|
Post by hunterson on Sept 6, 2010 12:13:51 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. I thought the purpose of Argos was to measure the heat content of the oceans?
|
|
|
Post by dougproctor on Sept 9, 2010 18:16:20 GMT
Steve,
Thanks for your comment. The planet's inertia to temperature change is strong, for sure. Positive CO2 changes push up the temperature that stay up because of retained/slowed down loss of heat. Sure. What strikes me in my calculations is the slow reaction of atmospheric temperature changes, especially at the ground, to an annual 16.2 Wm-2 variation [corrected math: 955 absorbed air and ground, or 0.7 of incoming, with 6.8% change, averaged over 4X sphere vs X-sectional capture area]. Day to night, summer to winter changes in axial presentation to the sun - these happen very rapidly at the surface, though slowly a few meters below the surface. Yet other factors smooth the aphelion/perihelion changes out, and in fact have an opposite effect. The main consideration is albedo, it is said. I don't disagree. The 2.3C* winter-is-warmer when the sun's power is less, is as if there was a 16.6 Wm-2 INCREASE [955 Wm-2/33C* divided by 4, X 2.3C*].
My point is that the earth's temperature reacts very quickly in a daily and (locally) seasonally way, and reacts strongly. Yet on a planetary scale it does not do so on a annual time-frame even though we recognize that a minor change in albedo/cloud cover alters the surface temperatures almost immediately at times. This says to me that the planet is in a robust dynamic equilibrium state. During the course of the year there is a strong feedback mechanism that mitigates a planetary change in insolation . I suspect that there is a planetary cloud type and coverage change that does this. To say that albedo or land/sea ratio changes are responsible may well be correct, but only because the annual cloud changes get lost in the overall albedo changes, and attributed incorrectly to geometry of continents, ice and water.
Geometry is a static function. Viewed as being in static equilibirum, this is a good answer to the reverse impact of (time-wise) insolation changes observed in global temperatures. As a truly static system, however, you would expect rapid responses and responses proportional to the changes, something we don't see. So even in a static view there has to be a background of buffering. If the Earth is viewed as being in dynamic equilibnum, the dominant mitigating factor would be sought in feedback mechanisms.
I suggest that the annual solar insolation changes and measured planetary temperature variations suggest robust, dynamic feedback mechanisms are being observed, and that the most probable mechanisms are cloud types and amounts, as they are immediate in formation and movement, and global in presence and reach. CO2-increases will be subject to the same buffers, and will be a small fraction of the calculated by-itself impact. Positive feedback by water vapour would be inappropriate, as it is the warming itself that is being buffered.
Blogs such as these are excellent for improving the understanding of the world by the non-specialist but yet the one who is expected to vote, work and pay for "climate change" legislation. I feel that the non-influence of solar insolation changes January to July tells us that the Earth strongly fights warming. Increases in CO2 will trigger the same feedback mechanisms. Something more than geometry is going on to create a calculated equivalent 32Wm-2 difference summer to winter impact.
Comments? Anyone with a graph of cloud cover or albedo changes by hemisphere or smaller through the year and years? I can't find one.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 9, 2010 18:27:53 GMT
A good post Doug, although you will find that Steve discards the hydrologic cycle and the effect of clouds as he feels it is unimportant and is convinced that it is a lot less than the claimed theoretical radative forcing from doubling CO 2. It will be interesting to see if he accepts your arguments.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 9, 2010 19:01:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 10, 2010 8:57:42 GMT
Anyone with a graph of cloud cover or albedo changes by hemisphere or smaller through the year and years? I can't find one.Bob Tisdale's an obliging sort of chap. He may be able to help with what you're looking for. He has posted cloud cover data on a number of occasions. For example bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/ocean-cloud-cover-data.htmlI doubt the data in the Bob Tisdale link will be of sufficient detail for your purposes but it might provide a useful lead. Bob's data doesn't differentiate between different types of cloud cover nor does it look at regional changes, e.g. arctic - where the most warming has been observed. I don't know if there's any long term albedo data but the earthshine project has been measuring albedo for the last few years. www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/Just a final point. If, like Nautonnier, you're hoping for a Eureka moment whereby all the warming over the past 30 odd years will suddenly be explained - don't get too optimistic. There have been attempts by very able sceptical scientists to show that there is a cloud cover link to warming but very little conclusive evidence has been produced. Oh - and remember to get 'cause' and 'effect' in the right order. Clouds could be, and probably are, a feedback.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 10, 2010 9:32:35 GMT
I feel that the non-influence of solar insolation changes January to July tells us that the Earth strongly fights warming.The apparent "non-influence" of solar insolation changes is due to the relative distribution of land areas in the NH and SH. The earth doesn't "fight warming" it's just that it takes more energy to heat water than the land/air. Socold's link provides a quote from Roy Spencer. i.e But there's more to the story: Says Spencer, "the average temperature of the whole earth at aphelion is about 4oF or 2.3oC higher than it is at perihelion." Our planet is actually warmer when we're farther from the Sun:
|
|
|
Post by dougproctor on Sept 10, 2010 17:16:43 GMT
Thanks for your quick replies. I use "fight warming" metaphorically. And no Eureka! moment expected. My thought train is that the reverse situation of the world being 2.3C* warmer when at aphelion than at perihelion is that this non-intuitive situation might be evidence of a serious buffering going on. I understand that there is more heating during the Arctic summer, at aphelion, can be correlated with the land/sea geometry and area differences from the Antarctic, but feel the explanation may be over-used. Albedo effects, if real, should be quantifiable; a test would show reasonableness. I'm all about reasonableness when considering results. Computers, calculators, trains of logic are all fine and good, but hidden within them can be unrealized errors or optimism/pessimism. The principle of reasonableness makes you ensure that you check for such things, or at least admit uneasiness even if all the math and logic-links seem certain.
The CAGW hypothesis rides on not having a strong moderator. Positive feedback is introduced, but not negative. I look to the insolation discrepancy as an angle to see if the real world is more or less sensitive to heat-adding mechanisms. I think it is less than more, not that I have the mechanisms identified, but just the situation in which it looks to me as though they exist. However, rather than keep this a pure philosophical comment, I have thought about this some more and have a suggestion towards falsibility or support:
If the world is warmer by 2.3C* during aphelion, when the insolation is 16.2 W/m2 LOWER as a planetary whole than at perihelion, and we say that that 2.3C* represents an equivalent insolation amount of 7 - 14 W/m2 [check Holocene and Eemian temp articles in WWUT and the internet for academic equivalents], then the albedo differnces, if that is what is causing it, should be seen. The average albedo is 0.296, equating to 101 W/m2 global average, 28.5 from land/not clouds and 72.5 W/m2 from clouds. High clouds are said to warm the planet, and low clouds, to cool it. If we can graph percentage coverage of high and low cloud types through the year, along with total albedo changes, while identifying the different proportions of water/land/ice/snow facing the sun during the year, we could tease out whether or not insolation changes and albedo strength and character follow each other.
Again, the point is to see if we already have evidence of moderating processes to heat-generation of the planetary surface. If we do, then the IPCC calculations must be excessive.
We all see weather-type evidence of the moderation process. Late summer in the northeast US or Canada sees a hot, hot day ending with thunderstorms and cooling air. In the tropics it happens each late afternoon. Days simply do not get hotter and hotter in either place, as long as their is water in the system. But that is weather, not climate. Somehow what is clear about one doesn't translate as a concept to the other: moderation is the death of CAGW.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 10, 2010 19:16:41 GMT
The ice core record is pretty much all you need to demonstrate that glacial-interglacial feedbacks are essentially used up. There are no powerful feedbacks during the interglacial and that's why the temperatures stabilize. The "top" climatologists just ignore this overwhelming evidence because they're ACTUALLY bottom tier scientists that are only fit to do grunt work in the field and labs. They were promoted through a socio-political process (the "top" scientists were appointed by committees, they HAVE NEVER truly distinguished themselves and you can see that in their body work) because they were stupid and incompetent enough to get swept up in the process...and give the answers that were wanted.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 10, 2010 19:28:41 GMT
Anyone with a graph of cloud cover or albedo changes by hemisphere or smaller through the year and years? I can't find one.Bob Tisdale's an obliging sort of chap. He may be able to help with what you're looking for. He has posted cloud cover data on a number of occasions. For example bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/ocean-cloud-cover-data.htmlI doubt the data in the Bob Tisdale link will be of sufficient detail for your purposes but it might provide a useful lead. Bob's data doesn't differentiate between different types of cloud cover nor does it look at regional changes, e.g. arctic - where the most warming has been observed. I don't know if there's any long term albedo data but the earthshine project has been measuring albedo for the last few years. www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/Just a final point. If, like Nautonnier, you're hoping for a Eureka moment whereby all the warming over the past 30 odd years will suddenly be explained - don't get too optimistic. There have been attempts by very able sceptical scientists to show that there is a cloud cover link to warming but very little conclusive evidence has been produced. Oh - and remember to get 'cause' and 'effect' in the right order. Clouds could be, and probably are, a feedback. " Oh - and remember to get 'cause' and 'effect' in the right order. Clouds could be, and probably are, a feedback. "People should note that glc believes that water does not evaporate without the presence of CO 2. A strange position to take but glc believes however warm the sun may make water unless the heating is also caused by 'downwelling' IR from CO 2 water will not evaporate. It appears that glc is of the "CO2 is the universal causal agent; all climate effects are feedbacks to CO2" school of thought (there are others here and in the IPCC) This is a branch of physics taught only to climatologists
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 10, 2010 21:37:47 GMT
People should note that glc believes that water does not evaporate without the presence of CO2. A strange position to take but glc believes however warm the sun may make water unless the heating is also caused by 'downwelling' IR from CO2 water will not evaporate.
This is not true. However if you reduce CO2 in the atmosphere the energy flux at the surface will be reduce and evaporation will be reduced accordingly. Also a cooler atmosphere will not hold as much water as the previously warmer atmosphere so the GH effect will be further reduced.
This is the third time I 've written this (or something very similar). I never on any occasion said anything about water not evaporating without the presence of CO2. Why Nuatonnier thinks I did say it is a mystery.
It appears that glc is of the "CO2 is the universal causal agent; all climate effects are feedbacks to CO2" school of thought (there are others here and in the IPCC)
Again - complete twaddle. Nowhere have I said anyrthing about all climate effects being feedbacks to CO2. I don't think there is anyone, including James Hansen, who thinks that CO2 is a "universal causal agent".
This is a branch of physics taught only to climatologists
You might be better off brushing up on your basic reading skills before concerning yourself with climate physics.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 10, 2010 21:40:01 GMT
The ice core record is pretty much all you need to demonstrate that glacial-interglacial feedbacks are essentially used up. There are no powerful feedbacks during the interglacial and that's why the temperatures stabilize. More likely the orbital forcing is all used up. The Earth isn't going to warm out of a glacial period forever afterall. At some point the temperature will max out. But with a bigger forcing it would go further (as it did during the Eemian, and even more so 15 million odd years ago. Or by stabilization were you saying temperature has followed a hockeystick blade over the holocene?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 10, 2010 22:30:01 GMT
More likely the orbital forcing is all used up. The Earth isn't going to warm out of a glacial period forever afterall. At some point the temperature will max out. But with a bigger forcing it would go further (as it did during the Eemian, and even more so 15 million odd years ago. Or by stabilization were you saying temperature has followed a hockeystick blade over the holocene? You picked a gummed up proxy. The temperature swings during the glacial period are generally twice as big with much larger spikes scattered through the record that span the ENTIRE glacial-interglacial temperature spectrum. If you'd studied (or didn't selectively forget us REPEATEDLY telling you) the actual feedbacks you'd know beyond all reasonable doubt that indeed...most of the feedbacks have been maxed out. But of course...time and time again you've "forgotten". Either lack the capability to merge the information into your worldview or you're intentionally ignoring it because of your faith in these bungling "scientists".
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 11, 2010 0:14:52 GMT
People should note that glc believes that water does not evaporate without the presence of CO2. A strange position to take but glc believes however warm the sun may make water unless the heating is also caused by 'downwelling' IR from CO2 water will not evaporate. This not true. However if you reduce CO2 in the atmosphere the energy flux at the surface will be reduce and evaporation will be reduced accordingly. Also a cooler atmosphere will not hold as much water as the previously warmer atmosphere so the GH effect will be further reduced. This is the third time I 've written this (or something very similar). I never on any occasion said anything about water not evaporating without the presence of CO2. Why Nuatonnier thinks I did say it is a mystery. It appears that glc is of the "CO2 is the universal causal agent; all climate effects are feedbacks to CO2" school of thought (there are others here and in the IPCC)Again - complete twaddle. Nowhere have I said anyrthing about all climate effects being feedbacks to CO2. I don't think there is anyone, including James Hansen, who thinks that CO2 is a "universal causal agent". This is a branch of physics taught only to climatologists You might be better off brushing up on your basic reading skills before concerning yourself with climate physics. Great - we agree CO 2 is NOT necessary for water to evaporate - water vapor will enter the atmosphere dependent only on heat energy regardless of the presence or absence of CO2. If is CO 2 is present AND if that CO 2 raises the heat content of the water an additional amount will evaporate as feedback to the CO 2 reduction of radiative heat loss. However, water vapor will be present in the atmosphere even if there is no CO 2. Nice to have some agreement even if I have to take you into reductio ad absurdum to get it..
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 11, 2010 11:11:03 GMT
You picked a gummed up proxy. The temperature swings during the glacial period are generally twice as big with much larger spikes scattered through the record that span the ENTIRE glacial-interglacial temperature spectrum. What proxy should I have used that shows what you claim?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 11, 2010 17:53:46 GMT
Doug,
Quick response, because I haven't time to read the responses from others yet.
If you look at the Central England Temperature, you will see that the maximum temperature is about 6 weeks after the summer solstice, and after the winter solstice it takes about 2 months before things warm up. That's a relatively large delay that suggest to me your basic assumptions need checking.
I think the seasonal differences in local solar insolation are much bigger than the 16 Watts difference caused by the ellipse of the orbit.
Nautonnier, you are just saying really dumb things at the moment in a deliberate attempt to be unhelpful, so I'm going to ignore you.
|
|