Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 06:54am PT
|
NOAA has updated their global ocean heat and salt content datasets. Through the first half of 2014, heat content to 700 and 2,000 meters is running well above any previous year in the record. Before 2014, the second-warmest year was 2013. Before that, the third-warmest year was 2012. Fourth-warmest 2011.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 08:28am PT
|
Hmmm....what am I missing here?
The same as always. The understanding and difference between past, present and future and especially the difference between future possibilities and what happens today.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 10:27am PT
|
Well Ed, I think we are all aware of the purported values of the so called solar constant after your repeated posts (now erased in a childish fit) . To reiterate, TOA average of 1363 +/-2 wm2 and 342 approx. Wm2 at surface. Now what these values erroneously assume is the range of the so called constant and the effects of the much higher variations in the spectrum. For instance, short wave penetrates deeper into the oceanic heat sink than long wave and the value of some spectrums of sw (uv) varies on the order of 15% plus. Makes a big difference if the energy is being stored in the subsurface ocean or immediately released into the atmosphere. Additionally solar magnetism varies greatly, which has effects in the range of cloud formation increasing/decreasing planetary albedo and insolation reaching the surface. As you guys are well aware, but will not admit is the late twentieth century constituted a grand maximum prolonged period of solar activity wherein we recieved higher insolation values with less cloudiness. We are now at the beginning of a prolonged period of lower solar output with the magnetic field shielding weakened and more cloudiness. The Trenberth, and many other earth energy budgets will be badly in need of modification as we get deeper into this period.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 11:44am PT
|
so the TSI Total Solar Irradiance that falls on the Earth depends on the distance that the Earth is away from the Sun. Since that varies during the year, the TSI also varies over the year.
For the last 12 years the TSI has been measured by satellite, the plot below has a measurement taken every 6 hours (the gaps are due to lost data).
You can see that the annual change in the Earth-Sun distance is the major variation of the solar irradiance.
The red lines show the maximum and minimum TSI as reconstructed back to 1610. These are averages of course (and don't show the annual variation), but they include the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age. While these are "major" climatic changes, you can see that they are small compared to the annual TSI variation.
you can download the data from this URL:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/six_hourly/sorce_tsi_L3_c06h_latest.txt
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
लघिमा
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 12:10pm PT
|
Hey Larry, in case you missed it, there was a interesting article in the Daily Camera regarding the air quality for us mountain dwelling front rangers.
Ozone in Colorado mountains surprises researchers
Ozone in Colorado mountains surprises researchers
DENVER (AP) — Researchers who examined air pollution along northern Colorado's Front Range said they were surprised by how much harmful ozone and ozone-causing chemicals are drifting into the mountains from urban and rural areas below.
"Really, all the way up to the Continental Divide you can find ozone," said Gabriele Pfister, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and one of the principal investigators on the project.
"People (are) thinking you go into the mountains and you breathe the fresh air — that's not always the case," she said in an interview Wednesday.
Researchers gathered data from aircraft, balloons and ground stations from the south Denver area to Fort Collins, about 60 miles to the north. The aircraft flights started in mid-July and ran until Aug. 18.
The scientists stressed they were in the very early stages of reviewing the data and were hesitant to offer many specifics.
Ozone can worsen breathing problems and damage crops and other vegetation. Oil and gas production, traffic, power plants and agriculture are among the major sources of chemicals that combine to create ozone when subjected to sunlight.
The Denver area sometimes exceeds federal standards for ozone, and the new data is expected to help lawmakers and regulators make decisions about bringing levels down.
Researchers said ozone and ozone-causing chemicals were pushed into the mountain air from lower elevations by wind and temperature-driven air movement.
Ozone was found in Rocky Mountain National Park about 60 miles northwest of Denver, said James Crawford, a research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, and principal investigator for the space agency's part of the project.
"We view Rocky Mountain National Park as a refuge, and to learn there are days when it's not as safe as we think of it as, it's something people should know," Crawford said.
In some cases, the ozone levels in the mountains were similar to or greater than levels at lower elevations, said Frank Flocke, another NCAR scientist and a principal investigator.
Some ozone that is created at lower elevations filters to the ground or is diluted as air movement carries it into the mountains, but the precursors continue to produce more ozone as they rise, he said.
Aircraft detected ozone and precursors at 16,500 feet, Flocke said, more than 11,000 feet above Denver and more than 2,000 feet above Longs Peak, the highest point in the northern Rockies.
The consequences of mountain ozone still have to be examined and quantified, Pfister said. Flocke said ozone would have the same harmful effects in the mountains that it has at lower elevations.
The broader ramifications of the discovery are not yet clear. Two scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency didn't immediately return phone calls.
The researchers said they were fortunate to have both high- and low-ozone days during the study period.
"If it's dirty every day, you can't really get at it," Crawford said. "You want to look at a clean day versus a dirty day."
They expect to begin making their data public by the end of the year. They have so much that it will support years of research, Pfister said.
"I think it is a little bit overwhelming in a way, in a good way," she said.
Federal and state scientists and researchers from a dozen universities are participating in the research project.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 12:20pm PT
|
Thanks, Eric, I hadn't seen that. Not good news but I guess not totally surprising. The visible particulates are a different indicator, but one of my earliest "environmental" recollections is noticing, while I was growing up west of Denver, how the city's brown cloud expanded westward to reach the foothills, then into the mountains. What had been common became more and more unusual: a sharp horizon to the east.
A share of the Front Range pollution these days must be generated by local traffic too, I suppose.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 12:25pm PT
|
rick's average: "of 1363 +/-2 wm2" is different from the plot I provided.
First, his "variation" of +/- 2 W/m^2 is the magnitude of the annual shift.. you can see that the data themselves are not varying randomly by +/- 2 W/m^2, the stated uncertainty of the data is given as less than 0.5 W/m^2 total, there are different parts of that uncertainty and I'm sure we'll get into it.
Also, the "average" value is different than for the plots I provided... so they may be calculated differently. The average for the data is 1358.8 W/m^2, this is 4 W/m^2 lower than rick's value.
Is this a significant difference or insignificant?
If you take rick's "uncertainty" of 2 W/m^2, then it is a 2 standard deviation departure, usually that wouldn't be such a big deal... so I'd conclude from rick's contribution that the difference between the two average values, rick's and the SORCE data, that there isn't much of a difference.
The uncertainty values for each point of the SORCE data is 0.5 W/m^2, and there are of order 16,000 points in that plot... what would be the combined uncertainty on the average of all those points?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 12:29pm PT
|
Dead trees in the San Gabriels at what ele from smog - 2000-4000 foot range?
when I would sortie up into the San Gabriels, the foothills just a mile or so north of where I grew up in Claremont, CA. you could quickly get to the altitude of the inversion, and spy across it, blue sky above, smog below.
Those were the bad old days in the LA Basin... much worse than today, but even in the late 1960's and early 1970s you would see dead trees, I presumed them to be from the smog too (though I have no idea whether or not that was true).
Big brown "clouds" would blow up over those hills, the whole time.
As far as I could see, no one else in the area took those hikes... wonderful hikes close by to get a perspective on what we humans were doing in the basin...
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 12:44pm PT
|
Okay. Once again the often trotted out near constancy of the TOTAL Solar Irradiance. The variation from the mean is in dispute from some quarters. But more importantly TSI doesn't differentiate in the much larger swings in individual spectrums making up the whole nor does it represent swings in the suns magnetic field , solar wind, proton density etc. etc. The devil is in the details of how the individual spectrums affect ocean and land mass heating, effects on biota and aerosol release, magnetic field effects on cloud nucleation and resultant albedo changes. None of this is represented in Ed's bland looking cherry pie graph.
Yes you city rat boy's and girls are making a mess of your local skies to the point that it is having visible consequences out in rural gods country. Quit your incessant and selfish driving and energy hog recreational pursuits. We regularly get haze in south central AK from chinese mega cities as well as siberian Fires and dust from the gobi desert.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 12:46pm PT
|
As far as I could see, no one else in the area took those hikes... wonderful hikes close by to get a perspective on what we humans were doing in the basin...
I suspect that most longtime climbers, obviously not all of them, have their own versions of this perspective. Another vivid image for me was the neoplasmic expansion of Las Vegas until it laps against the Red Rocks, over the decades I've been climbing there.
Back to Ed's perspective, I'm even surprised that anyone who has ever taken the window seat on a plane flight could not see how much humans are anti-terraforming the planet.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 02:11pm PT
|
Okay. Once again the often trotted out near constancy of the TOTAL Solar Irradiance. The variation from the mean is in dispute from some quarters.
rick you (and dave729 recently) have been talking about the Sun...
the TSI has two pieces in it, one is the constancy of the Sun (which is really very constant) the other is the amount of energy per unit time per unit area falling on the Earth, which depends on how close the Earth is to the Sun.
What that plot shows is that the variations due to the elliptical orbit dwarfs those other variations.
rick's figure of +/- 2 W/m^2 is not the correct measure of the constancy of the Solar output.
This is important because the light from the Sun is the major energy input to the Earth. So when you are talking about "energy balance" you've got to start with what you know about the source term.
Now, no one has answered the question, if we take an uncertainty of 0.5 W/m^2 for each of the 16000 points in that plot, how much would you expect the average value of all those points to vary? what is the uncertainty on the average value of all those points?
Dig deep guys... I see that Sketch isn't playing... he usually doesn't when he can't see what's coming... fears a trap that one does...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 03:37pm PT
|
so you want to talk about accuracy, Sketch but you can't calculate the variance on a mean?
you're not going to get very far...
so, I know rick is trying very hard to figure it out, how about you? do you have any idea what that variance is?
let me restate it:
assume you have 16000 measurements each with 0.5 W/m^2 uncertainty.
What will the estimated uncertainty be on the average of those 16000 measurements?
there is a totally straight forward way to answer that question, and there are a number of very good questions pertaining to the answer of that question... but it is elementary statistics. I might have poor judgment, but my guess is that you, and even rick can calculate an answer.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 03:48pm PT
|
Sketch has made good progress in climate science understanding since he first proclaimed that the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere was so tiny that it couldn't possibly be a problem.
Keep up the good progress, Sketch.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 04:33pm PT
|
wow you guys, it isn't that hard to figure out...
maybe if you asked Chiloe nicely he'd show you how to do it...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 29, 2014 - 05:32pm PT
|
so you want to talk about accuracy, Sketch ...
I do?
Yes, Mr. Smartypants. You do.
Or is your old age preventing you from remembering the post you made, a couple of times:
Sketch
Aug 26, 2014 - 02:22pm PT
Everyone agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy.
It could be large
It could be small.
We don’t know.
... but you can't calculate the variance on a mean?
I can't?
Well, maybe you can. But you have yet to show us that you are indeed capable. How about it?
In your favor, however, you have show how capable you are of being condescending. And we know, from your own definition, what folks think of that.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 29, 2014 - 05:50pm PT
|
Adults who can't comprehend the following quote, which is written in English that even a high-school grad should understand, look to have an underwhelming mental capacity:
Damage to Pine Trees Ozone transport to rural Western forests have also been associated with damage to pine trees. Ozone concentrations as low as 60 ppb can cause injury to foliage, a decrease in growth, and lead to increased tree mortality and changes in ecosystem composition...
Studies conducted by the NPS show trends in ozone have been increasing in most national parks from 1993 to 2002. Ozone levels in parks are higher, in some cases, than levels in urban areas during similar ozone events. All parks have shown some degree of injury to foliage of sensitive species including aspens and ponderosa pines. When ponderosa pines are exposed to severe ozone they may only retain needles for a single year as opposed to up to five years for a healthy pine...
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 05:56pm PT
|
Look Ed, from the top of my head the figure of 1363wm2 mean might have been off a tiny bit but the variation of mean in reconstructions using the Sorce data absolutely show a variation of 2 or more wm2. Look it up. I couldn't care less about your sixteen thousand points of b.s. as im not in some classroom of yours. You guys on the catastrophe side are continually arguing the supremacy of co2 as the control knob of earths climate change and also seek to further the notion that airborne CO2 has reached unprecedented levels as the result of human activities. Both of these notions are baseless alarmism. CO2 levels have been much higher in the relatively recent past without demonstrable control on the earths climate system and the Idea of the solar constant is a fallacy, particularly when a breakdown of the myriad of components in TSI is analysed. You and your freinds here are dead wrong, the real control knob has always been and will continue to be old Sol. There is a lot of solar research being done and the major researchers are finding there is much more to be discovered about Sol and its planetary system effects than is currently known.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 06:34pm PT
|
You and your freinds here are dead wrong, the real control knob has always been and will continue to be old Sol.
I'm showing you the major energy input, the TSI, and the variance of the mean?
divide 0.5 W/m^2 by the square root of 1600 and you get 0.004 W/m^2
now we have a problem, rick our disagreement is something like 1000 times the expected variance of the mean...
now old Sketch has been talking about accuracy... we see that the mean from the SORCE data is very precisely measured, but the difference from one statement of the mean to another statement of the mean differs by an amount large compared to that precision.
the natural variation, due to the quite predictable change in the Earth-Sun distance can be characterized by the +/- 32 W/m^2, the variance of the measurements.
This is a 2.35%, there is a 7% swing, 93 W/m^2 between the maximum and the minimum TSI for a year. Totally predictable, and much larger than anything rick is talking about in terms of irradiance. All from the Earth orbiting the Sun, and effects in the changing energy input annually that are larger compared to the small shifts in the solar average.
So rick, how large do you think the irradiance is in the ultra-violet component of the solar radiation?
but the variation of mean in reconstructions using the Sorce data absolutely show a variation of 2 or more wm2.
perhaps you misunderstood what you were reading, maybe you could give me a link to where I should "look it up." I've down loaded the data and I'm looking at the measurement uncertainty that is in the data file from the SORCE web site.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 08:38pm PT
|
Yes we are all aware of the TSI variation due to oliquity of orbit and axial tilt. Perhaps you should also add the 100% variation of TSI between day and night at the equator. What I'm talking about is the variation of mean during the long term cycles like the Seuss, Devries, and Eddy cycle. Look Ed, im not going to be drawn Into another is ism debate over legitamacy or non legitamacy of diverging interpretations.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|