|
Post by magellan on Feb 13, 2010 22:44:57 GMT
"the relative warmth of the Southern Ocean could not **delay** warming at the relatively frigid South Pole" As the atmosphere warms much of the heart energy is absorbed by the ocean. Not only is there a much greater expanse of ocean in the southern hemisphere, ocean mixing goes deeper than in the NH. There are a number of climate models which project no warming and even some cooling for several decades over the antarctic. Like monkeys on a keyboard, you can point to a climate model that fits any scenario. That's the beauty of an irrefutable hypothesis; no matter what happens, it's all consistent with AGW "theory". As the atmosphere warms much of the heart energy is absorbed by the ocean.
Another load of dung. You're going to convince us the atmosphere contributed to the OHC in the Southern Ocean this past year? That's really neat glc. Heat does not rise, and thermal dynamics gets tossed out the window.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Feb 14, 2010 4:29:52 GMT
glc said "What proof are you looking for:
Is it that CO2 interacts with LW IR radiation? Ans: It does Is it that the earth emits LW IR radiation? Ans: It does Is it that CO2 in the atmosphere interacts with the radiation that is emitted from the earth's surface? Ans: It does as we can clearly see from emission spectra.
What is it that you think is not proven"
What happened to the artic ice? You took part of the argument, but didn't answer that. We'll just go around and around on CO2. First CO2 doesn't generate heat, and second there isn't enough of it to warm the rest of the ice and water on this planet or the rest of the other 999613 in ppm. This is an open system, not a closed one. We don't live in a greenhouse. There is no barrier to "return" the heat. In fact, the impedence between the boundaries allows heat to escape. Of course you'll come back with blah,blah that was measured and give some number less than what was received... Sure and there are no plumes of heat either. So around and around we go.... meanwhile the ice free artic is still unanswered.
By the wat, that snow storm wasn't a small event. It threw snow all the way to Ohio, over 600 miles away. Before it got to the east coast it had dumped snow all across the country, It got stronger when it hit open water. It was unusal in that it formed an eye wall much like a hurricane. Where is all that heat that was released???
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 14, 2010 5:14:55 GMT
glc said "What proof are you looking for: Is it that CO2 interacts with LW IR radiation? Ans: It does Is it that the earth emits LW IR radiation? Ans: It does Is it that CO2 in the atmosphere interacts with the radiation that is emitted from the earth's surface? Ans: It does as we can clearly see from emission spectra. What is it that you think is not proven" What happened to the artic ice? You took part of the argument, but didn't answer that. We'll just go around and around on CO2. First CO2 doesn't generate heat, and second there isn't enough of it to warm the rest of the ice and water on this planet or the rest of the other 999613 in ppm. This is an open system, not a closed one. We don't live in a greenhouse. There is no barrier to "return" the heat. In fact, the impedence between the boundaries allows heat to escape. Of course you'll come back with blah,blah that was measured and give some number less than what was received... Sure and there are no plumes of heat either. So around and around we go.... meanwhile the ice free artic is still unanswered. By the wat, that snow storm wasn't a small event. It threw snow all the way to Ohio, over 600 miles away. Before it got to the east coast it had dumped snow all across the country, It got stronger when it hit open water. It was unusal in that it formed an eye wall much like a hurricane. Where is all that heat that was released??? "By the wat, that snow storm wasn't a small event. It threw snow all the way to Ohio, over 600 miles away. Before it got to the east coast it had dumped snow all across the country, It got stronger when it hit open water. It was unusal in that it formed an eye wall much like a hurricane. Where is all that heat that was released???"I shall answer that one for you - like all heat in the atmosphere it is on its way to space. It may radiate straight out - or be transported by convection and water - but heat in the atmosphere is heat escaping from the planet. Do the calculations - its a LOT of heat being transported that way
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 14, 2010 11:28:34 GMT
What happened to the artic ice? You took part of the argument, but didn't answer that. What do you mean "what happened to the arctic ice"? Summer arctic ice extent has been on a downward trend for at least 30 years. No reputable scientist (pro-AGW or otherwise) is expecting arctic ice to completely disappear in the near future. We'll just go around and around on CO2. First CO2 doesn't generate heat, and second there isn't enough of it to warm the rest of the ice and water on this planet or the rest of the other 999613 in ppm. Your argument about the low CO2 concentration is not valid. There is sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to affect the earth's climate significantly. Steve McIntyre who himself had doubts looked into this issue and came up with the following conclusion Sometimes you hear people say that there’s just a “little bit” of CO2 and therefore it can’t make any difference: but, obviously, there’s enough CO2 for it to be very prominent in these highly relevant spectra, so this particular argument is a total non-starter as far as I’m concerned.See: climateaudit.org/2008/01/08/sir-john-houghton-on-the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect/You would do well to read this post. In particular, scroll down to the emission spectrum graph. This shows the CO2 funnel, i.e. it shows that a significant proportion of IR is absorbed by CO2 in the colder, higher levels of the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 14, 2010 11:43:37 GMT
Another load of dung. You're going to convince us the atmosphere contributed to the OHC in the Southern Ocean this past year?
Magellan
When are you going to understand that it's not so much about the sharp oscillations, it's more about the gradual underlying trend. The recent spike is not all due to CO2 - just as the dip in 2008 did not mean that CO2 was irrelevant.
I don't know how may times I've got to say this but I'll say it again. Short term fluctuations can easily offset the effect of CO2 - as happened with the 2007/08 La Nina - or the 1998/99/2000 La Nina. Similarly El Nino can amplify the CO2 signal. At the moment, El Nino is causing an increase in air temperatures above the normal background levels. However, those background levels are steadily rising. In 20 or 30 years time, the background levels will be at the levels of the current El Nino (maybe higher) and an El Nino will result in anomalies of more than 1 deg.
To summarise: There are other factors which cause short term spikes and dips - but it is the slow, gradual underlying trend which is of most interest. But it is important to note that this El Nino is not particularly intense - yet UAH temperatures are approaching those of 1998. That is the effect of the underlying trend.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Feb 14, 2010 13:26:24 GMT
glc, Let me refresh your memory. We were talking about an ice free artic that formed a beach in Greenland. The question was "how did the artic become ice free?"
Naut, We're on the same page here. It is one of the tenets of AGW that the heat gets returned and not released. It was a question to the AGW crowd as to were all that heat went. Here we have in the US under 67% snow cover and no explaination as to where the heat is. Or how it got cold enough to snow so much. After all we had some snow free winters in the 1990's. Really mild winters in fact. I would think that this event is unusual by any standard.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 14, 2010 13:54:47 GMT
To summarise: There are other factors which cause short term spikes and dips - but it is the slow, gradual underlying trend which is of most interest. But it is important to note that this El Nino is not particularly intense - yet UAH temperatures are approaching those of 1998. That is the effect of the underlying trend. You are claiming a trend based upon one year of data!!! ?. If you think El Nino is some kind of well organized indicator of temperature spikes then you very clearly know nothing. One only has to casually look at the temperature record to note that temperature spikes do not correspond perfectly with El Ninos. . . .yet your entire theory above rests on that ignorance. Fact is warm spots popup throughout the ocean. There was an intense spot in the southern Pacific until just a few weeks ago. . . .well outside of the boundaries of the El Nino measurements. . . .corresponding nicely with the satellite hemispheric/land/sea breakdowns in recent temperatures. You can't distinguish 2009 from any of the other short term spikes. The fact that it approaches 1998 is totally unimpressive without surpassing 1998. In another 11 years maybe another spike will approach 2009 and no doubt you will still be claiming a warming trend. . . .when in fact it would be a better indicator of cooling trend. Lets face it GLC we are clueless as to the actual temperature effects of a doubling of CO2. It would be fine if our atmosphere operated as a stable environment and you didn't have other more potent processes to transport heat to above the clouds. First those temperature spikes you are referring to prove that at least one of following conditions are true. 1) Measuring air temperature is the wrong thing to measure for anything but weather; or 2) the global climate system is far more exogenically variable than estimated by climate models. The right answer is probably both are true. Exogenic forcing on cloud cover is simply discounted by the climate models. . . .without so much as actually even measuring short term global cloud variations or attempting to understand the processes. Clouds are the biggest atmospheric temperature factor second only to the sun. Assuming they aren't a factor so one can claim the science is settled is just plain reckless. Claiming to understand the recent fluctuations is laughable since less than two years ago you and your ilk were claiming such variations were impossible. . . .that AGW had overwhelmed natural variation. So now the public is supposed to believe the no-nothings . . . .again? Fox had a roundtable this morning pointing out the Obama administration was in full retreat on the topic. One member of the roundtable threw a bucket of cold water on that observation by noting the implications of the fact that a significant minority of the population hold religious beliefs that entails worshipping the idea that people must revise their current lifestyles in order to save the earth from doomsday.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Feb 14, 2010 17:52:07 GMT
glc, here we are going around and round on co2.... you said"it shows that a significant proportion of IR is absorbed by CO2 in the colder, higher levels of the atmosphere. "
CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than air, how much CO2 do you think is up there. You are also stuck on this idea that the heat is re radiated back into the lower atmosphere. It's minus 60 C up there. The thermodynamics just don't work that way. You've rewritten physics? That's a neat trick, to get heat out of a minus 60 C air at partial pressure no less!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 14, 2010 18:46:11 GMT
glc, here we are going around and round on co2.... you said"it You've rewritten physics? That's a neat trick, to get heat out of a minus 60 C air at partial pressure no less!!!!! There is a hack on another forum who claims, falsely of course, that it is the skeptics that have re-written physics. This same hack refuses to look at any supporting evidence you put forth of course. We haven't figured out what government agency he works for.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Feb 14, 2010 18:47:56 GMT
Like any other molecule, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, gets an energy bump, reradiates that energy at other wavelengths. Or passes that energy on to other molecules through Brownian motion. But the nature of atmospheric composition, most of the pass on will be to molecules that radiate IR quite well.
The major energy vector is UP. And the fact that the upper atmosphere is so cold is a powerful clue that the process is very efficient.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 14, 2010 19:18:13 GMT
glc, here we are going around and round on co2.... you said"it shows that a significant proportion of IR is absorbed by CO2 in the colder, higher levels of the atmosphere. " CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than air, how much CO2 do you think is up there. You are also stuck on this idea that the heat is re radiated back into the lower atmosphere. It's minus 60 C up there. The thermodynamics just don't work that way. You've rewritten physics? That's a neat trick, to get heat out of a minus 60 C air at partial pressure no less!!!!! You're simply parroting the same old nonsense that's been refuted time and time again. First of all have a look at the emission spectrum plot. That will show you how much CO2 is in the upper atmosphere. There is clearly plenty enough to affect the earth's energy balance. The earth emits ~235 w/m2 to space. Some of the energy is emitted from near the top of the atmosphere - mostly from CO2. As more CO2 is added to the atmosphere the average height of emission increases. This means emission is from a colder region which means the amount of energy emitted is reduced. This is PHYSICS: Energy emitted is proportional to temperature raised to the 4 th power. This is a consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, i.e. E = sigma x T 4 If energy emitted is reduced then there will be an energy imbalance, i.e. there will be more incoming energy than outgoing. This means the atmosphere will warm until equilibrium is re-established. This is also PHYSICS. The warming that takes place in the upper atmosphere will eventually impact on the surface by the transfer of energy between different layers of the atmosphere. I have already shown on this blog how the surface temperature increases by using a single layer model. It's possible you have trouble with the concept of a cold atmosphere heating a warm surface. If so think of it as a warmed atmosphere slowing down the rate of cooling from the surface. A cold body will radiate energy towards a warmer body. The cold body does not check the temperature of adjacent bodies before it radiates.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 14, 2010 19:27:19 GMT
Like any other molecule, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, gets an energy bump, reradiates that energy at other wavelengths. Or passes that energy on to other molecules through Brownian motion. But the nature of atmospheric composition, most of the pass on will be to molecules that radiate IR quite well. The major energy vector is UP. And the fact that the upper atmosphere is so cold is a powerful clue that the process is very efficient. Stranger If you have a problem with this could you try explaining how the average temperature at the earth's surface is ~14 deg C when the energy from the sun implies a surface temperature of -18 deg C.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 14, 2010 19:33:56 GMT
glc, here we are going around and round on co2.... you said"it You've rewritten physics? That's a neat trick, to get heat out of a minus 60 C air at partial pressure no less!!!!! There is a hack on another forum who claims, falsely of course, that it is the skeptics that have re-written physics. This same hack refuses to look at any supporting evidence you put forth of course. We haven't figured out what government agency he works for. You need to know that ALL the reputable AGW sceptical scientists, e.g. Roy Spencer, Jack Barrett and Richard Lindzen, accept that the 'greenhouse' effect is real. You (and stranger) appear to have latched on to arguments that were doing the rounds more than a decade ago. Unfortunately most now realise they didn't hold water.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 14, 2010 21:03:26 GMT
There is a hack on another forum who claims, falsely of course, that it is the skeptics that have re-written physics. This same hack refuses to look at any supporting evidence you put forth of course. We haven't figured out what government agency he works for. You need to know that ALL the reputable AGW sceptical scientists, e.g. Roy Spencer, Jack Barrett and Richard Lindzen, accept that the 'greenhouse' effect is real. You (and stranger) appear to have latched on to arguments that were doing the rounds more than a decade ago. Unfortunately most now realise they didn't hold water. Among the reasons why pretending that you, Spencer, and Lindzen all agree about global warming is ***HILARIOUS*** is the fact that Spencer and Lindzen rightly focus on both positive and negative feedbacks and a generally more complete description of our chaotic non-linear ocean-atmosphere system than anything coming from those obsessed with co2's never-before-seen power to warm the Earth. We've been through this before. Lindzen is not your buddy. You can say he is all you want. But he's not.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 14, 2010 22:17:13 GMT
First of all have a look at the emission spectrum plot. That will show you how much CO2 is in the upper atmosphere. There is clearly plenty enough to affect the earth's energy balance. The earth emits ~235 w/m2 to space. Some of the energy is emitted from near the top of the atmosphere - mostly from CO2. As more CO2 is added to the atmosphere the average height of emission increases. This means emission is from a colder region which means the amount of energy emitted is reduced. This is PHYSICS: Energy emitted is proportional to temperature raised to the 4 th power. This is a consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, i.e. E = sigma x T 4 If energy emitted is reduced then there will be an energy imbalance, i.e. there will be more incoming energy than outgoing. This means the atmosphere will warm until equilibrium is re-established. This is also PHYSICS. The warming that takes place in the upper atmosphere will eventually impact on the surface by the transfer of energy between different layers of the atmosphere. I have already shown on this blog how the surface temperature increases by using a single layer model. The fundamental problem for your theory for which no evidence appears to exist to refute is the fact the bite you see in the TOA spectra would remain if every single calorie of energy absorbed by CO2 got channeled off within the atmosphere as blackbody heat radiation. Dividing the atmosphere up into grids and layers does nothing to address that question unless you know to a very precise degree the processes involved. Yet you parade around the spectra bite like it proves something. Bottom line is the spectra bite already extends down to coldest regions of the troposphere. It seems the argument devolves down to yeah CO2 absorbs and reradiates so the KISS assumption is 50% of has to reach the surface. . . .a nice tidy assumption that appears wholly without a shred of evidence. I can see the potential for 1 deg C for the raw forcing for a doubling of CO2. But I accept it as the outside upper limit and the reason I accept it as the outside upper limit is if there were a way to calculate it as being more thats what Dr Hansen would be using.
|
|