On 28/11/2019 20:27, Len wrote:
On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 1:27:58 PM UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/11/2019 11:53, Weather or Not wrote:
On 28/11/2019 11:12, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* "Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at an all-time high,
according to the World Meteorological Organization. The last time the
Earth experienced concentrations of CO2 near today’s levels was
millions of years ago when temperatures were 2-3 degrees Celsius
warmer and than sea level was 10-20 meters higher. Scary? Yes. Yes, it
is. – via NBC News"

Why are temperatures and sea levels not higher?

The same reason that June, when the sun is highest in the sky is not the
hottest month of the year in the UK. Thermal inertia matters.

The oceans have immense thermal inertia and so the response to today's
GHG forcing lags behind. When the oceans do eventually catch up with the
equilibrium conditions appropriate to the present levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere sea levels will be higher. A some future warming is already
locked in even if we stopped the CO2 level from rising tomorrow.

However, as things stand the oceans are chasing a moving target since
CO2 levels and other GHG contributions continue to rise year on year.


What about clouds and cloudiness?
Must play a significant, unspecified as yet, role.

Clouds are very much a double edged sword.

Thick dense ones reflect sunlight up and away but also trap heat against
the ground with a slight net cooling effect. The strongest effect is to
clamp the diurnal temperature excursion to be closer to the mean.

Thin high cirrus and higher water vapour content of a warmer atmosphere
still let most of the sunlight through but make it harder for thermal
long wave IR to escape. Net warming potentially quite strong.

Lindzen's Iris hypothesis made a serious attempt to use clouds to limit
the effect of CO2 rise in the tropics but it was not borne out when it
was tested experimentally. Some debate still exists as to whether or not
it could still play a part in limiting AGW.

I view him as a true scientist despite his denialist tendencies he was
genuinely making a serious effort to refine the climate models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis

References at the bottom to primary literature.

You have to look very carefully at the affiliations and credentials of
anyone claiming to have strong evidence for the Iris hypothesis - they
are usually in hock to Australian, US or USSR fossil fuel interests.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Thin high cirrus and higher water vapour content of a warmer atmosphere
still let most of the sunlight through but make it harder for thermal
long wave IR to escape. Net warming potentially quite strong.

So contrails could be significant here?

Graham
Penzance

On 29/11/2019 09:54, Martin Brown wrote:

Lindzen's Iris hypothesis made a serious attempt to use clouds to limit
the effect of CO2 rise in the tropics but it was not borne out when it
was tested experimentally. Some debate still exists as to whether or not
it could still play a part in limiting AGW.

I view him as a true scientist despite his denialist tendencies he was
genuinely making a serious effort to refine the climate models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis

References at the bottom to primary literature.

You have to look very carefully at the affiliations and credentials of
anyone claiming to have strong evidence for the Iris hypothesis - they
are usually in hock to Australian, US or USSR fossil fuel interests.

You might be interested in this (highly abbreviated and slightly edited)
exchange of emails between Wibjörn Karlén (professor emeritus of
physical geography and quaternary geology at Stockholm University,
Sweden) and KevinTrenberth (of the Climate Analysis Section at the US
National Center for Atmospheric Research).

Karlen was interested in the land-based temperature rise in Nordic
countries as reported by the IPCC and CRU, and had run the published
data himself in order to reproduce the results, but failed to find any
increase in temperatures. He emailed Professor Jones of the CRU, who
passed the query on to Trenberth.

Karlen wrote that "In attempts to reconstruct the temperature I find an
increase from the early 1900s to ca 1935, a trend down until the mid
1970s and so another increase to about the same temperature level as in
the late 1930s. A distinct warming to a temperature about 0.5 deg C
above the level 1940 is reported in the IPCC diagrams. I have been
searching for this recent increase, which is very important for the
discussion about a possible human influence on climate, but I have
basically failed to find an increase above the late 1930s".

Trenberth replied mentioning dramatic decreases in Arctic sea ice in
recent years and that these and other indicators show that there is no
doubt about recent warming, although it should be noted that Karlen is
specifically interested in land temperatures rather than sea ice. The
latter then goes on to say that "Except for Denmark, the data sets show
an increase after the 1970s to the same level as in the late 1930s or
lower. None demonstrates the distinct increase IPCC indicates".

Karlen then quotes from a paper: "One example of published data not
supporting a major temperature increase during recent time is: Polyakov,
I.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Alekseev, G.H., Bhatt,U.S., Colony, R.L., Johnson,
M.A., Maskshtas, A.P. and Walsh, D., 2003: Variability and Trends of Air
Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875-2000. Journal of
Climate: Vol. 16 (12): 2067-2077.

He included many more stations than I did in my calculation of
temperatures N 65 N, but the result is similar. It is hard to find
evidence of a drastic warming of the Arctic."

Karlen then says "So, I find it necessary to object to the talk about a
scaring temperature increase because of increased human release of CO2.
In fact, the warming seems to be limited to densely populated areas. The
often mentioned correlation between temperature and CO2 is not
convincing. If there is a factor explaining a major part of changes in
the temperature, it is solar irradiation. There are numerous studies
demonstrating this correlation but papers are not accepted by IPCC. Most
likely, any reduction of CO2 release will have no effect whatsoever on
the temperature (independent of how expensive)".

Keeping in mind the above, Trenberth replies "You can object all you
like but you are not looking at the evidence and you need to have a
basis, which you have not established. You seem to doubt that CO2 has
increased and that it is a greenhouse gas and you are very wrong.". This
is to say the least a surprising statement, since Karlen is trying and
failing to reproduce the results published by the IPCC and the CRU, his
own researches suggesting he is correct in not finding any evidence of
warming.

Finally, Karlen says that in his mind, it has to be accepted that it is
great if the release of CO2 can be reduced because the earth's resources
are being used up and will will be more scarce in the future, but 'we
are in error' if we claim a global warming caused by CO2.

Trenberth disagrees.

Whether Karlen is 'in hock to Australian, US or USSR fossil fuel
interests' or not, one has to admire his scientific integrity in
pursuing the anomaly between his analysis of the published data sets and
his own researches that show no warming. and his fortitude at the nature
of the reception his enquiries received.

The much more extensive original source can be found at
https://tinyurl.com/y3ubvbwf

--
Spike

On 29/11/2019 13:16, Graham Easterling wrote:

Thin high cirrus and higher water vapour content of a warmer atmosphere
still let most of the sunlight through but make it harder for thermal
long wave IR to escape. Net warming potentially quite strong.

So contrails could be significant here?

You might find this of interest:

Oceanic Cloud Decrease since 1987 Explains 1/3 of Ocean Heating
October 3rd, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/...ocean-heating/

--
Spike

On 28/11/2019 13:27, Martin Brown wrote:

The oceans have immense thermal inertia and so the response to today's
GHG forcing lags behind. When the oceans do eventually catch up with the
equilibrium conditions appropriate to the present levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere sea levels will be higher. A some future warming is already
locked in even if we stopped the CO2 level from rising tomorrow.

A Scripps Institute paper suggests that with sea temperatures below 17
degC, dissolved CO2 does decrease with increases in temperature.
However, it was found that above that figure, dissolved CO2 /increases/
with increase of temperature up to the limit of the data (about 30 degC).

Perhaps ocean warming will reduce the level of atmospheric CO2.

--
Spike

On Thursday, 28 November 2019 11:12:55 UTC, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at an all-time high, according to the World Meteorological Organization. The last time the Earth experienced concentrations of CO2 near today’s levels was millions of years ago when temperatures were 2-3 degrees Celsius warmer and than sea level was 10-20 meters higher. Scary? Yes. Yes, it is. – via NBC News"

Always assuming the minuscule amount that it takes to make the flowerpots orgasm can affect local temperatures at around sea level long enough to melt thousands of tons of ice....
....How on earth does anyone prove that carbon dioxide is the culprit rather than directed energy weapons that require huge seaport facilities filled with MAERSK containers to accomplish?

On Saturday, 30 November 2019 10:00:04 UTC, Spike wrote:
On 28/11/2019 13:27, Martin Brown wrote:

The oceans have immense thermal inertia and so the response to today's
GHG forcing lags behind. When the oceans do eventually catch up with the
equilibrium conditions appropriate to the present levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere sea levels will be higher. A some future warming is already
locked in even if we stopped the CO2 level from rising tomorrow.

A Scripps Institute paper suggests that with sea temperatures below 17
degC, dissolved CO2 does decrease with increases in temperature.
However, it was found that above that figure, dissolved CO2 /increases/
with increase of temperature up to the limit of the data (about 30 degC).

Perhaps ocean warming will reduce the level of atmospheric CO2.

--
Spike

IIRC it is 1 pint of CO2 gas per 1 litre of water at NTP. That is one hell of a lot of CO2 when you consider there is only 400 pppm at sea level. Not that it shouldn't be effective if the 999,600 parts of the million cooling it, which at sea level is likely to be lots of oxygen hydride. I presume this factor would remain similar if it concerns glaciers.

I am 97million% certain although my maths is suspect.

On Thursday, 28 November 2019 19:49:17 UTC, N_Cook wrote:
On 28/11/2019 11:12, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at an all-time high, according to the World Meteorological Organization. The last time the Earth experienced concentrations of CO2 near today’s levels was millions of years ago when temperatures were 2-3 degrees Celsius warmer and than sea level was 10-20 meters higher. Scary? Yes. Yes, it is. – via NBC News"


You never know, this may be showing the final "falling off a cliff" loss
of global sea-ice.
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/nsidc_global_extent_byyear_b.png
Maybe just the 1995 trace was more preecipious at this time of year
previously.

Does any of this explain:
https://watchers.news/2019/12/03/for...-indian-ocean/

Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
http://diverse.4mg.com/scicaf.htm

I'd love to hear what the duds have to say about this.

On 04/12/2019 00:50, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Saturday, 30 November 2019 10:00:04 UTC, Spike wrote:
On 28/11/2019 13:27, Martin Brown wrote:

The oceans have immense thermal inertia and so the response to today's
GHG forcing lags behind. When the oceans do eventually catch up with the
equilibrium conditions appropriate to the present levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere sea levels will be higher. A some future warming is already
locked in even if we stopped the CO2 level from rising tomorrow.

A Scripps Institute paper suggests that with sea temperatures below 17
degC, dissolved CO2 does decrease with increases in temperature.
However, it was found that above that figure, dissolved CO2 /increases/
with increase of temperature up to the limit of the data (about 30 degC).

Perhaps ocean warming will reduce the level of atmospheric CO2.

IIRC it is 1 pint of CO2 gas per 1 litre of water at NTP. That is one hell of a lot of CO2 when you consider there is only 400 pppm at sea level. Not that it shouldn't be effective if the 999,600 parts of the million cooling it, which at sea level is likely to be lots of oxygen hydride. I presume this factor would remain similar if it concerns glaciers.

I am 97million% certain although my maths is suspect.

The concentration of CO2 in sea water is about 15 micromol per kg, which
works out to about 1.5cc per kg.

Little of the ocean's inorganic carbon is held as CO2, 85% is present as
the bicarbonate ion HCO3-


--
Spike