|
Post by hilbert on Jun 3, 2009 23:05:12 GMT
I suppose that there could be some deep sea heating that is storing up the heat, but I think that Pielke's challenge still holds. If I understand correctly, Hansen et al. predict that the upper OHC must be increasing by 10^22 Joules / yr from the 2003 value.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 3, 2009 23:59:36 GMT
socold: "The pipeline refers to warming warming from the current forcing that hasn't yet been realized. If the total forcing will cause 10C warming, but due to the lag in temperature response the warming so far is only 6C, then there is another 4C in the pipeline. That is without changing the forcing at all you will get another 4C warming."
nautonnier: "A lag could be seen if the warming had only just started but that is not the case. What has happened is that there has been a continual slow rise in global heat content since the end of the 1980's with a peak in 1998 then a topping off at 2003 then the rise stopped for 4 years and then dropped. This CANNOT be a lag as the heat content was increasing and HAS NOW STOPPED then DROPPED.
The only way this can happen is to use Steve's analogy - someone opened a door and there was a cold draught. Now WHERE is there such a sudden drop in heat 'due to a cold draught' for the Earth? The input heat you claim is approximately constant therefore the only way that there can be a drop is a sudden exit at higher than normal rate - but the CO2 levels have been rising continually so YOU cannot admit that can happen - the only other way is a negative feedback of some sort - perhaps greatly increased albedo or _gasp_ something else transporting heat past most of the GHG. You cannot admit to these aspects as that would be the end of the AGW disaster predictions.
"If you don't understand it I can always use smaller words"
It would appear that you and Steve are colluding on your ad-hominem responses. "
Maybe socold meant to say: The pipeline refers to warming warming from the current forcing forcing that hasn't yet been realized realized. But whatever he meant to say, to the best of his in-elegant abilities, you are correct. Where is the heat that was put into the pipeline as far back as when humans started dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in increasing and ever accumulating quantities? Not to mention the huge amount of anthropogenic water vapor that has accompanied industrial and agricultural development. The piplene has to be bursting with forcings and positive feedbacks.
WHERE IS THE HEAT?
The pipeline is a fiction, an excuse for not being able to locate the missing heat. The missing heat has eluded them, sneaked right through the atmosphere and secreted itself in the deep oceans, without being detected. It's absurd.
I will help the warminista boys with a proper analogy. Put a constant low flame under a pot of water on a stove. Increase the concentration of CO2 in the kitchen by three hundred parts per million (probably about 72 molecules over the pot) and stand back and see what happens.
And don't forget to put your winter coat on before the end of July (NH), if you want to be warm in December. It's the lag thing.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 4, 2009 0:31:25 GMT
I will help the warminista boys with a proper analogy. Put a constant low flame under a pot of water on a stove. Increase the concentration of CO2 in the kitchen by three hundred parts per million (probably about 72 molecules over the pot) and stand back and see what happens. Thats actually a pretty good idea. Build a large super insulated building about 6 stories high. Put a thermometer at the ceiling and floor and a radiant heating system in the slab on the floor and a massive cooling radiator in the ceiling to mimmick a warm surface and cold space above. First fill the building with dry air to atmospheric pressure and turn on the radiant heating system and allow the building to hit an equilibrium measuring diurnal variations, which if you insulated it well enough should be well less than say one degree. Now fill the entire building with CO2 at normal atmospheric pressure. Since this column of CO2 has more CO2 in it than a column of CO2 in the atmosphere it should give you a lot of radiant insulating effect between the radiating floor and that thermometer. . . .should it not? One years worth of Dr Hansen's budget alone should handle this nicely even with a whole bunch of additional stuff built in.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 4, 2009 1:59:27 GMT
icefisher: "Now fill the entire building with CO2 at normal atmospheric pressure. Since this column of CO2 has more CO2 in it than a column of CO2 in the atmosphere it should give you a lot of radiant insulating effect between the radiating floor and that thermometer. . . .should it not?"
I think it should show some warming effect. If it doesn't, it will be because the thermometer was faulty, or the heat evaded detection. Heat can be very clever you know. In any case the "adjusted" data, plus the BS positive feedback assumptions, will show the appropriate warming to prove the hysterical catastrophic AGW theory.
icefisher: "One years worth of Dr Hansen's budget alone should handle this nicely even with a whole bunch of additional stuff built in."
Additional stuff built in: Well, at the very least they will need to build a fake pipeline, to somewhere, to account for missing heat. Just an added contingency, in the event that all the other subterfuges fail to pass the smell/laugh test.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 4, 2009 7:04:51 GMT
First fill the building with dry air to atmospheric pressure and turn on the radiant heating system and allow the building to hit an equilibrium measuring diurnal variations, which if you insulated it well enough should be well less than say one degree. Now fill the entire building with CO2 at normal atmospheric pressure. Since this column of CO2 has more CO2 in it than a column of CO2 in the atmosphere it should give you a lot of radiant insulating effect between the radiating floor and that thermometer. . . .should it not? A couple problems. First off, the thermal mass of the structure alone would likely hide any affect over such a short period of time. Second, water vapor. Water vapor is the primary "greenhouse gas" only it's kind of not. If you'll look at the output spectrum of the earth... You'll notice that strangely...with ALL THAT WATER VAPOR...it still manages a black body curve. You only see an emitted spectrum or absorbed spectrum when the gas is over/in front of the source AND at a higher or lower temperature. The temperature of that black body curve is the temperature at which the bulk of the water vapor condenses out. The region above is colder because...the energy is already gone and there's nothing there to stop the energy leaving. If you attempt to raise or lower the temperature to create a greenhouse gas based gradient (still talking about water vapor here) the water vapor just condenses out earlier/lower or later/higher and ONCE AGAIN we're stuck with the same gradient. Now CO2 happens to take a chunk out of outgoing radiation. But the "high school science" points out plain as day that as long as the CO2 is at the same temperature of the surrounding atmosphere...it absorbs and emits equally well resulting in NO affect at all. Back to our little chart we see that wherever the heck that CO2 is, it must be at about...220 kelvin. It's only absorbing because it's too cold to emit again. Down below, however...like say, where water vapor is condensing out and dropping massive amounts of heat...CO2 is emitting at the same temperature as that water vapor (and that's at about 275k). The layers just above are colder because the water vapor gave up all its energy in the region just below it and it was radiated away (by everything in the atmosphere including CO2). Back radiation from the CO2 at higher levels simply can't do anything significant. The chart makes it quite clear...the CO2 at 275k is emitting at over three times the rate of the CO2 at 220k, most of which STILL radiates into space). That gradient between the warmer, lower atmosphere (at 275k-290k) and the higher/cooler atmosphere where CO2's actual absorption takes place (220k)...is maintained almost almost entirely by convection and latent heat from evaporation/condensation of water. All of that (extremely weak) back radiation is just absorbed and spat right back out by that far hotter lower atmospheric CO2 and water vapor. The bottom line is...since CO2 doesn't control the gradient...CO2 doesn't control the temperature...at least, not by anything remotely close to that which would be suggested by the increased absorption due to higher concentrations.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 4, 2009 12:06:20 GMT
steve: "I think you are pretending not to understand." That is a stupid and rude accusation. Why would I pretend not to understand? You are on occasions deeply sarcastic to people (which is why I've tended not to respond to your posts), so pots and kettles (not necessarily on stoves) spring to mind. But I don't think I was stupid or rude. You have, in the following, been deliberately aggressive towards me when all I am doing is trying to explain the meaning of a phrase which many people *do* understand, even though I have said I would not use it myself. I think your aggressive stance towards me is a barrier to this understanding, and I suspect that it is a deliberate barrier. Surely we'd be in agreement if I said that *all* the schemes the world has come up with are half-baked.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jun 4, 2009 12:30:52 GMT
A couple problems. ... Now CO2 happens to take a chunk out of outgoing radiation. But the "high school science" points out plain as day that as long as the CO2 is at the same temperature of the surrounding atmosphere...it absorbs and emits equally well resulting in NO affect at all. Back to our little chart we see that wherever the heck that CO2 is, it must be at about...220 kelvin. It's only absorbing because it's too cold to emit again. ... I don't think, though, that the CO2 is at an equilibrium temperature. If you are in a sleeping bag, the inner surface is at the temperature of your body, but the outer surface of the bag is at the temperature of the outside air. The sleeping bag insulates, and keeps you warmer than otherwise. The sleeping bag will never thermalize, as long as the inner heat source is higher than the outer heat source--it just slows down the heat transfer. This is not to say that I agree with AGW.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jun 4, 2009 14:35:05 GMT
hibert writes "it just slows down the heat transfer."
I think this is called Newton's Law of Cooling.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 4, 2009 16:43:32 GMT
steve,
I find your method of ducking-and-dodging discourse to be very annoying. And I suspect I am not alone. Why don't you can the complaining, the psycho babble, the goofy analogies, and directly address the issues under discussion. Maybe you can start to redeem yourself by telling us where the missing heat is. A reasonable attempt at an explanation that doesn't include a phantom pipeline, might avoid being met with sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 4, 2009 18:20:37 GMT
steve, I find your method of ducking-and-dodging discourse to be very annoying. And I suspect I am not alone. Why don't you can the complaining, the psycho babble, the goofy analogies, and directly address the issues under discussion. Maybe you can start to redeem yourself by telling us where the missing heat is. A reasonable attempt at an explanation that doesn't include a phantom pipeline, might avoid being met with sarcasm. Let's go back to my first description that did not really involve pipelines, and assumed there was no "missing heat". I've removed the unnecessary reference to pipelines from the original. If there is any missing heat, I don't know where it is because it is missing: If the earth really has not warmed much since 2003 then that may be because the forcing from greenhouse gases is being balanced by some other aspect of the weather, or some other aspect of forcings (including solar, aerosol, dust, other ghg, etc). Now I would like to know exactly what this aspect of the weather etc. is, but the observational evidence (eg. of clouds) appears to be too short term and too limited to be quite sure of trends. However, we have had "flattish spots" in the past, and they came to an end. And we've had steep rises in the past and they came to an end. Since the current flattish spot was preceded by a steep rise, and since it doesn't seem to have seriously impacted the long term trend yet, it may be too early to say that it must continue. I suggest that there is some average set of conditions between the flattish spots and the steep rises that means that when we return to the average conditions, the net flow of energy into the earth will be higher than the outgoing longwave radiation resulting in an average warming trend.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jun 4, 2009 18:47:44 GMT
steve writes "If the earth really has not warmed much since 2003 then that may be because the forcing from greenhouse gases is being balanced by some other aspect of the weather, or some other aspect of forcings (including solar, aerosol, dust, other ghg, etc)."
steve, you seem to have omitted the possibility that there is no appreciable signal from CO2 at all, and all the variation is from natural causes. This is my interpretation of what has happened.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 4, 2009 18:53:58 GMT
If you don't understand it I can always use smaller words. "The pipeline refers to warming warming from the current forcing that hasn't yet been realized. If the total forcing will cause 10C warming, but due to the lag in temperature response the warming so far is only 6C, then there is another 4C in the pipeline. That is without changing the forcing at all you will get another 4C warming."A lag could be seen if the warming had only just started but that is not the case. What has happened is that there has been a continual slow rise in global heat content since the end of the 1980's with a peak in 1998 then a topping off at 2003 then the rise stopped for 4 years and then dropped. This CANNOT be a lag as the heat content was increasing and HAS NOW STOPPED then DROPPED. What do you mean by "global heat content"? With Ocean heat content there is no peak in 1998, the peak is in 2003. With global surface temperature or the satellite record they were affected by the El Nino in 1998 which is why they peaked there. As far as the surface record and satellite record over the past 10 years, the cold draught can be explained as both ENSO and solar minimum. ENSO and solar output have dropped since 2003. Lets throw some numbers in. If the solar minimum has bought us 0.1C cooling and recent ENSO conditions are another 0.1C beneath the El Nino conditions of 2003, then that means an application of 0.2C cooling in 2009 compared to 2003 from these two factors. That's faster rate of cooling than the expected rate of warming from rising ghg, hence a decline in temperatures is not at odds with this.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 4, 2009 18:57:41 GMT
The pipeline is a fiction, an excuse for not being able to locate the missing heat. It's clear from this and other sentences in your post that you don't yet understand what the "pipeline" refers to. It has nothing to do with a lack or of warming. It would exist even if the last 5 years had shown a warming trend.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 4, 2009 19:10:44 GMT
Now CO2 happens to take a chunk out of outgoing radiation. But the "high school science" points out plain as day that as long as the CO2 is at the same temperature of the surrounding atmosphere...it absorbs and emits equally well resulting in NO affect at all. Back to our little chart we see that wherever the heck that CO2 is, it must be at about...220 kelvin. It's only absorbing because it's too cold to emit again. That co2 at 220 kelvin is high in the atmosphere absorbing energy emitted from below which was otherwise destined for space. Ie it is presenting a significant obstruction to Earth's cooling mechanism. If we removed that co2 then the Earth would suddenly be emitting a lot more radiation into space and would cool down. If the co2 wasn't there the whole emission spectrum would drop downwards.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 4, 2009 19:16:50 GMT
What do you mean by "global heat content"? With Ocean heat content there is no peak in 1998, the peak is in 2003. With global surface temperature or the satellite record they were affected by the El Nino in 1998 which is why they peaked there. Seems to me you can really only reliably say that OHC has been declining since 2003. Its been noted that there are likely some data splicing errors transferring to a deep ocean monitoring system with that system starting deployment in 2001. In 2003 there were only about 700 floats with over 3,000 now. Calling the actual peak might be a little difficult without a lot of reliable measurements at depth. At any rate our monitoring in this is improving. One cannot argue that the data isn't getting better every year.
|
|