Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 09:35pm PT
|
So that's, No, an increase in heat content/temperature is not warming? No, the oceans are not part of planet Earth? No to all of the yes/no questions?
To me, 0 to 2000 meters means a distance somewhere between 0 and 2000 meters, seems simple enough.
Let's stick with the subject at hand and not try to divert onto something else. The subject is the ocean data from 1955 to (nearly) the present. That's what the blog is about. I totally agree it would be great to have a million times as many ocean sensors, and to have continuously logged data since the end of the last Ice Age. But we don't. If the only response to the observational data we have is, what about this or that other relevant or irrelevant thing that we don't know, well, we'll never, ever, make much progress.
Back to the point, can you refer me to where in the blog you linked there is an explanation of why the writer can categorically state that CO2 has nothing to do with the ocean warming since 1995? Can you provide a source of a definition of unusual that accommodates as big of a change as the writer shows in his own figures not being unusual? when the data stayed pretty much the same for the previous 40 years?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 09:51pm PT
|
As herr Maestro senor Ed just pointed out, the energy coming from the sun is many orders of magnitude greater than that radiated from Earth. That would apply also to the measly proportion radiated downwards from the trace GHg du jour - the great scary and exceedingly scarce CO2. The period discussed, 1956-to present coincides with a grand maximum of solar activity and the variation in long cycles is as large as 2wm2. But we wouldn't be able to rule that in or out yet since the only period of direct unfettered satellite observations also coincided with the grand maximum.I guess we'll just have to hang on for the prolonged minimum predicted for the lull between solar cycles 24/25 for validation. Hold onto your hats, the ride downwards could be much wilder than the benign recent warming.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 10:12pm PT
|
Just to keep a bit of perspective on the magnitudes of these factors, you're saying the total amplitude of the solar variation is 2 W/m2? For completeness, let's allow that other sources differ, and state it is lower, but for the present simple purpose, we'll use your 2 W. How big of a change is that out of the total 340 W or so? My calculator - an approved source of B.S. :-) - says that's about 0.6 percent change (maximum, over what, centuries? millenia?). And how about that elusive gas CO2? Why, that has increased from about 315 ppm to almost 400 ppm in about 50 years, which that pesky calculator says is an increase of about 27 percent.
If I'm looking at my receipts from invoices that got paid, and they went up by 0.6 percent, but my expenses went up 27 percent, I'm for damn sure going to be a lot more concerned about the 27 percent than the 0.6.
You don't need to say it, I'll beat you to it and admit this is a gross oversimplification, but it provides some perspective which is not completely crocked. All these various things are factors, but when you step back a bit, it is pretty much common sense which ones are bigger factors and which ones are smaller.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 10:25pm PT
|
I was referring to the internal energy of the Earth
vs
the radiated energy from the Sun
at the surface, the Sun overwhelms the interior energy by orders of magnitude.
if you want to get an idea of where all the Sun's energy goes, it is in the plot from Wild...
which shows that currently, the system is in disequilibrium with a net 0.6 W/m^2 being absorbed at the surface. That means the surface temperature is going up.
Now where that is ocean, the surface can mix with the deep layers (that's not included on the plot above)... so energy can be transported away from the surface. The observed surface temperature is then some average of the sea surface and land surface temps. Depending on what is going on in the oceans, this can go down even as the total heat of the system is increasing (as suggested by the energy imbalance at the surface).
I don't think there is anything controversial there...
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 10:26pm PT
|
I contest all aspects of this argument, including the short term rises and fallls of CO2, which, despite massive research for viable alternate explanation, are primarily a result of temp changes rather than cause. Look up a scientist named Beck. He has discovered over 19, 000 atmospheric CO2 measurements prior to mauna loa. The graphs made from his reconstructions show rises to as high as 390ppm during WW2. Just a little different than the IPCC graphs.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 10:35pm PT
|
However, if the earth had no residual internal heat, how warm would the surface temperature be?
the surface of the Earth will come to an equilibrium temperature where the amount of energy absorbed will equal the amount of energy emitted (it is currently not in equilibrium).
The surface layers heat up, and emits both away from the surface and into the surface. This changes the interior temperature. If the center of the Earth were cold, then the temperature gradient would decrease with depth. Of course, the Earth would be a very different place, no plate tectonics, no magnetic field, etc...
It just seems like it plays some very significant role in determining surface temperature, despite it's meager contribution.
it's all energy balance, and the energy contribution from the interior is small.
Seriously, what do the climate scientists have to say about this?
that the Earth's interior energy is not an important factor in determining the climate.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 10:47pm PT
|
rick, post a real reference if you want to make an argument...
I haven't the time to figure out who and what the hell you're talking about.
It is long past the time of arguing that the CO2 increases are other than human caused.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 10:53pm PT
|
It's contribution is small, so it has lots of room to hold heat. Good to know. I guess the earth will be fine considering the rate of heat transfer can keep up with the increasing CO2. Burn baby burn! Drill baby drill!
this is where you were headed all this time?
I think you maybe don't understand how it works... and I haven't been very useful in explaining it.
But the heat transfer changes the temperature, and the temperature will go up if the net transfer is into the surface...
...doesn't matter what's going on in the interior.
Did you ever take a science course in high school, jammer?
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 11:06pm PT
|
"It's contribution is small, so it has lots of room to hold heat. Good to know. I guess the earth will be fine considering the rate of heat transfer can keep up with the increasing CO2. Burn baby burn! Drill baby drill! "
It's wisdom is small, so it has lots of room to hold knowledge. Good to troll. Troll baby troll!
For the people not just here to troll,
If you look at the wiki link about blackbody radiation, it has a simplified
rough calculation of the effect of the greenhouse gases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law
[assuming ideal blackbodies]
"gives an effective temperature of 6°C on the surface of the Earth, assuming that it perfectly absorbs all emission falling on it and has no atmosphere.
The Earth has an albedo of 0.3, meaning that 30% of the solar radiation that hits the planet gets scattered back into space without absorption. The effect of albedo on temperature can be approximated by assuming that the energy absorbed is multiplied by 0.7, but that the planet still radiates as a black body (the latter by definition of effective temperature, which is what we are calculating). This approximation reduces the temperature by a factor of 0.71/4, giving 255 K (−18 °C).[4][5]
However, long-wave radiation from the surface of the earth is partially absorbed and re-radiated back down by greenhouse gases, namely water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane.[6][7] Since the emissivity with greenhouse effect (weighted more in the longer wavelengths where the Earth radiates) is reduced more than the absorptivity (weighted more in the shorter wavelengths of the Sun's radiation) is reduced, the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates. As a result, the Earth's actual average surface temperature is about 288 K (15 °C), which is higher than the 255 K effective temperature, and even higher than the 279 K temperature that a black body would have."
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 11:24pm PT
|
A more appropriate question is, what significant difference does it make? Ed has already explained multiple times that heat transfers to/from the deep earth (rock, mantle) interior are of a very very small magnitude compared with things relating to insolation and the atmosphere/ocean system. But you are obsessed with asking about a tiny tiny factor, as if the big ones don't matter. Why is that? I'm all for thoughtful questions, but these ones do not, on the face of it, really seem all that thoughtful. Can you please explain what you are trying to get at? If we had any idea at all what the whole point was, maybe we could get somewhere. Fair question, can you help?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 11:28pm PT
|
jammer, you don't get it...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
jammer I haven't met you, except on STForum...
...no opinion about you, your arguments are somewhat naive and seem to indicate a basic lack of understanding. Not surprising, most people don't know about radiative heat transfer and all that...
For a thought experiment...
what do you think the temperature inside the hunk of rock that makes up the east side of Main Street in Vedauwoo?
The Sun hits that rock too, and heats its surface... how much of the surface temperature is due to the internal temperature of the rock, and how much to the temperature of the Sun?
This is relatively simple since the rock isn't changing inside. In the summer time, the internal temperature of the rock is less than the surface temperature... how can that be? where does the heat go?
At night on a particularly hot summer day, after the air temperatures have cooled, you can feel the heat radiating off the rock... what's that all about?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
The global average SST is at an alltime high, largely as a result of currents pulling the equatorial warm pool 0-100 meters to the surface in the huge north pacific ocean basin. Question to you climate genius' s: why is this happening now, what coupled solar/climate process and laws of physics dictate the surface release of heat here and now.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
You clearly don't like me for who knows what reason
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Caulking gun smaulking gun. Hell, with my developed sensitivity to all things lumber, particularly engineered wood products, I've had to cease completion of siding my vacation mini-palace and so haven't even begun caulking the recommended eigth inch spacing.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Your though experiment needs to be changed to that rock having at least an internal heat source.
the rock does not have an internal heat source... but if you insist, assume the rock has a natural abundance of uranium and use the radioactive decay as a heat source...
let's see you solve that problem, or at least set up the problem to be solved...
The question is then how does the internal temperature effect how much heat is at the surface? Less internal temperature would mean the surface is heated up less by the sun (since more heat is absorbed into the rock). More internal temperature and the surface is heated more by the sun (since less heat is absorbed by the rock). Am I way off here?
you can check yourself using any language you want...
first off, what is the relationship between an object's temperature and the the heat it contains?
what you want to remember is that we're talking about energy and in the end, energy is conserved...
so rick no reference? no link? just your typical "I recall an article I read, it's in a stack of articles that I can't get access to right now, but..."
doesn't help support your point-of-view... you never seem to get around to posting a link.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Is this something climate scientists talk about?
they talk about the correct way to determine the surface temperature of the Earth (or any other planetary body) given the amount of energy falling on that body from a central star (the Sun in our case) and the amount of internally generated energy.
There is a simple way to understand this...
the Earth has some temperature characterized by it's blackbody radiation...
a fraction of the Sun's energy output (characterized by it's blackbody radiation at a temperature approximately 6000 K) falls on the Earth. That fraction is the area of the Earth's cross section to the area of a sphere with the radius of the Earth's orbit.
The equilibrium temperature of the Earth is found when the sum of the internal energy and the absorbed fractional energy of the Sun equals the radiated energy of the Earth... Once this equality is reached there is no net heat flow in or out of the Earth.
For the Earth, the internal energy is a small fraction of the absorbed energy from the Sun.
The amount of energy absorbed by the Earth from the Sun depends on the Earth's "albedo" which is usually set to be about 0.3, and the amount radiated depends on its emissivity, usually set to 1.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
Everyone knows that rock is internally heated by the Lake of Fire.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Well Ed, you would never pursue alternative lines of evidence undermining the narrative of global manmade disaster ushering in the need for punitive taxation, regulations on all things human, the complete crippling of the economy, depopulation of the unworthy human stain counter to the utopia envisioned by fellow travelers. Now would you?
Anyway, to wet your taste buds to something foul, chew on this internet goodie-it mentions Beck. If you wanted to find his reconstructions im sure you could.
http://www.tiede.fi/keskustelu/20810/ketju/co2_ennen_teollistumista_jaworowski_ja_beck
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
Rick, your question does not make sense. First, you note that sea surface temperature is relatively high, but you ask about what process is causing the surface release of energy, which, either you're talking about the opposite, absorption, or about convection, which isn't a "surface release." If you can reconfigure it to be logical, somebody might take a crack at it.
And this appears in an odd context. Didn't you just finish referring us to a source that proclaimed that the recent pattern of ocean temperature data isn't unusual at all? If the SST data is not unusual, why do you now want a mechanistic explanation of it? This is puzzling.
Anyway, there are many statements on this thread to the effect that the oceans and ocean/atmosphere interaction are the least well understood part of the whole system. Hell, we only just recently have a decent amount of data - which of course can't be relied upon to do any science because it doesn't go back to 1700 - about the factual observations. It's going to be quite a while before the mechanisms are sorted out and quantified.
Finally, how about your pet subject area, solar variations. How about explaining exactly what the processes are that govern those? For example, why, in terms of actual solar internal processes, is it changing from a "grand" maximum to some other condition? Who cares about what's going on in the oceans if it's all just solar variation?
You're very encouraging of people asking a lot of questions here. Seemed like it would be appropriate to take that encouragement to heart.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!