|
Post by Ratty on Jan 1, 2015 22:54:38 GMT
"loss of albedo across the poles", GW?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 2, 2015 1:10:09 GMT
Hi Siggy! this is why the loss of albedo across the poles is an issue as instead of tall the short wave radiation being bounced back harmlessly into space before being absorbed and re emitted in a form the GHG's can handle? The heat absorbed into the oceans will also be interfaced with the atmosphere in this form so the GHG's again will intercept. It's sad that , had the phase been positive, the heat would have interfaced with an atmosphere with less GHG's but now it has sat in the oceans for a decade it will end up meeting an atmosphere with far more GHG's. It will also be fun to see the paid climate misleaders telling their disciples to focus on the heat being expelled from the ocean as a cause for elevated global temps ( and not a very sensitive GHG response) after spending years instructing them to inform the world that there was no missing heat in the oceans : -) The Arctic (which is close to 1SD of normal at the moment) is in total darkness - so albedo is of no import. The Antarctic ice is at record levels so the albedo will not be reduced but increased reflecting short wave radiation (the only type that warms the oceans) back into space. Your logic is a little difficult to follow.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 2, 2015 3:34:25 GMT
Hi Siggy! this is why the loss of albedo across the poles is an issue as instead of tall the short wave radiation being bounced back harmlessly into space before being absorbed and re emitted in a form the GHG's can handle? The heat absorbed into the oceans will also be interfaced with the atmosphere in this form so the GHG's again will intercept. It's sad that , had the phase been positive, the heat would have interfaced with an atmosphere with less GHG's but now it has sat in the oceans for a decade it will end up meeting an atmosphere with far more GHG's. It will also be fun to see the paid climate misleaders telling their disciples to focus on the heat being expelled from the ocean as a cause for elevated global temps ( and not a very sensitive GHG response) after spending years instructing them to inform the world that there was no missing heat in the oceans : -) Graywolf: Missing heat? The only heat missing is what has escaped. The actual Arctic plays a very minor role in climate. The slight albedo change there is not going to have a dramatic effect on global temperatures because the area is so small and the incidence of intense radiation is so short. ARGO seems to indicate that the oceans have not accumulated a large heat surplus. Sure, a few areas are warmer, but overall very little change which means some areas are also cooler. Once again, the major GHG is H2O vapor. Band widths overlap with CO2 which means that CO2 is only effective over approx. 50,000 feet. Can you back up your assertion that the heat is in the oceans? That assertion is not backed up by recent literature which has actually found a cooling in the ocean temps.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 2, 2015 3:35:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 2, 2015 4:19:29 GMT
Funding Preservation Statement:
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 2, 2015 10:52:54 GMT
We saw two pieces of research late in 2014. One showing the oceans gaining heat faster than we thought they were (northern oceans up to half as fast again and southern oceans twice as fast) using data from ARGO and the coral research showing show AGW is impacting the IPO ( driving ocean warming over its negative pjhase) with a caveat that it appears to be flipping positive ( atmospheric heating phase).
West Antarctic , like greenland, is revealing more terrain as the ice cover recedes upslope. Antarctic sea ice forms in an ocean full of waves and so has limited albedo over most of its life ( 2009 saw a study show that Arctic ice was also forming via ''pancake ice' due to increased wave activity due to reduced ice cover).
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 2, 2015 12:06:51 GMT
We saw two pieces of research late in 2014. One showing the oceans gaining heat faster than we thought they were (northern oceans up to half as fast again and southern oceans twice as fast) using data from ARGO and the coral research showing show AGW is impacting the IPO ( driving ocean warming over its negative pjhase) with a caveat that it appears to be flipping positive ( atmospheric heating phase). West Antarctic , like greenland, is revealing more terrain as the ice cover recedes upslope. Antarctic sea ice forms in an ocean full of waves and so has limited albedo over most of its life ( 2009 saw a study show that Arctic ice was also forming via ''pancake ice' due to increased wave activity due to reduced ice cover). To which research are you referring GW? I did read this: NASA: Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 2, 2015 12:56:50 GMT
www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/2014/december/nasa-satellites-measure-increase-of-sun-s-energy-absorbed-in-the-arctic/#.VJQBCv8Ntwww.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2389.htmlwww.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2321.htmlI'm not saying that the IPO has already flipped but the signs over the past 16 months appear to underscore a change underway with oceans able to place heat into the atmosphere more effectively than over the past 15 years ( Nino spikes aside). The July paper looking at the reduction in scale of anoms between tropical Pacific and Atlantic , and promise of parity being restored in the near future , shows that the mechanism , outlined in the paper above, is now setting up for a flip away from increased trades, driven by the basin's differences, that has ploughed heat into the upper 700m of the ocean ( who mention warming of the deep abyss anyway???) and upwelled cooler waters to the surface ( so moderating atmospheric temps) is failing and so surface heating will remain at the surface ( as we have seen) long enough to interface with the atmosphere above and so impact global temps ( as we have seen across many months through 2014). Not only do we have the heat remaining at the surface but we also have the oceans heat cargo, as measured by Argo ( more heat stored than we had hoped for) ready to resurface and add into the surface/atmosphere interface. Again this will be dis-proven, or borne out, by what we see occurring over the coming months. If ocean sst's keep on engorging global temps then we know we are seeing a change from the 98-2013 'norm' and a return to the 80's/90's set up? Of course in the 80's /90's the Arctic basin was ice covered all year and the permanent ice/snow patches we have now lost across the north still having their impacts so I'd expect this added heat sink to also show its hand in global temps esp. across the northern summer. Should this pattern be altering I'd also expect land ice loss from WAIS to step up again as PIG and Thwaites resume their loss trend.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 2, 2015 16:02:55 GMT
Well its beginning to look as though our flirtation with negative naturals ( and their AGW component) it drawing to a close with some agencies now concerning themselves with leach out of accrued heat from the warmed oceans ( on top of the unhindered AGW influence and positive natural forcings). All in all the Meto has been pretty conservative in their prediction esp. if we are to see the worlds oceans acting like a giant Nino Plume until the excess heat from the past decade or so has been expelled from them? Throw in a Nino and a low ice summer and folk will be wondering who told them that global warming was a myth...... see this for the next decade and folk will be wondering why they ever listened to folk incapable of seeing what 97% of science was warning them of...... No skill exists for predicting an El Nino for this coming summer so its just an AGW pipe dream at this point in time. As far as a warm year is concerned, Astromet has predicted a warm year and it should be a warm year since we are at solar maximum. However, history has shown it should have been warm years for the last several years as solar activity climbed to maximum and really no overall warming has resulted. One might want to blame the low level of the solar maximum but all one can say about that is what is happening is exactly what should be happening.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 2, 2015 16:14:16 GMT
Well its beginning to look as though our flirtation with negative naturals ( and their AGW component) it drawing to a close with some agencies now concerning themselves with leach out of accrued heat from the warmed oceans ( on top of the unhindered AGW influence and positive natural forcings). All in all the Meto has been pretty conservative in their prediction esp. if we are to see the worlds oceans acting like a giant Nino Plume until the excess heat from the past decade or so has been expelled from them? Throw in a Nino and a low ice summer and folk will be wondering who told them that global warming was a myth...... see this for the next decade and folk will be wondering why they ever listened to folk incapable of seeing what 97% of science was warning them of...... No skill exists for predicting an El Nino for this coming summer so its just an AGW pipe dream at this point in time. As far as a warm year is concerned, Astromet has predicted a warm year and it should be a warm year since we are at solar maximum. However, history has shown it should have been warm years for the last several years as solar activity climbed to maximum and really no overall warming has resulted. One might want to blame the low level of the solar maximum but all one can say about that is what is happening is exactly what should be happening. Are you saying that we have not been under the influence of naturals that reduce atmospheric warming ice? Are you also saying that the data from the past year or so does not indicate that this natural forcing is now on the wane and we ought not to expect the other side of that coin to present? Hmmmm ?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 2, 2015 16:28:54 GMT
Hi Siggy! this is why the loss of albedo across the poles is an issue as instead of tall the short wave radiation being bounced back harmlessly into space before being absorbed and re emitted in a form the GHG's can handle? The heat absorbed into the oceans will also be interfaced with the atmosphere in this form so the GHG's again will intercept. It's sad that , had the phase been positive, the heat would have interfaced with an atmosphere with less GHG's but now it has sat in the oceans for a decade it will end up meeting an atmosphere with far more GHG's. It will also be fun to see the paid climate misleaders telling their disciples to focus on the heat being expelled from the ocean as a cause for elevated global temps ( and not a very sensitive GHG response) after spending years instructing them to inform the world that there was no missing heat in the oceans : -) Simple geometry would seem to put a big question into that analysis. At the poles the angle of the sun is very low. Thus much heat is reflected off the surface of the water but the much lower albedo of the naked ocean has an ideal angle to space at all times and its going to pump heat into space like no tomorrow compared to fresh snow. Lets remember our radiation laws. In an idealized radiation situation the surface emits exactly what it absorbs no matter what its albedo is. High albedo surfaces merely absorb and emit less than low albedo surfaces. One would think in the absence of science to the contrary that geometry of the source of radiation would be an extremely important factor also any heat already contained behind the surface and any insulation (provided by ice) would also enter into the equation. I can see no rational basis for claiming a low albedo arctic ocean with warm currents arriving from the south would not represent a huge net loss of heat. There appears to me to be a cold ocean current event that hits the equator each time the ice goes really low. Generally low ice may be explaining the washout of El Nino and be symptomatic of a cooling ocean, exactly the opposite of what you have postulated. The ocean represents a huge heat sink and the timing of effects of a big heat sink is strongly affected by both its mass and insulation values.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 2, 2015 23:17:57 GMT
www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/2014/december/nasa-satellites-measure-increase-of-sun-s-energy-absorbed-in-the-arctic/#.VJQBCv8Ntwww.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2389.htmlwww.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2321.htmlI'm not saying that the IPO has already flipped but the signs over the past 16 months appear to underscore a change underway with oceans able to place heat into the atmosphere more effectively than over the past 15 years ( Nino spikes aside). The July paper looking at the reduction in scale of anoms between tropical Pacific and Atlantic , and promise of parity being restored in the near future , shows that the mechanism , outlined in the paper above, is now setting up for a flip away from increased trades, driven by the basin's differences, that has ploughed heat into the upper 700m of the ocean ( who mention warming of the deep abyss anyway???) and upwelled cooler waters to the surface ( so moderating atmospheric temps) is failing and so surface heating will remain at the surface ( as we have seen) long enough to interface with the atmosphere above and so impact global temps ( as we have seen across many months through 2014). Not only do we have the heat remaining at the surface but we also have the oceans heat cargo, as measured by Argo ( more heat stored than we had hoped for) ready to resurface and add into the surface/atmosphere interface. Again this will be dis-proven, or borne out, by what we see occurring over the coming months. If ocean sst's keep on engorging global temps then we know we are seeing a change from the 98-2013 'norm' and a return to the 80's/90's set up? Of course in the 80's /90's the Arctic basin was ice covered all year and the permanent ice/snow patches we have now lost across the north still having their impacts so I'd expect this added heat sink to also show its hand in global temps esp. across the northern summer. Should this pattern be altering I'd also expect land ice loss from WAIS to step up again as PIG and Thwaites resume their loss trend. GW, this is part of the abstract of the second reference (my bold): The first two bold indicate that models rule. The third is likely a funding preservation statement depending on how their conclusion reads. I expect a "more research is needed" (or similar) towards the end of the paper. I'm not sure what the second paper supports other than natural variability .... but I don't have access. They do mention "rapid global warming from 1910 to 1940" when CO2 was at (presumably) safe levels.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 3, 2015 12:21:45 GMT
In terms of a life time ( however curtailed) a few years is not long to wait is it ratty? Should 2015 and 16' see similar temp rises to 2014 ( even without a Nino to give it a leg up) then would you not be curios as to 'Why'? If we sea the Ocean's SST's leading the temp surge then where will that extra heat have come from?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 3, 2015 13:08:13 GMT
In terms of a life time ( however curtailed) a few years is not long to wait is it ratty? Should 2015 and 16' see similar temp rises to 2014 ( even without a Nino to give it a leg up) then would you not be curios as to 'Why'? If we sea the Ocean's SST's leading the temp surge then where will that extra heat have come from? GW, I'm tired of waiting for some real evidence that there is any SERIOUS consequence from increased CO2 levels. I've been on tenterhooks since Hansen addressed Congress on June 23, 1988. The rabid predictions from adherents have not - and likely will not - come to pass. Should you have any actual EVIDENCE that CO2 is in any way a problem for future climate, feel free to present it. At present, it's a one horse race and CO2 was found lame at the starting gate. As I recall, TSI won the race. The Sun
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 3, 2015 16:46:51 GMT
From my point of view the AGW hypothesis has failed because of the extended pause. Not just because of the pause though.
The CO2 levels have been rising monotonically and are now well above the Hansen 350ppm-or-the-Earth-will-inevitably-fry level. During this period of increasing forcing from CO2 (sic) natural forces have held the temperature steady, at precisely the right amount to maintain the global temperatures at zero statistically significant change for 18 years. This continued precise coincidence of matching forcings from a coupled non-linear chaotic system to the continually rising forcing from added CO2 is untenably unlikely. The only realistic conclusion is that CO2 has no affect, absolutely none.
|
|