As many people will have read there was a glitch in the surface temperature record reporting for October. For many Russian stations (and some others), September temperatures were apparently copied over into October, giving an erroneous positive anomaly. The error appears to have been made somewhere between the reporting by the National Weather Services and NOAA’s collation of the GHCN database. GISS, which produces one of the more visible analyses of this raw data, processed the input data as normal and ended up with an October anomaly that was too high. That analysis has now been pulled (in under 24 hours) while they await a correction of input data from NOAA (Update: now (partially) completed).
There were 90 stations for which October numbers equalled September numbers in the corrupted GHCN file for 2008 (out of 908). This compares with an average of about 16 stations each year in the last decade (some earlier years have bigger counts, but none as big as this month, and are much less as a percentage of stations). These other cases seem to be mostly legitimate tropical stations where there isn’t much of a seasonal cycle. That makes it a little tricky to automatically scan for this problem, but putting in a check for the total number or percentage is probably sensible going forward.
It’s clearly true that the more eyes there are looking, the faster errors get noticed and fixed. The cottage industry that has sprung up to examine the daily sea ice numbers or the monthly analyses of surface and satellite temperatures, has certainly increased the number of eyes and that is generally for the good. Whether it’s a discovery of an odd shift in the annual cycle in the UAH MSU-LT data, or this flub in the GHCN data, or the USHCN/GHCN merge issue last year, the extra attention has led to improvements in many products. Nothing of any consequence has changed in terms of our understanding of climate change, but a few more i’s have been dotted and t’s crossed.
But unlike in other fields of citizen-science (astronomy or phenology spring to mind), the motivation for the temperature observers is heavily weighted towards wanting to find something wrong. As we discussed last year, there is a strong yearning among some to want to wake up tomorrow and find that the globe hasn’t been warming, that the sea ice hasn’t melted, that the glaciers have not receded and that indeed, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Thus when mistakes occur (and with science being a human endeavour, they always will) the exuberance of the response can be breathtaking – and quite telling.
A few examples from the comments at Watt’s blog will suffice to give you a flavour of the conspiratorial thinking: “I believe they had two sets of data: One would be released if Republicans won, and another if Democrats won.”, “could this be a sneaky way to set up the BO presidency with an urgent need to regulate CO2?”, “There are a great many of us who will under no circumstance allow the oppression of government rule to pervade over our freedom—-PERIOD!!!!!!” (exclamation marks reduced enormously), “these people are blinded by their own bias”, “this sort of scientific fraud”, “Climate science on the warmer side has degenerated to competitive lying”, etc… (To be fair, there were people who made sensible comments as well).
The amount of simply made up stuff is also impressive – the GISS press release declaring the October the ‘warmest ever’? Imaginary (GISS only puts out press releases on the temperature analysis at the end of the year). The headlines trumpeting this result? Non-existent. One clearly sees the relief that finally the grand conspiracy has been rumbled, that the mainstream media will get it’s comeuppance, and that surely now, the powers that be will listen to those voices that had been crying in the wilderness.
Alas! none of this will come to pass. In this case, someone’s programming error will be fixed and nothing will change except for the reporting of a single month’s anomaly. No heads will roll, no congressional investigations will be launched, no politicians (with one possible exception) will take note. This will undoubtedly be disappointing to many, but they should comfort themselves with the thought that the chances of this error happening again has now been diminished. Which is good, right?
In contrast to this molehill, there is an excellent story about how the scientific community really deals with serious mismatches between theory, models and data. That piece concerns the ‘ocean cooling’ story that was all the rage a year or two ago. An initial analysis of a new data source (the Argo float network) had revealed a dramatic short term cooling of the oceans over only 3 years. The problem was that this didn’t match the sea level data, nor theoretical expectations. Nonetheless, the paper was published (somewhat undermining claims that the peer-review system is irretrievably biased) to great acclaim in sections of the blogosphere, and to more muted puzzlement elsewhere. With the community’s attention focused on this issue, it wasn’t however long before problems turned up in the Argo floats themselves, but also in some of the other measurement devices – particularly XBTs. It took a couple of years for these things to fully work themselves out, but the most recent analyses show far fewer of the artifacts that had plagued the ocean heat content analyses in the past. A classic example in fact, of science moving forward on the back of apparent mismatches. Unfortunately, the resolution ended up favoring the models over the initial data reports, and so the whole story is horribly disappointing to some.
Which brings me to my last point, the role of models. It is clear that many of the temperature watchers are doing so in order to show that the IPCC-class models are wrong in their projections. However, the direct approach of downloading those models, running them and looking for flaws is clearly either too onerous or too boring. Even downloading the output (from here or here) is eschewed in favour of firing off Freedom of Information Act requests for data already publicly available – very odd. For another example, despite a few comments about the lack of sufficient comments in the GISS ModelE code (a complaint I also often make), I am unaware of anyone actually independently finding any errors in the publicly available Feb 2004 version (and I know there are a few). Instead, the anti-model crowd focuses on the minor issues that crop up every now and again in real-time data processing hoping that, by proxy, they’ll find a problem with the models.
I say good luck to them. They’ll need it.
Snorbert, Oh, dear, where to begin. First, the oceans do not “hold” radiation. Second, while the oceans do have huge heat capacity, their temperature doesn’t change all that much. Third, the oceans readily exchange energy with the atmosphere. Fourth, once energy is absorbed into the system, it eventually has to find its way out. The only way that can happen is via longwave radiation–and that’s how greenhouse gasses affect temperature. Now how about you go read about the science and come back after if you have questions?
snorbert zangox (446) — Use
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html
and then click on ‘Graphics’.
RodB #445. Well you’re asking the position of AGW to be completely assessed and answered before you state YOUR answer as to what else it is.
Why is it not appropriate to ask the “new idea” to prove itself first to the same standard as you demand of AGW?
Stop the hand-waving and give us what you believe in the same detail as you demand of AGW (or at the minimum the same level as AGW is currently known).
PS I say you’re a denialist. I don’t have proof and only some vague reasons. I will not tell you what the reasons are until you PROVE 100% that you aren’t a denialist. If you don’t like this position, please see it as an analogue of what you’re doing to Ray et al.
Mark, strictly math. Take F_1 = 5.35ln(C/C_0) and equate to F_2 = a(C/C0) to find the “a” that makes linear equal log forcing function for different level of Concentration ratios – eight for three doublings.
Ray (444, et al), et al: You and Mark, no matter how you word it, are still saying, in effect, that no one can ever question any science unless they have a totally complete analysis complete with models, lab experiments and proof responses to any and all contrary objections. That just is not true or valid.
To your #1, I agree the questioning must be learned; that’s what I called “reasonable”.
If the 5.35 is unassailable and golden, why wasn’t the factor before it also unquestionably golden. Why did they continue to pursue it? Other than because their models didn’t come out right with their original factor(s) so with a bit of trial and error (admittedly based on reasonable scientific judgment) they played with it until the models seemed to work. Decent science but not unassailable. Furthermore the models match only up to around 400ppm – there is no way models can be compared to an actual projected 1000ppm for example.
Other greenhouse gases are assumed by IPCC, et al to have linear, not log, relationships. What the hell is that about, given that the log function is written in stone?
Absorption graphs show that very little of the CO2 band gets through the atmosphere. Skeptics ask then how can CO2 manage to absorb more than 100% of the radiation. The answer given is that the absorption band expands. While this does seem to be the case, it does run counter to intuitive science (“CO2 absorbs at 15 microns until that doesn’t work any more, then it absorbs at other frequencies”). There is a clear shortage of rigor and precision behind the band spreading. While this does not refute the theory, which I agree would require the solid evidence you’re suggesting, it does raise what I call reasonable scientific questioning. Since the theory is asking the world to upset the fruit basket (some sanguine prognostications aside) the stronger burden of proof lies with the asserters, not the questioners (again as long as the questioning is reasonable – neither a WAG nor a clear refutation.)
Even so, given the potential for harm, I accept that the proof doesn’t necessarily have to be 100% unquestionable — this along the Rumsfeld line of “By the time you find the smoking gun, you’re dead.” But within reason it ought to come as close as feasible, and continued questioning is both appropriate and, in fact, desirable. The fact that “there really isn’t a strong competitor [so far…]”, as you state, is not sufficient to make it unassailable.
Snorbert (446), a couple of corrections to keep all on the straight and narrow:
Oceans, land and atmosphere all absorb (and emit) radiation.
Most of the above near ultraviolet does not reach the surface.
I’m not sure I understand your point of ocean vs. terra firma absorption and radiative cooling and the relative cooling from evaporation (which is only from water). There is a curious assessment in the “FAQ” thread that shows terra firma has a zero net effect from forcing though I haven’t absorbed all of that yet.
Mark, why is it my onus to prove I am not a “denialist?” You’re the accuser here. Have a ball!
None-the-less, I have complete belief the holocaust occurred.
Mark, you’re using “reasonable” to mean “arguable.”
A question can be “arguable” — lawyer word — almost forever.
Tamino asked if you have any reasons — reasoning required — that to say you have a “reasonable” argument.
Science journals will publish your paper if peer review finds it has any reasonable basis.
It need not be right, it need not be convincing — it needs to be _interesting_ to other researchers in the field, possibly productive of further work.
To be interesting, make a reasonable argument. That’s publishable.
Re #455
“Other greenhouse gases are assumed by IPCC, et al to have linear, not log, relationships. What the hell is that about, given that the log function is written in stone?”
They’re not assumed they’re measured, weak absorption lines absorb linearly the strongest square root and intermediate such as CO2 log.
“Absorption graphs show that very little of the CO2 band gets through the atmosphere.
Care to substantiate this?
“Skeptics ask then how can CO2 manage to absorb more than 100% of the radiation. The answer given is that the absorption band expands. While this does seem to be the case, it does run counter to intuitive science (“CO2 absorbs at 15 microns until that doesn’t work any more, then it absorbs at other frequencies”). There is a clear shortage of rigor and precision behind the band spreading “
There’s no lack of rigor, it’s a combination of Doppler broadening and pressure broadening, I suggest you read up some spectroscopy since your knowledge on the subject is sadly lacking!
RodB #456 “Mark, why is it my onus to prove I am not a “denialist?” You’re the accuser here. Have a ball!”
And you are the accuser who says that the logarithmic response is lower. Yet you refuse to say why it is and demand that your idea doesn’t have to be proven.
In the same way, although you say you are not, I say you are. I refuse to say wy that is and I demand that you accept it doesn’t have to be proven either: you must prove your non-denial credentials.
But I see how this goes. Anyone who doesn’t believe you aren’t a denialist even if it is based on a reasonable scientific uncertainty and approach. This virtually eliminates all avenues of query about your approach other than undirected random observations and persuits. It also says that until someone can prove a negative (without even asking the question “Are you a denialist”, BTW) they cannot assert a positive “you are a denialist”. Nice job if you can get it
Hank, ‘458. I can only think you meant RodB, not Mark.
Additional to #459: The optical depth of a thicker CO2 atmosphere at 15 microns is higher in altitude. Because of the adiabatic lapse rate (or moist version as per personal taste), this higher level at which one optical depth at 15 microns happens means that the external (released) radiation is done at a lower temperature. As the radiation released follows stephan’s law, the flux varies to the fourth power. Ergo, the 15 micron radiation band radiates at a lower flux (fourth power) when more CO2 is added even though the entire atmosphere is completely saturated.
Add to the fact that there is no sharp cutoff in rovibrational states so the wings of the absorbption band get wider as you increase concentration and you have plenty of reason why more than 100% absorbtion can be seen in effect.
If you do not trust climate scientists with this “because they would say that, wouldn’t they” talk to any stellar physicist.
Hell talk to the amateurs who watch the sun and work out what it’s doing. The reason why you have limb darkening is because the height at which you see 100% absorbtion is higher in the stellar atmosphere when you take a slant line through the stellar atmosphere to see the sun’s body at the limb than it does at the centre. The reason why sunspots are dark is because they are optically thicker and so the absorbtion of visible light happens higher up in the atmosphere than for the rest of the sun. Not because they are cooler. If that were the reason then the temperature difference would cause two effects:
1) the sunspot would warm up as energy flow equalised the temperature gradient
2) the faculae would change around a spot and you would not see much brighter areas around the spot (which leads to the strange result that overall, the sun is brighter with these dark “colder” sunspots prevalent than without any of them).
And stellar evolution science doesn’t require climate change funding to continue. It was also a very old subject and well understood long before AGW “became fashionable”. So anything they tell you should be safe.
Yep, 458 was to Rod, mistakenly addressed to Mark.
I think Rod’s improving on the explanation of why this is hard to underrstand, but this subject did take us through the long two threads on how radiation physics works earlier, delving into how band splitting happens, modes of vibration, and all that.
I thought it had been made clear enough in the two prior threads; those might be worth revisiting rather than repeating. It’s, as Dr. Weart warns us in his website, by far the hardest area to understand.
Aside — thanks to whoever’s doing the work of checking the comments, editing when necessary, and releasing them, giving us some of your days off to keep the threads going.
Mark, is this your own logic about sunspot thickness, or are you relying on something published?
A resource of gas forcing approximations:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11175&page=1
Rod, It is clear that there is some profit in this for you in thinking this through more systematically. Let’s look at it as a physicist would:
We want to know how the forcing changes as we change the concentration of CO2. We know the forcing has to increase with increasing concentration. At the same time, we know that it has to increase more slowly than linearly with CO2, since we know that CO2 absorbs IR photons, and so each new CO2 molecule is just a tiny bit less likely to absorb a photon in a given time period. One possibility would be a power law with exponent less than 1. However, that has the wrong behavior as we extrapolate to smaller concentrations. It is also not really consistent with what we would expect from the processes that increase the forcing with increasing CO2–e.g. line broadening, etc. The best choice is a logarithmic dependence. Physics pretty much dictates that, and the best data available determine the coefficient.
Now it is possible better data will come along, and the coefficient might change, but it’s not going to go from 5.35 to 2, and it sure as hell ain’t gonna go to zero. It will change by a few percent at most. Otherwise we couldn’t explain the previous data. If that’s the most serious doubt you have, then it’s time to come over to the dark side.
Rod, if you cannot work through the math how can you make such assumptions? The log is just fine, in physics, chemistry and the knowledge we have empirically regarding CO2 and the holding in of LW IFR.
Once again Ray is right on the money and Mark has given some excellent data and explanation.
Hank 464 I’m relying on what Prof Willmore told me in my Stellar Physics course at Birmingham University (UK).
I know that sounds a little strange…
Rod B writes:
The saturation argument has been known to be wrong since the 1940s. The effect of CO2 on warming is incredibly well determined. The uncertainty lies in the feedbacks, not the spectral qualities of CO2.
Check here (remove the hyphen before cut and pasting into your browser’s address window):
http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Saturation.html
Rod B #455:
For low concentrations it is linear (i.e., no, it is not written in stone; stop making things up).
The shortage of rigor in only in the talking-about, not the actual understanding. Get mathematically literate and the problem will disappear.
Or play with the model to figure it out for yourself. It works.
Hank, reasonable versus arguable has a minor difference bordering on insignificant, though “arguable” has a bit lower bar, I suppose. But even in the lawyer’s realm a point has to have probative value to get into the court proceedings. Your threshold of being publishable is not materially different from Ray’s scientific analysis; I don’t believe that threshold is required to raise valid scientific questions.
Phil, look at any of the ubiquitous spectrographs of the radiation leaving the atmosphere. You’ll find a small percentage of the 15 micron that the earth surface emits making it into space.
Mark, whether log forcing is more or less that linear forcing, for doubling say, is completely dependent on the mathematical constants. The arithmetic is not excessively tough. Secondly, as I said, if you want to label me a “denialist”, have a ball!
There seems to be some good meat in David’s link (465), Ray’s 466 and Mark’s 462 (Whoopee! ;-) ) supplemented by Hank and others. But I’m away from base, have to concentrate on a brood of kids and grandkids, and will have to dig into them in a few days.
Mark, not sure what you were trying to say with your sunspot observation…Not because they are cooler. If that were the reason… from reading, they are actually in the centre cooler and at the rim hotter than the area outside…. several thousand degrees from recollection. Would there be energy flow if a strong enough magnetic field would prevent this? Got a really hard time placing you as someone who does or does not genuinely believe in global warming. Sort of like we drive here in Italy… in the middle over the white line leaving options open which lane to take, whilst blocking everyone behind and irritating.
This recaptcha is vexing:
missing Bernier
Mark, models of sunspots have changed a lot; did your teacher go into recent observational details suggesting behavior of flux tubes? If not, try following the references, even from a year or two ago, forward. New instruments, far better imagery, lots of new work every time I look.
I regularly urge people to cite sources and check, echoing what my college teachers emphasized — facts taught are already obsolete; ask the reference librarian; tools and facts are new every time you look.
Rod, you’ve added a new word — “valid” — to “reasonable” and “arguable” — but it makes no difference in the deliverable.
To make your question useful, you need some basis, some reason, to attract the attention of a scientist or mathematician who can help you make it an _answerable_ question.
It’s really not that hard to do, as Tamino patiently points out.
“How to ask questions the smart way” methods _work_. Any mere reader can make a question interesting. It takes that much effort though.
Just saying “there HAS to be a pony!” isn’t.
Re #472
Rod B Says:
Phil, look at any of the ubiquitous spectrographs of the radiation leaving the atmosphere. You’ll find a small percentage of the 15 micron that the earth surface emits making it into space.
I do, unlike you I know what I’m looking at! Broadening of the spectra is what you are missing, even if 90% of the CO2 band is adsorbed at one concentration doubling concentration brings more IR into play at the edges of the band. The bands aren’t continuous as you seem to think, they’re a close assembly of individual lines.
Try here:
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/CO2spectra.gif
Mark, whether log forcing is more or less that linear forcing, for doubling say, is completely dependent on the mathematical constants. The arithmetic is not excessively tough.
Time to move up to calculus! d(ln(x))/dx=1/x, i.e. decreasing function of x. So you start at a low concentration where the response is linear and transition to a log as the gradient decreases!
Thanks Phil. Well put.
474 Hank, you like links. Got any?
Skerob, please reread. The sunspot isn’t colder overall. The sunspot isn’t colder but denser so the optical depth of 1 is higher up the atmosphere. The hotter edges are breaking energies released by the magnetic flux.
However, forget that, read the rest. Optical depth 1 rising through an atmosphere can reduce the outgoing flux in the same way as absorbtion getting higher (even if it is at precisely 100% at ground level before the increase). Therefore saying “how can you absorb more than 100%” is a ridiculous question and the one that is happening is “how does increasing concentration change outgoing flux beyond 100%” to which the answer is “by reducing the outgoing flux further”).
Tamino,
You are correct. Art D’Aleo is a man with whom I used to play golf occasionally. I meant Joe D’Aleo.
Hank Roberts, Tamino, Jim Eager,
Arguments ad hominem are not persuasive. I am sorry that your strong belief system will not allow you to seriously consider the opinions of other qualified scientists.
Ray Ladbury,
The oceans hold energy in the same sense that the atmosphere does. The oceans would not hold the heat long (in the geologic sense) if the sun were to cease, but they can accumulate heat if the rate of insolation increases. They contribute thermal mass to the system and dampen the temperature swings that would occur if only the thin layer of soil and the thin layer of air were the only thermal mass available.
I do not agree that the only way that heat leaves the ocean system is via long-wave radiation. I think that simple cooling pond calculations demonstrate convincingly that the major, nearly only, means of heat escape from bodies of water is via evaporation of water. That heat transfers to the atmosphere when the water condenses. In fact, warm waters impress vertical flows, thermals, which carry the evaporated water to higher elevations. The cooling by dilution with colder air causes condensation of the water vapor. The energy released by the condensation is available to radiate in all directions and warm the air around it or radiate the heat into outer space. In the case of thunderstorms, wherein the vapor reaches heights up to 10,000 meters, the radiation occurs above 90 percent of the atmosphere and half of it has a relatively clear path out of the earth system.
Because the mass of the oceans are at least a billion times the mass of the atmosphere, the ocean temperature does not have to change much in order for the ocean to accumulate a lot of heat relative to the heat capacity of the atmosphere. 1997 and 1998 were an example, the oceans, by dumping heat warmed the climate significantly.
David B. Benson,
Thanks, the latest link works for me.
Rod B
I would agree that terra firma has a near zero effect. The involved depth, its relative lack of heat capacity, and its relatively quick release of excess heat by radiation limit its effectiveness in heat accumulation. I mean accumulation in the engineering sense that accumulation can be either positive or negative. As I said earlier, the oceans provide a damper in the system, which limits the rapidity of the system response to stimulation. Much like the shock absorbers on your car dampen the continued bouncing that would occur if you had only springs.
I agree, and I said that most of the high-energy (short wavelength) solar radiation does not reach the surface. However, that radiation represents less than 10% of the solar radiation that reaches Earth.
I do not deny that the oceans radiate heat. I merely maintain that the lion’s share of ocean cooling is by evaporation of water. I also recognize that the terra firma looses some heat by evaporation of water, but believe that to be minor.
Phil. Felton.
The carbon dioxide absorption band at 15 microns absorbs heat from an emitter that has a temperature of near zero degrees C. In addition, I think that the energy per photon at 15 microns is about one third of the energy of 10-micron photons. Could that contribute much to heat accumulation in the atmosphere?
snorbert writes:
The ocean has an infrared emissivity of about 0.95. That means that at a temperature of 288 K, it radiates about 371 watts per square meter. Conduction and convection (“sensible heat”) amount to about 24 W/m^2, evaporation to 78 W/m^2 (these are all Earth averages). So radiation does outweigh convection.
Let’s quantify the land/water difference. Assume, as a first approximation, that all the evaporation in the world takes place in the oceans. The global average (Kiehl and Trenberth 1997; can anyone point me to a more recent energy budget study?) is 78 W/m^2. Oceans cover 70.8% of the Earth, land 29.2%. Thus the evaporation rate over the oceans would be 110 W/m^2, and with convection/conduction it would be 134. 324 > 134, so the majority of ocean cooling is still through radiation and not convection.
Mark —
I’m pretty sure sunspots are, in fact, cooler, at least in the center. You’ve got a strong magnetic field, and the solar material is heavily ionized, so it would align along magnetic field lines, and molecular motion on average would decrease. That’s how magnetic refrigerators work.
Snorbert, you seem to have a remarkable ability to look at half the problem. Barton has shown that radiation is dominant for cooling. Second, while it is true that the mass of the oceans dwarfs that of the atmosphere, most of the oceans–anything below ~100 meters–aren’t participating. Cooling ponds differ, because they are significantly warmer than normal temperatures.
As to your thunderstorm argument–that is one of the reasons why CO2 is so important. It mixes well up into the stratosphere, and incremental increases in CO2 are quite effective at stopping radiation from below and forcing the effective radiating level higher in the atmosphere. Don’t just assume. Learn the physics.
> sunspots
Sure, Mark, but you haven’t said _when_ you took that astronomy class, which is the point of asking for your source; if it was 2006, what you were taught will likely match what turns up; if you were in college in say 1966, not so.
You know how to do the homework searches; a few glances:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=sunspot+temperature+flux+tube&as_ylo=2006
and an image search with the same will get you several pictures like this one: http://www3.kis.uni-freiburg.de/~schliche/index-Dateien/showspot.png
Looking for mention of thickness:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=sunspot+temperature+thickness&as_ylo=2006&btnG=Search
Not much there, but again, you took the class, you know when you got your information, you know how to check whether it’s been added to. The people who read your statements deserve, in a science thread, the information so they can check for themselves now and later on.
That’s the point about citing sources.
Nothing personal. Robert Grumbine makes the same point on his blog.
Snorbert, it’s the style (“there must be a pony …”) and the citation to OISM pointed out. Don’t confuse these with your personal characteristics, which I trust will improve with time and research. Posting stuff here that needs help is a plea for help. QED.
The Web frequently reprints this, originally I think from Skeptico:
The first is a true ad hominem attack because the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. Somebody’s intelligence or lack thereof has nothing to do with the validity or truth of his argument.
Barton Paul Levenson,
It has been a while since I performed radiant heat loss calculations and I was never an expert. I can reproduce your estimate of 371 W/m^2 by using the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (for which I have a value of 5.67E-08 W/m^2 K^4) an ocean temperature of 288 K and a black body receiver at 0 K.
However, I think that we have to assume that the receiving body is the atmosphere, not outer space. If the atmosphere is 50 K cooler than the ocean surface, the radiant loss would be about 0.35 W/m^2, which is small relative to your estimated evaporative heat loss rates.
Please comment.
Ray Ladbury,
I believe that in 446 I estimated that the top 100 meters of the oceans are well mixed. That does not mean that heat does not sequester in deeper water as the conveyors dive into the Polar oceans. However, for the sake of argument, let’s say you are correct. Thus, the mass of the oceans exceeds the mass of the atmosphere by a factor of merely 29 million.
Hank Roberts,
I never thought that the ad hominem attack was against me (though your present comments approach). The ad hominem attacks were refusal to consider the content of the OISM paper because of its source … [edit]
[Response: The OISM paper is rubbish regardless of it’s source – look it up. The refusal to consider it seriously is because of that, not some prior prejudice against Oregon, Institutes, Science or Medicine. – gavin]
Snorbert, Interesting thing about thermal mechanisms, they tend to work most rapidly at the beginning of the thermalization process. So, ‘splain me how you get 20 years of steady warming that even seem to get faster in the middle.
And of course, if you can crack that nut, I’ll ask you how your mechanism explains stratospheric cooling. I’m realling looking forward to your answer to that one.
Ah, I think I get the problem.
Yes the sunpsot centre is cooler. However, this doesn’t mean an awful lot when you’re talking about a gas.
Limb darkening. The edge of the sun is cooler.
Now, is that, the sun there is cooler or is it because the depth to which we can see higher (where the gas is cooler)?
Yes.
Is it that the gas that makes up the sun at the edge of what we see cooler?
No.
However, that still leaves us wandering off topic. The reason why this started was to demonstrate that even when you’re at 100% abdorbtion, adding more absorbing material can still make it retain more (just as if it were more than 100% absorbtion). The reason for this is the optical depth going higher in a gas that has a temperature gradient.
If neither the earths atmosphere or the sun’s had a temperature gradient, sunspots would be brighter on the sun (they are cooler, just not enough to make them as dark as they seem), there would be no limb darkening on the sun (100% correct) and the retention of heat by the thickening earth atmosphere would not increase if you just added more (unphysical) straight-side-band absorbing material. NOTE: the broadening of the lines would still engender some increased energy retention, but for illustration, lets assume it is a band that has infinite gradient into the absorbtion area).
Has that made things a little clearer?
PS Hank, 1992. When were you?
Barton Paul Levenson,
Oops. I have been thinking about my last post and have realized that I have made a serious error. (I warned you that I am no expert) I raised the temperature difference to the 4th power when calculating the net radiant heat flux; I should have calculated the difference between the 4th powers of the temperatures of the two black bodies (ocean and atmosphere).
If the temperature of the atmosphere is 2 -3 K degrees cooler than the water temperature, the radiant heat loss approaches 10% of the total loss of 134 W/m^2 that you cited. Now we have to calculate the average, over the surface of the earth, of the differences between the 4th powers of the ocean and air temperatures. I don’t think that I can do that.
I will point out that in the tropics the air can be warmer than the water and that near the poles the water can be significantly colder than the air. I still believe based on my practical experience, that radiant transfer is a small part of the total heat flux from ocean to air.
Mark — decades earlier for me. That’s why I’m so fond of reference librarians.
Re snorbert @487: “That does not mean that heat does not sequester in deeper water as the conveyors dive into the Polar oceans.”
Except that they dive because they have already given up much of their heat through evaporation and have thus become more saline and denser, and because they have mixed with even colder arctic surface waters. That’s why it’s called thermohaline circulation.
#492 well, did that clear what I meant up?
Ta.
snorbert writes:
We’re talking cooling, not net cooling. Net, the temperature of the ocean stays roughly even over time. You can’t single out net radiation unless you’re willing to talk about net heating/cooling in general.
The oceans get (heating):
168 W/m^2 from sunlight
324 W/m^2 from atmospheric IR
They lose (cooling):
24 W/m^2 from conduction/convection
78 W/m^2 from evaporation
371 W/m^2 from radiation
Thus radiation contributes most of the cooling.
Jim Eager,
Yes, but a 4% NaCl solution at 10 degrees C is denser than a 2% NaCl solution at 0 degrees C. Thus, a warm, concentrated solution can displace a colder but more dilute solution. Warmer surface water can force colder, less concentrated water up from the depths. The result would be heat sequestration.
Agreed, snorbert (496).
Actual numbers for thermohaline circulation:
http://www.geo.umn.edu/courses/1006/spring2005/lecturenotes/11%20Density%20and%20Thermohaline.htm
Snorbert, I’m still waiting to hear how your model explains simultaneous warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. Why does it warm night-time temperatures more than daytime temperatures? Lots more questions where those came from.
Mark, I looked and did not anything recent about sunspots being “thicker” (nor about such thickness explaining cooler temperature). I did find the idea from the late 1970s-early 1980s. Searched briefly:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=sunspot+temperature+explanation+-climate+-Earth+-weather
Your teacher’s sources may have been superseded since then. Just saying, it’s good to cite statements for later readers so they can check for themselves (and to check what we believe is true before merely stating it without support — in science discussions).