In 2001 the White House asked the US National academy of Science how good the science is. It's worth a read. "Climate Change Science" It's available online at http://lab.nap.edu/nap-cgi/discover.cgi?restric=NAP&term=climate+chan... (I'm not sure that link fits the page - you can always look up the NAS website and search for "Climate Change Science"). It ought to be misquotable by all sides of this debate. The AGW skeptics can seize on the admissions of areas of uncertainty and ignore the parts that say the science is basically sound and the IPCC reports are essentially correct as far as the NAS could determine. It doesn't go deep into technicalities, but it does look at all the known contributors to Global Warming including such things as airborne solids like soot, the overall snowcover with it's effects on thermal absorbtion, the effects of sulphate emmissions in countering warming and the effects of it's reduction over recent years with the use of cleaner burning of coal and reduced sulphur fuels. Better to read it yourself. Ken
> hanson wrote: > > = Environmentalism is just a despicable evil green= > > = $$$$$$ game without any redeeming value, nor any intent = > > = to save anything. This 40 year old scam is now threatened = > > = which is why all those leeching green turds are whining =
[Richard] > Well yeah. That's what I'm afraid of actually is happening here. Lately > you get to see more and more opposing data about the greenhouse-effect. > When you introduce this into a debate you pretty much get flamed to the > ground. Strange. Thought a healthy discussion about this subject with > the greenies might clarify things for me a bit. This however seems as > likely as hell freezing over.
[hanson] ......AHAHAHAHAHA......ahahahaha.....no, no, Rich...it will only happen when the hell turns green. See, you are going after their raison d'etre, the source of their ill-gotten livelihood. Follow the ever increasing hysteria and shrillness of the environmentalists in these NGs and you'll get a clear pix. All you will ever hear out of them are heavily green tinted facts which will justify them to continue to feed off the graft from their permit charges, user fees, enviro surtaxes and now the Kydioto Carbon tax. You'll never hear ANY truth out of them because they lie by design in order to feed themselves. Their green scholars and icons were preaching this from the outset, 30 years ago, that
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people = believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ...... = "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not = accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and... = "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little = mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest." = -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as = a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:01:33 -0400, "Ian St. John" > <istj...@noemail.ca> wrote:
>> <snip> >> The direct relationship is a know fact of radiation physics. It is >> not debatable. The only question has been whether there are any >> negative feedbacks that might counter some of the warming. If you >> can show that, then you can start doubting the issue.
> I think another point should always be kept on the table, so to > speak, where it is in plain view:
> "Global warming" isn't just temperature as one might read on a > thermometer.
Actually, it is, but averaged over both time and the entire globe to remove the temporal and spacial dynamics.
> It's retained heat energy and that sometimes manifests > itself as temperature but also sometimes in other forms, such as in > the heat of evaporation of water -- which causes no change in > temperature, but still stores an incredible amount of heat energy per > gram evaporated.
Which is true and which can cause 'noise' in the signal, such as a peak during El-Nino as more heat energy comes out of the oceans, but it cannot change the overall signal trend. Over time, the conversions from 'latent' to 'sensible' heat average out.
> It can manifest itself as more energetic weather > systems, in other words. And it may actually cause *more* snow, not > less, as the evaporated moisture falls out in colder climates (for > example, I might expect to see greater snow precipitation in > Antarctica and that would not mean that global warming wasn't > happening, but that it actually was happening.)
A more 'dynamic' weather system is certainly an easy prediction, but on the conversion of global temperature change to climate change, the 'devil' is in the details. Unlike global warming itself, the reaction of the climate to the warming is rather hard to pin down. We can say only that it is almost certain to make a mess (given that we have a massive investment in 'things as they are' including climate) but the exact nature of the changes is open to question.
> I'm coming into this group only to learn (sci.environment), but that > much seems clear to me from what I've read so far.
You seem to have learned more than the trolls already at least.
>Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:01:33 -0400, "Ian St. John" >> <istj...@noemail.ca> wrote:
>>> <snip> >>> The direct relationship is a know fact of radiation physics. It is >>> not debatable. The only question has been whether there are any >>> negative feedbacks that might counter some of the warming. If you >>> can show that, then you can start doubting the issue.
>> I think another point should always be kept on the table, so to >> speak, where it is in plain view:
>> "Global warming" isn't just temperature as one might read on a >> thermometer.
>Actually, it is, but averaged over both time and the entire globe to remove >the temporal and spacial dynamics.
Which you expand on more, shortly.
>> It's retained heat energy and that sometimes manifests >> itself as temperature but also sometimes in other forms, such as in >> the heat of evaporation of water -- which causes no change in >> temperature, but still stores an incredible amount of heat energy per >> gram evaporated.
>Which is true and which can cause 'noise' in the signal, such as a peak >during El-Nino as more heat energy comes out of the oceans, but it cannot >change the overall signal trend. Over time, the conversions from 'latent' to >'sensible' heat average out.
By this, I take it that you mean that when the latent heat stored in moisture (for example) falls out as precipitation, that this heat is returned to the system as 'temperature', so that this storage is only temporary?
If so, let me ask a question. Is it possible that the atmosphere might store some additional latent heat simply as additional humidity, particularly if the average temperatures do also rise. In other words, isn't there at least *some* heat energy that can be retained in the atmosphere and must be accounted for through careful calorimetric analysis?
And evaporation isn't the only mechanism. There is latent heat in converting ice to water, as well -- about half the calories per gram as from going from liquid to vapor, if my poor memory serves. With the melting taking place, is this also being accounted?
>> It can manifest itself as more energetic weather >> systems, in other words. And it may actually cause *more* snow, not >> less, as the evaporated moisture falls out in colder climates (for >> example, I might expect to see greater snow precipitation in >> Antarctica and that would not mean that global warming wasn't >> happening, but that it actually was happening.)
>A more 'dynamic' weather system is certainly an easy prediction, but on the >conversion of global temperature change to climate change, the 'devil' is in >the details. Unlike global warming itself, the reaction of the climate to >the warming is rather hard to pin down. We can say only that it is almost >certain to make a mess (given that we have a massive investment in 'things >as they are' including climate) but the exact nature of the changes is open >to question.
Understood. I remember reading that trying to estimate high altitude versus low altitude cloud formation, for example, is a big difficulty -- even assuming increased evaporation.
>> I'm coming into this group only to learn (sci.environment), but that >> much seems clear to me from what I've read so far.
>You seem to have learned more than the trolls already at least.
Nice to hear I'm doing better than the worst. I guess I'll try to be satisfied with that.
Richard <no.s...@spam.net> wrote: > right .. so why are we soooo concerned about CO2-levels? Apparently > there isn't a direct correlation between CO2-levels and rising-temperatures.
We need to establish that we are talking about the same thing.
Because CO2 is not the only factor operating on multimillion year time scales does not mean it is *uncorrelated* with global mean temperature.
There's a great deal else that concerns me about how you are thinking about this, but we can start there.
Please define "direct correlation" as you are using it, because in the usual sense of the "correlation" what you say is unsupported and, in fact, not supportable.
> It is not a fact that GLOBAL temperatures were higher 1,000 years ago, for > example. This is a distortion that is created out of a regional warming in > the Western European area where most of the oldest documents remain so it > gives a distorted picture of the world. We know better because of long term > wide ranging dendrochronology , borehole and ice core studies.
Ok, now we're getting to the interesting stuff. Isn't it that only Mann said that there's *no* Medieval warming period based on data collected in the Western US? And that this was challenged by the Soon and Baliunas study that the warming period *does* exist? All ofcourse based on proxy-data. Also Mann's data does show there hasn't been a "Little Ice Age". Also based on proxy data. However I know of a temperature set going back to the early 1700s (KNMI: national weather institute here in The Netherlands) that does show a significant cooling. Ok, now you say I'm confusing weather with climate. But I'm only giving this fact to show that Mann's proxy-conclusions show a different picture than actual temperature readings done in the 1700s. The Soon and Baliunas study does show a "Little Ice Age" in different parts of the world, so it may well be reasonable to assume this was a worldwide phenomenon. The same study also shows an equal picture for the "Medieval warming period".
Now I'm really confused. Why should Mann's conclusions be accepted without a doubt and do we have to disregard Soon and Baliunas's???
Richard wrote: > Now I'm really confused. Why should Mann's conclusions be accepted > without a doubt and do we have to disregard Soon and Baliunas's???
Ummm, because Soon and Baliunas are well know cranks who get their funding from industries who extract and sell hydrocarbons for profit? Perhaps?
In sci.environment Richard <no.s...@spam.net> wrote:
>Ian St. John wrote:
>> It is not a fact that GLOBAL temperatures were higher 1,000 years ago...
>Ok, now we're getting to the interesting stuff.
Yes indeed. Why don't you start but sourcing your utter certainty that T was higher 1000 years ago? You asserted that with no qualification at all.
>Isn't it that only Mann said that there's *no* Medieval warming period >based on data collected in the Western US?
Its pretty obvious from this that you are parrotting skeptic websites. Wouldn't it be a good idea (if we're attempting to have a scientific discussion) for you to source your claims?
Firstly, no, its not just Mann. The insistence on "Mann" is pretty characteristic of the septic side. The paper you are trying to refer to is Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1998 and following.
>Also Mann's data does show there hasn't been a "Little Ice Age". Also >based on proxy data. However I know of a temperature set going back to >the early 1700s (KNMI: national weather institute here in The >Netherlands) that does show a significant cooling. Ok, now you say I'm >confusing weather with climate.
No, you're confusing a record from a single place with a hemispheric average.
>But I'm only giving this fact to show >that Mann's proxy-conclusions show a different picture than actual >temperature readings done in the 1700s.
The LIA was iniitally an european thing, because thats where the researchers were. Its not clear it was a hemispheric or global thing:
>The Soon and Baliunas study does >show a "Little Ice Age" in different parts of the world, so it may well >be reasonable to assume this was a worldwide phenomenon. The same study >also shows an equal picture for the "Medieval warming period". >Now I'm really confused.
Thats true. Read up some of the links above and you will be less so.
-W.
-- William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > And evaporation isn't the only mechanism. There is latent heat in converting > ice to water, as well -- about half the calories per gram as from going from > liquid to vapor, if my poor memory serves. With the melting taking place, is > this also being accounted?
Yes, it has all been accounted, and by far the dominant sink of all the extra heat energy is in the world's oceans, which have warmed up by about 16x10^22J in the last 4 decades. Which is rather close to the net radiative balance implied by models.
Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:15:46 -0400, "Ian St. John" > <istj...@noemail.ca> wrote:
>> Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:01:33 -0400, "Ian St. John" >>> <istj...@noemail.ca> wrote:
>>>> <snip> >>>> The direct relationship is a know fact of radiation physics. It is >>>> not debatable. The only question has been whether there are any >>>> negative feedbacks that might counter some of the warming. If you >>>> can show that, then you can start doubting the issue.
>>> I think another point should always be kept on the table, so to >>> speak, where it is in plain view:
>>> "Global warming" isn't just temperature as one might read on a >>> thermometer.
>> Actually, it is, but averaged over both time and the entire globe to >> remove the temporal and spacial dynamics.
> Which you expand on more, shortly.
>>> It's retained heat energy and that sometimes manifests >>> itself as temperature but also sometimes in other forms, such as in >>> the heat of evaporation of water -- which causes no change in >>> temperature, but still stores an incredible amount of heat energy >>> per gram evaporated.
>> Which is true and which can cause 'noise' in the signal, such as a >> peak during El-Nino as more heat energy comes out of the oceans, but >> it cannot change the overall signal trend. Over time, the >> conversions from 'latent' to 'sensible' heat average out.
> By this, I take it that you mean that when the latent heat stored in > moisture (for example) falls out as precipitation, that this heat is > returned to the system as 'temperature', so that this storage is only > temporary?
Well, that is one 'noise' but you must understand that the residence time of any particular water vapor molecule runs around seven to ten days so any variation in latent vs sensible heat due to water vapor is short term. These are noise terms in the balance, and do not affect the long term average temperature. It is also important to note that global warming must not only warm the atmosphere ( which has a low heat content ) but must also warm the heat sinks ( high heat content, such as the oceans, ice sheets and land ) so, while the warming is not really affected by the short term noise in the processes, there *is* a significant 'lag' between the forcing and the temperature as the system slowly moves toward equilibrium.
> If so, let me ask a question. Is it possible that the atmosphere > might store some additional latent heat simply as additional > humidity, particularly if the average temperatures do also rise. In > other words, isn't there at least *some* heat energy that can be > retained in the atmosphere and must be accounted for through careful > calorimetric analysis?
Some in terms that the new atmsophere may have a higher water vapor content total, but this is a small factor compared to the overall set of processes. Higher absolute humidity is more important for reasons of floods, droughts, and convective storms. The rule of thumb is a 6% increase in water vapor content for a 1C change in global temperature. But that is only in areas where there is more water to evaporate. Do not apply to the Sahara Desert for obvious reasons.
More evaporation means higher latent heat carried away with evaporation, and so, more sensible heat released on condensation, but the relative humidity stays about the same since equations for evaporation rates have the relative humidity as a term. While more water is evaporated in a warmer air mass, the relative humidity change for the same area, wind speed, etc is approximately constant.
> And evaporation isn't the only mechanism. There is latent heat in > converting ice to water, as well -- about half the calories per gram > as from going from liquid to vapor, if my poor memory serves. With > the melting taking place, is this also being accounted?
No. Melting 50 cubic kilometers of the Greenland ice sheet every year, for example, is not going to affect the equations enough since the total insolation is so large in comparison. It will have local effects, of course in terms of the 'heat engine' that distributes equatorial warmth to the poles. You might try to work out the numbers if you are really interested, but I did not see it as a term in the IPCC forcings. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/251.htm#tab611 Note: This WG1 reference is a good place to start on any question, however, it will probably bowl you over with the detail to which the question has been considered by the scientific community. First stage in learning is to find a good reference and find out what we know so far.
>>> It can manifest itself as more energetic weather >>> systems, in other words. And it may actually cause *more* snow, not >>> less, as the evaporated moisture falls out in colder climates (for >>> example, I might expect to see greater snow precipitation in >>> Antarctica and that would not mean that global warming wasn't >>> happening, but that it actually was happening.)
>> A more 'dynamic' weather system is certainly an easy prediction, but >> on the conversion of global temperature change to climate change, >> the 'devil' is in the details. Unlike global warming itself, the >> reaction of the climate to the warming is rather hard to pin down. >> We can say only that it is almost certain to make a mess (given that >> we have a massive investment in 'things as they are' including >> climate) but the exact nature of the changes is open to question.
> Understood. I remember reading that trying to estimate high altitude > versus low altitude cloud formation, for example, is a big difficulty > -- even assuming increased evaporation.
And note that high clouds vs low clouds are opposite in effect on the temperature.
>>> I'm coming into this group only to learn (sci.environment), but that >>> much seems clear to me from what I've read so far.
>> You seem to have learned more than the trolls already at least.
> Nice to hear I'm doing better than the worst. I guess I'll try to be > satisfied with that.
Anyone who is interested in learning first learns that the more they know, the less they understand ( of what they now see is there to be known). It goes with the territory. The thing they really learn is how much they *don't* know. And I count myself in that category. Only trolls feel that they know everything. It is the test by which they are known.
>> It is not a fact that GLOBAL temperatures were higher 1,000 years >> ago, for example. This is a distortion that is created out of a >> regional warming in the Western European area where most of the >> oldest documents remain so it gives a distorted picture of the >> world. We know better because of long term wide ranging >> dendrochronology , borehole and ice core studies.
> Ok, now we're getting to the interesting stuff.
O.K.
> Isn't it that only Mann said that there's *no* Medieval warming period > based on data collected in the Western US?
Very wrong.
1: There is a Medieval Warming Period and a Little Ice Age. It is, however, regional in extent. 2: Mann did studies averaging the temperature trends of the entire Northern Hemisphere, and this showed no spike during the MWP/LIA period, showing that the MWP/LIA was a regional climate change associated with the movement of heat from one region to another, NOT the overall temperature. 3: All dendrochronology, borehole and ice core studies are consistent with this. One clue is that studies which exclude the equatorial regions up to about 30 degrees show the MWP/LIA around the globe at high latitude with a concentration in Western Europe where it was noted. This indicates that it was a change in the heat distribution at high latitudes and probably concentrated in Western Europe because the Asian continent blocks the westerly flows.
> And that this was > challenged by the Soon and Baliunas study that the warming period > *does* exist?
The Soon/Baliunas so called study did not establish that it did or didn't exist. As a regional climate change, it is known to exist. What Soon and Baliunas did was take a few cherry picked points and try to claim that it was global. Their 'study' was seriously flawed.
> All ofcourse based on proxy-data. > Also Mann's data does show there hasn't been a "Little Ice Age". Also > based on proxy data.
No. It shows that there was not a GLOBAL MWP/LIA where the entire WORLD warmed and cooled. Given the rate at which the MWP/LIA warmed and cooled in Europe, the amount of energy to make this happen globally is just not to be believed. Until you can come up with a reasonable mechnaism for such rapid changes in the energy content of the globe, the issue is dead as a comparison between global and regional temperature trends. The globe has warmed by 0.6C in 120 years vs the MWP warming of 5C in a decade or so. Obviously the greenhouse effect is too weak to explain a *GLOBAL* MWP/LIA so what happened? They missed the sudden appearance of a nearby supernova? And the LIA was caused by?
> However I know of a temperature set going back to > the early 1700s (KNMI: national weather institute here in The > Netherlands) that does show a significant cooling.
Exactly. And of course that is highly regional and in the Western European area of the MWP/LIA. Should I be surprised??? Dendrochronology studies of the Western Europe area clearly show the MWP and LIA. Your confusion is between REGIONAL and GLOBAL. A trick that the junk science websites tend to overwork.
> Ok, now you say I'm > confusing weather with climate.
NO NO. Regional vs Global. \
> But I'm only giving this fact to show > that Mann's proxy-conclusions show a different picture than actual > temperature readings done in the 1700s.
No. They don't.
> The Soon and Baliunas study > does show a "Little Ice Age" in different parts of the world,
No. It doesn't. It shows warming and cooling in different regions without a connection either in time or space. Nor is there a postulate as to the mechanism of warming or cooling the entire globe. Regional warmings and coolings happen all the time and if you cherry pick a few you can establish anything you like regardless of the facts. Which is what they did allowing such a wide window of time that you couldn't help but find SOME warming or cooling in the time frame from local climate processes.
> so it may well be reasonable to assume this was a worldwide phenomenon.
No. To show a global phenomenon, you would need to both show that the warming and cooling were during the same period, not just overlapping in a wide five century 'window' the MWP/LIA and you would have to show a mechanism for adding millions of quads of energy to the globe over a decade or less and then taking it away. Nobody has come up with anything reasonable that I know of. The main determinant of the global total energy is the tropopause where convection gives way to radiation heat transfer ( and thus radiation to space ). Only three natural processes are known to affect the thermal balance of the world significantly.
Volcanic eruptions can cast massive amounts of dust into the upper atmsophere, but global volcanic activity of this magnitude would be recorded everywhere as the 'end of the world'.
Solar insolation can change ( but this would also be noted and we have proxy studies on the strength of the solar radiation ( from isotopes created by cosmic rays which tend to follow the suns activity due to the shielding effect of the solar magnetism ) and while the sun did decrease in magnitude by about 0.24% during the 'Maunder Minimum' associated with the onset of the LIA this does not come anywhere NEAR the amount necessary to explain either the MWP or the LIA. It may have been a *trigger* event that changed the regional climate dynamics to switch between the MWP and LIA.
The greenhouse effect can change the depth of atmosphere warmed and thus the surface temperature,but no large releases of greenhouse gasses have been postulated. This may be the most feasible mechanism, if you had a large eruption of distrurbed methane clathrates. The instruments of the day would not even notice a change in the methane content of the air, but you would have though that such would be detected in modern analysis of ice core samples which trap air from the period.
More importantly, *regional* analysis of the MWP in dendrochronology studies NOT centered in Europe show no MWP or LIA period. Because the northern hemisophere holds most of the land, and most of the trees, it is the most robutstly determined area of the world for such studies. The southern hemisphere has huge areas of ocean that cannot be well characterised. This is one reason that he Mann, et al studies concentrated on the Northern Hemisphere data. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/littleiceage.pdf see Central England in Table 2 and compare with other regions. You can see the distinct MWP/LIA trends in central england quite easily but ONLY there.
Note also that climate is though not to be able to cross the equator due to the nature of the circulation cells and thus the NH and SH are separate in their climate response. What could affect both hermispheres at the same time? Only insolation, aerosols and the GHE as noted above and what could drive any one of these mechanisms to a rate of warming ten to a hundred times greater than the current? And without the driving mechanism being dramatic enough to be noticed????? You just don't change planetary equilibrium on that kind of scale at that kind of rate without a major event.
> The > same study also shows an equal picture for the "Medieval warming > period".
The Soon and Baliunas study was a shitstorm, and does not show anything very well. They are working outside of their area of expertise and are clearly working on an predetermined agenda. Not a source of good science. They may have some points about sensitivity to selection of data, but that is still being argued. The principle component analysis is used by several other scientists in the same field with similar results but with a different selection of data which argues that the Mann, et al technique is robust. Maybe too robust.. There is a recent paper out that claims it may underestimate short term variability but the MWP and LIA were NOT short term variations, so they should have showed even under the critique of their methods as suppressing short term peaks and valleys.
> Now I'm really confused. Why should Mann's conclusions be accepted > without a doubt
They aren't. They are just competent science done by an expert in that field. Even the IPCC did theri own variations on his techniques to get their own results and found them consistent overall with the Mann, et all 1999 paper.
> and do we have to disregard Soon and Baliunas's???
Rather than disregard them, you should critique their paper to see if they have 'hit' on something. The climate scintists don't disregard them. I don't even require you to come up with a mechanism for warming and cooling the world. First the data, then the explanation. But first you must have SOLID reasons for believing that the MWP/LIA was global in extent as well as synchronous in time, and THEN you have the even more massive problem of explaining this sort of weirdness in terms of where did the energy come from and go to? Also, note that scientists showing a lack of impartiality such as Soon, Baliuna, Michaels, etc should have to pass a harder review than those who are just letting the cards fall as they may.
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/education/scienceofclimatechange/publicat... Soon,W. and Baliunas,S. 2003. Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years. Climate Research 23:89-110. In this paper, American astrophysicists Soon and Baliunas undertake a comprehensive review of some 240 studies, published over the past 40 years, that provide local and larger scale temperature and precipitation proxies based on paleo data. They conclude that these studies show evidence of a widespread Little Ice Age (LIA) anomaly (defined as of 50 year duration) between 1300 and 1900, and a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) anomaly between 800 and 1300. Furthermore, for many locations, the MWP had a warmer 50 year peak anomaly than that observed in the 20th century. They also find fault with some of
...
> Only three natural processes are known to affect the thermal balance of the > world significantly.
Correction. "over this short a time period".
On the longer term, (millenia to millions of years) Sea level, continental drift, abedo, ocean current paths, etc etc etc can have a massive combined effect.
In article <4178d788$0$566$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl>, Richard <no.s...@spam.net> wrote:
>Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
>> Ummm, because Soon and Baliunas are well know cranks who get their funding from >> industries who extract and sell hydrocarbons for profit? Perhaps?
>Ok, good point. But the same applies for Mann being on the IPCC and >having considerable vested interests!
No. That's like equating Mother Theresa and the VP of Enron because they both work for somebody higher up.
> Ian St. John wrote: > : >> Only three natural processes are known to affect the thermal balance of > the >> world significantly.
> Correction. "over this short a time period".
> On the longer term, (millenia to millions of years) Sea level, > continental > drift, abedo, ocean current paths, etc etc etc can have a massive combined > effect.
Yes, we live on an ocean planet. Heat capacity (and therefore heat transport) of a cubic meter of water (1000 kg) is many times greater than a cubic meter of atmosphere (1.2 kg)
cubic meter water = 4186 Joules/kg ( per degree) x 1000 = 4186 KJ cubic meter air = 1000 Joules/kg x 1.2 = 1.2 KJ
So the top meter of ocean holds about 3500 times the heat of the "bottom" meter of atmosphere, which is the meter we live in. This is approximate because 30 percent of the surface is rock with greater density but lower heat capacity. Also, rock does not have currents like the ocean, but the general idea is the "solid" and "liquid" earth hold most of the thermal energy.
I have no idea how one can quantifiy global conditions without good measurements of the oceans. It's my understanding that the GCMs have no accounting for ocean currents.
Also, don't neglect biological feedbacks on atmospheric gas composition.
>>> Only three natural processes are known to affect the thermal >>> balance of the world significantly.
>> Correction. "over this short a time period".
>> On the longer term, (millenia to millions of years) Sea level, >> continental >> drift, abedo, ocean current paths, etc etc etc can have a massive >> combined effect.
> Yes, we live on an ocean planet. Heat capacity (and therefore heat > transport) of a cubic meter of water (1000 kg) is many times greater > than a cubic meter of atmosphere (1.2 kg)
> cubic meter water = 4186 Joules/kg ( per degree) x 1000 = 4186 KJ > cubic meter air = 1000 Joules/kg x 1.2 = 1.2 KJ
> So the top meter of ocean holds about 3500 times the heat of the > "bottom" meter of atmosphere, which is the meter we live in. This is > approximate because 30 percent of the surface is rock with greater > density but lower heat capacity. Also, rock does not have currents > like the ocean, but the general idea is the "solid" and "liquid" > earth hold most of the thermal energy.
> I have no idea how one can quantifiy global conditions without good > measurements of the oceans. It's my understanding that the GCMs have > no accounting for ocean currents.
It is somewhat primitive still, but from my reading, it is not necessarily missing entirely.
http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2001/mconk/ "In the Q-flux model, a fixed amount of energy is exchanged through ocean currents. This mixed ocean layer treatment allows the model to predict the ocean temperature; changes in the ocean heat content occur due to changes in evaporation, radiation, etc. The coupled model is a combined AGCM (Atmospheric General Circulation Model) and OGCM (Oceanic General Circulation model). In this treatment, variables are allowed to vary in response to one another, for example, SST in response to atmospheric forcings. While the coupled model is the most physically realistic, because it allows variables to change one another as they do in real life, it is also the least accurate, as only the starting values are prescribed. However, in order to make accurate predictions of future climate, we will need to use a simulation like the coupled model."
> Also, don't neglect biological feedbacks on atmospheric gas > composition.
I don't believe that they do. CO2 from decomposition to Methyl Chloride from sea water,. etc are part of the IPCC study. Of course, it can always be improved..
"bw" <bweg...@hotmail.com> wrote: >I have no idea how one can quantifiy global conditions without good >measurements of the oceans. It's my understanding that the GCMs have no >accounting for ocean currents.
Bzzt -- sorry, no points.
Coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs have been around for many years, and are in fact the standard present-day tool for climate projection. For a starter see the web page of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP): http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/index.html
Ok..Taking a look at all of what we call "Global warming"..What is a warming process?.. It is condensation, which is going from a water vapor to a liquid. If you go from condensation to freezing you will add more heat to the atmosphere. There by adding more ice not melting Ice, because melting is a cooling process.. Now, if you melt more Ice then you freeze then you will cool the atmosphere. Well, take a look at what you do when you melt the ice. You add more water to the planet. Which this in turn will take longer to heat up. Increasing evaporation which is another cooling process to the atmosphere. So, Mother nature will always try to balance itself. It has been happening for millenia and millenia...Long before we got here... Now, that being said.. Should lead you to believe that the science part has always been there..It is just Media driving fear into you to believe that you will die soon if you dont stop and buy something.. So, buy what they tell you and quit buying those SUV's that they tell you too, because you will only live once... It is funny how the world works.. Mother nature balanced on one side and media balanced on the other.. Who will win.. In the end it will take billions of years for all the ice to melt and while it is melting cooling the earth down we will then run into an Ice age.. Just kidding.. If you believe everything that media puts out you might as well give them all your money and shoot yourself.. And if you don't believe what I just said about how the cooling or warming process is then you need to do research on it.. Just quit buying into the Mass media and think... Thanks for listening even if you didnt...
>Ok..Taking a look at all of what we call "Global warming"..What is a >warming process?.. It is condensation, which is going from a water >vapor to a liquid. If you go from condensation to freezing you will >add more heat to the atmosphere. There by adding more ice not melting >Ice, because melting is a cooling process.. Now, if you melt more Ice >then you freeze then you will cool the atmosphere. Well, take a look >at what you do when you melt the ice. You add more water to the >planet. Which this in turn will take longer to heat up. Increasing >evaporation which is another cooling process to the atmosphere. So, >Mother nature will always try to balance itself. It has been happening >for millenia and millenia...Long before we got here... Now, that being >said.. Should lead you to believe that the science part has always >been there..It is just Media driving fear into you to believe that you >will die soon if you dont stop and buy something.. So, buy what they >tell you and quit buying those SUV's that they tell you too, because >you will only live once... It is funny how the world works.. Mother >nature balanced on one side and media balanced on the other.. Who will >win.. In the end it will take billions of years for all the ice to >melt and while it is melting cooling the earth down we will then run >into an Ice age.. Just kidding.. If you believe everything that media >puts out you might as well give them all your money and shoot >yourself.. And if you don't believe what I just said about how the >cooling or warming process is then you need to do research on it.. >Just quit buying into the Mass media and think... Thanks for listening >even if you didnt...
I certainly hope you were kidding when you said you teach this. Frankly, sir, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
In article <b13f097a.0410231541.489e9...@posting.google.com>, jz...@yahoo.com (Someone who deals with weather and teaches it) wrote:
>Ok..Taking a look at all of what we call "Global warming"..What is a >warming process?.. It is condensation, which is going from a water >vapor to a liquid. If you go from condensation to freezing you will >add more heat to the atmosphere. There by adding more ice not melting >Ice, because melting is a cooling process.. Now, if you melt more Ice >then you freeze then you will cool the atmosphere. Well, take a look >at what you do when you melt the ice. You add more water to the >planet. Which this in turn will take longer to heat up. Increasing >evaporation which is another cooling process to the atmosphere. So, >Mother nature will always try to balance itself. It has been happening >for millenia and millenia...Long before we got here...
But Mother Nature works slowly, and humans are causing rapid changes.
>Now, that being >said.. Should lead you to believe that the science part has always >been there..It is just Media driving fear into you to believe that you >will die soon if you dont stop and buy something.. So, buy what they >tell you and quit buying those SUV's that they tell you too, because >you will only live once... It is funny how the world works.. Mother >nature balanced on one side and media balanced on the other.. Who will >win.. In the end it will take billions of years for all the ice to >melt
Not if the warming increases.
>and while it is melting cooling the earth down we will then run >into an Ice age.. Just kidding..
The scary part is, you don't believe you are.
>If you believe everything that media >puts out you might as well give them all your money and shoot >yourself.. And if you don't believe what I just said about how the >cooling or warming process is then you need to do research on it.. >Just quit buying into the Mass media and think... Thanks for listening >even if you didnt...
|
