Climate-gate

to aqueousID I'll try again to get you to understand what I said, with a simplified "cube model" of the earth. The cube's volume is the same as the earth's and is also orbiting one AU from the sun and making a 360 rotation each year (keeps same face turned towards the sun).

There is a thick only N2 and O2 atmosphere around the cube and the cube has infinite thermal conductivity (all 6 sides always at same temperature, T, which is initially the same temperature of the air contacting its surface), but the cube does have finite, non-zero, heat capacity. The air too has heat capacity but much less than the cube, yet the air layer around the cube is so thick that thermal conduction thru this thick, essentially transparent, air can be essentially ignored compare to the IR radiation to deep space. Also all convection can be ignored too as the thermal gradient to the distant top of the atmosphere is very small). I. e. like the real earth, the cube keeps cool by IR radiation to space.

This air/ cube system is in dynamic equilibrium with a flux of sunlight completely absorbed on one of its six perfectly black sides. I.e. at any point in the system the temperature is unchanging but does very very slowly decreases as the distance thru the air from the cube increases. (This is just the normal adiabatic expansion cooling, but the "lapse rate" is much less than the real earth's as the pressure at any altitude is much higher. I ignore UV heating / production of ozone, etc. to keep model simple.)

Now, by magic at t = 0, the N2, O2 air instantly undergo a chemical change making 1% of the nitrogen and oxygen into NO, a GHG. This disturbs the dynamic thermal equilibrium but I don't like magic so instead postulate something unforeseen happens in the sun to make exactly the same thermal disturbance at t = 0. Take your pick - it makes no difference to the fact the dynamic equilibrium is destroyed. The surface temperature of the cube begins to rise and the adjacent air in contact with the surface does too, making a slight, but still insignificant increase in the thermal gradient with altitude.

After one year, at t = 1, the cube and the air near its surface are at temperature T1 > T and the extra (compared to that being absorbed up until t = 0) energy that is then being received and absorbed by the air/cube system is half being "stored" in their heat capacities (mainly the cube's as it is much larger) but half is then at t = 1 increasing their average kinetic energies (i.e. raising their temperature). The temperature will keep raising for 49 years more until a new dynamic equilibrium is established at temperature Tf > T1. (f is for "final") I. e. when t = 50 all of the now larger (than when t < 0) net absorbed energy is again being IR radiated away to space. The "storage" of 50% of the extra energy in the system's heat capacity, as was the case when t = 1, has completely ceased. The cube temperature remains at Tf.

Just like I said in my post, that in 40 to 50 years the 50% storage of the extra net energy being absorbed / retained in 2014 by earth, due to more CO2 and other GHG than years ago, by the oceans would ease.

Do you understand the point I have been making now?

I. e. in about 45 years the heating of the air by already now greater net energy being absorbed (but 50% NOW is being stored in the ocean) will be like a 100% increase in the net solar energy being absorbed even if CO2 and other GHG concentration do not change as then that "storage" of 50% of the current net absorbed energy ceases.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was pretty clear right until you started talking about storage.

I think it would help if you try to explain how the rate of heating the air changes as ocean surface temp rises. Given that insolation is relatively constant (esp averaged over the geoid per annum) then whatever the trend is (ignoring all feedbacks, anomalies, etc) why should that function ever change? If one extra Joule falls on every square km tomorrow as compared to today, then both the air and the water just get a little hotter.

If I charge a battery, the cycle ends when the electrode potential crosses the set point. But there is no setpoint for water - at least not til it boils. So it never really reaches 100% of capacity.

I think the place where you lost me was this 50% and 100% of capacity. Surely you don't mean the oceans will boil. So the capacity for liquid water to absorb energy continues until it vaporizes. And then, as you well know, it still has capacity.

So that's where you lost me.

Does the storage battery analogy work here? Because I can't visualize the circuit that models what you are saying.

Let me try it this way: the average ocean surface temp should (in an idealized model) rise monotonically until the next catastrophe that initiates the next glaciation. Do you agree? Then if so, the oceans never reach 100% of capacity. That is, as long as the water temp is rising they are absorbing energy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(1)You will note I put the word storage in quotes first time I used that word. As I have discussed before and again now answering (7) out of turn: This "storage" is not the normal use / meaning of that word. Normal meaning is to put something that could be used now into storage for later use. Like energy into a car battery or grain into a silo. That is not what will happen with the energy making the average gram of ocean warmer - That average gram, baring the coming of some ice age, will NEVER BECOME COOLER. That heat, on average, will never be taken from that "storage" as energy will be taken from a battery or grain from a silo. Yes some energy will come from the ocean, especially when a warm mass of water like the Gulf stream moves under colder air, but despite this the ocean as a whole is only gaining thermal energy with time, now and for hundreds of years. Perhaps "hidden" would be a better term than storage - like when a forgetful squirrel buries an acorn.

(2) That is too hard for me as I'm not sure but think on average the air heats the ocean surface, not the other way round. The winds keep the top layers (50 meters thick?) quite well mixed and compared to the air that layer has much more heat capacity. Some water vapor (in net I think) is entering the air,making this a vey complex question; especially with many microscopic but large compared to photons, opaque absorbing particles in the air, and its much lower heat capacity. So, I think on average, the air heats the ocean; but don't dare discuss this as not sure, especially as water vapor is coming off the ocean surface and some of it condenses in the air, possibly as microscopic drops that have very small "terminal velocity" -essentially don't fall.

Here in Sao Paulo which is 1000 feet higher than the sea, moist but not saturated air leaves the ocean and climbs than hill, cooling adiabatically as it does so. It is quite common for the air to be filled with these microscopic to just barely visible tiny drops. These tiny drops, called "garoa," don't noticeably fall. You can sense them, but don't get wet as body heat in the layer of air near skin converts them back into vapor again.

SUMMARY OF (2): I'll pass - not try to explain this very complex thermal exchange system - not even sure which way the net transfer of heat between air and sea averaged over the globe, and the four season even goes. I would welcome comments by some one brave (or foolish) enough to try; however, I "lean to" POV that the net heat transfer is into the ocean.
(3) Not sure what "function" you speak of. Will reply after you clarify.
(4) True.
(5) True.
(6) Yes the ocean's heat capacity is huge and if it even gets close to shrinking in volume by evaporation all mammals(man included) are extinct (assuming none have moved to another planet). BTW, H2O vapor's heat capacity is half that of water. which is still larger than many other materials (most all of the non-polar gases like CO2, I think but too lazy to check.)

Now on the 50% vs.100% I think a quasi-numerical example will help you understand: Lets assume (correctly) that earth is not now in dynamic thermal equilibrium. I. e. Total annual net energy is being added to earth by the sun. Solar absorption is greater than IR radiation by "2X." What I was in part saying and think you understand and agree is that currently X of that is being "hidden" in the ocean - not yet sensed on the land and X is being sensed on the land, in various ways in addition to temperature rise. For example melting Arctic ice and permafrost and driven photo-synthetic production of molecules like the sugar in my beloved sugar cane case.

That X being "hidden" in the ocean does have effects too. Mainly increasing the average temperature, but perhaps some increase in kinetic energy of flows (very small fraction of X if any at all.) I.e. as I discussed in my "Cube Earth" model, eventually in something like 45 years, if GHG remain at current concentration (they will increase I fear) the average temperature of the cube (representing the earth) will cease to rise as at the higher temperature, the six black sides of it will radiate IR (less what they conduct to the surface air) at the same rate as the sun's 2X / year delivery of energy. I. e the cube is then at constant temperature I called T2 in the prior "cube model" post. Now at constant temperature the cube's heat capacity, while still great, is not being used to hide any of the 2X energy.

I.e. In ~45 years the full 2X will be available at surface of cube to sustain the air surface air temperate at T2 also. That is 100% more than only the X that was available when (in 2014) cube was at temperature T1 and X joules per year were being hidden (in the cube /ocean).

In ~2059, the higher atmosphere temperature T2 at the cube surface, with 1% NO air content in my cube model will needed to make a higher vertical thermal gradient to move some of, if not all of, the 2X up to the top of the atmosphere. (Actually moves it just to near that top - delivering the 2X to the optically thick top layer which is radiating 2X annually into space.) That top radiating layer will be hotter than it was in 2014, but less than T2. (A larger thermal gradient from the surface in 2059 delivering by conduction* part of 2X of energy up to the top (optical thick) layers which are radiating 2X of IR energy each year. Back in 2014 a smaller gradient delivered (aidded by some ground radiation "biased random walking" in net upward) only X to the top radiating layer as X was being hidden in the cube/ ocean's heat capacity.

Note I have switched to "hidden" in stead of stored - that makes what is happening more clear, I think.
* I continue to ignore convection as the atmosphere was assumed to be much thicker than earth's with much smaller "lapse rate" in the high pressure near surface regions. No point in complicating the model as that just confuses the point being made.

(7) Discussed earlier with (1)
(8) Yes, I agree and true.
(9) Here you miss my point. The cube (or ocean) temperature will NOT continue to raise once a new dynamic equilibrium is reached at temperature T2. Fact that the ocean still has great "unused" heat capacity is irrelevant.

Yes the ocean continues to absorbs solar energy, more than X as oceans cover more than half the earth, but if the ocean's net absorption is Y > X then the air & land are absorbing 2X-Y, and the oceans plus the land (total surface of earth) is send in up via radiation and conduction 2X Joules annually for the top IR opaque layers of the thick atmosphere to radiate the full 2X away to space each year.

I fear, am almost certain that man will go extinct* before a new dynamic equilibrium is established. I. e. not predicting one will be establish, but it will seem like one for a million or so years as the ocean boil and escape into space. Not certain that will happen but also not certain the earth will have liquid water anywhere on the surface if we have already (or soon) do trigger thermal run away to surface temperature T3 >> 100C but a new dynamic equilibrium (well almost, the temperature will, I think very slowly decline to T3' still greater than 100C as chemical processes "tie-up" CO2 in carbonate compounds. (I'm no chemist perhaps prolonged T >> 100C will actually decompose, rather than make these compounds but the high pressure steam at the surface should help drive CO2 gas into compounds. I forget, just now, whose laws I am evoking.

* As to the date, I would put my bet on ~2090 but I will be long dead before that as am already old and hence could not collect for two reasons.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/11/1...e-models-truer-simulation-of-extreme-weather/

For some reason it never occurred to me that higher horizontal resolution would improve especially the handling of mountains and their influences. Obvious once noticed, but I've been following this stuff for years without noticing the mountain issue - clouds, yeah, that's been front and center; mountains, not so much - and I live one week downstream, on average, from the weather generated in the southern Canadian Rockies.

 

WOW
So, this makes twice?
Don't slow down now, you may be on a roll

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Meanwhile:
Last night, President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping jointly announced crucial new actions to protect our climate. And because of American leadership, China is making critical new commitments.

Building on the progress we've already made, the U.S. will set a new target of cutting our net greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. And President Xi announced new plans to increase the share of renewable energy and nuclear power that China uses to roughly 20% by 2030 -- up from only 8% in 2009 -- and, for the first time, set a target for when China will max out its carbon emissions.

The U.S. and China together account for more than a third of global greenhouse gas emissions -- so together, we have an especially important role to play in fighting climate change.
... http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014...m_content=email390-text1&utm_campaign=climate

 

i don't know if the following has been presented but here's another link in this continuing saga:
www.ratical.org/ratville/bioticFeedbacks.html

 

When you wake up you set you watch right? You gonna set your watch to 9 million years ago? Ten years ago, before all the good graphics, they could barely tell us what was gonna happen next week. "Tomorrow might be rain...."

 

Mostly old, but here is some new of interest, especially in view of today's worst ever recorded snow fall in and near Buffalo.
Quoting from your decade old link:
" Consequences have included dry wells, landlocked docks, obstacle courses for commercial shipping and pleasure boaters, and smelly drinking water in some areas. Many docks have become useless, while emergency dredging has been required for others. At the same time, the temperature of lakes water has been climbing. During 2000, Buffalo, New York reported that its harbor's water temperature at the end of March had equaled the record warmest (39 degrees F.) set in 1998. ... water levels in the Great Lakes are expected to drop five feet by century's end. By the year 2000, Lakes Eire, Michigan, Huron had dropped three feet in three years, while Lakes Superior and Ontario were down about eighteen inches during the same period. "

Smaller water mass to heat with global warming made for more evaporation in this 2014 fall. Then to this mix add a greater wander of the jet stream bringing cold air down to convert the moist air into snow, and what do get:

6 feet of "lake effect" snow in 24 hours but "you ain't seen nothing yet," if my "why" is correct.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming - Rising Tides, Rising Temperatures: Global Warming Effects on the Oceans - On Tuesday, April 29, 2008, Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing examining the impact global warming is having on the earth's oceans and ecosystems.
https://archive.org/details/gov.house.sgw.20080429

https://archive.org/details/gov.house.hbs.hrs03GLobalWarming_2123_100810

 

Although more than 6 years old it is still valuable to watch. An obvious point, but one I had not noticed, was made: Geoengineering with orbiting sun shades or more aerosols to slow warming is not enough (even if it could do that) as Ocean acidification would continue with its current accelerating pace. 70% of the Earth would still be fatally damaged and it is highly unlikely that terrestrial life could long survive with a sterile ocean.

The four women experts did not mention, but I believe that most of the oxygen we breath comes for ocean photo-synthetic micro-organisms, some of which live inside coral and are already decreasing significantly in numbers. If not true now, it soon will be as we cut down and burn the forests. Long term - in distant future, life on Earth with sterile oceans will be robots that don't need O2, in fact think it is a toxic gas. We are preparing an Earth that is healthy for them!

~50 years ago, I read Das Kapital in the original - only thing I clearly remember still was Marx's definition of a "capitalist" - "A man who will sell you the rope with which to hang him." For profits, we are preparing an Earth healthy for robots. Somewhere in the vast universe there may be highly intelligent life - but not on Earth.

 

although more than 6 years old?
when you are talking climate, you can be easily talking about valid data 50 or even 100 years old.

 

It was the POV's expressed, not the climate data, I referred to.

 

the point i was trying to make is that "old" weather data is very relevant in climate studies.
finding reliable data is just as important.

edit:
ratical.org/co-globalize/EnvWarfare.html
ratical.org/ratville/glblWarming.html
ratical.org/ratville/GWessenFacts.html

 

I agree. What I noted was that their 6+ year old concerns were well stated and with more understanding than many more recently stated, so it was worth your time to listen to these four ladies (two with Ph.D. in closely related sciences and about 40 years of observational research. - One has spent so much time below the ocean surface that she is referred to as "Dr. Deep" ) I made no comments about their data.

I looked at your first and third links. The first (by single economics professor) is poor. HAARP he is concerned with is a military weapon beaming RF skyward to reflect on ionospheres and over heat the "enemy," change his weather, etc. It will have greater thermal effect where that beam is generated.

The third link is quite good.

 

"inaccuracy"; "limitations"; "our ability (or lack there-of)" You're getting warmer.

 

Indeed; we all are.