Thermal pollution causes global warming
Dr. Convection
From:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VF0-49FGSB1-1/2/3f3278a30392b
879fe1f7212cbeef07a
Global and Planetary Change
Volume 38, Issues 3-4 , September 2003, Pages 305-312
Thermal pollution causes global warming
Bo Nordell
Division of Water Resources Engineering, Luleå University of Technology,
SE-97187, Luleå, Sweden
Received 14 December 2001; accepted 27 January 2003. ; Available online 3
September 2003.
Abstract
Over longer time-scales there is no net heat inflow to Earth since incoming
solar energy is re-emitted at exactly the same rate. To maintain Earth's
thermal equilibrium, however, there must be a net outflow equal to the
geothermal heat flow. Performed calculations show that the net heat outflow
in 1880 was equal to the geothermal heat flow, which is the only natural net
heat source on Earth. Since then, heat dissipation from the global use of
nonrenewable energy sources has resulted in additional net heating. In, e.g.
Sweden, which is a sparsely populated country, this net heating is about
three times greater than the geothermal heat flow. Such thermal pollution
contributes to global warming until the global temperature has reached a
level where this heat is also emitted to space. Heat dissipation from the
global use of fossil fuels and nuclear power is the main source of thermal
pollution. Here, it was found that one third of current thermal pollution is
emitted to space and that a further global temperature increase of 1.8 °C is
required until Earth is again in thermal equilibrium.
Author Keywords: Global warming; Cause; Thermal pollution; Geothermal; Heat
flow
Article Outline
1. Introduction
2. Global temperature
3. Net heat sources
3.1. Geothermal heat flow
3.2. Thermal pollution
4. Earth's radiative balance
4.1. Net OLR
5. Nature counteracts global warming
6. Steady-state global warming
7. Discussion and conclusions
Acknowledgements
Appendix A
References
w...@bas.ac.uk
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VF0-49FGSB1-1/2/3f3278a30392b879fe1f7212cbeef07a
>Global and Planetary Change
>Volume 38, Issues 3-4 , September 2003, Pages 305-312
>Thermal pollution causes global warming
>Over longer time-scales there is no net heat inflow to Earth since incoming
>solar energy is re-emitted at exactly the same rate. To maintain Earth's
>thermal equilibrium, however, there must be a net outflow equal to the
>geothermal heat flow. Performed calculations show that the net heat outflow
>in 1880 was equal to the geothermal heat flow, which is the only natural net
>heat source on Earth...
This seems odd to me. The GHF is so small that I can't see how one could
calculate the net heat flow in 1880 accurately enough to say that they
were equal.
-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!
Michael Tobis
> This seems odd to me. The GHF is so small that I can't see how one could
> calculate the net heat flow in 1880 accurately enough to say that they
> were equal.
Agreed.
The estimated change in temperature also appears to be wrong. The
forcing from direct anthropogenic forcing, while locally significant
in urban areas, is easily seen to be about two orders of magnitude
smaller than anthropogenic greenhouse forcing globally.
Doubled CO2, for instance, is known to first order to result in a
surface forcing of 4 watts per square meter. It's easy to estimate how
much per capita energy consumption would compete with this. The
surface area of the earth is 127 e 12 m^2 so doubled CO2 is about 5 e
14 watts. The population of the earth is a bit more than 5 e 9.
So per capita energy consuption to compete with greenhouse forcing on
present understanding is on the order of 0.1 megawatt per capita, much
larger than any realistic estimate.
So the calculations are greatly at odds with contemporary science.
Does the author explain why the system is so much *more* sensitive to
direct heat inputs and so much *less* sensitive to infrared flux than
conventional physics would have it?
mt
H. Dziardziel
wrote:
>w...@bas.ac.uk wrote in message news:<4045...@news.nwl.ac.uk>...
>
>> This seems odd to me. The GHF is so small that I can't see how one could
>> calculate the net heat flow in 1880 accurately enough to say that they
>> were equal.
>
>Agreed.
>
>The estimated change in temperature also appears to be wrong. The
>forcing from direct anthropogenic forcing, while locally significant
>in urban areas, is easily seen to be about two orders of magnitude
>smaller than anthropogenic greenhouse forcing globally.
>
>Doubled CO2, for instance, is known to first order to result in a
>surface forcing of 4 watts per square meter.
Can you please give actual measured data references for these
figures. Thank you.
>It's easy to estimate how
>much per capita energy consumption would compete with this. The
>surface area of the earth is 127 e 12 m^2 so doubled CO2 is about 5 e
>14 watts. The population of the earth is a bit more than 5 e 9.
>
>So per capita energy consuption to compete with greenhouse forcing on
>present understanding is on the order of 0.1 megawatt per capita, much
>larger than any realistic estimate.
>
Global energy consumption has grown to roughly 10e17KWhrs/year.
Taken over 100 years -- a lot of heat.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>>surface forcing of 4 watts per square meter.
>Can you please give actual measured data references for these
>figures. Thank you.
Like almost everything else worth knowing about cl ch, its in
IPCC:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/219.htm
These are not direct measurements, of course, since apart from
anything else we haven't got there.
>Global energy consumption has grown to roughly 10e17KWhrs/year.
>Taken over 100 years -- a lot of heat.
Yes, but the ratio of effect from heat (direct) vs heat (indirect
via co2 emitted) remains much the same.
Eric Swanson
>
>On 3 Mar 2004 08:02:00 -0800, m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>>w...@bas.ac.uk wrote in message news:<4045...@news.nwl.ac.uk>...
>>
>>> This seems odd to me. The GHF is so small that I can't see how one could
>>> calculate the net heat flow in 1880 accurately enough to say that they
>>> were equal.
>
>>It's easy to estimate how
>>much per capita energy consumption would compete with this. The
>>surface area of the earth is 127 e 12 m^2 so doubled CO2 is about 5 e
>>14 watts. The population of the earth is a bit more than 5 e 9.
>>
>>So per capita energy consuption to compete with greenhouse forcing on
>>present understanding is on the order of 0.1 megawatt per capita, much
>>larger than any realistic estimate.
>>
>
>Global energy consumption has grown to roughly 10e17KWhrs/year.
>Taken over 100 years -- a lot of heat.
According to the US EIA, the world energy consumption of energy in all forms
in 1998, including biomass and hydro (which don't add to the thermal load)
was about 400 Quads/year. 1 Quad = 10 e 15 Btu = 2.93 e 11 KWhr.
So, this works out to 1.172 e 14 KWhr per year.
Check your numbers, as you appear to be off by 4 orders of magnitude.....
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Swanson
>>w...@bas.ac.uk wrote in message news:<4045...@news.nwl.ac.uk>...
>>
>>> This seems odd to me. The GHF is so small that I can't see how one could
>>> calculate the net heat flow in 1880 accurately enough to say that they
>>> were equal.
>
>>It's easy to estimate how
>>much per capita energy consumption would compete with this. The
>>surface area of the earth is 127 e 12 m^2 so doubled CO2 is about 5 e
>>14 watts. The population of the earth is a bit more than 5 e 9.
>>
>>So per capita energy consuption to compete with greenhouse forcing on
>>present understanding is on the order of 0.1 megawatt per capita, much
>>larger than any realistic estimate.
>>
>
>Global energy consumption has grown to roughly 10e17KWhrs/year.
>Taken over 100 years -- a lot of heat.
According to the US EIA, the world energy consumption of energy in all forms
in 1998, including biomass and hydro (which don't add to the thermal load)
was about 400 Quads/year. 1 Quad = 1.0 e 15 Btu = 2.93 e 11 KWhr.
H. Dziardziel
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
snip
>>
>>Global energy consumption has grown to roughly 10e17KWhrs/year.
>>Taken over 100 years -- a lot of heat.
>
>According to the US EIA, the world energy consumption of energy in all forms
>in 1998, including biomass and hydro (which don't add to the thermal load)
>was about 400 Quads/year. 1 Quad = 1.0 e 15 Btu = 2.93 e 11 KWhr.
>
>So, this works out to 1.172 e 14 KWhr per year.
>
>Check your numbers, as you appear to be off by 4 orders of magnitude.....
Thank you.. You are correct of course. Late night sloppiness on
my part. The statement "Taken over 100 years -- a lot of heat"
still stands
Eric Swanson
Yes, a lot of energy from the perspective of industrial mankind, but a
trivial quantity compared to the solar energy flow over the past 100 years.
H. Dziardziel
>
snip
>
>Like almost everything else worth knowing about cl ch, its in
>IPCC:
>
That's an opinion..
>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/219.htm
>
>These are not direct measurements, of course, since apart from
>anything else we haven't got there.
>
Does "there" mean the science and technology to obtain some
supporting experimental data?
>>Global energy consumption has grown to roughly 10e17KWhrs/year.
>>Taken over 100 years -- a lot of heat.
>
>Yes, but the ratio of effect from heat (direct) vs heat (indirect
>via co2 emitted) remains much the same.
>
Per the CO2 forcing "estimate" in IPCC 6.3.1 Carbon Dioxide?
H. Dziardziel
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
>
>Yes, a lot of energy from the perspective of industrial mankind, but a
>trivial quantity compared to the solar energy flow over the past 100 years.
Obviously, but (relatively?) constant solar energy flow wasn't
the point.
Eric Swanson
Well, you were discussing thermal pollution from mankind's energy use.
So, just how much solar energy hits the Earth?
The Earth intercepts sunlight constantly with cross sectional area roughly
that of a disc of diameter 12,740 km. The area of the disc is about 1.275 e 8
km^2, or 1.275 e 14 m^2. The solar energy is almost a constant at 1.366 kw/m^2,
thus there is a solar input to the top of the atmosphere of 1.74 e 14 kw.
Over a year, that works out to 1.526 e 18 kwhr.
The human contribution is around 1.172 e 14 kwhr per year, so our impact is
only 0.000077 that of the sun. The area of the Earth, is about 5.10 e 14 m^2,
so the thermal pollution works out to about 0.23 w/m^2. It's been calculated
that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels works out to the equivalent of
4 w/m^2 at the Earth's surface.
charliew2
Eric Swanson <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:c2cnn5$cal5$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> >On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:14:11 +0000 (UTC), swanson@nospam_on.net
> >(Eric Swanson) wrote:
> >>
> >>Yes, a lot of energy from the perspective of industrial mankind, but a
> >>trivial quantity compared to the solar energy flow over the past 100
years.
> >
> >Obviously, but (relatively?) constant solar energy flow wasn't the point.
>
> Well, you were discussing thermal pollution from mankind's energy use.
> So, just how much solar energy hits the Earth?
>
> The Earth intercepts sunlight constantly with cross sectional area roughly
> that of a disc of diameter 12,740 km. The area of the disc is about 1.275
e 8
> km^2, or 1.275 e 14 m^2. The solar energy is almost a constant at 1.366
kw/m^2,
> thus there is a solar input to the top of the atmosphere of 1.74 e 14 kw.
> Over a year, that works out to 1.526 e 18 kwhr.
>
> The human contribution is around 1.172 e 14 kwhr per year, so our impact
is
> only 0.000077 that of the sun. The area of the Earth, is about 5.10 e 14
m^2,
> so the thermal pollution works out to about 0.23 w/m^2. It's been
calculated
> that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels works out to the equivalent
of
> 4 w/m^2 at the Earth's surface.
(cut of sig file)
This calculation assumes that everything other than outgoing solar radiation
will remain constant, doesn't it? For a system as complicated as the
earth's climate, one would hope to see variable interactions included in the
calculation.
Eric Swanson
>
>
>Eric Swanson <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
>news:c2cnn5$cal5$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>> >On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:14:11 +0000 (UTC), swanson@nospam_on.net
>> >(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Yes, a lot of energy from the perspective of industrial mankind, but a
>> >>trivial quantity compared to the solar energy flow over the past 100 years.
>> >
>> >Obviously, but (relatively?) constant solar energy flow wasn't the point.
>>
>> Well, you were discussing thermal pollution from mankind's energy use.
>> So, just how much solar energy hits the Earth?
>>
>> The Earth intercepts sunlight constantly with cross sectional area roughly
>> km^2, or 1.275 e 14 m^2. The solar energy is almost a constant at 1.366 kw/m^2,
>> thus there is a solar input to the top of the atmosphere of 1.74 e 14 kw.
>> Over a year, that works out to 1.526 e 18 kwhr.
>>
>> The human contribution is around 1.172 e 14 kwhr per year, so our impact is
>> only 0.000077 that of the sun. The area of the Earth, is about 5.10 e 14 m^2,
>> so the thermal pollution works out to about 0.23 w/m^2. It's been calculated
>> that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels works out to the equivalent of
>> 4 w/m^2 at the Earth's surface.
>
>(cut of sig file)
>
>This calculation assumes that everything other than outgoing solar radiation
>will remain constant, doesn't it? For a system as complicated as the
>earth's climate, one would hope to see variable interactions included in the
>calculation.
The calculation of the net impact of greenhouse gases lumped into an equivalent
CO2 doubling is the result of various models which attempt to include the
other effects you mention. For solar, the energy flows thru the atmosphere and
back out involve many different local relationships, but they all begin at the top
of the atmosphere with a nearly constant(?) solar input. I just wanted to show
the relative magnitude of the thermal pollution versis solar and AGW.
charliew2
Thanks for the clarification.
> I just wanted to show
> the relative magnitude of the thermal pollution versis solar and AGW.
>
I definitely "got it" regarding this point. Thanks.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>On 5 Mar 2004 13:51:02 GMT, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>>Like almost everything else worth knowing about cl ch, its in
>>IPCC:
>>
>That's an opinion..
It sure is, fully justified in this case.
>>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/219.htm
>>
>>These are not direct measurements, of course, since apart from
>>anything else we haven't got there.
>>
>Does "there" mean the science and technology to obtain some
>supporting experimental data?
In this case, it means you haven't bothered to read the link. But no,
"there" means 2xCO2.
>>>Global energy consumption has grown to roughly 10e17KWhrs/year.
>>>Taken over 100 years -- a lot of heat.
>>
>>Yes, but the ratio of effect from heat (direct) vs heat (indirect
>>via co2 emitted) remains much the same.
>Per the CO2 forcing "estimate" in IPCC 6.3.1 Carbon Dioxide?
Per anyones, AFAIK. Do you have a different one?
H. Dziardziel
>H. Dziardziel <hdzi> wrote:
>>On 5 Mar 2004 13:51:02 GMT, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>
>>>Like almost everything else worth knowing about cl ch, its in
>>>IPCC:
>>>
>>That's an opinion..
>
>It sure is, fully justified in this case.
"Like almost everything else worth knowing.."? Sounds familiar.
The IPCC is not my God nor Koran although all three sometimes have
much to commend them. And whoever said words to the effect "all
that will be ever discovered etc." some time ago -- his name
escapes me just now.. This, however, is better:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html
>
So, can you kindly educate and elucidate on the empirical
justifications?
>>>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/219.htm
>>>
>>>These are not direct measurements, of course, since apart from
>>>anything else we haven't got there.
>>>
>
>>Does "there" mean the science and technology to obtain some
>>supporting experimental data?
>
>In this case, it means you haven't bothered to read the link.
>
Your statement is in fact, of course, mere uninvestigated
conjecture. For your information you are quite incorrect but it
probably isn't worth knowing I'm sure Doctor. I was being
facetious for which my apologies..
>But no,"there" means 2xCO2.
But as you say" we haven't got there yet" so a tautology hence my
naughty request to verify your precise meaning. Why wait till
the magical 2xCO2 to empirically ascertain the matter?
>>>>Global energy consumption has grown to roughly 10e17KWhrs/year.
>>>>Taken over 100 years -- a lot of heat.
>>>
>>>Yes, but the ratio of effect from heat (direct) vs heat (indirect
>>>via co2 emitted) remains much the same.
>
Presuming you mean by "heat (direct)" the abstract's "thermal
pollution" then that is an estimate based on physical and
scientific evidence, e.g. fuel etc., being compared to CO2 based
heat emission _models_. Another tautolgy since the thermal
pollution argument would appear (I do not have access to the
paper) to be that it and not CO2 is the GW culprit so comparing
the two is pointless until CO2 emission contribution can be
empirically verified.
But using your argument, by analogy, we might as well dismiss even
these ppm CO2 changes as trivial since even the IPCC states it is
water vapor that is by far the major determinant of the greenhouse
effect. Even the 10% drop in the magnetic field in the past
century would have thus a far greater effect since its complete
disappearance would signal an _estimated_ doubling of surface
radiation (as I recall so please don't ask for cites)...
.
>>Per the CO2 forcing "estimate" in IPCC 6.3.1 Carbon Dioxide?
>
>Per anyones, AFAIK. Do you have a different one?
>
No and one continually funded expensive highly debated carefully
fine tuned running _estimate_ should be enough I would think.
>-W.
H. Dziardziel
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:14:11 +0000 (UTC), swanson@nospam_on.net
>>(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>>
>>>Yes, a lot of energy from the perspective of industrial mankind, but a
>>>trivial quantity compared to the solar energy flow over the past 100 years.
>>
>>Obviously, but (relatively?) constant solar energy flow wasn't the point.
>
>Well, you were discussing thermal pollution from mankind's energy use.
>So, just how much solar energy hits the Earth?
>
>The Earth intercepts sunlight constantly with cross sectional area roughly
>that of a disc of diameter 12,740 km. The area of the disc is about 1.275 e 8
>km^2, or 1.275 e 14 m^2. The solar energy is almost a constant at 1.366 kw/m^2,
>thus there is a solar input to the top of the atmosphere of 1.74 e 14 kw.
>Over a year, that works out to 1.526 e 18 kwhr.
>
>The human contribution is around 1.172 e 14 kwhr per year, so our impact is
>only 0.000077 that of the sun. The area of the Earth, is about 5.10 e 14 m^2,
>so the thermal pollution works out to about 0.23 w/m^2. It's been calculated
>that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels works out to the equivalent of
>4 w/m^2 at the Earth's surface.
Your ensuing posts have clairfied why you reiterated the details
above.
But (I repeat) solar energy equilibrium was not the question. The
original post (abstract) reads:
"Over longer time-scales there is no net heat inflow to Earth
since incoming solar energy is re-emitted at exactly the same
rate. To maintain Earth's thermal equilibrium,..."
Nothing new there. Solar energy and equilibrium before
considering factors such as CO2 mix changes or "thermal
pollution".
Your own figures above; 0,23w/sqm, a plausible estimate based on
verifiable data e.g., fuel consumption: and 4w/sqm, a
theoretical calculation based on a future projected doubling of
CO2 , show thermal pollution (if I read the abstract meaning
correctly) input is/was in fact very significant ,especially taken
over a century.
The assumption (again if I interpret the abstract correctly) is
that the 4w/sqm theory is not the important factor in GW. You
presuppose the contrary.
Despite references here to other links -- CO2's actual empirical
impact has not been shown to have been verified -- only modeled,
albeit as well and precisely as the art, and science alllows.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>On 6 Mar 2004 20:08:50 GMT, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>>H. Dziardziel <hdzi> wrote:
>>>On 5 Mar 2004 13:51:02 GMT, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>>>>Like almost everything else worth knowing about cl ch
>"Like almost everything else worth knowing.."?
***about cl ch***. To clarify: it doesn't represent the ultimate
state of human knowledge, but does summarise well what is known
now (or at about 2001).
>>>>Yes, but the ratio of effect from heat (direct) vs heat (indirect
>>>>via co2 emitted) remains much the same.
>Presuming you mean by "heat (direct)" the abstract's "thermal
>pollution" then that is an estimate based on physical and
>scientific evidence, e.g. fuel etc., being compared to CO2 based
>heat emission _models_.
More or less, though they aren't really cos heat emission models.
Another tautolgy since the thermal
No, its not a tautology
>pollution argument would appear (I do not have access to the
>paper) to be that it and not CO2 is the GW culprit so comparing
That appears to be (from the abstract of the paper) to be its argument.
Which is odd, because a multitude of other calculations show that the
thermal pollution effect is smaller than indirect via co2.
>But using your argument, by analogy, we might as well dismiss even
>these ppm CO2 changes as trivial since even the IPCC states it is
>water vapor that is by far the major determinant of the greenhouse
>effect.
No its doesn't. You've misunderstood IPCC. Water vapour is the major GHG
but not determinant, since its reactive.
H. Dziardziel
>
snip
>
>***about cl ch***. To clarify: it doesn't represent the ultimate
>state of human knowledge, but does summarise well what is known
>now (or at about 2001).
>
But so much of it's content is actually policy-model driven as a
science summary there is a lot to sift through first.
>>>>>
snips
>
>No its doesn't. You've misunderstood IPCC. Water vapour is the major GHG
>but not determinant, since its reactive.
>
Tar-01.pdf page 88:
".. Water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas. For
these reasons and because the transition between the various
phases absorb and release much energy, water vapour is central to
the climate and its variability and change."
Tar-07.pdf page 421
" The range in estimated climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5°C for a
CO2 doubling is largely dictated by the interaction of model
water vapour feedbacks with the variations in cloud
behaviour among existing models"
Page 423 and 7.2.1.1
"Determination of the new equilibrium is complicated
that water vapour is itself a potent greenhouse gas",
And that entire section.
Please therefore clarify what ".but not determinant, since its
reactive." means? Thank you.
charliew2
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404b...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
(huge cut)
>
> No its doesn't. You've misunderstood IPCC. Water vapour is the major GHG
> but not determinant, since its reactive.
>
William,
could you give me more of a clue regarding your last sentence? Thanks.
Thomas Palm
news:Htz67...@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca:
> Volume 38, Issues 3-4 , September 2003, Pages 305-312
>
> Thermal pollution causes global warming
>
> Bo Nordell
> Division of Water Resources Engineering, Luleå University of
> Technology, SE-97187, Luleå, Sweden
I just received a copy of this article and is trying to understand it. Some
early comments: Nordell states that convection is unimportant in the
Earth's atmosphere assuming all heat transport is done by radiation. To
calculate the climate sensitivity he then start by dividing the atmosphere
into a number of shells acting as blackbodies, i.e. absorbing all heat and
reemitting it. I haven't checked his mathemetics yet, but those two faulty
assumptions by themselves seems to invalidate his result.
Thomas Palm
news:Xns94A5B7B7940AAT...@212.83.64.229:
> "Dr. Convection" <Conve...@convection.org> wrote in
> news:Htz67...@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca:
>> Global and Planetary Change
>> Volume 38, Issues 3-4 , September 2003, Pages 305-312
>>
>> Thermal pollution causes global warming
>>
>> Bo Nordell
>> Division of Water Resources Engineering, Luleå University of
>> Technology, SE-97187, Luleå, Sweden
OK, I'm finished reading and it seems Nordell's result can be summarized:
The difference between the surface of the Earth and space is 33 degrees.
Geothermal heat produces about 0.07 W/m^2 heat. and if this causes 33
degrees heating the climate sensitivity must be 470 K/W/m^2. Thermal
pollution is 0.02 K and will thus give a heating of 0.02*470= 9 K.
The mathematics he uses reduces this by a factor of 3, but essentially
this is his argument.
Make of it what you wish.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>On 7 Mar 2004 12:09:56 GMT, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>>No its doesn't. You've misunderstood IPCC. Water vapour is the major GHG
>>but not determinant, since its reactive.
>Tar-07.pdf page 421
>" The range in estimated climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5°C for a
>CO2 doubling is largely dictated by the interaction of model
>water vapour feedbacks with the variations in cloud
>behaviour among existing models"
>Please therefore clarify what ".but not determinant, since its
>reactive." means? Thank you.
Because water vapour (no matter how much AMcD may wish it to) doesn't
go off and cause climate change by itself. The climate system is
roughly in long-term equilibrium, pre anthro forcing. Increasing CO2
(etc) increases temperature which then causes feedbacks which increase
to water vapour which is itself a greenhouse gas. Thats what the
quotes you present but don't understand are saying.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>> "Dr. Convection" <Conve...@convection.org> wrote in
>>> Global and Planetary Change
>>> Volume 38, Issues 3-4 , September 2003, Pages 305-312
>OK, I'm finished reading and it seems Nordell's result can be summarized:
>The difference between the surface of the Earth and space is 33 degrees.
>Geothermal heat produces about 0.07 W/m^2 heat. and if this causes 33
>degrees heating the climate sensitivity must be 470 K/W/m^2. Thermal
>pollution is 0.02 K and will thus give a heating of 0.02*470= 9 K.
>The mathematics he uses reduces this by a factor of 3, but essentially
>this is his argument.
But that is twaddle. How did it get published? Is G&PC going the way
of Climate Research?
ps: does it address the in-balance-at-1880 comment that we didn't
believe either?
Thomas Palm
> Thomas Palm <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote:
>
>>> "Dr. Convection" <Conve...@convection.org> wrote in
>>>> Global and Planetary Change
>>>> Volume 38, Issues 3-4 , September 2003, Pages 305-312
>
>>OK, I'm finished reading and it seems Nordell's result can be summarized:
>>The difference between the surface of the Earth and space is 33 degrees.
>>Geothermal heat produces about 0.07 W/m^2 heat. and if this causes 33
>>degrees heating the climate sensitivity must be 470 K/W/m^2. Thermal
>>pollution is 0.02 K and will thus give a heating of 0.02*470= 9 K.
>>The mathematics he uses reduces this by a factor of 3, but essentially
>>this is his argument.
>
> But that is twaddle. How did it get published? Is G&PC going the way
> of Climate Research?
I have no idea how it got published. I have sent a letter to Nordell with
some comments and will see what he has to say. It seems to me as this is a
case of the common phenomenon of an academic going outside his own field
and screwing up badly. The department is working with heat storage in the
ground and similar problems, and presumably understands heat in the ground
a lot better than heat in the atmosphere.
http://www.sb.luth.se/fe/research%20RE.htm
> ps: does it address the in-balance-at-1880 comment that we didn't
> believe either?
Not in any way that will satisfy you. I left out a stage where Nordell
claims to have derived the climate sensitivity (although he never uses
the term) and finds that the needed heatflow to create a 33 K gradient
approximately matches the geothermal heat.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>w...@bas.ac.uk wrote in news:404b...@news.nwl.ac.uk:
>> Thomas Palm <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote:
>>
>>>The difference between the surface of the Earth and space is 33 degrees.
>>>Geothermal heat produces about 0.07 W/m^2 heat. and if this causes 33
>>>degrees heating the climate sensitivity must be 470 K/W/m^2.
>>
>> of Climate Research?
>I have no idea how it got published. I have sent a letter to Nordell with
>some comments and will see what he has to say.
Would be interesting. But it still doesn't explain how G&PC got it
through review. I don't know that journal, though.
>> ps: does it address the in-balance-at-1880 comment that we didn't
>> believe either?
>Not in any way that will satisfy you. I left out a stage where Nordell
>claims to have derived the climate sensitivity (although he never uses
>the term) and finds that the needed heatflow to create a 33 K gradient
>approximately matches the geothermal heat.
Ahh... so 1880 is just a random date. He means, pre-industrial.
Alastair McDonald
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404b...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> H. Dziardziel <hdzi> wrote:
> >On 7 Mar 2004 12:09:56 GMT, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>
> >>No its doesn't. You've misunderstood IPCC. Water vapour is the major GHG
> >>but not determinant, since its reactive.
>
> >Tar-07.pdf page 421
> >" The range in estimated climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5°C for a
> >CO2 doubling is largely dictated by the interaction of model
> >water vapour feedbacks with the variations in cloud
> >behaviour among existing models"
>
> >Please therefore clarify what ".but not determinant, since its
> >reactive." means? Thank you.
>
> Because water vapour (no matter how much AMcD may wish it to) doesn't
> go off and cause climate change by itself.
That is a gross distortion of what I am saying. I thought only David Ball
could stoop so low, or should I say is so stupid as not to comprehend
my arguements.
> The climate system is
> roughly in long-term equilibrium, pre anthro forcing. Increasing CO2
> (etc) increases temperature which then causes feedbacks which increase
> to water vapour which is itself a greenhouse gas.
I agree with what you are saying there. The point is that one of the
feedbacks is sea-ice. It acts as a positive feedback. As the climate
warms it retreats, reducing global albedo which causes further
warming. Because it is a positive feedback it will lead to a
sudden collapse of the sea-ice. It is this sudden collapse which
triggers the water vapour runaway. I am not arguing that the
water vapour "... go[es] off and cause[s] climate change by itself."
The only argument against those ideas is that the climate models
do not show that. The reason is that the climate models are wrong.
Their error is in the RC parameterisation, as can be seen by the
fact that they are using a fixed lapse rate. Not only does a fixed
lapse rate not occur in nature, the use of a fixed lapse rate is the
reason that the MSU results do not agree with the models. If the
atmosphere was dry, then there would be a fixed lapse rate. So
it is true that I am blaming water vapour both for abrupt climate
changes and for errors in the models, but in the first case it does
not act alone. It is triggered by sea-ice. In the second case the
errors are not really due to water vapour. They are caused by
a failure in climate modelling (or should I say modellers?-)
Cheers, Alastair.
David Ball
<alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404b...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
>> H. Dziardziel <hdzi> wrote:
>> >On 7 Mar 2004 12:09:56 GMT, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>> >>No its doesn't. You've misunderstood IPCC. Water vapour is the major GHG
>> >>but not determinant, since its reactive.
>>
>> >Tar-07.pdf page 421
>> >" The range in estimated climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5°C for a
>> >CO2 doubling is largely dictated by the interaction of model
>> >water vapour feedbacks with the variations in cloud
>> >behaviour among existing models"
>>
>> >Please therefore clarify what ".but not determinant, since its
>> >reactive." means? Thank you.
>>
>> Because water vapour (no matter how much AMcD may wish it to) doesn't
>> go off and cause climate change by itself.
>
>That is a gross distortion of what I am saying. I thought only David Ball
>could stoop so low, or should I say is so stupid as not to comprehend
>my arguements.
One has to stoop low in order to disagree with you? Doesn't
that imply that you're lying flat on your back? Maybe if you stood up
and looked around you'd find that your viewpoint isn't supported by
the science.
>
>> The climate system is
>> roughly in long-term equilibrium, pre anthro forcing. Increasing CO2
>> (etc) increases temperature which then causes feedbacks which increase
>> to water vapour which is itself a greenhouse gas.
>
>I agree with what you are saying there. The point is that one of the
>feedbacks is sea-ice. It acts as a positive feedback.
Huh?? Do you mean that the retreat of sea-ice produces a
positive feedback? Sea-ice is sea-ice. It cannot be a feedback.
>As the climate
>warms it retreats, reducing global albedo which causes further
>warming. Because it is a positive feedback it will lead to a
>sudden collapse of the sea-ice.
Citation please - and nothing from a 1920's vintage text.
> It is this sudden collapse which
>triggers the water vapour runaway. I am not arguing that the
>water vapour "... go[es] off and cause[s] climate change by itself."
>
>The only argument against those ideas is that the climate models
>do not show that. The reason is that the climate models are wrong.
Citation please.
>Their error is in the RC parameterisation, as can be seen by the
>fact that they are using a fixed lapse rate. Not only does a fixed
>lapse rate not occur in nature, the use of a fixed lapse rate is the
>reason that the MSU results do not agree with the models.
Hmmm...It couldn't be that the MSU results are questionable,
could it? Is it possible that both the models AND the MSU are wrong?
Alastair McDonald
>
> >> "Dr. Convection" <Conve...@convection.org> wrote in
> >>> Global and Planetary Change
> >>> Volume 38, Issues 3-4 , September 2003, Pages 305-312
>
> >OK, I'm finished reading and it seems Nordell's result can be summarized:
> >The difference between the surface of the Earth and space is 33 degrees.
> >Geothermal heat produces about 0.07 W/m^2 heat. and if this causes 33
> >degrees heating the climate sensitivity must be 470 K/W/m^2. Thermal
> >pollution is 0.02 K and will thus give a heating of 0.02*470= 9 K.
> >The mathematics he uses reduces this by a factor of 3, but essentially
> >this is his argument.
>
> But that is twaddle. How did it get published?
Some pretty daft ideas get published. Take the idea that heat escaping
from the top of the atmosphere affects the temperature at sea level.
We all know, as Nordell pointed out, that the incoming radiation must
match the outgoing. So if the solar constant remains unchanged then
the radiation leaving the atmosphere will remain the same no matter how
much the greenhouse gasses increase. It is only at the base of the
atmosphere where temperature rises or falls.
Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair McDonald
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:bhto40l9udrvkhl7e...@4ax.com...
Here are twenty;
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/csrl/pub_albedo.html
> > It is this sudden collapse which
> >triggers the water vapour runaway. I am not arguing that the
> >water vapour "... go[es] off and cause[s] climate change by itself."
> >
> >The only argument against those ideas is that the climate models
> >do not show that. The reason is that the climate models are wrong.
>
> Citation please.
Chase, T.N., Pielke Sr., R.A., Herman, B. and Zeng, X. 2004.
Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface temperatures unaccompanied by
strong warming in the free troposphere. Climate Research 25: 185-190.
> >Their error is in the RC parameterisation, as can be seen by the
> >fact that they are using a fixed lapse rate. Not only does a fixed
> >lapse rate not occur in nature, the use of a fixed lapse rate is the
> >reason that the MSU results do not agree with the models.
>
> Hmmm...It couldn't be that the MSU results are questionable,
> could it? Is it possible that both the models AND the MSU are wrong?
Yes. But that make no difference to my arguments.
HTH,
Cheers, Alastair.
H. Dziardziel
>
snip
>
>>Please therefore clarify what ".but not determinant, since its
>>reactive." means? Thank you.
>
>Because water vapour (no matter how much AMcD may wish it to) doesn't
>go off and cause climate change by itself.
Ah, I should known or deduced the terminology.
AMcD(?) wishing for something here seems to be irrelevant
>The climate system is
>roughly in long-term equilibrium, pre anthro forcing
Sounds frightening.
> . Increasing CO2 (etc) increases temperature
How much? Verified experimentally?. And frankly, to interject,
so what. Some CO2 ppm change and its slight temperature effect
if any the next century aren't _the_ _problems_ for Earth and
man. That will all be resolved or accomodated for by then.
The real problems, current and future, are much much deeper than
that.
> which then causes feedbacks which increase
>to water vapour which is itself a greenhouse gas.
Yes that's what IPCC says and you have further detailed this by
the determinant and reactive labeling, thank you.
It doesn't change water vapor's magnitude in the greenhouse
effect.
You appear to linchpin all to only anthropogenic CO2 alone even
though its exact contribution has not been verified empirically
and, totally ignore water vapor and other factors not related to
anthropogenic CO2 including the natural ones..
Which brings us full circle to this thread's original thermal
pollution too.
>Thats what the
>quotes you present but don't understand are saying.
>
You must teach too? Don't be so bloody pedagogic. Now sounding a
tad pompous too. Determinant and reactive are merely labels for
components encompassed in the CO2- water vapor feedback
description-model. It's still water vapor that is the most
important.
Thomas Palm
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:05:58 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
> <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>I agree with what you are saying there. The point is that one of the
>>feedbacks is sea-ice. It acts as a positive feedback.
>
> Huh?? Do you mean that the retreat of sea-ice produces a
> positive feedback? Sea-ice is sea-ice. It cannot be a feedback.
Of course it can, just as water vapor can be a feedback, or melting
permafrost releasing methane or CO2 can be a feedback, or clouds can be a
feedback. Anything that changes in response to climate change and in turn
causes further climate change acts as a feedback. Do you make these kind of
comments just because you have to disagree with Alastair?
>>As the climate
>>warms it retreats, reducing global albedo which causes further
>>warming. Because it is a positive feedback it will lead to a
>>sudden collapse of the sea-ice.
>
> Citation please - and nothing from a 1920's vintage text.
Why not go all the way back to Milankovitch? That is at least 1940's.
To what extend the ice-albedo feedback is important in the climate of today
is an open question, but you can't just dismiss it.
w...@bas.ac.uk
><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404b...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
>> Because water vapour (no matter how much AMcD may wish it to) doesn't
>> go off and cause climate change by itself.
>That is a gross distortion of what I am saying. I thought only David Ball
>could stoop so low, or should I say is so stupid as not to comprehend
>my arguements.
It wasn't intended as a gross distortion. In this case, clearly I don't
understand what you are saying about water vapour. IPCC, etc etc, say its
reactive and a positive feedback on warming. But the feedback is limited,
to about ?4-5? x the CO2 forcing I think.
>I agree with what you are saying there. The point is that one of the
>feedbacks is sea-ice. It acts as a positive feedback. As the climate
>warms it retreats, reducing global albedo which causes further
>warming. Because it is a positive feedback it will lead to a
>sudden collapse of the sea-ice. It is this sudden collapse which
>triggers the water vapour runaway. I am not arguing that the
>water vapour "... go[es] off and cause[s] climate change by itself."
So you are arguing for a "water vapour runaway", triggered by seaice.
What do you mean by "runaway"? In what way is it different to what IPCC
would predict from a collapse in sea ice?
>The only argument against those ideas is that the climate models
>do not show that.
No. The other (more obvious) arguement against is that in the last
10 kyr the real world doesn't show this.
Ian St. John
"Thomas Palm" <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message
news:Xns94A6B9A417B3ET...@212.83.64.229...
> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:bhto40l9udrvkhl7e...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:05:58 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
> > <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >>I agree with what you are saying there. The point is that one of the
> >>feedbacks is sea-ice. It acts as a positive feedback.
> >
> > Huh?? Do you mean that the retreat of sea-ice produces a
> > positive feedback? Sea-ice is sea-ice. It cannot be a feedback.
>
> Of course it can,
Nope. Thomas. You apparently had trouble reading Davids response. He said
"do you mean the *retreat* of sea ice", pointing out that a section of sea
ice, remaining the same section of sea ice, cannot change it's response as a
positive feedback. Only a CHANGE in the sea ice can do that.
I hope that this is just a temporary slip. I would hope that you are not
slipping into the sloppy statements of Alistaire and ilk.
Thomas Palm
news:t233c.10506$6y1.3...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
> "Thomas Palm" <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns94A6B9A417B3ET...@212.83.64.229...
>> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>> news:bhto40l9udrvkhl7e...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:05:58 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
>> > <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>I agree with what you are saying there. The point is that one of
>> >>the feedbacks is sea-ice. It acts as a positive feedback.
>> >
>> > Huh?? Do you mean that the retreat of sea-ice produces a
>> > positive feedback? Sea-ice is sea-ice. It cannot be a feedback.
>>
>> Of course it can,
>
> Nope. Thomas. You apparently had trouble reading Davids response. He
> said "do you mean the *retreat* of sea ice", pointing out that a
> section of sea ice, remaining the same section of sea ice, cannot
> change it's response as a positive feedback. Only a CHANGE in the sea
> ice can do that.
That is exactly what Alastair wrote: " The point is that one of the
feedbacks is sea-ice. It acts as a positive feedback. As the climate
warms it retreats, reducing global albedo which causes further
warming."
David just chose to pick out half a statement and bash it. (Actually sea
ice can even be a feedback while remaining as sea ice. Its albedo changes
depending on whether it is covered by snow or meltwater.)
> I hope that this is just a temporary slip. I would hope that you are
> not slipping into the sloppy statements of Alistaire and ilk.
I think it is more constructive to view statements in the most positive
way possible, not pick them apart trying to find errors in every word.
Ian St. John
> > I hope that this is just a temporary slip. I would hope that you are
> > not slipping into the sloppy statements of Alistaire and ilk.
>
> I think it is more constructive to view statements in the most positive
> way possible, not pick them apart trying to find errors in every word.
David (to my reading) requested a clarification, which may have been a
tactic to focus the thread on a different topic, or may have been legitimate
uncertainty about what Alistaire was really saying.. Nothing he said was
wrong.
Note: I don't see how albedo from minor changes in areas melting, caused by
a minor change in temperature in local weather, can be more significant than
the major changes in sea ice extent which occur from the accumulation of
those minor temperature differences over a season in controlling the extent
of sea ice development and timing of retreat. In fact, I would venture to
say that such albedo changes of existing ice due to weather events are
insignificant compared to the climate change induced sea extent changes.
Melt ponds can only exist during the period of near freezing temperatures
when the ice is melting anyway, and this is a small part of the year. Beyond
that, the melt ponds would be dependent, more on local meterology than
climate, and thirdly, melt ponds may drain into the sea, obviating any
change in albedo. If you go on to extend this to earlier melting of the ice
itself, you are, in effect, switching to the point of reduced sea extent!
Now, as to not picking apart the errors, that is a mistake. Science must be
precisionist, in order to transfer the meaning from one person to another.
It cannot accept 'sort of' or 'nearly right'. Look at how the trolls use the
newspapers slight distortions to attack the facts? Presenting the distorted
facts as 'science' and then picking it apart on the errors that the
newspapers incorporated. Alistaire may be more annoying than most because he
does use some science facts, mixed in with his inventions.
However, I usually leave the response to Alistaire up to David. I just
wanted to point out that you are 'nitpicking' and separating Davids "do you
mean" from his point which is exactly what you accused David of doing to
Alistaire....
Eric Swanson
>
>
>"Thomas Palm" <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message
>news:Xns94A6D09FD581DT...@212.83.64.229...
>> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in
>> news:t233c.10506$6y1.3...@news20.bellglobal.com:
><snip>
>> > I hope that this is just a temporary slip. I would hope that you are
>> > not slipping into the sloppy statements of Alistaire and ilk.
>>
>> I think it is more constructive to view statements in the most positive
>> way possible, not pick them apart trying to find errors in every word.
>
>David (to my reading) requested a clarification, which may have been a
>tactic to focus the thread on a different topic, or may have been legitimate
>uncertainty about what Alistaire was really saying.. Nothing he said was
>wrong.
>
>Note: I don't see how albedo from minor changes in areas melting, caused by
>a minor change in temperature in local weather, can be more significant than
>the major changes in sea ice extent which occur from the accumulation of
>those minor temperature differences over a season in controlling the extent
>of sea ice development and timing of retreat. In fact, I would venture to
>say that such albedo changes of existing ice due to weather events are
>insignificant compared to the climate change induced sea extent changes.
Don't forget that the sun is above the horizon all day long at the North Pole
from 22 March to 22 September. The 24 hour sun light can melt the surface of
he sea-ice and keep it melted for a long time. Also, any snow added on top of
the melt ponds would sink in and thus the albedo would not increase, whereas
snow on top of dirty sea-ice would increase the albedo.
>Melt ponds can only exist during the period of near freezing temperatures
>when the ice is melting anyway, and this is a small part of the year. Beyond
>that, the melt ponds would be dependent, more on local meterology than
>climate, and thirdly, melt ponds may drain into the sea, obviating any
>change in albedo. If you go on to extend this to earlier melting of the ice
>itself, you are, in effect, switching to the point of reduced sea extent!
Melt ponds would be the result of melting sea-ice, but the melt season is
almost 6 months long. As for draining, don't forget that the surface of the
sea-ice is only slightly above sea level, thus there is nowhere for the
water to go, unless the meters thick sea-ice breaks up, as would be most
likely near the edge of the ice cover. There were 2 web cams set up at
(near?) the North Pole last summer and I looked at the pictures several
times. There were melt ponds in view every time I looked. The cameras
eventually fell over as the ice below melted away.
Ian St. John
Not forgetting that. As I said, local meteorology is *dominant* in these
local processes and the *differences* would be minor.
>
> >Melt ponds can only exist during the period of near freezing temperatures
> >when the ice is melting anyway, and this is a small part of the year.
Beyond
> >that, the melt ponds would be dependent, more on local meterology than
> >climate, and thirdly, melt ponds may drain into the sea, obviating any
> >change in albedo. If you go on to extend this to earlier melting of the
ice
> >itself, you are, in effect, switching to the point of reduced sea extent!
>
> Melt ponds would be the result of melting sea-ice, but the melt season is
> almost 6 months long.
The period and location is the edge of the melting ice, relatively small in
extent and time.
> As for draining, don't forget that the surface of the
> sea-ice is only slightly above sea level, thus there is nowhere for the
> water to go,
It goes into the sea.
> unless the meters thick sea-ice breaks up,
The *melting* ice *does* break up. The contiguous ice sheets during winter
are too cold to be affected by small variations in temperature. Only the
cracked and disintegrating ice would be much affected by a single degree of
temperature change.
> as would be most
> likely near the edge of the ice cover. There were 2 web cams set up at
> (near?) the North Pole last summer and I looked at the pictures several
> times. There were melt ponds in view every time I looked. The cameras
> eventually fell over as the ice below melted away.
The chagnes in albedo of the sea ice surface would be (at least) one order
of magnitude smaller than the effect of sea ice extent changes.
Alastair McDonald
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404c...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> Alastair McDonald <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> ><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404b...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
>
> >> Because water vapour (no matter how much AMcD may wish it to) doesn't
> >> go off and cause climate change by itself.
>
> >That is a gross distortion of what I am saying. I thought only David Ball
> >could stoop so low, or should I say is so stupid as not to comprehend
> >my arguements.
>
> It wasn't intended as a gross distortion. In this case, clearly I don't
> understand what you are saying about water vapour. IPCC, etc etc, say its
> reactive and a positive feedback on warming. But the feedback is limited,
> to about ?4-5? x the CO2 forcing I think.
I realised later when looking for a reference by Broecker that you were
thinking of the Broecker article I posted. He proposed that the climate
is driven by the greenhouse effect of water vapour not carbon
dioxide. What he has not spotted yet is that the changes in water
vapour are triggered by changes in albedo. Well actually he has,
but he has not put two and two together. As Richard Alley said, when
ever he has a good idea he always finds that Wally had got there first.
That is what I am finding, but he has not made the connection.
> >I agree with what you are saying there. The point is that one of the
> >feedbacks is sea-ice. It acts as a positive feedback. As the climate
> >warms it retreats, reducing global albedo which causes further
> >warming. Because it is a positive feedback it will lead to a
> >sudden collapse of the sea-ice. It is this sudden collapse which
> >triggers the water vapour runaway. I am not arguing that the
> >water vapour "... go[es] off and cause[s] climate change by itself."
>
> So you are arguing for a "water vapour runaway", triggered by sea-ice.
> What do you mean by "runaway"? In what way is it different to what IPCC
> would predict from a collapse in sea ice?
I mean a large global abrupt temperature rise which only ends
when temperatures have risen so that the atmospheric system
reorganises itself to create as much albedo from clouds as has
been lost through the melting of the sea-ice.
> >The only argument against those ideas is that the climate models
> >do not show that.
>
> No. The other (more obvious) argument against is that in the last
> 10 kyr the real world doesn't show this.
But if you go back another 500 years to 10.5ka the real world does
show it! When the YD ended and the Holocene began, the ice in the
Norwegian Sea suddenly disappeared, the dry climate with dust storms
ended, and temperatures rose by 10C in Britain in only three years.
People are quite willing to believe we can get a repeat of what
happened 12ka when the YD started and the world suddenly
cooled. Why do you not believe what happened more recently
10.5ka ago could be repeated, and the climate could warm to
the temperatures seen in the previous interglacial?
HTH,
Cheers, Alastair.
David Ball
<alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Huh?? Do you mean that the retreat of sea-ice produces a
>> positive feedback? Sea-ice is sea-ice. It cannot be a feedback.
>>
>> >As the climate
>> >warms it retreats, reducing global albedo which causes further
>> >warming. Because it is a positive feedback it will lead to a
>> >sudden collapse of the sea-ice.
>>
>> Citation please - and nothing from a 1920's vintage text.
>
>Here are twenty;
>http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/csrl/pub_albedo.html
Could you provide the citation where it states that you get a
sudden collapse of the sea-ice? I'm particularly interested in how
temperatures are going to stay above freezing year-round at the pole.
>
>> > It is this sudden collapse which
>> >triggers the water vapour runaway. I am not arguing that the
>> >water vapour "... go[es] off and cause[s] climate change by itself."
>> >
>> >The only argument against those ideas is that the climate models
>> >do not show that. The reason is that the climate models are wrong.
>>
>> Citation please.
>
>Chase, T.N., Pielke Sr., R.A., Herman, B. and Zeng, X. 2004.
>Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface temperatures unaccompanied by
>strong warming in the free troposphere. Climate Research 25: 185-190.
Yes, I read the article. Very interesting. Did you happen to
notice where the author's state:
However, in a test of model predictive skill, a comparison with
observations shows no warming of the free troposphere over this
period.
That's interesting, since the MSU clearly shows strong warming
taking place in the troposphere. How do you suppose they arrived at
the conclusion that warming wasn't taking place?
In addition, they state...
We find that it is extremely unlikely for near-surface air
temperatures (surface temperatures) to increase at the magnitude
observed since 1979 without a larger warming in the mid-troposphere.
That, too, is interesting on a couple of different levels:
1. It is quite easy to generate strong warming at the surface
with little or no change in tropospheric temperature. It's called an
inversion. They happen with great regularity during the winter. Cloud
cover will also generate significant warming by altering the radiation
properties of a given column. Particularly effective is strato-cumulus
or stratus, often topped as low as 2 or 3 thousand feet. That cloud is
going to have little impact on the overall temperature of the column
above it, most of it being in the free troposphere.
2. The author's statement: We assessed the likelihood that
such a disparity between model projection and observations could be
generated by forcing uncertainties or chance model fluctuations, by
comparing all possible 22 yr temperature trends in a series of climate
simulations is rather odd. Apparently, according to the authors, they
considered random model fluctuations and forcing uncertainties. I
wonder if they looked for systematic model errors? You know, bad
physics package, land scheme, ... Think that might have had an impact?
>
>> >Their error is in the RC parameterisation, as can be seen by the
>> >fact that they are using a fixed lapse rate. Not only does a fixed
>> >lapse rate not occur in nature, the use of a fixed lapse rate is the
>> >reason that the MSU results do not agree with the models.
>>
>> Hmmm...It couldn't be that the MSU results are questionable,
>> could it? Is it possible that both the models AND the MSU are wrong?
>
>Yes. But that make no difference to my arguments.
>
LOL. Of course it does. You have to look at ALL the
possibilities, not just the ones that you think prove your point.
David Ball
<Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote:
>David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>news:bhto40l9udrvkhl7e...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:05:58 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
>> <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>I agree with what you are saying there. The point is that one of the
>>>feedbacks is sea-ice. It acts as a positive feedback.
>>
>> Huh?? Do you mean that the retreat of sea-ice produces a
>> positive feedback? Sea-ice is sea-ice. It cannot be a feedback.
>
>Of course it can, just as water vapor can be a feedback, or melting
>permafrost releasing methane or CO2 can be a feedback, or clouds can be a
>feedback. Anything that changes in response to climate change and in turn
>causes further climate change acts as a feedback. Do you make these kind of
>comments just because you have to disagree with Alastair?
I make these statements because I want clarification on his
comments. That's why I asked a question, one that he didn't answer. In
the context of temperature feedbacks, Thomas, sea-ice cannot be a
feedback. The feedback is produced by changes in the albedo of the
surface. Ice is not the feedback. That would be like saying that a
cornfield is the feedback, or that a lake surface is the feedback or a
downtown street is the feedback. The feedback is produced by changing
the extent of the ice and altering the albedo. Ice is merely the
surface.
In the broader context you are speaking about, yes, CHANGES in
sea-ice can be considered a feedback. As temperatures increase, the
sea-ice extent will change and this will further..., but again, you'll
notice that I was quite specific in stating that it was CHANGES in
sea-ice that were the feedback, something you yourself say above.
My question to you is, if you and I agree, why are you
suggesting that we don't?
>>>As the climate
>>>warms it retreats, reducing global albedo which causes further
>>>warming. Because it is a positive feedback it will lead to a
>>>sudden collapse of the sea-ice.
>>
>> Citation please - and nothing from a 1920's vintage text.
>
>Why not go all the way back to Milankovitch? That is at least 1940's.
>To what extend the ice-albedo feedback is important in the climate of today
>is an open question, but you can't just dismiss it.
I'm not dismissing anything, Thomas. Indeed, I would suggest
that you have to look a hell of a lot deeper to understand what is
going on. Simplistic arguments about this one thing or that one thing
being the culprit are just that: simplistic. Will changing sea-ice
have a positive feedback temperature-wise. Of course. Do I believe
that the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free year-round anytime soon? No.
Indeed, all the scholarship I've read is unequivocal in stating what
we DON'T know about the possible outcomes.
David Ball
<alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404c...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
>> Alastair McDonald <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> ><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404b...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
>>
>> >> Because water vapour (no matter how much AMcD may wish it to) doesn't
>> >> go off and cause climate change by itself.
>>
>> >That is a gross distortion of what I am saying. I thought only David Ball
>> >could stoop so low, or should I say is so stupid as not to comprehend
>> >my arguements.
>>
>> It wasn't intended as a gross distortion. In this case, clearly I don't
>> understand what you are saying about water vapour. IPCC, etc etc, say its
>> reactive and a positive feedback on warming. But the feedback is limited,
>> to about ?4-5? x the CO2 forcing I think.
>
>I realised later when looking for a reference by Broecker that you were
>thinking of the Broecker article I posted. He proposed that the climate
>is driven by the greenhouse effect of water vapour not carbon
>dioxide. What he has not spotted yet is that the changes in water
>vapour are triggered by changes in albedo. Well actually he has,
>but he has not put two and two together. As Richard Alley said, when
>ever he has a good idea he always finds that Wally had got there first.
>That is what I am finding, but he has not made the connection.
And changes in water vapour cannot be triggered by such things
as evaporation, say? How about transpiration? Does that have an
impact? How about advection?
w...@bas.ac.uk
>wmc:
>> No. The other (more obvious) argument against is that in the last
>> 10 kyr the real world doesn't show this.
>But if you go back another 500 years to 10.5ka the real world does
>show it! When the YD ended and the Holocene began, the ice in the
>Norwegian Sea suddenly disappeared, the dry climate with dust storms
>ended, and temperatures rose by 10C in Britain in only three years.
It occurred, under very different boundary conditions to today. YD and
D/O type events are generally ascribed to events related to the
Laurentide ice sheet, which no longer exists.
Once upon a time (during the last glacial) rapid warming (then cooling)
events occurred, its not clear if this happened "by themselves" or
related to external forcing. But this has not occurred at all during
the holocene.
>People are quite willing to believe we can get a repeat of what
>happened 12ka when the YD started and the world suddenly
>cooled.
People are prepared to consider the possibilities. I think its unlikely.
>Why do you not believe what happened more recently
>10.5ka ago could be repeated, and the climate could warm to
>the temperatures seen in the previous interglacial?
The standard GW seems quite likely to do this.
Phil. Felton
Eric Swanson wrote:
OK what angle is the sun at? Care to consider the albedo of a pool of liquid with a
refractive index of 1.33 at low angles of incidence?
Phil.
Eric Swanson
>refractive index of 1.33 at low angles of incidence?
I did.
I presented a paper on that very subject back in 1992.
The albedo of the ocean is around 0.05 to 0.07 with high elevation (low zenith) angles.
As the sun sinks lower in the sky, the albedo increases considerably, to as much
as 0.4 or 0.5. At these high zenith angles, the impacts of surface roughness,
which is a function of wind speed, becomes important.
Payne, R. E., "Albedo of the Sea Surface", J. Atmos. Sci. 29, 959 (1972).
At the same time, the albedo of clouds is a function of zenith angle.
Couple that with the effects of age and melt ponds upon sea-ice albedo, and you
may find that the ocean/sea-ice albedo feedback is not very strong in the Arctic.
Alastair McDonald
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:07:08 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
> <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Huh?? Do you mean that the retreat of sea-ice produces a
> >> positive feedback? Sea-ice is sea-ice. It cannot be a feedback.
> >>
> >> >As the climate
> >> >warms it retreats, reducing global albedo which causes further
> >> >warming. Because it is a positive feedback it will lead to a
> >> >sudden collapse of the sea-ice.
> >>
> >> Citation please - and nothing from a 1920's vintage text.
> >
> >Here are twenty;
> >http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/csrl/pub_albedo.html
>
> Could you provide the citation where it states that you get a
> sudden collapse of the sea-ice? I'm particularly interested in how
> temperatures are going to stay above freezing year-round at the pole.
If you have a strong positive feedback, of cours there is a sudden
collapse. You don't need a reference for that.
Where did I say temperatures would stay above freezing
year-round at the pole because the ice collapses?
Well then try this reference;
Broecker, W.S. (2000) "Abrupt climate change: casual constraints provided by
the paleoclimate record", Earth-Science Reviews 51, 137 - 154.
He writes "... because they lack the required powerful non-linear feedbacks,
no general circulation model forced by orbital periodicities is capable of
reproducing the observed glacial -interglacial climate swings,"
> >> >Their error is in the RC parameterisation, as can be seen by the
> >> >fact that they are using a fixed lapse rate. Not only does a fixed
> >> >lapse rate not occur in nature, the use of a fixed lapse rate is the
> >> >reason that the MSU results do not agree with the models.
> >>
> >> Hmmm...It couldn't be that the MSU results are questionable,
> >> could it? Is it possible that both the models AND the MSU are wrong?
> >
> >Yes. But that make no difference to my arguments.
> >
> LOL. Of course it does. You have to look at ALL the
> possibilities, not just the ones that you think prove your point.
Well thee is one possiblity that perhaps we should both consider
and that is that your objections are ".. like a tale told by an idiot. Full
of sound and fury signifying nothing!" Since you demand
references it is Shakespear "Macbeth".
Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair McDonald
I don't think you understand. Removing the ice allows evaporation
and increases the water vapour. Did I have to explain that?
There is no transpiration in the Arctic wastes, so no! It does not
have an impact.
How about advection! From the ice or to it? Dry air or moist air?
Or just the hot air that you continually spouting?
Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair McDonald
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404d...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> Alastair McDonald <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >wmc:
>
> >> No. The other (more obvious) argument against is that in the last
> >> 10 kyr the real world doesn't show this.
>
> >But if you go back another 500 years to 10.5ka the real world does
> >show it! When the YD ended and the Holocene began, the ice in the
> >Norwegian Sea suddenly disappeared, the dry climate with dust storms
> >ended, and temperatures rose by 10C in Britain in only three years.
>
> It occurred, under very different boundary conditions to today. YD and
> D/O type events are generally ascribed to events related to the
> Laurentide ice sheet, which no longer exists.
>
> Once upon a time (during the last glacial) rapid warming (then cooling)
> events occurred, its not clear if this happened "by themselves" or
> related to external forcing. But this has not occurred at all during
> the holocene.
What I am arguing is that all these events (except those due to the
release of methane from clathrates) were all caused by sudden
changes in sea-ice cover triggering water vapour runaways. There
have been no sudden changes in ice cover during the Holocene
so there have been no rapid climate changes. By locking in or
releasing the source of atmospheric water it has a greater effect
on humidity than land ice.
> >People are quite willing to believe we can get a repeat of what
> >happened 12ka when the YD started and the world suddenly
> >cooled.
>
> People are prepared to consider the possibilities. I think its unlikely.
>
> >Why do you not believe what happened more recently
> >10.5ka ago could be repeated, and the climate could warm to
> >the temperatures seen in the previous interglacial?
>
> The standard GW seems quite likely to do this.
Yes, eventually by the end of the century. I am saying it could
happen by the end of the decade.
Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair McDonald
The point about ice melt water albedo is that when the sun is at its
highest is when the melt water is there. Early in the season when
the sun is low on the horizon and the melt water would reflect suns
rays there is no melt water. By the time the melt water puddles appear
the sun is high in the sky and the melt water absorbs the heat.
HTH,
Cheers, Alastair.
>
Eric Swanson
>> as 0.4 or 0.5. At these high zenith angles, the impacts of surface roughness,
>> which is a function of wind speed, becomes important.
>>
>> Payne, R. E., "Albedo of the Sea Surface", J. Atmos. Sci. 29, 959 (1972).
>>
>> At the same time, the albedo of clouds is a function of zenith angle.
>>
>> Couple that with the effects of age and melt ponds upon sea-ice albedo, and you
>> may find that the ocean/sea-ice albedo feedback is not very strong in the Arctic.
>
>highest is when the melt water is there. Early in the season when
>the sun is low on the horizon and the melt water would reflect suns
>rays there is no melt water. By the time the melt water puddles appear
>the sun is high in the sky and the melt water absorbs the heat.
The sun is NEVER high in the sky in the Arctic.......
At the North Pole, it never gets higher than 23.5 degrees above the horizon.
Early in the melt season, when the sun is very low, the cosine effect means that
there is only a small amount of energy available (watts per meter) to the surface.
The same is true in the middle of summer, when the sun may be above the horizon
all day, but the amount of energy on a horizontal surface is still small....
Hey, I went thru the geometry 12 years ago....
w...@bas.ac.uk
>What I am arguing is that all these events (except those due to the
>release of methane from clathrates) were all caused by sudden
>changes in sea-ice cover triggering water vapour runaways.
You could get some idea of the likelyhood of this by considering seasonal
changes. Antarctic ice "collapses" each year.
Alastair McDonald
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404e...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> Alastair McDonald <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >What I am arguing is that all these events (except those due to the
> >release of methane from clathrates) were all caused by sudden
> >changes in sea-ice cover triggering water vapour runaways.
>
> You could get some idea of the likelyhood of this by considering seasonal
> changes. Antarctic ice "collapses" each year.
The trouble is to get a clear picture I really need the Antarctic ice sheets
to collapse as well :-(
The amount of ice that collapses has to have a greater effect that the
natural variability. I mean presumably the air temperature at a coastal
Antarctic station will depend on the strength of the polar vortex, and the
temperature of the offshore winds, rather than on the amount of sea ice.
Cheers, Alastair.
David Ball
<alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
So, evaporation cannot increase through other mechanisms, say
by the temperature going up?
>
>There is no transpiration in the Arctic wastes, so no! It does not
>have an impact.
There isn't? That will come as something of a surprise to the
wildlife that lives in the barrens.
>
>How about advection! From the ice or to it? Dry air or moist air?
>Or just the hot air that you continually spouting?
Alistair, you're proposing a theory that has GLOBAL impacts.
Correct me if I'm wrong - I haven't been following your every word
with baited breath - but it is your contention that an abrupt regime
shift in the planet's climate can be triggered by changes in sea-ice
extent passing some yet unknown threshold. Along the way, you've made
a number of very questionable statements that I'm seeking
clarification on. One of them was:
He proposed that the climate is driven by the greenhouse effect of
water vapour not carbon dioxide. What he has not spotted yet is that
the changes in water vapour are triggered by changes in albedo.
First of all, the first sentence is plain silly. Of course
water vapour drives the greenhouse effect. Depending on who you ask,
it accounts for 70+% of the effect. CO2 has a much lower overall
impact. In this case, however, its abrupt increase is driving the
current changes. That doesn't always have to be the case.
Your second is even worse. The changes in albedo do not have a
direct influence on the atmospheric constituents of a given column of
air. You cannot directly increase the amount of water vapour in a
column simply by changing the reflectivity of the surface. It is a
question of cause and effect and making sure that the causal chain
leading from 1. retreating sea-ice to say 5. changes in the
precipitable water in a given column have steps 2, 3, and 4 filled in.
Among the things to consider are changes in evaporation, advection and
transpiration. If a change in planetary albedo produces a local
temperature increase at step 2. what are the impacts? Could that lead
to more evaporation? Likely. Could it lead to a change in
precipitation regime over the area? Possibly. Could it produce a
change in long-wave steering flow affecting the weather in other
areas, thereby affecting advection patterns? Could temperature
increases make it more viable for different plants to be supported
which would alter transpiration patterns. What are the impacts of all
those things on precipitable water in a given column? Do we know?
Since you are considering a GLOBAL increase in water vapour
driven by something happening locally, it is entirely reasonable to
ask whether or not it is possible that other effects come into play or
in fact dominate the process. More to the point, you have to ask
whether it is possible that the changes you contend are happening as a
result of retreating sea-ice could in fact be caused by other factors,
factors coming into play well away from the high arctic, and having
nothing at all to do with sea-ice.
Alastair McDonald
Yes!
> Correct me if I'm wrong - I haven't been following your every word
> with baited breath - but it is your contention that an abrupt regime
> shift in the planet's climate can be triggered by changes in sea-ice
> extent passing some yet unknown threshold.
Yes!
> Along the way, you've made
> a number of very questionable statements that I'm seeking
> clarification on. One of them was:
>
> He proposed that the climate is driven by the greenhouse effect of
> water vapour not carbon dioxide. What he has not spotted yet is that
> the changes in water vapour are triggered by changes in albedo.
>
> First of all, the first sentence is plain silly. Of course
> water vapour drives the greenhouse effect. Depending on who you ask,
> it accounts for 70+% of the effect. CO2 has a much lower overall
> impact. In this case, however, its abrupt increase is driving the
> current changes. That doesn't always have to be the case.
Sorry, I forgot that there would be some people reading that post
who were not familiar with paleoclimatology. It all starts with the
"faint young sun paradox." The first hit with Google is;
http://paos.colorado.edu/~fasullo/pjw_class/faintsun.html
To solve the problem of how life could start on such a cold
planet, becasue the sun was a third cooler, it was proposed
that the level of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere was much higher than it is now, and that the
green-house effect from it made the Earth habitable. Since
then, the climate of the Earth has been dependant on the levels
of CO2 in the atmosphere. (The Gaia Theory proposes that
life automatically adjusts the CO2 level to keep the planet
habitable.) Recently (3bp) there was a paper published in Nature
which proposed CO2 did not control climate. See;
Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the
Phanerozoic eon
Ján Veizer, Yves Godderis, Louis M. François
SUMMARY: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are believed to drive
climate changes from glacial to interglacial modes, although geological and
astronomical mechanisms have been invoked as...
Nature408, 698 - 701 (07 Dec 2000) Letters to Nature
In other words it is generally thought that water vapour levels are driven by
the warmth of the greenhouse effect from CO2. What Broecker suggested, and
what I am saying, is that it is water vapour which drives the climate not
CO2. It seems that you are inclined to agree. Certainly it is water vapour
which drives the weather not CO2, and part of what I am saying is that water
vapour can be just as violent a player in the climate as in the weather.
> Your second is even worse. The changes in albedo do not have a
> direct influence on the atmospheric constituents of a given column of
> air. You cannot directly increase the amount of water vapour in a
> column simply by changing the reflectivity of the surface.
Strictly speaking you are correct. But you can change the GLOBAL
water vapour concentration by changing the PLANETARY albedo. We,
the human race, and meteorologists are not immune, tend to imagine
the world as formed from land. Changing its albedo will not change
the humidity of the air in the column above it. In fact, most of the
surface of the earth(sic) is water. If you change the albedo of the
land, its temperature changes. That alters air temperature which in
turn changes sea temperatures and that affects evaporation. There
are other cycles and feedbacks going on, but that is the main one.
For instance, as the Laurentide ice sheet grew during the last glacial,
the Atlantic would have been cooled and evaporated less, so
increasing the cooling the northern hemisphere.
> It is a
> question of cause and effect and making sure that the causal chain
> leading from 1. retreating sea-ice to say 5. changes in the
> precipitable water in a given column have steps 2, 3, and 4 filled in.
> Among the things to consider are changes in evaporation, advection and
> transpiration. If a change in planetary albedo produces a local
> temperature increase at step 2. what are the impacts? Could that lead
> to more evaporation? Likely. Could it lead to a change in
> precipitation regime over the area? Possibly. Could it produce a
> change in long-wave steering flow affecting the weather in other
> areas, thereby affecting advection patterns? Could temperature
> increases make it more viable for different plants to be supported
> which would alter transpiration patterns. What are the impacts of all
> those things on precipitable water in a given column? Do we know?
> Since you are considering a GLOBAL increase in water vapour
> driven by something happening locally, it is entirely reasonable to
> ask whether or not it is possible that other effects come into play or
> in fact dominate the process. More to the point, you have to ask
> whether it is possible that the changes you contend are happening as a
> result of retreating sea-ice could in fact be caused by other factors,
> factors coming into play well away from the high arctic, and having
> nothing at all to do with sea-ice.
I am being consistent, and talking only about the global climate system.
A change in albedo will alter global temperatures. That will initiate a
positive feedback because the change in global humidity (if there
is such a thing) will altering the greenhouse effect of water vapour,
which will in turn alter global temperatures.
In some regions of the earth the weather patterns may oppose
the global trend, with a warmer globe bringing more cloud and so
coolling to some regions. I have heard it said that global warming
will bring more snow to Antarctica. The slight global cooling
which happened in the mid Holocene dried up the Sahara and
made it warmer by removing its cloud cover! The local effects
you are describing are irrelevant to the global picture. You make
the same point regularly.
HTH,
Cheers, Alastair.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>The amount of ice that collapses has to have a greater effect that the
>natural variability. I mean presumably the air temperature at a coastal
>Antarctic station will depend on the strength of the polar vortex, and the
>temperature of the offshore winds, rather than on the amount of sea ice.
You'll have trouble removing more sea ice in the Antarctic than disappears
each summer, because it almost all goes already.
T at various places in Antarctica depend on various things... you
can have fun correlating them.
Alastair McDonald
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404f...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> Alastair McDonald <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >The amount of ice that collapses has to have a greater effect that the
> >natural variability. I mean presumably the air temperature at a coastal
> >Antarctic station will depend on the strength of the polar vortex, and the
> >temperature of the offshore winds, rather than on the amount of sea ice.
>
> You'll have trouble removing more sea ice in the Antarctic than disappears
> each summer, because it almost all goes already.
It is not the sea-ice I want removed, though disappearing major ice shelves
would be interesting. It is the continetal ice sheets that I need melted.
> T at various places in Antarctica depend on various things... you
> can have fun correlating them.
Yes, that is why I am not starting.
Cheers, Alastaari.
w...@bas.ac.uk
><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404f...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
>> Alastair McDonald <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> >The amount of ice that collapses has to have a greater effect that the
>> >natural variability. I mean presumably the air temperature at a coastal
>> >Antarctic station will depend on the strength of the polar vortex, and the
>> >temperature of the offshore winds, rather than on the amount of sea ice.
>>
>> You'll have trouble removing more sea ice in the Antarctic than disappears
>> each summer, because it almost all goes already.
>It is not the sea-ice I want removed, though disappearing major ice shelves
>would be interesting. It is the continetal ice sheets that I need melted.
Then you're doomed re fast response. They have millenial timescales.
-W
Michael Tobis
> Page 423 and 7.2.1.1
> "Determination of the new equilibrium is complicated
> that water vapour is itself a potent greenhouse gas",
> And that entire section.
>
> Please therefore clarify what ".but not determinant, since its
> reactive." means? Thank you.
One way of putting it is that no amount of steam releases from
factories is going to have a significant climate effect.
The fraction of water in the atmosphere, though critical for setting
the earth's surface temperature, is tiny in proportion ot the oceans.
The time constant for most of the water mass, gaseous and suspended,
is the time constant of large scale weather systems, about three days.
If humans could emit a large enough amount of water to be noticeable,
the system would erase any trace of it in a week or so. The extra
water would just rain out.
There is an ample supply of liquid water, and the equilibration time
for the water content of the atmosphere, gaseous and suspended. If one
directly added new water into the system from mineral sources, its
primary effect by several orders of magnitude would be a tiny rise in
sea level.
What determines the water fraction, of course, is the climate. This is
obviously a tightly coupled system, as the water fraction is first
order important in the climate. But on time scales that interest us in
climate change, it's totally a free variable. There's no significant
forcing on it except the climate system itself, and it does not
constitute a forcing in itself. It's a part of the system, just like
the surface temperature is.
You can say that surface temperature is the most important factor in
water vapor content every bit as much as you can say it the other way
around.
Solar variability and volcanic activity constitute external forcings.
To understand what is going on, these must be accounted for
independently. Atmospheric water is an intrinsic part of the climate
system: climate prediction is water content prediction by necessity. A
unit of understanding of greenhouse forcing on climate and
understanding of solar forcing on climate both require essentially the
same amount of understanding of water distribution and its effects.
Water distribution itself, though, is not something that forces
climate change. It simply *is* part of climate change.
I feel like I just said the same thing over and over. The point may be
a bit subtle, but it's robust.
mt
David Ball
You are stating the patently obvious as if it is something
brand-new. It isn't. Water vapour controls the greenhouse effect.
Without it, you have a pretty piss-poor greenhouse effect. CO2 can and
often does steer the direction that the GHE takes and that is very
different from the water vapour operates. Water vapour is a
second-order, possibly a third-order effect. For water vapour to have
an impact a number of other things have to happen first. With CO2, you
can pump additional amounts into the atmosphere and you get an
immediate response. In your scenario, you are saying that in order for
water vapour to change, you first have to have changes in sea-ice
taking place.
Since water vapour is a signficant player in weather, it is by
definition a significant player in climate. The two are not mutually
exclusive.
>
>> Your second is even worse. The changes in albedo do not have a
>> direct influence on the atmospheric constituents of a given column of
>> air. You cannot directly increase the amount of water vapour in a
>> column simply by changing the reflectivity of the surface.
>
>Strictly speaking you are correct. But you can change the GLOBAL
>water vapour concentration by changing the PLANETARY albedo. We,
>the human race, and meteorologists are not immune, tend to imagine
>the world as formed from land. Changing its albedo will not change
>the humidity of the air in the column above it. In fact, most of the
>surface of the earth(sic) is water. If you change the albedo of the
>land, its temperature changes. That alters air temperature which in
>turn changes sea temperatures and that affects evaporation. There
>are other cycles and feedbacks going on, but that is the main one.
>For instance, as the Laurentide ice sheet grew during the last glacial,
>the Atlantic would have been cooled and evaporated less, so
>increasing the cooling the northern hemisphere.
That's exactly what I'm telling you. You have to connect the
dots. Before you can make a statement about A leading to G, you have
to understand the intervening steps and hows other factors could
influence them. You can't merely state that water vapour is important
and that reducing sea-ice leads to increased water vapour. Why? How?
When? Where? The devil is in the details. You need to flesh out the
details.
A change in planetary albedo with alter temperatures, but it
will alter a lot more as well. For example, increasing tempeatures
alter sea-ice which changes the albedo produces a positive feedback.
Those temperatures thaw permafrost which melts and the plant material
begins to rot releasing large amounts of methane, a further positive
feedback, reducing the extent of the sea-ice.
Unfortunately, all the warming taking place in what is
essentially a desert increases precipitation efficiency. The increased
precipitable water and improved precipitation efficiency means that
more snow falls, changing the planetary albedo back... Voila! you have
the potential for a new glaciation.
The bottom line, Alistair, is that you have to look at the
WHOLE picture.
>
>In some regions of the earth the weather patterns may oppose
>the global trend, with a warmer globe bringing more cloud and so
>coolling to some regions. I have heard it said that global warming
>will bring more snow to Antarctica. The slight global cooling
>which happened in the mid Holocene dried up the Sahara and
>made it warmer by removing its cloud cover! The local effects
>you are describing are irrelevant to the global picture. You make
>the same point regularly.
>
Fundamental atmospheric process are always relevant globally.
That's why we have weather and climate in the first place. You cannot
with a wave of the hand dismiss their importance. Local weather is
determined LOCALLY. It is the sum total of all those local effects
that produce the global climate. Your casual dismissal of the basic
science does nothing to make your point. In fact, it does the
opposite. It shows you haven't thought through the problem
sufficiently.
Ian St. John
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404f...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> Alastair McDonald <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> ><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404f...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> >> Alastair McDonald <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> >> >The amount of ice that collapses has to have a greater effect that the
> >> >natural variability. I mean presumably the air temperature at a
coastal
> >> >Antarctic station will depend on the strength of the polar vortex, and
the
> >> >temperature of the offshore winds, rather than on the amount of sea
ice.
> >>
> >> You'll have trouble removing more sea ice in the Antarctic than
disappears
> >> each summer, because it almost all goes already.
>
> >It is not the sea-ice I want removed, though disappearing major ice
shelves
> >would be interesting. It is the continetal ice sheets that I need melted.
>
> Then you're doomed re fast response. They have millenial timescales.
You might want to look at Greenland instead. The ice sheet melted during the
Eemian integlacial and James Hansen pointed out in a recent SciAm article
that the melting process is highly non-linear and has been shown to have
approached a half meter a decade in the Eemian ( seven meters total rise ).
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000E3A5C-D9D8-101E-990A83414B7F0123
http://tinyurl.com/2gtm7
( subscription required to SciAm digital for full article or visit your
nearest library )
w...@bas.ac.uk
>You might want to look at Greenland instead. The ice sheet melted during the
>Eemian integlacial and James Hansen pointed out in a recent SciAm article
>that the melting process is highly non-linear and has been shown to have
>approached a half meter a decade in the Eemian ( seven meters total rise ).
>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000E3A5C-D9D8-101E-990A83414B7F0123
>http://tinyurl.com/2gtm7
I don't have sciam. Seven meters (sea level) is most of Greenland I
think. Did it disappear in the Eemian (was that the last glacial...
I can never do this geological period thingies), if so how does this
add up? And is the half-meter sea level or ice sheet height?
But I agree: greenland is faster than antarctica.
-W.
Alastair McDonald
Tell that to the paleoclimatologists not me. I agree with you.
But I wonder whether IStJ amd WC agree with us.
> >> Your second is even worse. The changes in albedo do not have a
> >> direct influence on the atmospheric constituents of a given column of
> >> air. You cannot directly increase the amount of water vapour in a
> >> column simply by changing the reflectivity of the surface.
> >
> >Strictly speaking you are correct. But you can change the GLOBAL
> >water vapour concentration by changing the PLANETARY albedo. We,
> >the human race, and meteorologists are not immune, tend to imagine
> >the world as formed from land. Changing its albedo will not change
> >the humidity of the air in the column above it. In fact, most of the
> >surface of the earth(sic) is water. If you change the albedo of the
> >land, its temperature changes. That alters air temperature which in
> >turn changes sea temperatures and that affects evaporation. There
> >are other cycles and feedbacks going on, but that is the main one.
> >For instance, as the Laurentide ice sheet grew during the last glacial,
> >the Atlantic would have been cooled and evaporated less, so
> >increasing the cooling the northern hemisphere.
>
> That's exactly what I'm telling you. You have to connect the
> dots. Before you can make a statement about A leading to G, you have
> to understand the intervening steps and hows other factors could
> influence them. You can't merely state that water vapour is important
> and that reducing sea-ice leads to increased water vapour. Why? How?
> When? Where? The devil is in the details. You need to flesh out the
> details.
I would have thought you would have been able to do that for
yourself without me having to lead you by hte nose!
The bottom line is I am looking at the GLOBAL picture. You cannot
see the wood for the trees!
> >In some regions of the earth the weather patterns may oppose
> >the global trend, with a warmer globe bringing more cloud and so
> >coolling to some regions. I have heard it said that global warming
> >will bring more snow to Antarctica. The slight global cooling
> >which happened in the mid Holocene dried up the Sahara and
> >made it warmer by removing its cloud cover! The local effects
> >you are describing are irrelevant to the global picture. You make
> >the same point regularly.
> >
> Fundamental atmospheric process are always relevant globally.
> That's why we have weather and climate in the first place. You cannot
> with a wave of the hand dismiss their importance. Local weather is
> determined LOCALLY. It is the sum total of all those local effects
> that produce the global climate. Your casual dismissal of the basic
> science does nothing to make your point. In fact, it does the
> opposite. It shows you haven't thought through the problem
> sufficiently.
No, I HAVE thought it through. I have even thought through the
difference in our viewpoints. You look at the world as a meteorologist
and see climate as average weather. I see climate as a system in
which weather is the detail. I have a top down viewpoint, you view is
bottom up. Both views are valid, not only yours.
It is as we two people were looking at a landscape. I say look
there's a wood and next to it is a field of barley. And you reply,
pointing to the barley "You are wrong because I can see a thistle
there, and look there is a puddle of water at your feet. You did not
include that." I WAS correct, and you were correct too, but not
about me being wrong!
HTH, becase I am getting a bit fed up with it,
Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair McDonald
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404f...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> Alastair McDonald <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> ><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404f...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> >> Alastair McDonald <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> >> >The amount of ice that collapses has to have a greater effect that the
> >> >natural variability. I mean presumably the air temperature at a coastal
> >> >Antarctic station will depend on the strength of the polar vortex, and
the
> >> >temperature of the offshore winds, rather than on the amount of sea ice.
> >>
> >> You'll have trouble removing more sea ice in the Antarctic than
disappears
> >> each summer, because it almost all goes already.
>
> >It is not the sea-ice I want removed, though disappearing major ice shelves
> >would be interesting. It is the continetal ice sheets that I need melted.
>
> Then you're doomed re fast response. They have millenial timescales.
I hope so. But it will be interesting to see how long the Greenland ice sheet
lasts.
Cheers, Alastair.
David Ball
<alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> You are stating the patently obvious as if it is something
>> brand-new. It isn't. Water vapour controls the greenhouse effect.
>> Without it, you have a pretty piss-poor greenhouse effect. CO2 can and
>> often does steer the direction that the GHE takes and that is very
>> different from the water vapour operates. Water vapour is a
>> second-order, possibly a third-order effect. For water vapour to have
>> an impact a number of other things have to happen first. With CO2, you
>> can pump additional amounts into the atmosphere and you get an
>> immediate response. In your scenario, you are saying that in order for
>> water vapour to change, you first have to have changes in sea-ice
>> taking place.
>> Since water vapour is a signficant player in weather, it is by
>> definition a significant player in climate. The two are not mutually
>> exclusive.
>
>Tell that to the paleoclimatologists not me. I agree with you.
>But I wonder whether IStJ amd WC agree with us.
If I come across a paleoclimatologist wandering around, I'll
be sure to tell him or her ;-)
LOL. Alistair, the point is you can't tell me anything about
the intervening steps any more than I can tell you. How the various
factors WILL come together is unknown. That's the problem I've been
attempting to get you to see. We don't know the details. If you are
going to build a theory that says that something is going to happen,
you sure as hell better have the details figured out.
>> >
>> >I am being consistent, and talking only about the global climate system.
>> >A change in albedo will alter global temperatures. That will initiate a
>> >positive feedback because the change in global humidity (if there
>> >is such a thing) will altering the greenhouse effect of water vapour,
>> >which will in turn alter global temperatures.
>>
>> A change in planetary albedo with alter temperatures, but it
>> will alter a lot more as well. For example, increasing tempeatures
>> alter sea-ice which changes the albedo produces a positive feedback.
>> Those temperatures thaw permafrost which melts and the plant material
>> begins to rot releasing large amounts of methane, a further positive
>> feedback, reducing the extent of the sea-ice.
>> Unfortunately, all the warming taking place in what is
>> essentially a desert increases precipitation efficiency. The increased
>> precipitable water and improved precipitation efficiency means that
>> more snow falls, changing the planetary albedo back... Voila! you have
>> the potential for a new glaciation.
>> The bottom line, Alistair, is that you have to look at the
>> WHOLE picture.
>
>The bottom line is I am looking at the GLOBAL picture. You cannot
>see the wood for the trees!
Bullshit. You're rationalizing and throwing out more
information than you're retaining.
>
>> >In some regions of the earth the weather patterns may oppose
>> >the global trend, with a warmer globe bringing more cloud and so
>> >coolling to some regions. I have heard it said that global warming
>> >will bring more snow to Antarctica. The slight global cooling
>> >which happened in the mid Holocene dried up the Sahara and
>> >made it warmer by removing its cloud cover! The local effects
>> >you are describing are irrelevant to the global picture. You make
>> >the same point regularly.
>> >
>> Fundamental atmospheric process are always relevant globally.
>> That's why we have weather and climate in the first place. You cannot
>> with a wave of the hand dismiss their importance. Local weather is
>> determined LOCALLY. It is the sum total of all those local effects
>> that produce the global climate. Your casual dismissal of the basic
>> science does nothing to make your point. In fact, it does the
>> opposite. It shows you haven't thought through the problem
>> sufficiently.
>
>No, I HAVE thought it through. I have even thought through the
>difference in our viewpoints. You look at the world as a meteorologist
>and see climate as average weather. I see climate as a system in
>which weather is the detail. I have a top down viewpoint, you view is
>bottom up. Both views are valid, not only yours.
Bullshit. You bloody well have not, as evidenced by your
flippant response above. You take a couple of items that might have an
association then procede to throw out anything that might conflict
with your grand theory.
>
>It is as we two people were looking at a landscape. I say look
>there's a wood and next to it is a field of barley. And you reply,
>pointing to the barley "You are wrong because I can see a thistle
>there, and look there is a puddle of water at your feet. You did not
>include that." I WAS correct, and you were correct too, but not
>about me being wrong!
>
>HTH, becase I am getting a bit fed up with it,
>
Alistair, a better analogy would be that you see a field of
barley and you say that it grew there because the farmer planted the
seed. All you need to do is plant the seed and voila! you get a fine
healthy field of barley. I come along and say, wait a minute. Didn't
the fertilizer he added have an impact? What about the rain that
happened at the proper time and in the proper measure? What about the
temperatures that allowed it to ripen so early? What about...What
about... What about... Your response? But he planted the seed! It's
self-evident that that's all you need to do. All those other things
don't matter.
You continue looking at things simplistically, Alistair, by
all means. Just don't expect people to take you seriously. Get tired.
That's your right too.
Ian St. John
> >You might want to look at Greenland instead. The ice sheet melted during
the
> >Eemian integlacial and James Hansen pointed out in a recent SciAm article
> >that the melting process is highly non-linear and has been shown to have
> >approached a half meter a decade in the Eemian ( seven meters total
rise ).
>
>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000E3A5C-D9
D8-101E-990A83414B7F0123
> >http://tinyurl.com/2gtm7
>
> I don't have sciam. Seven meters (sea level) is most of Greenland I
> think.
More. Greenland is about six meters of it. The rest is thought to be WAIS.
> Did it disappear in the Eemian (was that the last glacial...
Not completely but most of it.
> I can never do this geological period thingies), if so how does this
> add up? And is the half-meter sea level or ice sheet height?
"One additonal watt per square meter of forcing, over and above that today,
will take global temperature approximately to the maximum level of the
Eemian. "
" In the real world, ice sheet disintegration is driven by highly nonlinar
processes and feedbacks. The peak rate of deglaciation folllowing the last
ice age was a sustained rate of melting of more than 14,000 cubic kilometers
per year - about one meter of sea level rise every 20 years, which was
maintained for several centuries. The period of most rapid melt coincided,
as well as can be measured, with the time of most rapid warming."
Not sure if this is the whole ice sheet or just Greenland. Some ambiguity
w...@bas.ac.uk
><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404f...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
>> Ian St. John <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote:
>> >You might want to look at Greenland instead. The ice sheet melted during
>the
>> >Eemian integlacial and James Hansen pointed out in a recent SciAm article
>> >that the melting process is highly non-linear and has been shown to have
>> >approached a half meter a decade in the Eemian ( seven meters total
>rise ).
>>
>>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000E3A5C-D9
>D8-101E-990A83414B7F0123
>> >http://tinyurl.com/2gtm7
>>
>> I don't have sciam. Seven meters (sea level) is most of Greenland I
>> think.
>More. Greenland is about six meters of it. The rest is thought to be WAIS.
>> Did it disappear in the Eemian (was that the last glacial...
>Not completely but most of it.
There must have been a fair amount left because the GRIP and GISP cores
got into it, didn't they? At least to 110 Kyr. I forget when the Eemian
was.
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node8.html#SECTION00080000000000000000
>> I can never do this geological period thingies), if so how does this
>> add up? And is the half-meter sea level or ice sheet height?
>"One additonal watt per square meter of forcing, over and above that today,
>will take global temperature approximately to the maximum level of the
>Eemian. "
>" In the real world, ice sheet disintegration is driven by highly nonlinar
>processes and feedbacks. The peak rate of deglaciation folllowing the last
>ice age was a sustained rate of melting of more than 14,000 cubic kilometers
>per year - about one meter of sea level rise every 20 years, which was
>maintained for several centuries. The period of most rapid melt coincided,
>as well as can be measured, with the time of most rapid warming."
>Not sure if this is the whole ice sheet or just Greenland. Some ambiguity
Presumably including some from Antarctica too. And if this is the last
deglaciation, isn't most of that from the Laurentide sheet, not Greenland?
Alastair McDonald
> Ian St. John <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote:
> ><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:404f...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> There must have been a fair amount left because the GRIP and GISP cores
> got into it, didn't they? At least to 110 Kyr. I forget when the Eemian
> was.
~110 Kyr ago.
At that date the two cores give conflicting information, which is thought
to be due to the ice slumping.
> >Not sure if this is the whole ice sheet or just Greenland. Some ambiguity
>
> Presumably including some from Antarctica too.
If you compare the latitude of Greenland with that of Antarctica then it is
not difficult to imagine that Greenland could melt and Antarctica remain
unaffected. It is more complicated than that, but one of the complications
is that warming may mean MORE snow in Antarctica which would prevent
a reduction in the ice there. I think it is generally believed that the
higher
sea levels during the Eemian were due only to the melting of the Greenland
(and Iceland) ice.
From the Vostock ice cores it seems that it was not just the Eemian
(which is the name given to the last interglacial) that was warmer than
the Holocene. The two previous interglacials also reached Eemian
temperatures. I have not seen this said explicitly, but it seems likely
that the reason temperatures have not reached Eemian proportions
during the Holocene is because the melting of the Laurentian ice sheet
was delayed by the Younger Dryas interstadial until after the peak of
the Milankovitch cycles, and global temperatures have never been high
enough to melt the Greenland ice..
> And if this is the last
> deglaciation, isn't most of that from the Laurentide sheet, not Greenland?
A Laurentide ice sheet formed prior to the Eemian as well. The differernce
is that the Eemian was warmer and the Greenland ice melted too, so sea
levels were higher then than now.
I have had two attempts at writing this note, so it may be a little disjointed
:-(
but HTH,
Cheers, Alastair.
Ian St. John
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:4050...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
The oldest core was in the center of the remaining ice mass. The remainging
ice mass was not large ( relative to the whole area ).
The Eemian minimum was about 130,000 to 110,000 bc. Almost all ice cores in
greenland give out at 115,000 bc, when the island was almost deglaciated.
>
> >> I can never do this geological period thingies), if so how does this
> >> add up? And is the half-meter sea level or ice sheet height?
>
> >"One additonal watt per square meter of forcing, over and above that
today,
> >will take global temperature approximately to the maximum level of the
> >Eemian. "
>
> >" In the real world, ice sheet disintegration is driven by highly
nonlinar
> >processes and feedbacks. The peak rate of deglaciation folllowing the
last
> >ice age was a sustained rate of melting of more than 14,000 cubic
kilometers
> >per year - about one meter of sea level rise every 20 years, which was
> >maintained for several centuries. The period of most rapid melt
coincided,
> >as well as can be measured, with the time of most rapid warming."
>
> >Not sure if this is the whole ice sheet or just Greenland. Some ambiguity
>
> Presumably including some from Antarctica too. And if this is the last
> deglaciation, isn't most of that from the Laurentide sheet, not Greenland?
I originally read it as part of the details on greenland and missed the
"following the last ice age" which probably means it was the continental ice
sheet. I missed the 'change in subject'.
Alastair McDonald
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz,
Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair McDonald
> In article <c2lr6e$538$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk says...
> >The point about ice melt water albedo is that when the sun is at its
> >highest is when the melt water is there. Early in the season when
> >the sun is low on the horizon and the melt water would reflect suns
> >rays there is no melt water. By the time the melt water puddles appear
> >the sun is high in the sky and the melt water absorbs the heat.
>
> The sun is NEVER high in the sky in the Arctic.......
> At the North Pole, it never gets higher than 23.5 degrees above the horizon.
> Early in the melt season, when the sun is very low, the cosine effect means
that
> there is only a small amount of energy available (watts per meter) to the
surface.
> The same is true in the middle of summer, when the sun may be above the
horizon
> all day, but the amount of energy on a horizontal surface is still small....
>
> Hey, I went thru the geometry 12 years ago....
It is not a matter of geometry. It is matter differential calculus, though I
expect that you are much better with that than me. In fact mine is so bad I
will use a gross approximation to explain what I mean.
The heat obtained from the sun depends on the cosine of the angle of
incidence. Divide the six month summer into four periods of 3/2 months.
During the first period the sun will reach an angle of 11.75 degrees. During
the next period it moves from 11.75 to 22.5 degs. During the first period the
amount of solar flux recieved is approximately about quarter of the flux
received during the second period. (Can't do the integration myself :-(
During this first period, because of the low angle of incidence, melt ponds
would have a high albedo, but they have not yet formed. During the second
period, when they do form, the angle of incidence is above the 10 degree angle
where the melt ponds absorb solar flux. So 3/4 of the annual solar flux meets
with a low albedo from melt ponds. The same arguments applies to open water
from melting ice. In other words the low albedo happens when it can be most
effective.
Of course you could point out that during the fourth period, there will be the
maximum amount of open water to reduce the albedo but there will be a low
solar flux. This is true, but consider that there is a minimum of ice
therefore a minimum area for meltponds to form on. So this will not be the
time of maximum melt ponds. Moreover the maximum sea exposed will not
neccessarly be calm, and the waves will ensure a low albedo despite the low
angle of incidence.
Hope you can make sense of the above,
Cheers, Alastair.
David Ball
LOL. That's right, Alistair. That's exactly how I feel about
your "theory". It puts me to sleep, because you haven't bothered to
engage your brain. That's too bad. Not for the scientific community,
but for you. Who's going to take a newbie seriously when he purposely
discounts information contrary to his theory?
Alastair McDonald
Give me one piece of hard evidence. No hand waving.
Cheers, Alastair.
Eric Swanson
>
>
>"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote
>> "Alastair McDonald" <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> You continue looking at things simplistically, Alistair, by
>> >> all means. Just don't expect people to take you seriously. Get tired.
>> >> That's your right too.
>> >
>> >
>> >zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz,
>> >
>>
>> LOL. That's right, Alistair. That's exactly how I feel about
>> your "theory". It puts me to sleep, because you haven't bothered to
>> engage your brain. That's too bad. Not for the scientific community,
>> but for you. Who's going to take a newbie seriously when he purposely
>> discounts information contrary to his theory?
>
>Give me one piece of hard evidence. No hand waving.
Payne, R. E., "Albedo of the Sea Surface", J. Atmos. Sci. 29, 959 (1972).
--
Alastair McDonald
> In article <c2qgd8$1ke$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk says...
> >
> >
> >"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote
> >> "Alastair McDonald" <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> You continue looking at things simplistically, Alistair, by
> >> >> all means. Just don't expect people to take you seriously. Get tired.
> >> >> That's your right too.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz,
> >> >
> >>
> >> LOL. That's right, Alistair. That's exactly how I feel about
> >> your "theory". It puts me to sleep, because you haven't bothered to
> >> engage your brain. That's too bad. Not for the scientific community,
> >> but for you. Who's going to take a newbie seriously when he purposely
> >> discounts information contrary to his theory?
> >
> >Give me one piece of hard evidence. No hand waving.
>
> Payne, R. E., "Albedo of the Sea Surface", J. Atmos. Sci. 29, 959
(1972).
What does that say? Besides it was written in 1972. I thought all that old
science was passe with you lot?
Cheers, Alastair.
Eric Swanson
Good scince never dies. The measurements just get better.
Send me your e-mail address and I will send the relevant figure.
Alastair McDonald
I've looked up the abstract which says; "Examples of albedo values are
0.061±0.005 for heavily overcast skies (0.0<T0.1), indicating isotropic
radiance distribution, and a range for clear skies (T>0.65) of 0.03 for high
sun to as large as 0.45 at sun altitudes <10°. "
Presumably you are trying to make a point about my post in the other thread
that albedo from melt ponds is effective because they only exist during the
height of summer. I chose a break point of 11.75°. Payne quotes 10°. I don't
think I that was far out!
But it is all a storm in a teapot for two reasons;
First, there is no dispute by serious scientists that the melting of the
Arctic ice cap will reduce the albedo there. This will cause more melting.
Second, there was a paper published recently which claimed that the Arctic ice
was not melting because of higher air temperatures. The ice was melting from
beneath because of warmer sea temperatures. (I have not raised this point
before in this thread because I have been arguing with Mr Ball. Had I pointed
it out, he would no doubt complained that I had not factored in plant
respiration!)
Cheers, Alastair.
Eric Swanson
There is no "break point". The graph which I offred to send is a continuous
curve. With heavy overcast equals cloud cover. On top of the clouds, there is
still a high albedo in the visible, thus the solar energy is still reflected back
to space. The albedo of clouds also depends upon zenith angle. The likelyhood
of clouds increases as temperature climbs above freezing, as the absolute humidity
increases with temperature. But, in any case, clouds are common over sea-ice
and the ocean.
>But it is all a storm in a teapot for two reasons;
>
>First, there is no dispute by serious scientists that the melting of the
>Arctic ice cap will reduce the albedo there. This will cause more melting.
Did I say it wouldn't be? My point is that the amount of reduction may not
be as great as one might think, and the climate community did think, IMHO.
Th early GCM's used a fixed ocean albedo of 0.07 and large albedo for sea-ice.
>Second, there was a paper published recently which claimed that the Arctic ice
>was not melting because of higher air temperatures. The ice was melting from
>beneath because of warmer sea temperatures. (I have not raised this point
>before in this thread because I have been arguing with Mr Ball. Had I pointed
>it out, he would no doubt complained that I had not factored in plant
>respiration!)
Well, clearly, the temperature of the boundary layer is going to stay near the
freezing point, as long as there is sea-ice melting below. Thus, there can't
be much heat transfer from the air to the sea-ice, so the air can't warm enough
to be the source of the energy to melt the sea-ice. So, what's left? Direct
solar energy gain is small, due to the cosine effect and the albedo of the ocean
and sea-ice. That leaves infrared from higher in the atmosphere, where
temperatures are likely to be higher with a stable inversion. With large
zenith angles, the solar energy traverses a much longer path thru the
atmosphere, thus much more is scattered and absorbed, warming the air at higher
elevations. Increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases emits more IR DOWNWARDs
from the inversion layer. Also, clouds emit infrared downwards too.
Alastair McDonald
> In article <c2qosd$8bj$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk says...
> >
> >
> >"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
> >news:c2qmtd$3c57$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> >> >> Payne, R. E., "Albedo of the Sea Surface", J. Atmos. Sci. 29, 959
> >> >(1972).
> >> >
> >> >What does that say? Besides it was written in 1972. I thought all that
old
> >> >science was passe with you lot?
> >>
> >> Good scince never dies. The measurements just get better.
> >> Send me your e-mail address and I will send the relevant figure.
> >
> >I've looked up the abstract which says; "Examples of albedo values are
> >0.061±0.005 for heavily overcast skies (0.0<T0.1), indicating isotropic
> >radiance distribution, and a range for clear skies (T>0.65) of 0.03 for
high
> >sun to as large as 0.45 at sun altitudes <10°. "
> >
> >Presumably you are trying to make a point about my post in the other thread
> >that albedo from melt ponds is effective because they only exist during the
> >height of summer. I chose a break point of 11.75°. Payne quotes 10°. I
don't
> >think I that was far out!
>
> There is no "break point".
No but there is an elbow at around approximately 11.750 degrees <grin>
> The graph which I offered to send is a continuous
> curve. With heavy overcast equals cloud cover. On top of the clouds, there
is
> still a high albedo in the visible, thus the solar energy is still reflected
back
> to space. The albedo of clouds also depends upon zenith angle. The
likelyhood
> of clouds increases as temperature climbs above freezing, as the absolute
humidity
> increases with temperature. But, in any case, clouds are common over
sea-ice
> and the ocean.
OK, please send it and I will compare it with the graph in Oke. My e-mail
address can be composed from the one on this email by leaving out
".leavethisout".
> My point is that the amount of reduction may not
> be as great as one might think, and the climate community did think, IMHO.
My point is that it is greater than you are implying. See below. Anyway, this
does not kill my theory, since in my model water vapour runs away, the size
of the trigger is irrelevant provided it is great enough.
> The early GCM's used a fixed ocean albedo of 0.07 and large albedo for
sea-ice.
As I intended to do when and if I ever get round to building my model.
> >Second, there was a paper published recently which claimed that the Arctic
ice
> >was not melting because of higher air temperatures. The ice was melting
from
> >beneath because of warmer sea temperatures. (I have not raised this point
> >before in this thread because I have been arguing with Mr Ball. Had I
pointed
> >it out, he would no doubt complained that I had not factored in plant
> >respiration!)
>
> Well, clearly, the temperature of the boundary layer is going to stay near
> the freezing point, as long as there is sea-ice melting below. Thus, there
> can't be much heat transfer from the air to the sea-ice, so the air can't
> be warm enough to be the source of the energy to melt the sea-ice.
> So, what's left? Direct solar energy gain is small, due to the cosine
effect
> and the albedo of the ocean and sea-ice.
The length of day compensates for the cosine effect, and the ocean and melt
ponds are least effective in reflecting the solar energy when it is strongest
and the days are longest.
> That leaves infrared from higher in the atmosphere, where
> temperatures are likely to be higher with a stable inversion.
But AFAIK stable inversions only form at night. There is no night during
a polar summer.
> With large
> zenith angles, the solar energy traverses a much longer path thru the
> atmosphere, thus much more is scattered and absorbed, warming the air
> at higher elevations. Increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases emits
> more IR DOWNWARDs from the inversion layer. Also, clouds emit
> infrared downwards too.
OK, so you are saying the change in albedo when the ice melts is not enough to
trigger a rapid change in water vapour. Funnily enough David Ball brought up
an interesting point. He said that if you change the albedo then you do not
change the water vapour content in the column of air above it. This is true
over land, but if you change the albedo of water by freezing it you also lock
in the water and prevent its evaporation which will alter the vapour pressure
of the column of air above it.
So by melting the ice you are increasing the IR DOWNWARDs. OK it fits.
It explains why changes in sea ice is more important than changes in land
ice, something I puzzled over. It is not the albedo effect and sw radiation
which is important. It is sea-ice's effect on longwave radiation which is
important.
If there was another convincing explantion for abrupt climate change I would
not be so confident that I am right, but there is none. Moreover, this idea
requires two steps, and currently science seems to be geared to taking one
step at a time using peer review to carefully check each step. Only an
outsider such as myself has the freedom to make the double leap which is
needed to solve the problem.
TFYH,
Cheers, Alastair.
H. Dziardziel
wrote:
>H. Dziardziel <hd...@zworg.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<3acm401j1fs6ao7pc...@4ax.com>...
>
>> Page 423 and 7.2.1.1
>> "Determination of the new equilibrium is complicated
>> that water vapour is itself a potent greenhouse gas",
>> And that entire section.
>>
>> Please therefore clarify what ".but not determinant, since its
>> reactive." means? Thank you.
>
>One way of putting it is that no amount of steam releases from
>factories is going to have a significant climate effect.
>
Whence the nearly strawman factory steam in view of "water vapour
is itself a potent greenhouse gas"? Hyperbolic "no amount" no
doubt?
But anyway since you brought it up, steam has heat of
vaporization, its direct production along with the entire chain of
production is grossly inefficient. And, steam per se or alone
was not the issue of the thread. Lambasted thermal pollution
theory was.
>The fraction of water in the atmosphere, though critical for setting
>the earth's surface temperature, is tiny in proportion ot the oceans.
Transient fog..
>The time constant for most of the water mass, gaseous and suspended,
>is the time constant of large scale weather systems, about three days.
Time constant for what process? What parameters? Transient
response taken into account? Experimentally synthesized or
verified? What water mass?
>If humans could emit a large enough amount of water to be noticeable,
>the system would erase any trace of it in a week or so. The extra
>water would just rain out.
>
That statement clearly contradicts ""Determination of the new
equilibrium is complicated that water vapour is itself a potent
greenhouse gas" to wit the feedback. And iff true applies equally
to anthopogenic CO2 forcings.
Oh, I see, Local steaming, What about, then, on a global scale
over years? Feedback taken into account?
>There is an ample supply of liquid water,
That's redundant but a sweat soaked relief to hear here.
> and the equilibration time
>for the water content of the atmosphere, gaseous and suspended.
Ample supply of equilibrium time for the...? Another relief if
so.
> If one
>directly added new water into the system from mineral sources, its
>primary effect by several orders of magnitude would be a tiny rise in
>sea level.
>
Oh, I see, the steam factor commitment. I don't think anyone was
worrying about that tiny rise By several orders of magnitude
implies massive changes from other components. Anyway more
anxiety resolved, thanks.
Since you brought up fresh water lets pump a bit more here about
which you no doubt are far more versed in than I. In fact fresh
surface and ground water depletion and reallocation on the surface
are problems (one of many) far more serious than a degree or so
increase in global temperature over the course of centuries.
That increase along with glacial water mining could alleviate the
water problem for a spell but unceasing population growth, the
real and only anthrpogenic deteminant in the feedbacks that
create global pollution will once again excarcerbate it (among
many other things) endlessly Anthropogenic CO2 is trivial as a
result and, a reactive in that context..
>What determines the water fraction, of course, is the climate. This is
>obviously a tightly coupled system, as the water fraction is first
>order important in the climate
Yes indeed. Tar-01.pdf page 88:
".. Water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas. For
these reasons and because the transition between the various
phases absorb and release much energy, water vapour is central to
the climate and its variability and change."
>. But on time scales that interest us in
>climate change,
What are those scales and for who was (s)elected to decide?
> it's totally a free variable. There's no significant
>forcing on it except the climate system itself, and it does not
>constitute a forcing in itself. It's a part of the system, just like
>the surface temperature is.
>
So total global water vapor is a well ascertained- measured
quantity albeit varying by locale, height etc? Then why call it
a "free variable" unless discussing weather? If, on the
otherhand, it is truly "free" then its forcings are not being
fully accounted for by merely anthropogenic CO2 (since those are
"known" per IPCC).
>You can say that surface temperature is the most important factor in
>water vapor content every bit as much as you can say it the other way
>around.
>
Yes indeed and another salty anxiety droplet could be wiped away.
>Solar variability and volcanic activity constitute external forcings.
Only some external forcings. What about the internal forcings?
Are they all fully accounted for in the models, and more sensibly,
verified?
>To understand what is going on, these must be accounted for
>independently.
Good sensible science that. But aren't they also tightly and
sensitively coupled?
> Atmospheric water is an intrinsic part of the climate
>system: climate prediction is water content prediction by necessity.
Yes indeed
> A unit of understanding
??? Come again? What and how many units are there?
Distance learning redux?
> of greenhouse forcing on climate and
>understanding of solar forcing on climate both require essentially the
>same amount of understanding of water distribution and its effects.
Elegant.
>Water distribution itself, though, is not something that forces
>climate change. It simply *is* part of climate change.
>
Recycling.
>I feel like I just said the same thing over and over.
Poured it on! Virtual lecterns can do that too.
Curious how this mere analogy by me:
"But using your argument, by analogy, we might as well dismiss
even these ppm CO2 changes as trivial since even the IPCC states
it is water vapor that is by far the major determinant of the
greenhouse effect. Even the 10% drop in the magnetic field in
the past century would have thus a far greater effect since its
complete disappearance would signal an _estimated_ doubling of
surface radiation (as I recall so please don't ask for cites)... "
set all this off seemingly by my casual choice of a word,
"determinant" which usage is now apparently reserved for
anthropogenic CO2 here? If I say "strongest" ala IPCC instead
of major determinant" will it cool the academic outpour?
And of course my dismissal of anthropogenic CO2 in the analogy
reference must have been the last straw.
>The point may be
>a bit subtle, but it's robust.
>
Do you feel the subtleties are adequately explained in IPCC for
the simple policy makers -- probably all mere robust laymen?
I note still again that no experimental data cites have been
offered for CO2 forcing and non of course for water vapor it being
a free variable and all.
Lest my comments were too ethereal -- at no time did I question
CO2's role in climate or misunderstand water vapor's function.
Cause and effect are not hazy but not quantitatively substantiated
with measurement however.
Thank you for your attention and time. It was instructive and
to quote a line from:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~tobis/
"What passes for public discourse on global change, alas."
>mt
David Ball
<alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Well, clearly, the temperature of the boundary layer is going to stay near the
>> freezing point, as long as there is sea-ice melting below. Thus, there can't
>> be much heat transfer from the air to the sea-ice, so the air can't warm enough
>> to be the source of the energy to melt the sea-ice. So, what's left? Direct
>> solar energy gain is small, due to the cosine effect and the albedo of the ocean
>> and sea-ice. That leaves infrared from higher in the atmosphere, where
>> temperatures are likely to be higher with a stable inversion. With large
>> zenith angles, the solar energy traverses a much longer path thru the
>> atmosphere, thus much more is scattered and absorbed, warming the air
>> at higher elevations. Increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases emits
>> more IR DOWNWARDs from the inversion layer. Also, clouds emit
>> infrared downwards too.
>
>OK, so you are saying the change in albedo when the ice melts is not enough to
>trigger a rapid change in water vapour. Funnily enough David Ball brought up
>an interesting point. He said that if you change the albedo then you do not
>change the water vapour content in the column of air above it. This is true
>over land, but if you change the albedo of water by freezing it you also lock
>in the water and prevent its evaporation which will alter the vapour pressure
>of the column of air above it.
Oh, for God's sake, that is NOT what I said. I said, that it
doesn't happen DIRECTLY. This would be so much easier if you'd stop
and think a little. Altering the albedo DOES have an impact, but it
does so indirectly. If you change the albedo, you're altering
radiation processes. Those have an impact on the temperature, but also
on convective , evaporative, turbulence and diffusion processes.
Sensible heat fluxes change, ... If you want to understand how to get
from step A (changing the albedo) to step G (altering the precipitable
water in the column) you have to understand the intervening steps. You
cannot dismissively - as you are doing - wave your hands and pretend
that some of the steps have no impact, especially those that challenge
your pet point of view.
As for your comments on evaporation, once again you're being
very selective. Evaporation is a function of temperature and moisture
supply. If you freeze the water surface, choking off the moisture
supply, you don't get any more evaporation. The same thing happens on
land. You cannot pretend that evaporation processes are different over
the water. If you freeze the water surface, altering the albedo, you
can also freeze the land surface and adding snow to the latter also
changes the albedo.
>
>So by melting the ice you are increasing the IR DOWNWARDs. OK it fits.
>It explains why changes in sea ice is more important than changes in land
>ice, something I puzzled over. It is not the albedo effect and sw radiation
>which is important. It is sea-ice's effect on longwave radiation which is
>important.
Honest to god, Alistair, would you please take a huge step
back from your "theory", take a deep breath and think. This process
happens EVERY year. Every year, the albedo changes as the annual
sea-ice retreats. Every year, the snow melts on the land. This is not
something new. Temperatures do not mysteriously start to rise locally,
melting the snow and snow and ice. There is a shift in the long-wave
flow. Advection plays a key role in the process. Melting requires
energy, thus the air close to the surface remain close to the freezing
point, while the air farther aloft remains warmer. You have an
inverstion. Since the humidity of the surface is higher than that
aloft, you get evaporation which removes further energy from the
boundary layer. Since we now have a strong inversion in place, where
does all that moisture go? Into cloud. There's a reason that the high
latitudes are chock full of boundary-layer cloud during the spring and
summer. That alters the albedo. This isn't something that just happens
over the water. Look up the word Muskeg and see what it is. The arctic
areas have a lot of it. That surface water doesn't mysteriously not
have an impact. The changes taking place are important over land as
well. You cannot simply wave your hand and pretend that you can
consider water impacts in isolation.
>
>If there was another convincing explantion for abrupt climate change I would
>not be so confident that I am right, but there is none. Moreover, this idea
>requires two steps, and currently science seems to be geared to taking one
>step at a time using peer review to carefully check each step. Only an
>outsider such as myself has the freedom to make the double leap which is
>needed to solve the problem.
>
We're seeing abrupt climate change taking place in the high
latidudes right now. All you need is more cloud cover up there. Your
idea requires one hell of a lot more than two steps, Alistair. You're
just pretending that you can get from A-Z directly without going
through the intervening steps. Only an outsider like yourself could
make so many fundamental errors and blissfully announce that he's got
the answers.
Michael Tobis
H. Dziardziel <hd...@zworg.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<nos250pl3egreqqh3...@4ax.com>...
> On 10 Mar 2004 11:40:24 -0800, m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis)
> wrote:
>
> >H. Dziardziel <hd...@zworg.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<3acm401j1fs6ao7pc...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >> Page 423 and 7.2.1.1
> >> "Determination of the new equilibrium is complicated
> >> that water vapour is itself a potent greenhouse gas",
> >> And that entire section.
> >>
> >> Please therefore clarify what ".but not determinant, since its
> >> reactive." means? Thank you.
> >
>
> >One way of putting it is that no amount of steam releases from
> >factories is going to have a significant climate effect.
> >
>
> Whence the nearly strawman factory steam in view of "water vapour
> is itself a potent greenhouse gas"? Hyperbolic "no amount" no
> doubt?
No feasible amount of direct vapor emissions can have an effect on
climate time scales, because on climate time scales evaporation is
identical to precipitation.
We are talking about water vapor, yes? So I'm trying to respond to
your question. Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, but it's, as
wmc sort of hurriedly put it, "not determinant but reactive".
Those few words capture a fundamental fact, but not very clearly. I'm
trying to clarify.
> But anyway since you brought it up, steam has heat of
> vaporization, its direct production along with the entire chain of
> production is grossly inefficient. And, steam per se or alone
> was not the issue of the thread. Lambasted thermal pollution
> theory was.
I'm not addressing the ridiculous paper that should not have passed
peer review because it is wrong. Thomas Palm has already explained how
it is based on some very fundamental misunderstandings of the
temperature structure of the atmosphere.
I'm trying to answer your question.
> >The fraction of water in the atmosphere, though critical for setting
> >the earth's surface temperature, is tiny in proportion ot the oceans.
>
> Transient fog..
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. I will reassert that the water
vapor in the atmosphere draws upon an essentially infinite reservoir,
and adjusts on a short time scale, if you like.
> >The time constant for most of the water mass, gaseous and suspended,
> >is the time constant of large scale weather systems, about three days.
>
> Time constant for what process? What parameters? Transient
> response taken into account? Experimentally synthesized or
> verified? What water mass?
1) The time constant of weather, which is to say, exchange of water
mass between atmosphere and ocean.
2) atmospheric water concentrations, which are what we are discussing
3) er, yes, "transient response" is the same idea as "time constant",
isn't it?
4) We pretty much measure how much water is in the air and how much
falls out per unit of time. The experiment in question is called
"weather forecasting".
5) Atmospheric water, gaseous and suspended.
> >If humans could emit a large enough amount of water to be noticeable,
> >the system would erase any trace of it in a week or so. The extra
> >water would just rain out.
> >
> That statement clearly contradicts ""Determination of the new
> equilibrium is complicated that water vapour is itself a potent
> greenhouse gas" to wit the feedback.
You aren't serious, are you? Where is the contradiction?
> And iff true applies equally
> to anthopogenic CO2 forcings.
No it doesn't. The residence time of carbon injected into the
atmosphere is order 1000 years, and into the atmosphere/oicean system
is about 100,000 years. The residence time of water injected into the
atmosphere is about a week, and into the ocean essentially infinite.
That's not exactly equal.
> Oh, I see, Local steaming, What about, then, on a global scale
> over years? Feedback taken into account?
Precipiation = evaporation over time periods longer than a month and
less than a geological age. Trivially.
I suggest you don't know what you are talking about, and should talk
less and listen more. If you have a little calculus, Peixoto & Oort's
"Physics of Climate" is a nice place to start. If you don't have any,
I suggest you start there.
> >There is an ample supply of liquid water,
> That's redundant but a sweat soaked relief to hear here.
>
> > and the equilibration time
> >for the water content of the atmosphere, gaseous and suspended.
> Ample supply of equilibrium time for the...? Another relief if
> so.
Sorry. Missing text. "the time is on the order of a week".
>
> > If one
> >directly added new water into the system from mineral sources, its
> >primary effect by several orders of magnitude would be a tiny rise in
> >sea level.
> >
> Oh, I see, the steam factor commitment. I don't think anyone was
> worrying about that tiny rise By several orders of magnitude
> implies massive changes from other components. Anyway more
> anxiety resolved, thanks.
I'm not trying to resolve or raise your anxieties. I'm trying to
explain wmc's true if somewhat terse statement.
> Since you brought up fresh water lets pump a bit more here about
> which you no doubt are far more versed in than I. In fact fresh
> surface and ground water depletion and reallocation on the surface
> are problems (one of many) far more serious than a degree or so
> increase in global temperature over the course of centuries.
Maybe, though I don't see how you got to "a degree or so".
> That increase along with glacial water mining could alleviate the
> water problem for a spell but unceasing population growth, the
> real and only anthrpogenic deteminant in the feedbacks that
> create global pollution will once again excarcerbate it (among
> many other things) endlessly
That remotely resembles English but I can't imagine what you are
trying to say.
> Anthropogenic CO2 is trivial as a
> result and, a reactive in that context..
I'm starting to suspect deliberate obfuscation. What on earth are you
talking about?
> >What determines the water fraction, of course, is the climate. This is
> >obviously a tightly coupled system, as the water fraction is first
> >order important in the climate
>
> Yes indeed. Tar-01.pdf page 88:
> ".. Water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas. For
> these reasons and because the transition between the various
> phases absorb and release much energy, water vapour is central to
> the climate and its variability and change."
Agreed.
> >. But on time scales that interest us in
> >climate change,
>
> What are those scales and for who was (s)elected to decide?
Longer than a month, and physics.
> > it's totally a free variable. There's no significant
> >forcing on it except the climate system itself, and it does not
> >constitute a forcing in itself. It's a part of the system, just like
> >the surface temperature is.
> >
> So total global water vapor is a well ascertained- measured
> quantity albeit varying by locale, height etc? Then why call it
> a "free variable" unless discussing weather? If, on the
> otherhand, it is truly "free" then its forcings are not being
> fully accounted for by merely anthropogenic CO2 (since those are
> "known" per IPCC).
Again, I cannot make sense of the question.
...
> >Solar variability and volcanic activity constitute external forcings.
>
> Only some external forcings. What about the internal forcings?
> Are they all fully accounted for in the models, and more sensibly,
> verified?
What does that have to do with the question I am addressing here? You
asked what "reactive therefore not determinative" means and I am
trying to reply. It means that for climate purposes, water vapor is a
part of the system and not an input. How well we characterize the
system is a perfectly good question in its own context, but here it's
just pointless.
> >To understand what is going on, these must be accounted for
> >independently.
>
> Good sensible science that. But aren't they also tightly and
> sensitively coupled?
No. Earth's climate definitely does not affect the sun. If it affects
vulcanism it does so only very slightly.
> > Atmospheric water is an intrinsic part of the climate
> >system: climate prediction is water content prediction by necessity.
>
> Yes indeed
> > A unit of understanding
> ??? Come again? What and how many units are there?
> Distance learning redux?
Are you discussing or just sniping?
...
> >Water distribution itself, though, is not something that forces
> >climate change. It simply *is* part of climate change.
> >
> Recycling.
What?
...
> Curious how this mere analogy by me:
> "But using your argument, by analogy, we might as well dismiss
> even these ppm CO2 changes as trivial since even the IPCC states
> it is water vapor that is by far the major determinant of the
> greenhouse effect. Even the 10% drop in the magnetic field in
> the past century would have thus a far greater effect since its
> complete disappearance would signal an _estimated_ doubling of
> surface radiation (as I recall so please don't ask for cites)... "
umm, I guess I really am wasting my time...
> set all this off seemingly by my casual choice of a word,
> "determinant" which usage is now apparently reserved for
> anthropogenic CO2 here? If I say "strongest" ala IPCC instead
> of major determinant" will it cool the academic outpour?
> And of course my dismissal of anthropogenic CO2 in the analogy
> reference must have been the last straw.
I really have no idea what you are trying to say in the above.
> >The point may be
> >a bit subtle, but it's robust.
> >
>
> Do you feel the subtleties are adequately explained in IPCC for
> the simple policy makers -- probably all mere robust laymen?
If you're asking whether it's immune from attacks by debating club
denizens who don't know very much science, no, nothing is. If you're
asking whether it captures the state of contemporary knowledge
carefully and conscientiously, yes, it does.
> I note still again that no experimental data cites have been
> offered for CO2 forcing and non of course for water vapor it being
> a free variable and all.
Oh please. Look into the remote sensing literature, if you don't mind.
You may have the last word, or you can go away for a few years and
learn some science, in which case I'll be happy to continue the
discussion.
mt
Eric Swanson
>
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote
>>alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk says...
>> >"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote
>
>> >> >(1972).
>> >> >
>> >> >What does that say? Besides it was written in 1972. I thought all that old
>> >> >science was passe with you lot?
>> >>
>> >> Good scince never dies. The measurements just get better.
>> >> Send me your e-mail address and I will send the relevant figure.
>
>> >
>> >I've looked up the abstract which says; "Examples of albedo values are
>> >0.061±0.005 for heavily overcast skies (0.0<T0.1), indicating isotropic
>> >radiance distribution, and a range for clear skies (T>0.65) of 0.03 for high
>> >sun to as large as 0.45 at sun altitudes <10°. "
>> >
>> >Presumably you are trying to make a point about my post in the other thread
>> >that albedo from melt ponds is effective because they only exist during the
>> >height of summer. I chose a break point of 11.75°. Payne quotes 10°. I don't
>> >think I that was far out!
>>
>> There is no "break point".
>
>No but there is an elbow at around approximately 11.750 degrees <grin>
See e-mailed graph from Payne's report (my Figure 5).
>> The graph which I offered to send is a continuous
>> curve. With heavy overcast equals cloud cover. On top of the clouds, there is
>> still a high albedo in the visible, thus the solar energy is still reflected back
>> to space. The albedo of clouds also depends upon zenith angle. The likelyhood
>> of clouds increases as temperature climbs above freezing, as the absolute humidity
>> increases with temperature. But, in any case, clouds are common over sea-ice
>> and the ocean.
>
>OK, please send it and I will compare it with the graph in Oke. My e-mail
>address can be composed from the one on this email by leaving out
>".leavethisout".
Four graphs sent.
>> My point is that the amount of reduction may not
>> be as great as one might think, and the climate community did think, IMHO.
>
>My point is that it is greater than you are implying. See below. Anyway, this
>does not kill my theory, since in my model water vapour runs away, the size
>of the trigger is irrelevant provided it is great enough.
>
>> The early GCM's used a fixed ocean albedo of 0.07 and large albedo for sea-ice.
>
>As I intended to do when and if I ever get round to building my model.
If you do use a fixed value for ocean albedo, your results will be unrealistic,
thus worthless.
Alastair McDonald
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 05:00:09 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
> <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >OK, so you are saying the change in albedo when the ice melts is not
> >enough to trigger a rapid change in water vapour. Funnily enough David
> >Ball brought up an interesting point. He said that if you change the
> >albedo then you do not change the water vapour content in the column
> >of air above it. This is true over land, but if you change the albedo
> >of water by freezing it you also lock in the water and prevent its
> >evaporation which will alter the vapour pressure of the column of air
> >above it.
>
> Oh, for God's sake, that is NOT what I said. I said, that it
> doesn't happen DIRECTLY. This would be so much easier if you'd stop
> and think a little. Altering the albedo DOES have an impact, but it
> does so indirectly. If you change the albedo, you're altering
> radiation processes. Those have an impact on the temperature, but also
> on convective , evaporative, turbulence and diffusion processes.
> Sensible heat fluxes change, ... If you want to understand how to get
> from step A (changing the albedo) to step G (altering the precipitable
> water in the column) you have to understand the intervening steps. You
> cannot dismissively - as you are doing - wave your hands and pretend
> that some of the steps have no impact, especially those that challenge
> your pet point of view.
I have read what you wrote above several times, but I still cannot see
what you are getting so upset about. Basicically I agree with you that
changing the albedo of a suface does not alter the water vapour
content of the air above directly. What I was trying to put over in my
post to Eric was that the indirect processes involved when the sea
changes to ice are less indirect than those when snow falls on land.
> As for your comments on evaporation, once again you're being
> very selective. Evaporation is a function of temperature and moisture
> supply. If you freeze the water surface, choking off the moisture
> supply, you don't get any more evaporation. The same thing happens on
> land. You cannot pretend that evaporation processes are different over
> the water. If you freeze the water surface, altering the albedo, you
> can also freeze the land surface and adding snow to the latter also
> changes the albedo.
There is a difference between land and water. Compared with land,
the supply of water vapour from the sea is infinite. This is important
because as surface temperatures increase, the water in land evaporates
and is blown away by winds turning the land to desert. In the case
of the oceans, when more water is evaporated it adds to the water cycle.
A good case of water being lost from the land was the dust bowl in
the USA. They ploughed up the land and the water evaporated and
was lost. (That is not possible at sea.) As a result of this loss of water
vapour, when CO2 levels rose, the waming in the US has not been
so severe as in other areas of the world, because there was no H2O
to amplify the effect. The eastern parts of temperate continents, such
as western Europe, show greater warming than areas in the lee of the
Rockies because the westerly winds off the warming oceans can bring
more water vapour.
> >So by melting the ice you are increasing the IR DOWNWARDs. OK it fits.
> >It explains why changes in sea ice is more important than changes in land
> >ice, something I puzzled over. It is not the albedo effect and sw radiation
> >which is important. It is sea-ice's effect on longwave radiation which is
> >important.
>
> Honest to god, Alistair, would you please take a huge step
> back from your "theory", take a deep breath and think. This process
> happens EVERY year. Every year, the albedo changes as the annual
> sea-ice retreats. Every year, the snow melts on the land. This is not
> something new.
Can I remind you that I am talking globally. The Arctic ice does retreat
each year, but at the same time the Antarctic ice advances. Globally
the system is stable. If the Arctic ice no longer exists then there will
probably be a change in the annual range of global climate especially
in the SH as the Antarctic advances and retreats.
> Temperatures do not mysteriously start to rise locally,
> melting the snow and snow and ice. There is a shift in the long-wave
> flow. Advection plays a key role in the process. Melting requires
> energy, thus the air close to the surface remain close to the freezing
> point, while the air farther aloft remains warmer. You have an
> inverstion.
Only at night nime. Beyond the Arctic circle there are periods with no
night in the land of the midnight sun. Ever noticed how clear the
skies are there?
>Since the humidity of the surface is higher than that
> aloft, you get evaporation which removes further energy from the
> boundary layer. Since we now have a strong inversion in place, where
> does all that moisture go? Into cloud. There's a reason that the high
> latitudes are chock full of boundary-layer cloud during the spring and
> summer. That alters the albedo. This isn't something that just happens
> over the water. Look up the word Muskeg and see what it is. The arctic
> areas have a lot of it. That surface water doesn't mysteriously not
> have an impact. The changes taking place are important over land as
> well. You cannot simply wave your hands and pretend that you can
> consider water impacts in isolation.
You are desribing conditions in the subarctic. That is not where the
trigger for an abrupt climate change event will originate. But you are
again getting into the detail of your local situation. You are like those
who say it is snowing in my backyard so global warming is not happening.
You are saying there is musteq in my backyard so sea ice cannot be the
reason for rapid climate change.
The global energy balance equation only contaisn terms for solar flux,
albedo, and greenhouse gasses. For a global model of the climate
only the average value ot these things need considering. The contribution
of musteq is small enough to be ignored in this case.
Cheers, Alastair.
David Ball
<alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Alistair wrote:
Funnily enough David Ball brought up an interesting point. He
said that if you change the albedo then you do not change the water
vapour content in the column of air above it.
Funnily enough, I didn't say that. I never said that. If you
agree with me, how then did you arrive at the gibberish above?
>
>> As for your comments on evaporation, once again you're being
>> very selective. Evaporation is a function of temperature and moisture
>> supply. If you freeze the water surface, choking off the moisture
>> supply, you don't get any more evaporation. The same thing happens on
>> land. You cannot pretend that evaporation processes are different over
>> the water. If you freeze the water surface, altering the albedo, you
>> can also freeze the land surface and adding snow to the latter also
>> changes the albedo.
>
>There is a difference between land and water. Compared with land,
> the supply of water vapour from the sea is infinite. This is important
>because as surface temperatures increase, the water in land evaporates
>and is blown away by winds turning the land to desert. In the case
>of the oceans, when more water is evaporated it adds to the water cycle.
Only at it's most extreme and you haven't shown how we arrive
at that point. You've attempted to use the 6 basic ballet steps in
this little dance you're doing, but you keep leaving out important
parts of the process.
All you've said is that the moisture supply is greater. You
haven't said a single thing about the PROCESS being different, yet an
integral part of your "theory" appears to be arrived at by selectively
ignoring parts of the process.
>
>A good case of water being lost from the land was the dust bowl in
>the USA. They ploughed up the land and the water evaporated and
>was lost. (That is not possible at sea.) As a result of this loss of water
>vapour, when CO2 levels rose, the waming in the US has not been
>so severe as in other areas of the world, because there was no H2O
>to amplify the effect. The eastern parts of temperate continents, such
>as western Europe, show greater warming than areas in the lee of the
>Rockies because the westerly winds off the warming oceans can bring
>more water vapour.
Simplistic description noted. This was not merely a function
of plowing the land, nor was it a function purely of evaporation.
Land-use practices certainly played a role, but that is not the only
thing that happened. Seasonal precipitation is a strong function of
transpiration. If you don't have growing plants, transpiration is
significantly reduced. That's why drought areas are self-perpetuating.
Almost half the moisture available for summer convection is produced
locally through transpiration. The other half is due to advection. In
order to alter the latter you have to change the long-wave flow
significantly. Global economics also had a role to play. You simply
cannot look at these extreme events from a myopic POV.
>
>> >So by melting the ice you are increasing the IR DOWNWARDs. OK it fits.
>> >It explains why changes in sea ice is more important than changes in land
>> >ice, something I puzzled over. It is not the albedo effect and sw radiation
>> >which is important. It is sea-ice's effect on longwave radiation which is
>> >important.
>>
>> Honest to god, Alistair, would you please take a huge step
>> back from your "theory", take a deep breath and think. This process
>> happens EVERY year. Every year, the albedo changes as the annual
>> sea-ice retreats. Every year, the snow melts on the land. This is not
>> something new.
>
>Can I remind you that I am talking globally. The Arctic ice does retreat
>each year, but at the same time the Antarctic ice advances. Globally
>the system is stable. If the Arctic ice no longer exists then there will
>probably be a change in the annual range of global climate especially
>in the SH as the Antarctic advances and retreats.
Local temperatures are determined locally. It is the sum total
of the conditions at all these local sites that determines the global
climate. Read what you said again: It is not the albedo effect and sw
radiation which is important. It is sea-ice's effect on longwave
radiation which is important. They're ALL important, to one degree or
another. You cannot mindlessly separate one, wave your hands and
pretend it doesn't matter.
>
>> Temperatures do not mysteriously start to rise locally,
>> melting the snow and snow and ice. There is a shift in the long-wave
>> flow. Advection plays a key role in the process. Melting requires
>> energy, thus the air close to the surface remain close to the freezing
>> point, while the air farther aloft remains warmer. You have an
>> inverstion.
>
>Only at night nime. Beyond the Arctic circle there are periods with no
>night in the land of the midnight sun. Ever noticed how clear the
>skies are there?
Bullshit. In the spring and even well into the summer - our
summer not their's - there is a strong inversion in place. When you
forecast for the arctic, there are basic things you learn very
quickly. This is one of them.
BTW, we're not talking about the dead of winter. In the land
of the midnight sun, you're lucky if you can see the sun, because
you've normally got 2000 feet of stratus over you. The high latitudes
are very cloudy.
>
>>Since the humidity of the surface is higher than that
>> aloft, you get evaporation which removes further energy from the
>> boundary layer. Since we now have a strong inversion in place, where
>> does all that moisture go? Into cloud. There's a reason that the high
>> latitudes are chock full of boundary-layer cloud during the spring and
>> summer. That alters the albedo. This isn't something that just happens
>> over the water. Look up the word Muskeg and see what it is. The arctic
>> areas have a lot of it. That surface water doesn't mysteriously not
>> have an impact. The changes taking place are important over land as
>> well. You cannot simply wave your hands and pretend that you can
>> consider water impacts in isolation.
>
>You are desribing conditions in the subarctic. That is not where the
>trigger for an abrupt climate change event will originate. But you are
>again getting into the detail of your local situation. You are like those
>who say it is snowing in my backyard so global warming is not happening.
>You are saying there is musteq in my backyard so sea ice cannot be the
>reason for rapid climate change.
I'm describing conditions in continental areas north of 60N.
You cannot and will not trigger an abrupt change in the climate merely
by looking at sea-ice extent. I'm not the only one telling you this.
Sea-ice extent may play a role, but it is NOT the sole arbiter. As
I've told you before, if you really want to affect sea-ice, look at
temperatures in the heart of Siberia. That's the trigger area. It is
not over the open water. I'll remind you again that we are talking
about a huge area, not the selective subset you are choosing to look
at and there are myriad processes at work that you cannot just shrug
off. You have to look at the WHOLE picture.
>
>The global energy balance equation only contaisn terms for solar flux,
>albedo, and greenhouse gasses. For a global model of the climate
>only the average value ot these things need considering. The contribution
>of musteq is small enough to be ignored in this case.
It's called MUSKEG and I was not bringing it to your attention
because of its impact on GCM's.
Muskeg is a soil type (also a peatland or wetland type called a bog)
common in arctic and boreal areas. Muskeg itself consists of dead
plants in various states of decomposition (i.e., peat), ranging from
fairly intact sphagnum moss, to sedge peat, to highly decomposed muck.
Pieces of wood such as buried tree branches can make up 5 to 15
percent of the peat soil. Muskeg tends to have a water table very near
the surface. As well, the sphagnum moss forming it can hold 15 to 30
times its own weight in water, allowing the spongy wet muskeg to form
even on sloping ground.
Muskeg is wet, acidic and relatively infertile, preventing large trees
from growing, though stunted pines may be found.
Muskegs need two conditions to develop: abundant rain and cool
summers. A dead plant that falls on dry soil is attacked by bacteria
and fungi and quickly rots. If that plant lands in water or on
saturated soil, though, it faces a diffferent fate. Air can't get to
it, so the bacteria and fungi can't function well. The cool
temperatures slow them down even more. All this slows decomposition,
and the plant debris accumulates to form peat and eventually, a
muskeg. Depending on the underlying topology of the land, muskeg can
reach depths of one hundred feet or more.
It's WET, Alistair. Wet!! We're not talking about the
difference between water surfaces and dry ground. The land surface is
wet. Think all that water sitting at the surface doesn't have an
impact, Alistair?
Alastair McDonald
David Ball wrote;
>> >> Your second is even worse. The changes in albedo do not have a
>> >> direct influence on the atmospheric constituents of a given column of
>> >> air. You cannot directly increase the amount of water vapour in a
>> >> column simply by changing the reflectivity of the surface.
I agree with what you wrote there, but I am thinking interms of a global
model. If you change the albedo (globally) you will change the
global temperature and (assuming a constant relative humididty
which seems to be true empirically) then the water vapour in the
atmosphere will increase. I do not need a reference for this as it
is an accepted fact.
> >> As for your comments on evaporation, once again you're being
> >> very selective. Evaporation is a function of temperature and moisture
> >> supply. If you freeze the water surface, choking off the moisture
> >> supply, you don't get any more evaporation. The same thing happens on
> >> land. You cannot pretend that evaporation processes are different over
> >> the water. If you freeze the water surface, altering the albedo, you
> >> can also freeze the land surface and adding snow to the latter also
> >> changes the albedo.
> >
> >There is a difference between land and water. Compared with land,
> > the supply of water vapour from the sea is infinite. This is important
> >because as surface temperatures increase, the water in land evaporates
> >and is blown away by winds turning the land to desert. In the case
> >of the oceans, when more water is evaporated it adds to the water cycle.
>
> Only at it's most extreme and you haven't shown how we arrive
> at that point. You've attempted to use the 6 basic ballet steps in
> this little dance you're doing, but you keep leaving out important
> parts of the process.
Which important parts of the process?
> All you've said is that the moisture supply is greater. You
> haven't said a single thing about the PROCESS being different, yet an
> integral part of your "theory" appears to be arrived at by selectively
> ignoring parts of the process.
What I am doing is highlighting the parts of the process which I
believe are important in explaining abrupt climate change. No one
has explained it yet. What I am saying is if you ignore things like
musteq and concentate on two of the main drivers of climate, sea
ice and water vapour, then it is easy to see what is happening.
> >A good case of water being lost from the land was the dust bowl in
> >the USA. They ploughed up the land and the water evaporated and
> >was lost. (That is not possible at sea.) As a result of this loss of water
> >vapour, when CO2 levels rose, the waming in the US has not been
> >so severe as in other areas of the world, because there was no H2O
> >to amplify the effect. The eastern parts of temperate continents, such
> >as western Europe, show greater warming than areas in the lee of the
> >Rockies because the westerly winds off the warming oceans can bring
> >more water vapour.
>
> Simplistic description noted. This was not merely a function
> of plowing the land, nor was it a function purely of evaporation.
> Land-use practices certainly played a role, but that is not the only
> thing that happened. Seasonal precipitation is a strong function of
> transpiration. If you don't have growing plants, transpiration is
> significantly reduced. That's why drought areas are self-perpetuating.
> Almost half the moisture available for summer convection is produced
> locally through transpiration. The other half is due to advection. In
> order to alter the latter you have to change the long-wave flow
> significantly. Global economics also had a role to play. You simply
> cannot look at these extreme events from a myopic POV.
I was not trying to explain the desertification. I was explaining the
reason the US has not warmed as much as the rest of the world.
This has serious political implications because it has made the US
more reluctant to sign up to Kyoto, and so preventitive measures
againt global warming are being delayed until it is too late! But this
is way over your head.
A patch of musteq in northern Canada does not matter when we are
talking about global climate. It may have an effect, but it is so trivial
it can be ignored.
> >> Temperatures do not mysteriously start to rise locally,
> >> melting the snow and snow and ice. There is a shift in the long-wave
> >> flow. Advection plays a key role in the process. Melting requires
> >> energy, thus the air close to the surface remain close to the freezing
> >> point, while the air farther aloft remains warmer. You have an
> >> inverstion.
> >
> >Only at night nime. Beyond the Arctic circle there are periods with no
> >night in the land of the midnight sun. Ever noticed how clear the
> >skies are there?
>
> Bullshit. In the spring and even well into the summer - our
> summer not their's - there is a strong inversion in place. When you
> forecast for the arctic, there are basic things you learn very
> quickly. This is one of them.
> BTW, we're not talking about the dead of winter. In the land
> of the midnight sun, you're lucky if you can see the sun, because
> you've normally got 2000 feet of stratus over you. The high latitudes
> are very cloudy.
Thanks, some useful information at last. Are there any books which
describe the Arctic weather and climate?
You are no doubt aware of the butterfly effect, where a butterfly
flapping its wings in Tokyo can initiate a hurricane in the Atlantic.
I cannot take into account every damn butterfly! I have to select the
parts of the system I think are important an see if I can explain
a phenomena with them.
Probably less than the Great Lakes, but even those are lost in
insignificance when compared with the surface of the Arctic ice.
Cheers, Alastair.
H. Dziardziel
wrote:
>In which I doggedly try to stay on topic:
>
A good trait in science of course. I must again thank you for
your time.
>
snips
>
>I'm not addressing the ridiculous paper that should not have passed
>peer review because it is wrong. Thomas Palm has already explained how
>it is based on some very fundamental misunderstandings of the
>temperature structure of the atmosphere.
>
That is shattering Scientific peer review, is here anyway,
always claimed to be infallible if publication results. Words to
that effect, admittedly by others, have been posted here any
number of times as I recall. Have you, directly to the author
and the reviewers, communicated this opinion?
>I'm trying to answer your question.
>
It was answered by wmc and aknowledged by me.
Perhaps I was too casual so you took up the tutorial.
>
snip
>
>> >The time constant for most of the water mass, gaseous and suspended,
>> >is the time constant of large scale weather systems, about three days.
>>
>> Time constant for what process? What parameters? Transient
>> response taken into account? Experimentally synthesized or
>> verified? What water mass?
>
>1) The time constant of weather, which is to say, exchange of water
>mass between atmosphere and ocean.
>
>2) atmospheric water concentrations, which are what we are discussing
>
>3) er, yes, "transient response" is the same idea as "time constant",
>isn't it?
>
The 3 days time constant as used intimated a period (cycle).
And TRC describes essentially level increase after constant 1%/yr
increase till X2 CO2. Not a transient response in the usual
usage or sense of the term but I agree on a global scale years
are transient. Or perhaps transient as used/described in this
site but I only have access to some of the abstracts.
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/csrl/pub_external.html
If 3 days as used was the usual engineering time constant the
effect never dies out of course. .
>4) We pretty much measure how much water is in the air and how much
>falls out per unit of time. The experiment in question is called
>"weather forecasting".
>
Very precise indeed. Is that why water is a free variable?
IPCC Tar-07 7.1 Introduction incomprehensibly states::
"Water vapour feedback.
An increase in the temperature of the atmosphere increases its
water-holding capacity; however, since most of the atmosphere is
undersaturated, this does not automatically mean that water
vapour, itself, must increase.....etc. "
>5) Atmospheric water, gaseous and suspended.
>
>> >If humans could emit a large enough amount of water to be noticeable,
>> >the system would erase any trace of it in a week or so. The extra
>> >water would just rain out.
>> >
>> That statement clearly contradicts ""Determination of the new
>> equilibrium is complicated that water vapour is itself a potent
>> greenhouse gas" to wit the feedback.
>
>You aren't serious, are you? Where is the contradiction?
>
No trace=no "equilibrium is complicated.." i.e. no feedback
>> And iff true applies equally
>> to anthopogenic CO2 forcings.
>
>No it doesn't. The residence time of carbon injected into the
>atmosphere is order 1000 years, and into the atmosphere/oicean system
>is about 100,000 years. The residence time of water injected into the
>atmosphere is about a week, and into the ocean essentially infinite.
>That's not exactly equal.
>
Meaning: If all rained out there is no water feedback which is
said (IPCC) to be complicating the CO2 forcing equilibrium..
>> Oh, I see, Local steaming, What about, then, on a global scale
>> over years? Feedback taken into account?
>
>Precipiation = evaporation over time periods longer than a month and
>less than a geological age. Trivially.
>
So there is no feedback effect after all. No new equilibium..
>I suggest you don't know what you are talking about,
Authoritative
> and should talk
>less and listen more.
Always good advise to anyyone albeit tiresomely pompous coming
here from a fellow denizen. Talking and questioning are not the
same thing.
> If you have a little calculus, Peixoto & Oort's
>"Physics of Climate" is a nice place to start. If you don't have any,
>I suggest you start there.
>
Thank you for the text recommendation.
Ellipsis is common in written English too so I surmise "any "
refers to another text which name got dropped here? Otherwise the
sentences are incoherent I do believe..
Brasseur, Tyndall, Orlando etc. is thin re water and model
oriented but suffices for now since so much is also available on
the Al Gore invented Internet.. I don't aim to do a dissertation
or to model but am interested in facts and seeing what
experimentally verified current theory is based on. The partial
differentials and integrals etc.look damn intimidating and
authoritative. Golly, science, calculus, and English.
>> >There is an ample supply of liquid water,
>> That's redundant but a sweat soaked relief to hear here.
>>
>> > and the equilibration time
>> >for the water content of the atmosphere, gaseous and suspended.
>
>> Ample supply of equilibrium time for the...? Another relief if
>> so.
>
>Sorry. Missing text. "the time is on the order of a week".
>
Thank you. So there is feedback.
>
snips
>
>> That increase along with glacial water mining could alleviate the
>> water problem for a spell but unceasing population growth, the
>> real and only anthrpogenic deteminant in the feedbacks that
>> create global pollution will once again excarcerbate it (among
>> many other things) endlessly
>
>That remotely resembles English but I can't imagine what you are
>trying to say.
>
Newsgroup etiquette Doctor. It=water problem
>> Anthropogenic CO2 is trivial as a
>> result and, a reactive in that context..
>
>I'm starting to suspect deliberate obfuscation. What on earth are you
>talking about?
>
Earth matters. Anthropogenic CO2 is a trivial byproduct of the
real determing factor in man's future -- population growth with
its consequential degradation of the Earth in every enviromental
sphere. Right now as I write this I can see, smell and feel the
eye watering dusty smog effluvium of 1Billion people enviromental
engineering and ROK's own industrious contribution.
.
In case you haven't noticed it, people the world over go into
hysterics over a little snow and cold. Some recent posts here
illustrate that.
Except, obviously, for those people who depend on the cold for
sustenance or a living, the average person in this world wants
warmth. That's also what most of the world's food is dependent
on.
For information, I personally relish the cold, snow and the
outdoors Most people on the otherhand seek warmth.
Anthropogenic CO2, not even proven to be a meaningful climate
factor, is not _the_ issue for man. It's a small byproduct.
Man will cope with it if he first doesn't suffocate himself with
other detritus .
>
snip
>>
>> What are those scales and for who was (s)elected to decide?
>
>Longer than a month, and physics.
>
Do I understand you to say physics decides what interests us?
The new priesthood in other words? No, I must misunderstand.
>> > it's totally a free variable. There's no significant
>> >forcing on it except the climate system itself, and it does not
>> >constitute a forcing in itself. It's a part of the system, just like
>> >the surface temperature is.
>> >
>
>> So total global water vapor is a well ascertained- measured
>> quantity albeit varying by locale, height etc? Then why call it
>> a "free variable" unless discussing weather? If, on the
>> otherhand, it is truly "free" then its forcings are not being
>> fully accounted for by merely anthropogenic CO2 (since those are
>> "known" per IPCC).
>
>Again, I cannot make sense of the question.
>
>
Simply: the meaning of free variable in these models is?.
...
>
snip
>
>No. Earth's climate definitely does not affect the sun. If it affects
>vulcanism it does so only very slightly.
>
Earth's climate affecting the sun?. Some humour at last..
>
>
>> > A unit of understanding
>> ??? Come again? What and how many units are there?
>> Distance learning redux?
>
>Are you discussing or just sniping?
>...
>
Ah, it was your pedogogic unit remember?.
>
snip
>
>> I note still again that no experimental data cites have been
>> offered for CO2 forcing and non of course for water vapor it being
>> a free variable and all.
>
>Oh please. Look into the remote sensing literature, if you don't mind.
>
That is the typical response here but not expected of you.
You have spent all this time on this thread so not to give such
cites is tatamount to admitting they do not exist.
Please give one cite or reference for experimental data directly
showing atmospheric CO2 mixing ratio changes and global
temperature changes. Or laboratory etc data of such..
If some remote sensing literature contain such CO2-temperature
data then cites for that please. I do not have access to all that
you obviously must have in your work but given such a reference
I will endeavor to secure same if publicly available. . Thank
you.
Should such data be available there is of course no question about
anthopogenic CO2's degree of causality and thus no need for debate
is there? Nor.probably for that matter more expensive IPCC etc.,
funding and that really seems to be the crux of the issue..
Otherwise the whole anthropogenic CO2 being a crisis for man and
Earth is merely question begging.
In a nutshell this page pretty well describes my questions.
http://web.mit.edu/cgcs/www/clouds.html
Again note as I said in my last post I have not once in this
thread questioned that CO2 is a determinant or water vapor a
reactive i.e., their roles or functions . For having gleaned those
terms' usage in this thread and expanded on that subject so much,
thank you. About which also see my post in reply to wmc's and my
last to you quoted above..
>You may have the last word, or you can go away for a few years and
>learn some science, in which case I'll be happy to continue the
>discussion
Common pedagogic false dilemma.
>
>mt
.
I do think I should halt.
w...@bas.ac.uk
H. Dziardziel <hdzi> wrote:
>That is shattering Scientific peer review, is here anyway,
>always claimed to be infallible if publication results.
No. You must have missed the Soon+Baliunas thread. PR is a good
thing, because it filters out a lot of rubbish. The better the
journal, the better the filtering. But occaisional rubbish gets
through.
Specialist journals re good at this. Its harder in multi-disciplinary
journals.
>Have you, directly to the author
>and the reviewers, communicated this opinion?
The reviewers are presumably anonymous and thus uncontactable.
w...@bas.ac.uk
An example to us all.
>The 3 days time constant as used intimated a period (cycle).
No.
>IPCC Tar-07 7.1 Introduction incomprehensibly states::
Section 7.1.1, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/263.htm
if anyone wants to read it.
>"Water vapour feedback.
>An increase in the temperature of the atmosphere increases its
>water-holding capacity; however, since most of the atmosphere is
>undersaturated, this does not automatically mean that water
>vapour, itself, must increase.....etc. "
Is this hard to understand? It means exactly and literally what it says.
David Ball
<alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>David Ball wrote;
>>> >> Your second is even worse. The changes in albedo do not have a
>>> >> direct influence on the atmospheric constituents of a given column of
>>> >> air. You cannot directly increase the amount of water vapour in a
>>> >> column simply by changing the reflectivity of the surface.
>
>I agree with what you wrote there, but I am thinking interms of a global
>model. If you change the albedo (globally) you will change the
>global temperature and (assuming a constant relative humididty
>which seems to be true empirically) then the water vapour in the
>atmosphere will increase. I do not need a reference for this as it
>is an accepted fact.
But you haven't shown a global change in albedo. What you're
assuming is that if you reduce the sea-ice in the arctic you change
the albedo, but you're completely neglecting processes affecting land
surfaces. You're also pretending that increased cloud cover - as we
are experiencing there today - will not have an impact, despite being
told by Eric Swanson that it does.
>
>> >> As for your comments on evaporation, once again you're being
>> >> very selective. Evaporation is a function of temperature and moisture
>> >> supply. If you freeze the water surface, choking off the moisture
>> >> supply, you don't get any more evaporation. The same thing happens on
>> >> land. You cannot pretend that evaporation processes are different over
>> >> the water. If you freeze the water surface, altering the albedo, you
>> >> can also freeze the land surface and adding snow to the latter also
>> >> changes the albedo.
>> >
>> >There is a difference between land and water. Compared with land,
>> > the supply of water vapour from the sea is infinite. This is important
>> >because as surface temperatures increase, the water in land evaporates
>> >and is blown away by winds turning the land to desert. In the case
>> >of the oceans, when more water is evaporated it adds to the water cycle.
>>
>> Only at it's most extreme and you haven't shown how we arrive
>> at that point. You've attempted to use the 6 basic ballet steps in
>> this little dance you're doing, but you keep leaving out important
>> parts of the process.
>
>Which important parts of the process?
You've completely neglected the cloud cover problem, something
that Eric pointed out to you. You're pretending that the land doesn't
exist. You haven't thought about the steps between changing the
sea-ice extent and increasing the water vapour in the column to see
what potential problems there might be.
>
>> All you've said is that the moisture supply is greater. You
>> haven't said a single thing about the PROCESS being different, yet an
>> integral part of your "theory" appears to be arrived at by selectively
>> ignoring parts of the process.
>
>What I am doing is highlighting the parts of the process which I
>believe are important in explaining abrupt climate change. No one
>has explained it yet. What I am saying is if you ignore things like
>musteq and concentate on two of the main drivers of climate, sea
>ice and water vapour, then it is easy to see what is happening.
You can't do that, Alistair! It would be like me trying to
understand severe thunderstorm development by ignoring the presence of
the Rocky Mountains. You cannot pretend that some things are not
important until you PROVE that they are unimportant.
We're seeing abrupt climate change taking place in the arctic
now. Cloud cover is a likely culprit, since it explains many of the
trends we're observing. Along the way, we're seeing COOLING during the
arctic summer. Not warming. Your theory has to account for
observation.
I didn't see any mention of sulphate aerosols. This is what I
mean about you being selective. You completely neglect the cooling
affects of atmospheric sulphates and pretend that the extensive body
of scholarship showing a link between the cooling in the middle part
of the century and aerosol emissions.
The majority of the land surface there is MUSKEG. We're not
talking about a patch of crab-grass in your lawn.
>
>> >> Temperatures do not mysteriously start to rise locally,
>> >> melting the snow and snow and ice. There is a shift in the long-wave
>> >> flow. Advection plays a key role in the process. Melting requires
>> >> energy, thus the air close to the surface remain close to the freezing
>> >> point, while the air farther aloft remains warmer. You have an
>> >> inverstion.
>> >
>> >Only at night nime. Beyond the Arctic circle there are periods with no
>> >night in the land of the midnight sun. Ever noticed how clear the
>> >skies are there?
>>
>> Bullshit. In the spring and even well into the summer - our
>> summer not their's - there is a strong inversion in place. When you
>> forecast for the arctic, there are basic things you learn very
>> quickly. This is one of them.
>> BTW, we're not talking about the dead of winter. In the land
>> of the midnight sun, you're lucky if you can see the sun, because
>> you've normally got 2000 feet of stratus over you. The high latitudes
>> are very cloudy.
>
>Thanks, some useful information at last. Are there any books which
>describe the Arctic weather and climate?
Alistair, don't you think you might have gotten some basic
information BEFORE you start theory-building?
But you just said that you were looking at it globally! Which
is it? You can't merely cherry-pick what seems good to you at the
moment and pretend that the rest don't matter.
<sigh>You're hand-waving is noted. You do realize that a
significant part of the planet's surface - 15 to 20% - is covered with
muskeg. That's not an insignificant amount, despite your hand-waving.
Alastair McDonald
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:4054...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> H. Dziardziel <hdzi> wrote:
> >On 12 Mar 2004 13:27:09 -0800, m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis)
> >>In which I doggedly try to stay on topic:
>
> An example to us all.
>
> >The 3 days time constant as used intimated a period (cycle).
>
> No.
>
> >IPCC Tar-07 7.1 Introduction incomprehensibly states::
>
> Section 7.1.1, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/263.htm
>
> if anyone wants to read it.
>
> >"Water vapour feedback.
> >An increase in the temperature of the atmosphere increases its
> >water-holding capacity; however, since most of the atmosphere is
> >undersaturated, this does not automatically mean that water
> >vapour, itself, must increase.....etc. "
>
> Is this hard to understand? It means exactly and literally what it says.
I find it hard to understand why if the temperature increases then
the atmosphere will become even more undersaturated. Let's
face it, the steady state is 100% saturation.
Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair McDonald
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:56:38 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
> <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >David Ball wrote;
> >>> >> Your second is even worse. The changes in albedo do not have a
> >>> >> direct influence on the atmospheric constituents of a given column of
> >>> >> air. You cannot directly increase the amount of water vapour in a
> >>> >> column simply by changing the reflectivity of the surface.
> >
> >I agree with what you wrote there, but I am thinking interms of a global
> >model. If you change the albedo (globally) you will change the
> >global temperature and (assuming a constant relative humididty
> >which seems to be true empirically) then the water vapour in the
> >atmosphere will increase. I do not need a reference for this as it
> >is an accepted fact.
>
> But you haven't shown a global change in albedo. What you're
> assuming is that if you reduce the sea-ice in the arctic you change
> the albedo, but you're completely neglecting processes affecting land
> surfaces. You're also pretending that increased cloud cover - as we
> are experiencing there today - will not have an impact, despite being
> told by Eric Swanson that it does.
Cloud is included in my model. It is very important, but you are obvioulsy
in no mood to consider the advanced ideas involved since you seem
incapable of agreeing even simple matters like that above; that change
in albedo does not directly affect the water vapour content of the sir
above.
> >Which important parts of the process?
>
> You've completely neglected the cloud cover problem, something
> that Eric pointed out to you. You're pretending that the land doesn't
> exist. You haven't thought about the steps between changing the
> sea-ice extent and increasing the water vapour in the column to see
> what potential problems there might be.
I'll explain about clud cover when you have calmed down a bit. I am
not pretending it does not exist. I am assuming that its effect will
not change in the short term.
> >> All you've said is that the moisture supply is greater. You
> >> haven't said a single thing about the PROCESS being different, yet an
> >> integral part of your "theory" appears to be arrived at by selectively
> >> ignoring parts of the process.
> >
> >What I am doing is highlighting the parts of the process which I
> >believe are important in explaining abrupt climate change. No one
> >has explained it yet. What I am saying is if you ignore things like
> >musteq and concentate on two of the main drivers of climate, sea
> >ice and water vapour, then it is easy to see what is happening.
>
> You can't do that, Alistair! It would be like me trying to
> understand severe thunderstorm development by ignoring the presence of
> the Rocky Mountains. You cannot pretend that some things are not
> important until you PROVE that they are unimportant.
You cannot prove an argument without stating first what you are going to
prove. To me, once the argument is stated it is self evident, but others
do not seem to find it obvious. So I am trying to assemble evidence
that they will find convincing. You will not even listen to the statement.
> We're seeing abrupt climate change taking place in the arctic
> now.
Abrupt climate change is a global (well hemispherical at least) phenomena.
It does not take palace in the Arctic only. What you are seeing is climate
change.
> Cloud cover is a likely culprit, since it explains many of the
> trends we're observing. Along the way, we're seeing COOLING during the
> arctic summer. Not warming. Your theory has to account for
> observation.
My theory does account for that. As I said clouds paly an important
part int it not least because they have a major influence on global albedo.
> >I was not trying to explain the desertification. I was explaining the
> >reason the US has not warmed as much as the rest of the world.
> >This has serious political implications because it has made the US
> >more reluctant to sign up to Kyoto, and so preventitive measures
> >againt global warming are being delayed until it is too late! But this
> >is way over your head.
No reply! As I thought way over your head.
> I didn't see any mention of sulphate aerosols. This is what I
> mean about you being selective. You completely neglect the cooling
> affects of atmospheric sulphates and pretend that the extensive body
> of scholarship showing a link between the cooling in the middle part
> of the century and aerosol emissions.
Sulphate aerosols were not involved in the abrupt clmate change at
the end of the Younger Dryas/ beginning of the Holocene on which
my model is based. We know that from the ice cores and more
obviously because 10,000 years age there was no industrialisation.
> >A patch of musteq in northern Canada does not matter when we are
> >talking about global climate. It may have an effect, but it is so trivial
> >it can be ignored.
>
> The majority of the land surface there is MUSKEG. We're not
> talking about a patch of crab-grass in your lawn.
You mean Canada is just one great bog?
> >> Bullshit. In the spring and even well into the summer - our
> >> summer not their's - there is a strong inversion in place. When you
> >> forecast for the arctic, there are basic things you learn very
> >> quickly. This is one of them.
> >> BTW, we're not talking about the dead of winter. In the land
> >> of the midnight sun, you're lucky if you can see the sun, because
> >> you've normally got 2000 feet of stratus over you. The high latitudes
> >> are very cloudy.
> >
> >Thanks, some useful information at last. Are there any books which
> >describe the Arctic weather and climate?
>
> Alistair, don't you think you might have gotten some basic
> information BEFORE you start theory-building?
And how am I supposed to know what is basic to my theory before
I construct it?
> >You are no doubt aware of the butterfly effect, where a butterfly
> >flapping its wings in Tokyo can initiate a hurricane in the Atlantic.
> >I cannot take into account every damn butterfly! I have to select the
> >parts of the system I think are important an see if I can explain
> >a phenomena with them.
>
> But you just said that you were looking at it globally! Which
> is it? You can't merely cherry-pick what seems good to you at the
> moment and pretend that the rest don't matter.
I can ignore all butterflies without cherry picking.
> <sigh>You're hand-waving is noted. You do realize that a
> significant part of the planet's surface - 15 to 20% - is covered with
> muskeg. That's not an insignificant amount, despite your hand-waving.
You are quite right! 70% of the Earth is covered with ocean so that
leaves only 10% for dry land. It is strange I have never come across
muskeg before.
Or do you mean peatlands which cover 13,470 km² or 16.2% of the
LAND surface, but did not exist during the Younger Dryas? But
that is interesting because their creation at the start of the Holocene
would also have increased global water vapour and added to the
positive feedback. Yeah you were right that time! Well done.
Cheers, Alastair.
w...@bas.ac.uk
><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:4054...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
>> H. Dziardziel <hdzi> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >"Water vapour feedback.
>> >An increase in the temperature of the atmosphere increases its
>> >water-holding capacity; however, since most of the atmosphere is
>> >undersaturated, this does not automatically mean that water
>> >vapour, itself, must increase.....etc. "
>>
>> Is this hard to understand? It means exactly and literally what it says.
>I find it hard to understand why if the temperature increases then
>the atmosphere will become even more undersaturated. Let's
>face it, the steady state is 100% saturation.
Firstly, IPCC correctly states that most of the atmosphere is
undersaturated. Secondly, IPCC isn't talking about the equilibrium
response: than what my delicate hint about exactly and literally was
about. I don't know what you mean by "steady state". If you mean
climatological state, you're wrong.
H. Dziardziel
>In which I too try to stay on topic, by changing the topic...
>
>H. Dziardziel <hdzi> wrote:
>
>>That is shattering Scientific peer review, is here anyway,
>>always claimed to be infallible if publication results.
>
>No. You must have missed the Soon+Baliunas thread. PR is a good
>thing, because it filters out a lot of rubbish. The better the
>journal, the better the filtering. But occaisional rubbish gets
>through.
>
Thank you but please note and now quoting you in the Danish review
thread it was:
"<sarcasm>"
>Specialist journals re good at this. Its harder in multi-disciplinary
>journals.
>
Obviously yet it was, shall we say easily, "picked apart" here?
That is an irony -- no direspect intended for the level of
expertise and fine people here. Being interdisciplinary and
science would thus, nearly by definition, demand enhanced
circumspection.
>>Have you, directly to the author
>>and the reviewers, communicated this opinion?
>
>The reviewers are presumably anonymous and thus uncontactable.
>
Well, to get things done one goes to the employer -- here the
journal. This topic seems to be of enough import to warrant
some review and at least debate here so why not bring it up there,
a scientific community cohort so to speak?
H. Dziardziel
<alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
My news ISP does not have your original post so using this one to
reply to both of you.:
>
><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:4054...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
>> H. Dziardziel <hdzi> wrote:
>> >On 12 Mar 2004 13:27:09 -0800, m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis)
>> >>In which I doggedly try to stay on topic:
>>
>> An example to us all.
>>
>> >The 3 days time constant as used intimated a period (cycle).
>>
>> No.
>>
>> >IPCC Tar-07 7.1 Introduction incomprehensibly states::
>>
>> Section 7.1.1, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/263.htm
>>
>> if anyone wants to read it.
>>
>> >"Water vapour feedback.
>> >An increase in the temperature of the atmosphere increases its
>> >water-holding capacity; however, since most of the atmosphere is
>> >undersaturated, this does not automatically mean that water
>> >vapour, itself, must increase.....etc. "
>>
>> Is this hard to understand? It means exactly and literally what it says.
>
Since I'm underfunded does not automatically mean my money must
increase. "Itself" means other saturants exist. Lots of
superflous verbiage (sic), nothing new in IPCC.
>I find it hard to understand why if the temperature increases then
>the atmosphere will become even more undersaturated. Let's
>face it, the steady state is 100% saturation.
>
Not here.
David Ball
<alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Advanced ideas? I'll be more than happy to entertain some of
those when you present them. So far, you've presented nothing
advanced. What you are really looking for is the opportunity to throw
out a poorly thought out idea and not have anyone point out the
problems with it. You're in the wrong forum for that.
>
>
>> >Which important parts of the process?
>>
>> You've completely neglected the cloud cover problem, something
>> that Eric pointed out to you. You're pretending that the land doesn't
>> exist. You haven't thought about the steps between changing the
>> sea-ice extent and increasing the water vapour in the column to see
>> what potential problems there might be.
>
>I'll explain about clud cover when you have calmed down a bit. I am
>not pretending it does not exist. I am assuming that its effect will
>not change in the short term.
ROTFL. You're clairvoyant now? You can tell someone's mood by
the written word? What colour are my eyes? You haven't addressed any
of the critical problems that have been raised. Instead, you've
pretended they don't exist.
For example, you melt sea-ice and alter the planetary albedo.
Of course, all that water now provides an excellent moisture source
for boundary layer cloud so we see extensive areas of cloud form,
which increases the planetary albedo again. Back to square one again.
How does your "model" address this? How does it address the problem of
reduced insolation during the summer?
>
>> >> All you've said is that the moisture supply is greater. You
>> >> haven't said a single thing about the PROCESS being different, yet an
>> >> integral part of your "theory" appears to be arrived at by selectively
>> >> ignoring parts of the process.
>> >
>> >What I am doing is highlighting the parts of the process which I
>> >believe are important in explaining abrupt climate change. No one
>> >has explained it yet. What I am saying is if you ignore things like
>> >musteq and concentate on two of the main drivers of climate, sea
>> >ice and water vapour, then it is easy to see what is happening.
>>
>> You can't do that, Alistair! It would be like me trying to
>> understand severe thunderstorm development by ignoring the presence of
>> the Rocky Mountains. You cannot pretend that some things are not
>> important until you PROVE that they are unimportant.
>
>You cannot prove an argument without stating first what you are going to
>prove. To me, once the argument is stated it is self evident, but others
>do not seem to find it obvious. So I am trying to assemble evidence
>that they will find convincing. You will not even listen to the statement.
You've said that, then proceeded to do a lot of hand-waving,
rested your hands on your hips and announced to the world that,
Voila!, you've found it. The problem is, you're standing in a phone
booth with a bag on your head and couldn't find your nose if your life
depended on it. Your argument is self-evident to you because you are
purposely neglecting any and all problems with it, either blatantly or
out of a thorough mis-understanding of how the atmosphere works.
>
>> We're seeing abrupt climate change taking place in the arctic
>> now.
>
>Abrupt climate change is a global (well hemispherical at least) phenomena.
>It does not take palace in the Arctic only. What you are seeing is climate
>change.
Gee, Alistair, you don't think the changes taking place are
happening fast enough? This from one of the most extreme guys in this
forum.
>
>> Cloud cover is a likely culprit, since it explains many of the
>> trends we're observing. Along the way, we're seeing COOLING during the
>> arctic summer. Not warming. Your theory has to account for
>> observation.
>
>My theory does account for that. As I said clouds paly an important
>part int it not least because they have a major influence on global albedo.
Please explain.
>
>> >I was not trying to explain the desertification. I was explaining the
>> >reason the US has not warmed as much as the rest of the world.
>> >This has serious political implications because it has made the US
>> >more reluctant to sign up to Kyoto, and so preventitive measures
>> >againt global warming are being delayed until it is too late! But this
>> >is way over your head.
>
>No reply! As I thought way over your head.
I'm not going to reply to something that fails the
straight-face test, Alistair. What do you want me to say? That your
point is idiotic? It is. Happy now?
>
>> I didn't see any mention of sulphate aerosols. This is what I
>> mean about you being selective. You completely neglect the cooling
>> affects of atmospheric sulphates and pretend that the extensive body
>> of scholarship showing a link between the cooling in the middle part
>> of the century and aerosol emissions.
>
>Sulphate aerosols were not involved in the abrupt clmate change at
>the end of the Younger Dryas/ beginning of the Holocene on which
>my model is based. We know that from the ice cores and more
>obviously because 10,000 years age there was no industrialisation.
We aren't talking about the Younger Dryas, Alistair. We're
talking about the great droughts of the 1930's and the so-called
dustbowl that they produced, a dustbowl that you laid squarely at the
feet of tillage and evaporation. While part of the problem, once again
you purposely neglect other factors, some equally important or more
important than evaporation, simply because they don't fit with your
pre-conceived notions.
>
>> >A patch of musteq in northern Canada does not matter when we are
>> >talking about global climate. It may have an effect, but it is so trivial
>> >it can be ignored.
>>
>> The majority of the land surface there is MUSKEG. We're not
>> talking about a patch of crab-grass in your lawn.
>
>You mean Canada is just one great bog?
For all intents and purposes, yes. Pull out an atlas and draw
a line from the MacKenzie Delta to western Great Bear Lake, western
Great Slave Lake, Lake Athabasca, Lake Winnipegosis and Manitoba and
west of the Great Lakes. Areas north and east of that line are dotted
with small lakes - and some sizeable ones - left over from the last
glaciation. As you go north you will find yourself in increasingly
boggy country - muskeg - with the water table very close to the
surface.
>
>> >> Bullshit. In the spring and even well into the summer - our
>> >> summer not their's - there is a strong inversion in place. When you
>> >> forecast for the arctic, there are basic things you learn very
>> >> quickly. This is one of them.
>> >> BTW, we're not talking about the dead of winter. In the land
>> >> of the midnight sun, you're lucky if you can see the sun, because
>> >> you've normally got 2000 feet of stratus over you. The high latitudes
>> >> are very cloudy.
>> >
>> >Thanks, some useful information at last. Are there any books which
>> >describe the Arctic weather and climate?
>>
>> Alistair, don't you think you might have gotten some basic
>> information BEFORE you start theory-building?
>
>And how am I supposed to know what is basic to my theory before
>I construct it?
Uh, Alistair, could you please explain to me how you have
arrived at a conclusion when you haven't considered the basics yet?
How can you possibly be making any statements about what your theory
means in the grand scheme of things, when you have left out or don't
understand basic elements that impact said theory?
>
>> >You are no doubt aware of the butterfly effect, where a butterfly
>> >flapping its wings in Tokyo can initiate a hurricane in the Atlantic.
>> >I cannot take into account every damn butterfly! I have to select the
>> >parts of the system I think are important an see if I can explain
>> >a phenomena with them.
>>
>> But you just said that you were looking at it globally! Which
>> is it? You can't merely cherry-pick what seems good to you at the
>> moment and pretend that the rest don't matter.
>
>I can ignore all butterflies without cherry picking.
You cannot ignore basic atmospheric processes, processes that
lie at the heart of all weather and climate. Even worse, you cannot
decide to look at certain processes in some areas and pretend that
they don't exist elsewhere.
>
>> <sigh>You're hand-waving is noted. You do realize that a
>> significant part of the planet's surface - 15 to 20% - is covered with
>> muskeg. That's not an insignificant amount, despite your hand-waving.
>
>You are quite right! 70% of the Earth is covered with ocean so that
>leaves only 10% for dry land. It is strange I have never come across
>muskeg before.
That's because you live in the UK and because you don't have
to forecast for the area.
>
>Or do you mean peatlands which cover 13,470 km² or 16.2% of the
>LAND surface, but did not exist during the Younger Dryas? But
>that is interesting because their creation at the start of the Holocene
>would also have increased global water vapour and added to the
>positive feedback. Yeah you were right that time! Well done.
>
Easy stomach....
Josh Halpern
H. Dziardziel wrote:
>On 14 Mar 2004 11:14:47 GMT, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>
>
>
>>In which I too try to stay on topic, by changing the topic...
>>
>>H. Dziardziel <hdzi> wrote:
>>
>>
SNIP...
>>
>>
>>The reviewers are presumably anonymous and thus uncontactable.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Well, to get things done one goes to the employer -- here the
>journal.
>
with reviewers you get what you pay for. Which is one of the problems.
josh halpern
w...@bas.ac.uk
>On 14 Mar 2004 11:14:47 GMT, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>>H. Dziardziel <hdzi> wrote:
>>
>>>That is shattering Scientific peer review, is here anyway,
>>>always claimed to be infallible if publication results.
>>
>>No. You must have missed the Soon+Baliunas thread. PR is a good
>>thing, because it filters out a lot of rubbish. The better the
>>journal, the better the filtering. But occaisional rubbish gets
>>through.
>Thank you but please note and now quoting you in the Danish review
>thread it was:
>"<sarcasm>"
>>Specialist journals re good at this. Its harder in multi-disciplinary
>>journals.
>Obviously yet it was, shall we say easily, "picked apart" here?
If you can't tell the difference between infallible and
"are good at" there's no hope for you.
>>>Have you, directly to the author
>>>and the reviewers, communicated this opinion?
>>
>>The reviewers are presumably anonymous and thus uncontactable.
>Well, to get things done one goes to the employer -- here the
>journal.
No. Journals don't pay reviewers.
Alastair McDonald
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:4054...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> Alastair McDonald <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> ><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:4054...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> >> H. Dziardziel <hdzi> wrote:
> >>
> >> Section 7.1.1, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/263.htm
> >>
> >> >"Water vapour feedback.
> >> >An increase in the temperature of the atmosphere increases its
> >> >water-holding capacity; however, since most of the atmosphere is
> >> >undersaturated, this does not automatically mean that water
> >> >vapour, itself, must increase.....etc. "
> >>
> >> Is this hard to understand? It means exactly and literally what it says.
>
> >I find it hard to understand why if the temperature increases then
> >the atmosphere will become even more undersaturated. Let's
> >face it, the steady state is 100% saturation.
>
> Firstly, IPCC correctly states that most of the atmosphere is
> undersaturated. Secondly, IPCC isn't talking about the equilibrium
> response: than what my delicate hint about exactly and literally was
> about. I don't know what you mean by "steady state". If you mean
> climatological state, you're wrong.
Obviously you realise I do not mean climatological state. I mean
in the case of plentiful water, the overly air will reach a steady
state of 100% saturation.
Is there some obvious reason why if the temperature should rise
the % saturation should drop? Or is it just optimism?
Cheeers, Alastair.
H. Dziardziel
>
snip
>>>Specialist journals re good at this. Its harder in multi-disciplinary
>>>journals.
>
>>Obviously yet it was, shall we say easily, "picked apart" here?
>
>If you can't tell the difference between infallible and
>"are good at" there's no hope for you.
>
Got me with me <tags> off although intrigued that "..it's
harder....->... but easily picked apart here" needs any. I
really am without hope.
>
snip
>>Well, to get things done one goes to the employer -- here the
>>journal.
>
>No. Journals don't pay reviewers.
>
It was a poor metaphor or at least an analogy drawn on business
and even humdrum life practice as the phrase "well, to get things
done" was to have hinted at . I guess I have to explain that the
meaning of employer was not the for hire common literal usage.
Please check Josh Halpern's post..