|
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"General" wrote:
"Togless" wrote: 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. That's right - there is some uncertainty about how readily heat is mixed into the deep oceans. See Hansen's study "Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications" for a discussion. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...lancePaper.pdf |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On 18/02/2014 15:59, matt_sykes wrote:
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. But the point here is that it matters what the matter is and how much of it there is. Oceans are powerful heat shunts and a warmer ocean surface will deliver a lot more water vapour into the atmosphere. A piece of thin aluminium foil on a thick polystyrene insulating surface gets hotter a lot faster than a thick slab of aluminium. It is all to do with the specific heat capacity of the object being heated. Engineers call this thermal inertia which isn't such a bad name for it. Oceans have a very high specific heat capacity compared to the atmosphere and an insanely long time to turn over their circulation. 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. This is unmitigated drivel. The atmosphere is largely transparent to the the bulk of the power containing peak wavelengths of incoming solar radiation at a characteristic temperature of 5500K. The "delay" due to absorption and re-emission in the dense part of the atmosphere where water vapour exists is probably less than 1ms - completely irrelevant as far as determining the hottest time of day. 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. It is slow to warm up and slow to cool down too. (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 have no idea what you are talking about with 'dialed in" temperature. I sniped the rest of yours stuff, it was about feedbacks and totally irrelevant to this thread. Typical denier tactic to ignore any inconvenient physics that conflicts with your prejudices. You can not add heat to matter without it warming up. Period. You have already had the phase change counter example to that bogus "dittohead science" claim. There is no 'dialled in' temperature rise. No idea what you mean by that. There is real energy stored in the system as a result of a phase change due to latent heat of vaporisation or fusion respectively depending on which phase change it is. 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. We are continually shifting the radiative balance by adding more CO2 and it will take time (ISTR a few decades) for the planet to fully respond to the changes we have already made in CO2 concentration. I suppose I should give thanks that you do admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with non trivial absorption bands in the thermal IR that is characteristic of the surface temperature emissions on Earth. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 12:44:27 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/02/2014 15:59, matt_sykes wrote: 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. But the point here is that it matters what the matter is and how much of it there is. Oceans are powerful heat shunts and a warmer ocean surface will deliver a lot more water vapour into the atmosphere. No it doesn't. If you add heat to matter it gets warmer, period. (And please don't start a circular argument, phase change can not give us 'dialled in' temperature rise). A piece of thin aluminium foil on a thick polystyrene insulating surface gets hotter a lot faster than a thick slab of aluminium. It is all to do with the specific heat capacity of the object being heated. Engineers call this thermal inertia which isn't such a bad name for it. Actually its called specific heat capacity. Oceans have a very high specific heat capacity compared to the atmosphere and an insanely long time to turn over their circulation. 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. This is unmitigated drivel. The atmosphere is largely transparent to the the bulk of the power containing peak wavelengths of incoming solar radiation at a characteristic temperature of 5500K. You are completely wrong. 505 of incoming solar energy is in the IR and plenty of it is in WV absorption bands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png The "delay" due to absorption and re-emission in the dense part of the atmosphere where water vapour exists is probably less than 1ms - completely irrelevant as far as determining the hottest time of day. So how does WV hold heat into the night if IR photons can travel through it so fast? 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. It is slow to warm up and slow to cool down too. (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 have no idea what you are talking about with 'dialed in" temperature. No? so what are you arguing about then, and go read skepticalscience, or just google it. I sniped the rest of yours stuff, it was about feedbacks and totally irrelevant to this thread. Typical denier tactic to ignore any inconvenient physics that conflicts with your prejudices. No, it was just irrelevant waffle that had nothing to do with supposed 'thermal lag'. You can not add heat to matter without it warming up. Period. You have already had the phase change counter example to that bogus "dittohead science" claim. I already said with the exception of the obvious, so given that proviso, I am dead right. Period. There is no 'dialled in' temperature rise. No idea what you mean by that. There is real energy stored in the system as a result of a phase change due to latent heat of vaporisation or fusion respectively depending on which phase change it is. And how is that heat going to get into the atmosphere and cause additional warming after thermal balance is achieved without the phase changing back? Which means cooling.... (I did say the obvious exception was unjustifiable, didn't I) 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. We are continually shifting the radiative balance by adding more CO2 and it will take time (ISTR a few decades) for the planet to fully respond to the changes we have already made in CO2 concentration. You don't get it do you. The 'thermal lag' idea says that even if we stop CO2 production, halt the imbalance as it is now, we will get another 0.5C temperature rise due to 'dialled in' warming. If you really don't understand this ridiculous theory, then here are some links: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Clim...nd-Effect.html "Scientists tell us that even if CO2 was stabilized at its current level of 390 ppm, there is at least another 0.6 degrees "in the pipeline". " Maybe 'in the pipe line' you have heard of, I have often read 'dialied in'. Basicaly, alarmist science says that if the heat source is removed, temperature will continue to rise. I, and basic physics, say that's a load of crap. There is no 'in the pipeline' temperature rise. note this is not the thermal lag as used in engineering, which as I said somethere, possibly here, is due to shc and conductivity. http://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Thermal_lag |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:45:35 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: If you actually look at the 1000 mb data in the graph I linked you might detect a slight trend which is not inconsistent with your shortened and expanded y axis graph above. Yes, that's right. As you probably know, atmospheric water vapour is largely concentrated in the lower troposphere - Yes, but your studies concentrated on surface WV, not even lower troposphere, but 'the very bottom 2 meters of it' because it used station data, and that's why it found a trend that not only doesn't exist higher up, but is actually the opposite. Overall, tropospheric WV has reduced slightly, despite it warming. Therefore the AGW alarmist theory of WV positive feedback is disproved buy the data. http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress...centration.png The logarithmic scale of the graph you cited emphasises the very small decline in water vapour at high altitude and effectively hides the much larger increase of water vapour in the lower troposhere, which of course is what has the largest impact on the greenhouse effect. You have to wonder about the motivation of the author for displaying it in this misleading way. The graph doesn't have stratospheric data, it stops at 300 mb. Yes you're right about that, thanks. I mis-remembered the heights for those pressure layers. OK, I see your point, well, I suppose they had to fit the data on somehow, yet it is clear the drop at 500 mb data outweighs the much smaller drop at 1000mb even accounting for that; as your link says, up to 11 km WV has a linear relationship with height. but I think the lack of wv positive feedback is reflected in the empirical temperature data. Even if we attribute all the arming to CO2, then 0.7C for 46% more Co2 is a long way short of the 3C or 4C for 100% and in fact is nicely on the 1.2C per 100% predicted by a straight mathematical calculation of CO2 forcing. (note of course co2s effect in reverse log, the more we add the less effect it has). |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT aproblem.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:44:50 -0800 (PST)
matt_sykes wrote: 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 Following anomalies are based on 1951-80 normal (or 1901-2000, same thing). 11-year mean centred on 1866 is -0.28. 11-year mean centred on 2007 is +0.59 Care to do the sums on that and tell me whether your answer is nearer 0.6C or 0.87C? -- 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.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
Basicaly, alarmist science says that if the heat source is removed, temperature will continue to rise. No, what the science actually says is that when we create an energy imbalance (more energy coming into the climate system than going out in the form of infrared radiation to space), it takes time for the Earth to warm up enough to restore radiative equilibrium. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 16:44:30 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: Basicaly, alarmist science says that if the heat source is removed, temperature will continue to rise. No, what the science actually says is that when we create an energy imbalance (more energy coming into the climate system than going out in the form of infrared radiation to space), it takes time for the Earth to warm up enough to restore radiative equilibrium. SO you agree that if we halt the imballance now the earth will not continue to warm? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
SO you agree that if we halt the imballance now the earth will not continue to warm? Yes, that's right - hence why James Hansen stated 'target CO₂' as 350ppm. The planetary energy imbalance today is around 0.6W/m², which is equivalent to the forcing from a reduction in atmospheric CO₂ from its present level of ~400ppm to ~350ppm. If we could magically remove 350 billion tons* of CO₂ from the atmosphere right now, then in theory that would zero out the imbalance and global warming should stop... provided that we haven't already set off any major slow climate feedbacks. The fact that we'd still be producing ~30 billion tons of CO₂ every year would be working against us. It wouldn't be an easy task at all. * It's just a coincidence that getting back to 350ppm would mean removing 350 billion tons of CO₂ from the atmosphere (roughly). |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 18:36:22 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: SO you agree that if we halt the imballance now the earth will not continue to warm? Yes, that's right - hence why James Hansen stated 'target CO₂' as 350ppm. The planetary energy imbalance today is around 0.6W/m², which is equivalent to the forcing from a reduction in atmospheric CO₂ from its present level of ~400ppm to ~350ppm. If we could magically remove 350 billion tons* of CO₂ from the atmosphere right now, then in theory that would zero out the imbalance and global warming should stop... provided that we haven't already set off any major slow climate feedbacks. The fact that we'd still be producing ~30 billion tons of CO₂ every year would be working against us. It wouldn't be an easy task at all. * It's just a coincidence that getting back to 350ppm would mean removing 350 billion tons of CO₂ from the atmosphere (roughly). Good, so long as you agree that the 'in the pipeline' warming proposed by the likes of SKS is total junk I am happy. As for feedbacks though, WV isnt one, so there isnt runaway GH gas warming, or even a positive feedback to CO2 warming. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 16:28:20 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:44:50 -0800 (PST) matt_sykes wrote: 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 Following anomalies are based on 1951-80 normal (or 1901-2000, same thing). 11-year mean centred on 1866 is -0.28. 11-year mean centred on 2007 is +0.59 Care to do the sums on that and tell me whether your answer is nearer 0.6C or 0.87C? -- Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'. "Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate." - BBC News subtitle But you havent given your data source, its just figures. I have given you IPCC data, the official, global, agreed data, and it shows 0,6 ish. And the last 10 years as flat as a pancake. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk