get on the back of your neck when Mrs. Grundy is watching may actually exist, and be a result of slight temperature changes.
However, humidity is just as easily detected. And temperature, humidity, and the amount of irradiance all affect plant growth. And judging by world wide crop forecasts, it appears plants are doing what plants generally do. Damping down for adverse growing conditions.
Our forefathers grew remarkable amounts of food in window boxes and hot frames. It would probably be a really good idea to rediscover the knack of starting plants under an old window sash, long before they can be transferred to a taller environment.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 6, 2010 9:40:00 GMT
Doug,
The comparison between solar and CO2 is that solar goes up and then down and averages out the same over a year. CO2 forcing goes up and is staying up. Detecting the effect of the solar variation on the global energy budget is made harder because the Southern hemisphere has much less land than the northern hemisphere, so you are comparing temperatures of areas with different properties. Also the energy budget of the earth reacts on timescales of many years, so that for example, the effect of Pinatubo on the atmosphere happened over the period of about a year, but its effect on the oceans is quite hard to detect.
|
|