Articles on this Page
- 12/16/18--13:04: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--13:17: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--15:05: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--15:25: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/16/18--15:52: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--15:52: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/16/18--16:17: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--16:45: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--16:52: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--17:13: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--17:21: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--17:31: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--17:58: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--18:22: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--18:24: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--18:38: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--18:48: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--19:34: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--19:45: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--19:49: _ Comment on Res...
- 12/16/18--15:25: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
- 12/16/18--15:52: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Wagathon
- 12/16/18--18:38: Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by JCH
There's a physics-based argument that the apparent ECS increases with time. The big assumption in the use of EBMs for ECS is that once you add in the imbalance, you get the full ECS. That does not account for the reason for the imbalance being that the ocean is lagging the global average, and currently warming at only half the rate of the land. With the ocean lagging, so is the water vapor feedback. Projecting ECS has to allow for the extra water vapor feedback as the ocean catches up to the global mean, but while it lags, the sensitivity will be underestimated by simply adding in the imbalance the way they do. Assuming in EBMs that things are monolithic between different surface types has been criticized by Kyle Armour before. A better EBM would separate out at least ocean and land, and possibly polar areas and not assume that all these warm at the same rate all the time under a forcing change.
Conflating volcanic emissions of SO2 with mixed species emissions from incompletely combusted fossil fuels seems to be an error.
As someone who never gives numbers without overwhelming support in the literature - models under predict the warming potential of black carbon by a factor of three.
"The best estimate of industrial‐era climate forcing of black carbon through all forcing mechanisms, including clouds and cryosphere forcing, is +1.1 W m−2 with 90% uncertainty bounds of +0.17 to +2.1 W m−2. " https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50171
With a corresponding decrease in SW reflection as SO2 coats aging BC in the 'lensing effect'.
“Time-course evolution of BC aerosol composition, light absorption (where EMAC-BC is the enhancement because of coatings), and associated climate effects (as DRF).”
I am wondering if the reduction in volcanic emissions is sufficient to account for the post hiatus decrease in clear sky reflected SW noted in Loeb et al 2018.
The major cause of post hiatus warming remains as less cloud cover over warmer ocean surfaces in the Pacific - a counter intuitive result related the persistence of convection cells in the presence of nucleating particles - from a number of sources - prior to raining out from the center and putting into train processes involving the suppression of convection.
Land surfaces will always be apparently warmer - as measured by thermometers - than ocean surfaces given physics of sensible and latent heat.
But the atmosphere is well mixed with indeed most water vapor originating in oceans. And the rate of warming of oceans and land is the same - some 0.8 W/m2 most recently.
Land warms slowly to depth by conduction leading to hotter drier soils. CO2 fertilization leads to less surface moisture flux and higher surface sensible heat. As does drought.
Oceans warm to depth by turbulent mixing and a temperature gradient is established by convection as the warmest waters surface.
So how would you explain a land surface temperature and ocean surface temperature divergence?
Academia’s case of Stockholm Syndrome [link]
Not top down reform. Bottom up. My new favorite topic. Hierarchies. Peer review is too something. I suppose some game the system. The system is corrupt. It is not adapting. The hierarchy is too rigid. It is failing. Those trying to prop it up, what can we say? Clinging to power. They may be established under what may become the old game. I'd cling to power too. Only CPAs can do this or that. It's not safe unless I am doing it for you. The biggest defenders are those that have benefited the most. It's like being a Republican. Which is reassuring in an odd way. And there I was thinking they were going to save the world. No, they just want to save their world. Quillette. Good site.
Same reason land warms faster in the summer - thermal inertia. This data shows it better. Up to 1980, the ocean was keeping up, but when the CO2 forcing change accelerated to 0.3 W/m2/decade, it couldn't anymore.
The putative science of endangered polar bears due to humanity's release of CO2 has been debunked but, here is the, 'Complete list of things caused by Global Warming' as follows …
I presume it is the surface data yet again - and a progressive liberal sprinkling of narrative.
There are of course a number of physical mechanisms in play in the complex dynamical Earth system - but a label doesn't do as a coherent theory.
Land cools and warms daily and seasonally - and oceans in local thermodynamic equilibrium with the atmosphere stay warmer because that's where the energy store is.
One of the mechanisms is terrestrial aridity - it changes the balance between sensible heat - measured by thermometers - and latent heat. While total energy remains the same - surface temperature is biased hot.
Last time I showed this to #jiminy there was some post hoc rationalization or other. It doesn't change the narrative of course.
You were mystified by the differential heating. I am not. It's just physics. Same as happens in the summer, same as happens after sunrise. The land surface warms faster in response. Thermal inertia. It's that easy.
Thermal inertia simply means that it takes time to heat water in a pot. Oceans are warmed from above to depths of a 100 meters or so by incoming SW that varies annually by +/-10 W/m2. It varies with sea surface temperature and cloud and with aerosol emissions. Heat is carried down to depth by turbulent mixing and to the warm surface layer by convection. The land surface temperature is biased not by aridity.
There are physical realities that go far beyond pots on a stove. An inability to acknowledge any of them is #jiminy's brand of cultural ignorance.
It is easy. The ocean warms and cools more slowly and lags as the seasons change. Thermal inertia does that. We see the warming side of this in the temperature record. You haven't figured it out yet, maybe not with the seasonal cycles either. Common knowledge.
He gets me every time with snide digs about my ignorance that are central to the persona.
But the ocean surfaces remain in local thermodynamic equilibrium with the atmosphere and are the heat engine of the planet. Land surfaces are both cooler and warmer - as heat transport processes are so much faster in oceans than slow conduction in soil and rock - and as oceans are the global energy store. Substantial warming and cooling happens on an annual basis from orbital eccentricity - making #jiminy's thermal inertia meaningless.
But the divergence in average warming rates is an aridity artifact of the surface temperature record. It doesn't exist in the troposphere. It is to do with physics of latent and sensible heat.
Have you noticed how the seasons are opposite in each hemisphere, but the eccentricity effect isn't? Making stuff up as you go along is not helping you. Fast heat transport is what gives you low thermal inertia. Water has a faster vertical heat transport than land. Heat is distributed over a deeper layer, which leads to more heat capacity and lower thermal inertia. You won't understand, but there it is in terms of physics.
So you also don't understand why the oceans warm more slowly in the summer.
<a href="http://www.atmosedu.com/Geol390/articles/science/Science-2014-Sherwood-737-9.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>
A Drier Future?</b></a>
<blockquote>Global temperature increases affect the water cycle over land, but the nature of these changes remains difficult to predict. A key conceptual problem is to dis- tinguish between droughts, which are tran- sient regional extreme phenomena typically defined as departures from a local climato- logical norm that is presumed known, and the normal or background dryness itself. This background dryness depends on precipitation, but also on how fast water would evaporate. As the planet warms, global average rainfall increases, but so does evaporation. What is the likely net impact on average aridity? ...</blockquote>
...and when I said low thermal inertia, I meant high thermal inertia. That's the oceans.
There is a lot of variability - but can you see any lag? CERES is red and Argo blue.
Why would you expect a lag when you're accumulating the flux? The lag is between the instantanous flux and temperature. What you're showing is energy conservation and the units of accumulated flux should be J/m2 not W/m2.
[…] https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/23/resplandy-et-al-part-4-further-developments/ […]