Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

On 18/02/2014 14:21, matt_sykes wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote:

...

In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got
0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%.

Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of
ocean.

Not this old crock again.

There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter, its temperature increases. Period.

Thermal inertia is a pretty good description of the cause of the lag
between the net maximum heat input and the actual hottest day in a given
climate. There is always a lag between maximum insolation and average
warmest day and in winter between minimum insolation and coldest day.
The Earth has a significant heat capacity, as do the oceans and the
atmosphere by comparison a small one.

The difference in heat capacity between air, land and sea drives sea
breezes in summer when the land warms up much faster than the sea.

(I wonder if anyone is going to chime in with the one exception, as unjustifiable as it is, for obvious reasons)

You mean like with melting ice or boiling water? Ice and snow is
actually an important driver for global climate as the insolation at 70N
is a very good predictor of ice ages. If the snow doesn't melt back to
the usual snowline each year then every year more land is covered with
brilliant white snow and reflects more heat away into space.

Conversely if every year there is less ice then more heat is absorbed at
higher latitudes and the ice continues on average to retreat.

What we have at present is glaciers in retreat and permafrost that is
failing leading to difficulties with cable car pylons in the Alps.

So you cant 'store heat' in some handy little heat sink somewhere and have it later jump out on the earth and cause warming. It just isn't physically possible.

You can by very slightly warming up kilometre deep oceans causing them
to expand and sea levels to rise. And we are in really deep **** if we
manage to destabilise the clathrates on the sea bed or bulk methane
trapped in the Siberian tundra permafrost at some point.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 15:03:27 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:17:28 -0800 (PST)

matt_sykes wrote:



As you all probably know the direct warming effect of doubling CO2

from preindustrial times can be calculated at 1.2 C. This is well

known, there is plenty of data on line on this and there is not

argument about it, it is basic physics.



We do? I don't. But then I supposed it's all changed since I were a lad.



". . . changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 [as

calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative

humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3C per 10 percent change of

CO2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the

observed warming of the earth [sic] between 1880 and 1940. They could,

however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C

between now and the end of the century."



That's from "Understanding Climate Change - A Program for Action"

published in 1975 (March).



As for the forecast of a 0.5C rise in temperature by the end of the

century, it was actually 0.48C (using 11-year smoothing). Pretty damn

close, I'd say.



Taking the longer view, a 3C rise for a doubling of CO2 would account

for a 1.03C rise in temperature from 1866 to 2007 (mid-points of

11-year means). The actual rise was 0.87C.


Nearer 0.6 C http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...m:1866/to:2007









So, that's increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, we expect to get

1.2 C. We are currently at 400.



Nope. We expect a further rise of at least 1.75C from now to 2076 when

we reach 560ppm, assuming a constant rise (based on rate of increase of

last ten years) in CO2 from now on.

You know of course the effect of CO2 is inverse log? No. Oh, Well you do now. You cant extend a rate from the first 50% into the second.


Oh, and as for last ten years of warming? Care to explain how we are gong to get ANY increase based on this?http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...m:2004/to:2014

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 16:37:13 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/02/2014 14:21, matt_sykes wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote:

"matt_sykes" wrote:



...



In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got

0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%.



Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of

ocean.



Not this old crock again.



There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter, its temperature increases. Period.



Thermal inertia is a pretty good description of the cause of the lag

between the net maximum heat input and the actual hottest day in a given

climate.

Actually it isn't. What you have is constant heat, pouring into matter, and it gets hotter and hotter, and as the sun goes past the zenith, the amount of heat pouring in gets less and less until it reaches the point at which the matter can release heat as quickly as it absorbs it, and reaches a maximum temperature.

You also have the delaying effect of GH gasses in the atmosphere, WV principally, that absorb incoming solar IR and delay its arrival at the surface.

There is always a lag between maximum insolation and average

warmest day and in winter between minimum insolation and coldest day.

The Earth has a significant heat capacity, as do the oceans and the

atmosphere by comparison a small one.

Yes, but that heat capacity is what determines a mass' temperature rise in response to that heat.








(I wonder if anyone is going to chime in with the one exception, as unjustifiable as it is, for obvious reasons)



You mean like with melting ice or boiling water?

Uh oh, he went for it, the good old phase change.

Now tell me, once the heat has got into matter, changed it phase, yet not resulted in a temperature rise, how does that heat then go on to generate 'dialled in' temperature, a phrase so beloved of the 'thermal lag' ridiculousness.





I sniped the rest of yours stuff, it was about feedbacks and totally irrelevant to this thread.


You can not add heat to matter without it warming up. Period.

There is no 'dialled in' temperature rise.

If we hold the radiative balance as it is right now it isn't going to get any warmer because there is now more heat. Period.

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

"matt_sykes" wrote:

There is no such thing as thermal inertia.

Ahhh... so if I put a pan of cold water on the gas stove, it will instantly
reach boiling point, yes?

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT aproblem.
 

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:21:17 -0800 (PST)
matt_sykes wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote:



...

In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got

0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%.



Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic
kilometres of

ocean.



Not this old crock again.

There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter,
its temperature increases. Period.

It's _whole_ temperature increases. That heat may get locked away and
then outside resources can release that heat by changing surface
conditions.

So you cant 'store heat' in some handy little heat sink somewhere and
have it later jump out on the earth and cause warming. It just isn't
physically possible.


Oh really? I suggest you think of ENSO and you might want to revise
that statement.


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'.
"Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate."
- BBC News subtitle

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 17:06:47 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote:



There is no such thing as thermal inertia.



Ahhh... so if I put a pan of cold water on the gas stove, it will instantly

reach boiling point, yes?

How ridiculous. What is the insulative property of water? How long does it take for heat to travel from one side to the other, how big is pan, what shape is it, how cold is the air, how much heat does the flame produce and how much mass does the pan have?

All these will determine how long it takes the water to reach any given temperature.

However, for every joule of heat adder to the water a temperature rise results.

There is no such thing as thermal lag.

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

"matt_sykes" wrote:

....
All these will determine how long it takes the
water to reach any given temperature.
....
There is no such thing as thermal lag.

These two statements contradict each other. Either there is a lag (the time
it takes to reach a given temperature) or there is not. They cannot both be
true, so which one is correct?

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 19:14:45 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote:



...

All these will determine how long it takes the

water to reach any given temperature.

...

There is no such thing as thermal lag.



These two statements contradict each other. Either there is a lag (the time

it takes to reach a given temperature) or there is not. They cannot both be

true, so which one is correct?

Oh come on, surely you understand the difference between the time it takes to boil water and the theory proposed by AGW alarmists that even if no more heat entered the system, warming will continue?

You should do, its your silly theory after all!

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

"matt_sykes" wrote:

Oh come on, surely you understand the difference between
the time it takes to boil water and the theory proposed by
AGW alarmists that even if no more heat entered the
system, warming will continue?

There is no such theory, but I take it we can now agree that it takes time
to raise the temperature of the world's oceans, just as it does to boil a
pan of water. That being the case, the warming will lag behind a steadily
increasing climate forcing. For example: If today's climate forcing is
sufficient to cause 1.3°C of global warming at equilibrium, we would not
expect to see all of that warming today. We would only expect it to have
reached about 60% of the equilibrium value by today - the 'transient
warming'. That's why I said earlier:

=============================
The net climate forcing (anthropogenic + natural) to date is around 1.7W/m²
and fast feedback climate sensitivity is around 0.75°C/W/m², or 3°C for a
doubling of atmospheric COâ‚‚ from 280 to 560ppm, so we would expect to see
around 1.7 * 0.75 = 1.3°C of global warming at equilibrium and 1.7 * 0.75 *
0.6 = 0.8°C today, which is pretty much exactly the warming that we have
seen.

If you're arguing for something lower than 1.2°C per doubling of atmospheric
COâ‚‚ then you would only expect to have seen, at the very most, 1.7 * 0.3 *
0.6 = 0.3°C of global warming - clearly well below what has been observed.
=============================

If you're claiming that fast feedback climate sensitivity is only around 1°C
per doubling of
atmospheric COâ‚‚, then you have to account for why we've seen nearly three
times greater global warming than you would have expected.

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

"Togless" wrote in message ...

For example: If today's climate forcing is
sufficient to cause 1.3°C of global warming at equilibrium...
=================================

Equilibrium is indeed the key word. There's a failure to understand the
difference between thermodynamics and kinetics. Thermodynamics tells you
what balance the state of a system will ultimately tend towards, kinetics
tells you how quickly that state might be reached, given the processes that
have to occur to achieve the equilibrium state. The earth's climate system
is not in equilibrium, at least internally, and especially as far as the
deep oceans are concerned. There are processes on multi-year and
multi-decade timescales that have to be factored in.