|
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
Togless wrote: ... there will continue to be an energy imbalance until such time as temperature rises sufficiently to restore radiative equilibrium. This time you speak of is the time it takes a photon of energy to travel from the surface of the earth to outside of the system of course. No, it's the time it takes for the climate system to warm up by a certain amount - typically decades to centuries. As an example, you say that a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ will cause around 1°C of global warming without feedbacks. How long would you expect that to take? As a very rough calculation: The oceans comprise 1 billion cubic kilometres of water, and the energy imbalance caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ is 3.7W/m², or 1.88*10^15 joules per second for the whole planet. The energy needed to raise 1 billion cubic kilometres of ocean by 1°C is 5.5*10^24 joules. So according to your 'no feedback' figure it would take a minimum of 93 years for the no-feedback warming of 1°C to be achieved (by all means check my calculation). In practice it would take longer, because the imbalance declines as the planet warms, so the rate of warming declines too. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"Graham P Davis" wrote in message news:20140221101601.1de9d713@home-1... On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:27:24 -0000 "Alastair McDonald" wrote: It may jump to a different attractor and paradoxically the UK could end up cooler in an on global average warmer world. It all depends on whether the Atlantic conveyor circulation (aka Gulf stream current) sustains. Our present climate is not at all typical for latitude 50-55N. Our climate is typical for a maritime climate but not for a continental type. So we need the Jet Stream to reverse, not the Gulf Stream, for that to change. Changes in the circulation of the currents in the North Atlantic are known (or were known; most scientists seem to have forgotten about it) to have been associated with cold epochs in NW Europe. This did not mean that NW Europe had a continental climate but one much colder than it now enjoys. The circulation in the North Atlantic is bi-stable and, in the past, has flipped suddenly from one stable state to the other. At the moment, we have a warm North Atlantic Drift current breaking away from the GS circulation and flowing NE-wards past the UK. When the circulation flips to the other state, the GS circulation no longer has the oomph to generate the NAD and that is then replaced by a continuation of the Labrador current. The UK would still have a maritime climate but the air would be flowing over a much colder sea than it does now. The idea was that the mega proglacial Lake Agassiz burst out through the Gulf of St Lawrence and halted the thermohaline ocean circulation. But it has not been possible to find evidnece for that event, and it seems that the THC was pushed further south and not halted. It has been pointed out in the RMet journal, and by Philip Eden, that the mild British Climate is due to the southwesterlies and not the North Atlantic Drift. My theory is that the sea ice, which is know to have reached Ireland, expanded out of the Arctic and altered the (North) British climate from maritime into continental. Don't forget the Younger Dryas was when the air temperatures changed. A climatic event rather than a switch of deep ocean currents seems more likely cause, IMHO. Cheers, Alastair. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On 21/02/2014 09:27, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message ... Mostly they think the planet is ours to exploit and trash now for immediate short term profit and the kids can pay for it all tomorrow. That is Lawson's attitude - SKI principle (Spend the Kids Inheritance). IMHO, most conservatives do not think like that. They think, like Lawrence, that they are improving the world and that the resources will last forever. When any do run out, mankind is resourceful enough to find alternatives. I suspect they don't think at all. Greed is the only thing they know. I am not willing to accept that the changes will be catastrophic in the sense that you seem to mean. The planet will go on just fine as it is but parts of it near the equator will become very uncomfortably warm and some low lying and highly populous cities below mean sea level. I am not sure you are correct. I am reasonably happy that I am correct and that the simulations now are not that far off the mark. Earlier models used to predict too much rain in the sahara and various other funny quirks. I had the opportunity to torment one of the simpler GCMs once and set out to boil the oceans at the equator by adding an insane amount of CO2 as a single injection (ISTR 5000ppm was as high as it would let me go) That is a shade under 4 doublings from a nominal 350ppm starting point. It took it a while to settle down afterwards - about 200 years. There was still permanent ice at the South Pole despite my best efforts not much left on Greenland though. My problem with that is I know that the GCMs are wrong! They cannot replicate past abrupt climate change, and so are unable to predict abrupt climate changes in the future. This week, after over ten years of investigations, I have identified where the problem is, but I doubt that anyone will believe me :-( The GCMs are not perfect and they can never be but they are good enough to permit realistic simulations of future scenarios and strategies. It may jump to a different attractor and paradoxically the UK could end up cooler in an on global average warmer world. It all depends on whether the Atlantic conveyor circulation (aka Gulf stream current) sustains. Our present climate is not at all typical for latitude 50-55N. Our climate is typical for a maritime climate but not for a continental type. So we need the Jet Stream to reverse, not the Gulf Stream, for that to change. It is typical of a maritime climate but only with a huge boost of heat from the prevailing wind over a warm Gulf stream current. There are palm trees on west coast of Scotland! We should be a tundra climate. The people who went off to the Falklands expecting that 51.5S would have a similar climate to 51.5N got a bit of a surprise! Compare for example Port Stanley and Heathrow both as near as damn it at 51.5 degrees but in opposite hemispheres: Property Heathrow Port Stanley Record min -14 -11 UK can get continental cold wind Avg winter min 2 -1 ~3C cooler avg winter Avg summer max 14 24 ~10C cooler avg summer Record Max 37 24 Source UK MetO & Wiki So basically an average summers day at Heathrow would be record breaking hot weather in Port Stanley and that is despite the southern hemisphere summer sunshine being about 6% stronger due to orbital eccentricity of 0.0167. If our nice warm current ever fails the UK will be a slightly worse off than the Falklands with a tundra climate. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Friday, 21 February 2014 10:00:52 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/02/2014 07:24, matt_sykes wrote: On Thursday, 20 February 2014 19:37:00 UTC+1, Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: For every joule of energy you add to matter its temperature rises. you stop adding joules, it stops rising. period. Correct, but a planetary energy imbalance will persist, resulting in continuing warming, Only so longs as joules are added to the system. Yes. And the sun rises every day and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere remains the same so that slightly more of the suns heat is trapped on the planet than would otherwise be the case. You seem to think that the CO2 concentration is the heat! Actually it is the source of the extra heat since it is the CO2 that absorbs and back radiates the photon of IR. It isn't. CO2 determines the proportion of the suns input that the Earth retains and that is what was called the greenhouse effect. until such time as the warming is sufficient to restore radiative equilibrium. You need to think of this from the top-of-atmosphere perspective, which is all about radiative balance. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere reduces infrared radiation to space, causing an energy imbalance (more energy coming in from the sun than being radiated away to space). Assuming nothing else changes, the only possible consequence is that the climate system warms up enough so that it once again radiates enough to balance insolation, Which is does every morning and takes about 5 hours to reach. No it doesn't. Last time I noticed it took about 5 hours or so from dawn fort the troposphere to warm up. Which planet are you living on? The changes in CO2 in the atmosphere take nearly two years to diffuse around the globe So what? During that time it is adding more heat in areas it is more concentrated in, and less heat in areas it is less concentrated in. The total heat added is the same, regardless of where the CO2 is. and the change in radiation balance would take a few decades *at least* to come anywhere close to being near to its new equilibrium. So how does the surface and troposphere reach a radiation balance at a temperature 10 degrees C higher in a matter of hours after the sun rises? Really, your statement is patent garbage. If we could magically hold CO2 at present levels it would take decades before the system came back to a long term equilibrium. Bull****. It would take a few hours. The earth does that every morning. Thermal lag is the down to the conductivity of a substance. Rubbish the thermal lag is due to its total specific heat capacity. No, that determines hoe hot it will get for a given heat input. Thermal lag, the time taken for it to heat completely across its entire mass, is determined by its thermal conductivity. So thermal lag on the earth is the time taken for heat to get from the surface to space. And that's a few hours as I just pointed out. No it isn't it is the time taken when the daily heat energy trapped in the system is increased by some percentage for that increased *daily* retained energy input to be fully equilibrated into the system. Since the troposphere experiences night and day then heat is never 'fully equilibrated'. It is always wandering around, following the sun. This requires several ocean turnover times and isn't complete even then. Ah, back to the oceans again are we. And the oceans are what, barely warming, at a depth of 700 meters. And didn't I read somewhere that only one is warming? Anyway, lets just focus on the troposphere shall we, since we do at least have reasonable data for that going back over a reasonable time and covering a reasonable amount of the earths surface. What the 'heat in the pipeline' theory says is that if we stop adding heat the entire system will continue to warm for 50 years or whatever, by 0.5 C. The heat is literally in the pipeline. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is like additional insulation. It traps an extra proportion of the suns heat *every* day in perpetuity. Oh, so you are saying that even if CO2 stays the same it traps ever increasing amounts of IR photons in the troposphere? (at least until the CO2 is turned into chalk by marine micro-organisms). This is clearly a load of crap. You are bull****ting and have no clue what you are talking about. Your bluff and bluster might cut it on denier blogs but is entirely out of place on a science newsgroup. That's the kind of personal attack I expect from someone pushed into a corner by logic and facts. Keep it up, it makes me know I am winning. :) -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:32:30 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/02/2014 09:27, Alastair McDonald wrote: "Martin Brown" wrote in message ... Mostly they think the planet is ours to exploit and trash now for immediate short term profit and the kids can pay for it all tomorrow. That is Lawson's attitude - SKI principle (Spend the Kids Inheritance). IMHO, most conservatives do not think like that. They think, like Lawrence, that they are improving the world and that the resources will last forever. When any do run out, mankind is resourceful enough to find alternatives. I suspect they don't think at all. Greed is the only thing they know. I am not willing to accept that the changes will be catastrophic in the sense that you seem to mean. The planet will go on just fine as it is but parts of it near the equator will become very uncomfortably warm and some low lying and highly populous cities below mean sea level. I am not sure you are correct. I am reasonably happy that I am correct and that the simulations now are not that far off the mark. Earlier models used to predict too much rain in the sahara and various other funny quirks. I had the opportunity to torment one of the simpler GCMs once and set out to boil the oceans at the equator by adding an insane amount of CO2 as a single injection (ISTR 5000ppm was as high as it would let me go) That is a shade under 4 doublings from a nominal 350ppm starting point. It took it a while to settle down afterwards - about 200 years. There was still permanent ice at the South Pole despite my best efforts not much left on Greenland though. My problem with that is I know that the GCMs are wrong! They cannot replicate past abrupt climate change, and so are unable to predict abrupt climate changes in the future. This week, after over ten years of investigations, I have identified where the problem is, but I doubt that anyone will believe me :-( The GCMs are not perfect and they can never be but they are good enough to permit realistic simulations of future scenarios and strategies. It may jump to a different attractor and paradoxically the UK could end up cooler in an on global average warmer world. It all depends on whether the Atlantic conveyor circulation (aka Gulf stream current) sustains. Our present climate is not at all typical for latitude 50-55N. Our climate is typical for a maritime climate but not for a continental type. So we need the Jet Stream to reverse, not the Gulf Stream, for that to change. It is typical of a maritime climate but only with a huge boost of heat from the prevailing wind over a warm Gulf stream current. There are palm trees on west coast of Scotland! We should be a tundra climate. The people who went off to the Falklands expecting that 51.5S would have a similar climate to 51.5N got a bit of a surprise! Compare for example Port Stanley and Heathrow both as near as damn it at 51.5 degrees but in opposite hemispheres: Property Heathrow Port Stanley Record min -14 -11 UK can get continental cold wind Avg winter min 2 -1 ~3C cooler avg winter Avg summer max 14 24 ~10C cooler avg summer I think you might have these the wrong way round. -- Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd. http://www.sandrila.co.uk/ twitter: @sandrilaLtd |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Friday, 21 February 2014 11:50:24 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: Togless wrote: ... there will continue to be an energy imbalance until such time as temperature rises sufficiently to restore radiative equilibrium. This time you speak of is the time it takes a photon of energy to travel from the surface of the earth to outside of the system of course. No, Yes. I am talking about true thermal lag, as defined by engineers, the thermal conductivity of matter and not the 'thermal lag' or the 'in the pipeline warming' loved by the likes of SKS. What you are talking about is the later. Google thermal lag, the engineers kind, and you will see what I mean. 's the time it takes for the climate system to warm up by a certain amount - typically decades to centuries. As an example, you say that a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ will cause around 1°C of global warming without feedbacks. How long would you expect that to take? How long does it take the surface and lower troposphere to warm by 10 C each morning when the sun comes up? An additional CO2 forcing will have an immediate effect on temperature. Why do YOU think the suns photons can warm the ground in a few hours, and yet CO2 photons cant? Whats the difference, wheres the magic? As a very rough calculation: The oceans comprise Ocean warming is irrelevant. What ever heat goes in to them stays there and isn't going to get into the atmosphere to give the 0.5C that sites like SKS say will be added to the surface temperatures even of we stop CO2 increase. Heck, even this website says that, and it is alarmist as hell, since its run by Hansens side kick: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-heat-content/ "Neither is this heat going to come back out from the deep ocean any time soon (the notion that this heat is the warming that is ‘in the pipeline’ is erroneous)." What you need to focus on is this. GW is all about the warming of the surface and the near surface air temps. And that is where SKS says the additional 0.5C will happen even if we halt CO2. Now, even if heat had gone into the oceans as well during this time, how is that heat going to get from the oceans into the atmosphere in a single step, permanent fashion? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT aproblem.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:26:08 -0000
"Alastair McDonald" wrote: "Graham P Davis" wrote in message news:20140221101601.1de9d713@home-1... On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:27:24 -0000 "Alastair McDonald" wrote: It may jump to a different attractor and paradoxically the UK could end up cooler in an on global average warmer world. It all depends on whether the Atlantic conveyor circulation (aka Gulf stream current) sustains. Our present climate is not at all typical for latitude 50-55N. Our climate is typical for a maritime climate but not for a continental type. So we need the Jet Stream to reverse, not the Gulf Stream, for that to change. Changes in the circulation of the currents in the North Atlantic are known (or were known; most scientists seem to have forgotten about it) to have been associated with cold epochs in NW Europe. This did not mean that NW Europe had a continental climate but one much colder than it now enjoys. The circulation in the North Atlantic is bi-stable and, in the past, has flipped suddenly from one stable state to the other. At the moment, we have a warm North Atlantic Drift current breaking away from the GS circulation and flowing NE-wards past the UK. When the circulation flips to the other state, the GS circulation no longer has the oomph to generate the NAD and that is then replaced by a continuation of the Labrador current. The UK would still have a maritime climate but the air would be flowing over a much colder sea than it does now. The idea was that the mega proglacial Lake Agassiz burst out through the Gulf of St Lawrence and halted the thermohaline ocean circulation. But it has not been possible to find evidnece for that event, and it seems that the THC was pushed further south and not halted. It has been pointed out in the RMet journal, and by Philip Eden, that the mild British Climate is due to the southwesterlies and not the North Atlantic Drift. When you say "the idea was", I assume that you are referring to the fuss made about a decade ago about the discovery of the ocean conveyor belt. The scientists involved also claimed other discoveries that, strangely, I'd read about over thirty years before they "discovered" them. One included the shock when they "discovered" from ice cores that changes in climate had been sudden. What a pity they hadn't read the same book as I did - or had they? - as it might have saved them some work. The bi-stable status of the North Atlantic circulation was known about fifty years ago; the only thing that they didn't know was what caused it. Their best guess at the time was that the Gulf Stream circulation weakened after a change in the atmospheric circulation - a weakening of the sub-tropical high. It may be that the ocean conveyor was the cause or it may be unrelated - unlikely, I know. Philip Eden is correct in saying that the mild climate isn't "caused" by the NAD, but it's incorrect to take this as meaning that a change or cessation of the NAD would have no effect on our climate. I've seen several cases where a 1-2C cooling of the Atlantic between Labrador and Ireland has had a marked effect on our weather and it would be stupid to say that a much larger and prolonged drop in sea temperature in that region would have no effect on the climate of NW Europe. My theory is that the sea ice, which is know to have reached Ireland, expanded out of the Arctic and altered the (North) British climate from maritime into continental. Don't forget the Younger Dryas was when the air temperatures changed. A climatic event rather than a switch of deep ocean currents seems more likely cause, IMHO. One effect of an NAD shut-down would probably be a more maritime climate with stronger westerlies, somewhat like we've seen this winter, but with much lower temperatures. I'm not sure whether the changes in NAD to which I was referring were tied into the Younger Dryas event or other changes in Europe's climate; remembering all the details from a book read over forty years ago is not always easy. -- 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:
.... How long does it take the surface and lower troposphere to warm by 10 C each morning when the sun comes up? That's not relevant to this discussion. We're talking about heating up the entire climate system, including the oceans, which requires something on the order of 10^24 joules per degree C. The current planetary energy imbalance of 0.6W/m² means that the Earth is gaining 3*10^14 joules per second, so you can immediately see why it takes many decades to raise global temperature by 1 degree with that kind of energy imbalance, not minutes or hours. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Friday, 21 February 2014 22:22:40 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: ... How long does it take the surface and lower troposphere to warm by 10 C each morning when the sun comes up? That's not relevant to this discussion. We're talking about heating up the entire climate system, No we arent actually, we are talking about surface temperatures, thats what GW is all about, and thats what CC is all about. And that is what I am talking about here, not ocean warming, but the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere and its potential impact on life. including the oceans, which requires something on the order of 10^24 joules per degree C. The current planetary energy imbalance of 0.6W/m² means that the Earth is gaining 3*10^14 joules per second, so you can immediately see why it takes many decades to raise global temperature by 1 degree with that kind of energy imbalance, not minutes or hours. And this was built into the GCMs was it? |
| 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