One of these threads that get too long to useful.
TSI is given as an absolute – with +/- 5W/m2 precision. Outgoing flux is given in anomalies. They can tell you why power flux at toa is changing but not how much the mooted imbalance is.
Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Robert I. Ellison
↧
↧
Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Robert I. Ellison
Cloud free IR out might be calculated temperature – might. But isn’t cloud a big factor in albedo?
↧
Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by Jim D
Yes, it is not politically motivated, but it is a well supported consensus. To think that hundreds of ppm of CO2 have little effect on temperature is counter to expectations from the same basic physics that explains the current temperature, a view that is also supported by data, both paleo and now. The current energy balance, surface temperature, and contribution of GHGs to them are well quantified at a rather fundamental level of physics and observations. It’s a lot harder to undo that knowledge than you seem to think because all the numbers are known and understood. This is why general circulation models can replicate earth’s current climate, which relies on the physics of GHGs to work at all. Lacis has a really good paper about what happens when you remove just the CO2 from a GCM.
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis%20et%20al.,%202010,%20Science.pdf
↧
Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Jim D
This quote from the IPCC
“It remains difficult to quantify the contribution to this warming from internal variability, natural forcing and anthropogenic forcing, due to forcing and response uncertainties and incomplete observational coverage.”
Just to be clear, it refers only to the early 20th century warming. When you take the net over longer periods ending now, you get their statement of extremely likely most and most likely all. How can they be so certain? It’s the remaining imbalance that means despite all this warming we still lag the equilibrium temperature. The lag is because the ocean can’t keep up, and the land does better at responding to the rapidly changing forcing by warming at twice the ocean’s rate since 1980. There is no way to explain such a differential warming rate between land and ocean than via an external forcing. It’s a lag problem to quantify, not a warming problem, specifically an ocean lag in recent decades.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:120/mean:240/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:120/mean:240
↧
Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by micro6500
What’s the difference in height of the troposphere between day and night? That compression is from the energy loss. That’s a lot if energy! water vapor keeps the temp from falling almost 18F here, while about 35W/m^2 to space. Frankly you do not understand any of this.
↧
↧
Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by Robert I. Ellison
“That’s the decade when the good CO2 measurements started. When looking at CO2 effects, skeptics have trouble believing values before 1950, so this is catering to you. But I also showed the Lovejoy plots back to 1750 with basically the same trend, so you can take your pick.”
Jimmy D has a relentless ability to go back over the same limited ground year after year.
“Global mean temperature decreased prior to World War I, increased during the 1920s and 1930s, decreased from the 1940s to 1976/77, and as noted above increased from that point to the end of the century. Insofar as the global mean temperature is controlled by the net top-of-the-atmosphere radiative budget [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007], such breaks in temperature trends imply discontinuities in that budget. Such discontinuities are difficult to reconcile with the presumed smooth evolution of anthropogenic greenhouse gas and aerosol radiative forcing with respect to time [Hansen et al., 2005]. This suggests that an internal reorganization of the climate system may underlie such shifts [Zhang et al., 2007].” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
The trends and the linkages to decadal changes in Pacific states is direct enough to see in the relevant graphs. This study uses a network math approach across multiple indices to show synchronous chaos operating in the global climate system.
Data on the energy budget on the Earth is available in the satellite era – but captures only one climate shift in 1998/2001.
“Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.”
The 20th century rate of temperature increase was 0.1K/decade – and the relentless rise of Jimmy’s much feared CO2 will be challenged in the coming decades for many reasons. Intrinsic variability will continue on it’s inexorable way – with several degrees K winter temp decline in the NH – and with Pacific cloud increasing and modulating the global energy budget over a very long time.
↧
Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by Jim D
You are not making any sense here. Water vapor in the column is hardly affected at all by cooling. You are talking about dew formation, when it happens and that is a tiny fraction of the column amount. Typically the column has the equivalent of several cm of water day and night with little variation due to dewfall. The greenhouse effect responds to that several cm worth in vapor form.
↧
Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by Jim D
75% of the CO2 addition and 67% of the CO2 forcing change has occurred since 1950, and is it noticeable?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25
I would say yes. Look, no models. Just the data.
↧
Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Allan (@Allan48933312)
Remember me? I asked a similar question last year. How much ocean warming can be attributed to geomagnetic induction heating in the oceans? Long periods of high levels of geomagnetic disturbances caused by changes in the solar wind (CMEs, coronal holes, solar flares, etc.) can add up over time, directly heating the oceans by some unknown amount. We have been experiencing a grand maximum in solar activity since at least the 1970s. No single event is large enough to heat the oceans a perceptable amount, but sum this effect over decades, and real, perceptable heating may be possible.
I am a geophysicist that has to be concerned about geomagnetic storming during certain types of field measurements. Geomagnetic induction in the earth is a real effect (magnetotellurics and related effects). Utility, and trans-oceanic cable managers are always concerned with geomagnetic induction and its effects. There is a tremendous amount of energy associated with it that can cause equipment damage and outages over large areas.
My question remains unanswered. Is there a correlation between geomagnetic induction effects and climate?
I propose that it is possible to quantify this effect, through modeling, coupled with in ocean and satellite measurements. A very focused and well funded effort would be needed. The measurements in the oceans would be complex, and require that many noise terms be accounted for and subtracted out. These noise terms include Sq, ocean circulations, waves, ocean oscillations, lightning, cultural noise, and more. Satellite based solar observations, and solar wind measurements will be needed for event correlation and magnitude assessment. A buoy based system that measures the full telluric field (full magnetic and voltage), salinity, and temperature at various depths in the oceans would be one way to collect some of the needed data. Start small, and build up to a system scale that makes sense.
I suspect that most of the proposed ocean heating occurs in the high latitudes where the earth’s magnetic field has a higher angle of incidence and changes in magnetic flux induce changes in ocean electrical currents. Unfortunately, we are entering a period of lesser solar activity, but this would still be an interesting program.
Your thoughts are welcome.
↧
↧
Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by micro6500
No, you’re wrong, as rh goes up, water vapor up and down the whole column is condensing, but a lot reevaporate by reabsorbing ir being released, that’s what powers surface temps.
Look at the data!
Look at how much net rad drops, and the temp stops falling, and look at the delta between surface and zenith, and not it isn’t much less that when it was losing 4F/hr. That means it’s still radiating almost the same amount from the surface, it has to be, so why does net rad drop? Because DWIR goes up at the surface, by the amount being lost from the surface.
That is an energy balance, and of course you can’t understand that!
↧
Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Allan (@Allan48933312)
See my post above for a possible mechanism for solar forcing. (Response to JC)
↧
Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Allan (@Allan48933312)
We would like more dispassionate science, in theory. However, people are involved in science, and passions are routinely introduced into most scientific endeavors. Unfortunately, without passion, science would stagnate. In the climate debate, passion is most often misdirected into politics and the related negative influences.
↧
Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Allan (@Allan48933312)
Interesting, but what is the actual mechanicm that causes it?
↧
↧
Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Allan (@Allan48933312)
Your solution is not acceptable because the US is the problem, not the solution. Sorry for the political statement.
↧
Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by angech
What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?.
1. Heat source the sun, any small cumulative increase in it’s temperature or distance closer to the earth.
2. Factors that modify the influence of the sun.
a. water vapour and clouds
b. increases in other GHG
c. albedo decrease changes, more soot, less polar icecaps, algal blooms, reforestation etc.
3. Possible slow turnover of deeper warmer currents on a 60-100 year timescale, like El Nino but longer.
Problem is implies less heat went out when currents went under and not really a sustainable cause of incremental heat rise.
Sub sea volcanoes could add to this.
4. Increase in activity of earth’s core causing more heat diffusal out.Problem is this is very small in the scheme of things.
5. Going through bigger meteorite clouds for years?
Scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
–
Mr Dessler seems fixated on small amounts of minor GHG to the exclusion of a lot of the more important things. Does he have an agenda in mind?
↧
Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by angech
Last chance for a breakout in the Arctic upwards this year with the recent lower cold spell freezing some of the outlying areas and all the winter snow about.
The large Polyanna in the Arctic circle is a worry and will probably stay and enlarge all summer- a new theme.
Will have to happen in the next 2 weeks or not at all??
↧
Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by Robert I. Ellison
The change in temperature trajectories and the change in Pacific state are coincident. Is that a coincidence? Is it noticeable? No and yes. It is all just data.
The network math simply confirms the underlying physical mechanism of synchronous chaos in a globally coupled system. Beats the hell out of wood for dimwits that I assume is the same ole same ole.
↧
↧
Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Willis Eschenbach
I've put up a post on this question <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/09/the-source-of-the-heat/" rel="nofollow"><b>here</a></b>, comments welcome.
w.
↧
Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by popesclimatetheory
The calculation does not care how much albedo is from cloud or ice or whatever.
The highest albedo is during the coldest times when oceans are low and cold and more frozen and should have trouble providing enough moisture for clouds.
The lowest albedo is during the warmest times when oceans are high and warm and thawed and should have no trouble providing enough moisture for clouds.
↧
Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by Jim D
The whole column globally does not condense at night. What are you talking about? You don’t even need condensation to see the greenhouse effect. You can look at how little the surface under moist tropical air cools at night compared to dry desert air. The difference is column vapor. More vapor, more greenhouse effect, less cooling at night. No clouds needed.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
