Update: It seems that the UNFCCC background page referred to below has changed and the link no longer works – see table of contents.
A response from Justin Wood, writing to me from Australia after my previous post (cited with permission below), has prompted me to write a follow-up on the story of the greenhouse effect (GHE).
I wonder if you’ve seen this terrible description of the greenhouse effect on a UNFCCC background page? http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2903.php
It actually says that incoming solar energy is ‘reflected’ by the planet’s surface ‘in the form of a calmer, more slow-moving type of energy called infrared radiation. … Infrared radiation is carried slowly aloft by air currents, and its eventual escape into space is delayed by greenhouse gases’ (emphasis added).Given your recent excellent explanation of the real physics on RC, I thought you might be interested! It’s downright disturbing that this silliness comes from such an important source; and I’ve found it repeated all over the place. (On that RC post, I would humbly suggest that the section on stratospheric cooling could helpfully be expanded to make that clearer?)
I won’t discuss the stratospheric cooling now, but rather try to place recent events (including floods in Niger), which involve the hydrological cycle and atmospheric circulation, into the framework from my previous post ‘A simple recipe for GHE‘.
Again, it can be useful to stop and contemplate whether a simple conceptual framework can provide greater understanding of climate model predictions and the observations we make on the climate system. I think that there are not too many simple descriptions, as Wood pointed out, that are convincing in terms of physics.
Can we use such simple conceptual explanations for events such as the recent spate of extreme rainfall and heat waves then? I want to stress, as we did when discussing tropical cyclones, that single events do not constitute evidence of a climate change. Since climate can be defined as ‘typical weather pattern’ (or weather statistics), then climate change can be that extremes become more or less typical, and such change must start with a few events. This touches the difference between weather and climate, and each of these events can be considered as weather. But there is a connection between these weather events and results obtained from climate models.
There are fascinating as well as disconcerting sides to the fact that global climate models reported in the IPCC AR4 suggest warming in the upper troposphere in the tropics (Figure 1 below). I regard these traits as important clues that may help unveil the secrets of the troposphere; The key into this mystery involves energy conservation, planetary energy balance, and the planetary energy input taking place at its surface while its heat loss mainly occurs at higher levels, as discussed in ‘A simple recipe for GHE‘.
This story is about surface fluxes, a fuzzy connection between energy flow and circulation of water, and physical constraints pin-pointing the solutions. In other words, the hydrological cycle associated with moisture transport is tied to the energy flow associated with moist convection.
Another simple mental picture
I will yet again try to present a simplified physical picture: Our climate includes energy transport both from the equatorial region to the poles as well as a vertical flow from the surface to the height from which it can escape freely into outer space. The story behind mid-to-upper tropospheric warming strongly involves the vertical energy flow, which will be the focus of the discussion. In very simple terms, the laws of physics say there has to be a flow of energy from the planet’s surface, where energy is deposited, to the heights from where the heat loss takes place (see schematic below).
The vertical energy flow can take several forms: radiative, latent, and sensible heat. The radiative energy transfer has a character of diffusion (photon diffusion), and the more opaque the atmosphere, due to increased GHG concentrations, the slower the effective radiative energy transfer. A similar situation is believed to take place in the outer layer of the Sun, in the opaque convective zone, where convection is the main mode of energy transfer (which by the way subsequently play a role in solar activity).
If this were the whole story, then an increase in GHG concentrations would imply a deficit between the rate of energy gained at the surface and heat loss from the upper atmosphere due to hypothetically lowered energy transfer between the two levels: The emission temperature would decline as a result of net heat loss high up, and surface temperature would increase as a result of net gain in energy on the ground.
One consequence of a deficit in the vertical energy flow would be different heating and cooling rates at different heights that subsequently would alter the atmosphere’s vertical structure (lapse rate). The planetary heat loss would drop if the emission temperature were to drop, and the planet would no longer be in energy balance, resulting in energy accumulation. However, planets will eventually reach new equilibrium states where the heat-loss balances the energy input.
Other forms for heat flow between the two levels are expected to compensate for the reduction in radiative energy transfer (despite greater temperature differences) if the planetary energy input and heat loss are to balance. One such candidate is convection, carrying both latent and sensible heat and where the energy transfer takes place in form of heat-carrying vertical motion. Indeed, warming below and cooling aloft give rise to more unstable conditions that favours convection.
Higher temperatures near the surface also cause increased evaporation according to a physical law known as ‘the Clapeyron-Clausius equation‘. Evaporation requires energy so that heat, which otherwise would go to increase temperatures, is instead used to transform water to water vapour (phase change). Differences in the molecular weights of N2 and H2O means that moist air is lighter than dry air. Thus, increased evaporation favours convection, which transports both energy – as sensible (higher temperature) and latent (vapour) heat – and moisture. This is seen occurring naturally, especially in association with warm ocean surface in connection with the El Nino Southern Oscillation. Convection can therefore compensate for reduced radiative transfer if its mean vertical extent reaches the height of the planetary heat loss. Convection also is one of the factors that determines the thickness of the tropopause (Wikipedia on Troposphere: “The word troposphere derives from the Greek: tropos for “turning” or “mixing,” reflecting the fact that turbulent mixing plays an important role in the troposphere’s structure and behavior.”).
Moist convection results in cloud formation: water vapour condenses and form cloud drops. The condensation releases heat and hence increase the temperatures, which subsequently has an effect on the black body radiation. Hence, cloud formation plays a crucial role for the planetary heat loss – in addition to affecting the planetary albedo.
The reason why Figure 9.1 in IPCC AR4 is disconcerting is that the temperature anomaly in the upper tropical atmosphere bears the signature of increased moist convective activity, which means that the hydrological cycle probably gets perturbed by increased GHG forcings, hence affecting rainfall patterns.
There have been some misunderstanding regarding the enhanced warming in the upper troposphere – mistakenly taken as being inconsistent with the climate models, or taken as the “finger print” of GHE, rather than as a plausible consequence predicted for an enhanced GHE due to the perturbation of the hydrological cycle (the “finger print”-misconception assumes that the models are perfect).
Changes in the convective activity also have other repercussions. Air just doesn’t pile up, but if is rises in some places, it means that there is sinking air elsewhere. A typical example of this is the Hadley cell, where the circulation involves rising air near equator associated with low sea level pressure and downward motion poleward of this region – an arid region known as the subtropics with high sea level pressure. A change in convection on a planetary scale, due to compensating a reduction in the vertical radiative energy transport, hence may have a bearing on drought and flooding events – and this is what the global climate models seem to suggest. If a shift in the hydrological cycle were to lower the response in the global mean temperature, there may be a poisonous sting in such a negative feedback: changes in the precipitation patterns.
When GHG concentrations change, there is also a disruption in the vertical energy flow so that the planetary energy balance is perturbed. This is the frequently cited extra forcing estimated at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), and this is where some of the assumptions made above don’t quite hold (the picture is correct for a planet in equilibrium, but during a transition the planet is no longer in an equilibrium) and extra energy is taken up by warming of the oceans and surface.
As a physicist, the key to understanding the relationship between GHE and the hydrological cycle – and indeed the troposphere – is in embedded in the question of what happens with the energy flow between the two levels where the planet receives its energy and where it leaves the planet. For more numbers and details, I’d recommend a number of posts previously published here on RC (here, here, here, here, and here).
@Chris Colose #16
This puts a different perspective on the commonly-cited notion that the ‘hydrologic cycle becomes more intense’ depending on what that actually means
Soden & Held (2006) discuss this:
http://www.asp.ucar.edu/thompson/2005/pdf/hydro_final.pdf
“The fact that the strength of the global-mean hydrological cycle increases more slowly than does the [CC-scaled] mixing ratio near the surface has important consequences for the atmospheric circulation. . .
This is complicated – try thinking about what would happen if precipitation did scale with CC, for example. Remember to distinguish between the strength of the atmospheric circulation (which includes the upper troposphere) and the strength of the hydrological cycle (which is mostly taking place in the lower troposphere):
Here’s the key point relative to extreme weather, however – a weaker circulation can counter-intuitively result in more intense storms:
Now, consider the mid-latitude weather systems, in the light of the fact that average pole-to-equator temperature differences are expected to decrease as warming continues. A weaker gradient should lead to weaker storms – or is that like saying a weaker atmospheric circulation would lead to weaker storms? MIT Professor Richard Lindzen claimed that this decrease in the temperature gradient would weaken, not intensify, mid-latitude storms – but he forgot about seasonality, I think.
The seasonal temperature changes in combination with the amount of water in the atmosphere is what leads to intense mid-latitude storms and high rates of precipitation – and that’s due to the tilt of the Earth on its axis – unlikely to change due to global warming. Yes, winter temperatures are expected to increase a few degrees – but what’s the winter-summer temperature differential at 30N? Much greater. Since the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere at the end of summer will be higher, when that water vapor-rich air hits cold masses of Arctic air, massive snowfalls and storms are expected, followed by rapid spring melts due to higher temps. This is a robust conclusion:
Anyway, that’s a very important paper on the hydrological cycle – and their approach is helpful – see their closing argument:
Re #146
I agree with your comment (which occupies just the last 5 lines of #146) at a technical level, except that it is rather orthogonal to mine which was concerned with the abuse which the glass version is receiving in the denialosphere.
My view is that simplifications which do not simplify and which are so easily distorted should be avoided in to-day’s propaganda war. That means telling enough of the truth.
This is more by way of a general comment and is probably off topic here. The sceptic blogs have been banging on about a new statistics paper (McShane and Wyner 2010) for some days now. I have been hoping to see some form of answer or response here. Are you going to produce one some time soon?
Tapio Schneider @ 29
In the water cycle, how does the wind influence the tranport of water into and around the atmosphere? A slight increase in air temperature results in only a small increase in humidity.
Air pressure changes greatly influence the evaporation of surface waters and is proably more important than a slight warming of the surface air.
When wind blows over the water, the surface cools quite a lot but the momentum of air molecules and atoms is so great that they just blast water molecules off the suface and into the air.
Ray 147 Listen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=868nr1Pgxw0
\Unequivocal\ is the wrong word for CLIMATE SCIENCE since 2003.
Bob 148
You claim:
***** “…Looking back at your posts, I’m finding you have never included a CLEAR STATEMENT of the details of your own position….” *********** (my emphasis)
QUITE WRONG, I began my second, post #78
Please forgive me for not making myself more clear. My point is about potential CC mitigation, not about the reality of GW or CC. Regardless of what you may wish to believe, more CC details are a requirement. We need them in order to choose what and how much we can and should do.
Silk suggests that you were too upset by my REVIEW to even notice my POSITION. You missed it again in your research for your post #148.
You continue ***Just “we don’t know enough, let’s wait.” ****
You made up that quotation, it was not me. I never said “wait”. EVER. I once used the word “waited”. Further down in my post #78, I wrote:
As one example, I believe we have waited much too long to try to find alternatives for fossil fuels. One result is that developing nations like China, trying to improve the quality of life of their citizens by following centuries old models that developed nations used have little choice but to continue to pollute.
The absolute opposite view from your misrepresentation. Give me a break.
You finished that paragraph with *** That’s it. ***
Well it should be and I hope so but I doubt it.
JohnPeter@154 Did you follow the link and read the piece?
“unequivocal – admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion.”
Sounds like the right word to me, you seem to wish the opposite:
“equivocal – open to two or more interpretations; or of uncertain nature or significance; or (often) intended to mislead.”
adelady #144
Excellent idea. While I’m kind of proud of my physics knowledge, my long ago biology/chemistry 101 are about gone in those areas. I am certainly not a “medically knowledgeable” person, as you use the term. I like your medical example even though I’m sure don’t really understand it in any scientific depth.
As far as Climate Change mitigation/adaption is concerned – given your recognition of and allowance for uncertain regional impacts – I believe we also are in agreement.
My beliefs (post# 78) are that:
“As one example, I believe we have waited much too long to try to find alternatives for fossil fuels. One result is that developing nations like China, trying to improve the quality of life of their citizens by following centuries old models that developed nations used have little choice but to continue to pollute.”
and my requirement for more work needed I stated as:
“All over the world nations are searching for better (more Green) ways to live. We all would be much further along on a great deal of this had we more solid scientific CC quantification.”
Why a few choose to make sport of me by misrepresenting my views only they could say. I never pay much attention to trolls anyway so I really don’t care.
flxible 157
Hi, nice to hear from you.
If you want to parse unequivocal I’m really not very interested.
If you want to join the Trenberth discussion,start with post #83. It should answer most of your question.
If you want to try join the Ladbury thread, it is about climate science, not global warming or climate change. Ray is trying to be a good activist and, so far, hasn’t tried to address any engineering requirements for good climate science (data).
BPL, Patrick,
Thank you for the explanations, references, and post organization.
Re 138 Brian Dodge
two key differences between the ocean and atmosphere
– while mountain ranges pinch atmospheric flow, they don’t cut it off completely, whereas the oceans are discontinuous (in at least some directions).
– regarding non-convective heat fluxes, the atmosphere is heated from below and cooled from above-no, actually, from within (but cooling is above warming in the global time average and this characterizes the whole surface+troposphere). Solar heating penetrates deeper than net LW cooling as well as evaporative and sensible cooling, and this, as well as salt rejection from growing ice and evaporation, can drive overturning, but precipitation and other freshenning of the surface water can impede that; generally, and the solar heating doesn’t penetrate through the whole ocean, so on the scale of the whole ocean, it is both heated and cooled, and freshenned and un-freshenned (what’s a verb for concentrating salt) in the upper ocean and at the surface. Wind-driven circulation of the ocean is important, whereas the driving of the atmosphere by surface motion (lack-thereof) is mainly through frictional/viscous slowing of the near-surface wind and effects of that.
The large scale flow of the atmosphere is mechanically affected by topography; in particular, westerly flow over topography produces topographically-forced Rossby waves; the strength of the waves that develop is larger if the speed of free propagation through the air is closer to the speed of the flow over topography. (Flow over topography also produces inertio-gravity waves, which can have effects on large scale flow but are themselves smaller-scale phenomena.)
Wind-driven motion over the ocean cannot generally produce zonally-continuous jets in the water because of the continents. The gyres produced by the wind might be thought of as Rossby waves forced by the wind; they would freely propagate westward (because the equatorward flow in the east produces a cyclonic PV anomaly and the poleward flow in the west produces an anticyclonic PV anomaly, and this would produce equatorward flow in the center, etc.) but the continents trap them, so the result is intensification of the western-boundary currents with more diffuse currents elsewhere.
My understanding (going from geophysical first principles here):
The meridional winds out of subtropical highs produce an average zonal flow that is to the east in the midlatitudes and to the west in the tropics.
The zonal winds around subtropical highs drive (via Ekman spiral, vertical average) convergence in the upper ocean into the subtropics; this raises the height of the sea surface, producing a high pressure throughout the ocean column. This high pressure will then cause ouflow everywhere, which will partly cancel the convergence in the upper ocean. Convergence in the upper ocean and divergence in the deeper ocean involves sinking motion. Because of the stable stratification of ocean water, sinking produces a region of lower density, which produces low pressure in the deeper ocean, so that the high pressure within the water decreases with depth. Aside from the ongoing direct effect of the wind, the high pressure in the water at the surface would support a geostrophic current that is eastward in the midlatitudes and westward in the tropics (anticyclonic around the subtropics). The lower density within the water (due to downward vertical displacement) supports a geostrophic shear such that the anticyclonic current will decrease with depth. (In the Equatorial region, this whole process can drive upwelling as surface water is pulled away into the subtropics.)
The zonal flow may be interupted by coastlines, in which case, there would be (relative to the subtropical center of an ocean basin) divergence in the poleward-east and equatorward-west, and convergence in the other ‘corners’. This would produce changes in the sea level that create pressure variations in the water which would slow the zonal flows but also cause some meridional flows in the eastern and western parts of the basin in opposite directions. It can also drive sinking and rising (and upwelling), with consequences for pressure variations with depth and geostrophic shear. Because the meridional flows thus far described is simply going down a pressure gradient, the coriolis force will act on them to drive motion away from the coasts and towards the center (for an anticyclonic flow relative to the center). This produces a higher pressure in the water in the center of the basin, etc, which can support geostrophic meridional (north and south) currents (that would weaken with depth because of the vertical displacement of density values via sinking motion within the water column in the center and rising motion at the coasts).
Thus a gyre can form that is geostrophic. However, it will tend to propagate into the western boundary because of the PV gradient (see above). Meanwhile, ongoing wind-driving should continue to support Ekman spirals (which must be linearly superimposed on the geostrophic currents?).
Heating (or freshenning) some region of surface water would raise the sea level, the warm water will then tend to spread out; the coriolis force acts on this divergence to induce anticylonic flow about around the warmed water; spreading stops when the flow equals the geostrophic flow. (there would be cyclonic geostrophic flow just underneath the warm water because the spreading would cause lower pressure in the water column; rising motion would produce greater density at depth which would concentrate the low pressure toward the upper ocean).
(PS the effect of rising or sinking acting on stable stratification to produce density anomalies that would support geostrophic vertical shear also applies to the atmosphere, as does the way the coriolis force acts on divergence or convergence.)
(PS actual PV doesn’t just depend on latitude (via f, a.k.a planetary vorticity); it also depends on relative vorticity (the vorticity of the winds/currents) and static stability (potential density increase with depth as measured by pressure); jets tend to be regions of larger PV gradients.)
Ray Ladbury @ 147 says “The empirical evidence makes it unequivocal that the planet is warming . . .”
John Peter @ 155 responds with “\Unequivocal\ is the wrong word for CLIMATE SCIENCE since 2003”
John Peter’s assertion is, in my opinion, essentially bereft of meaning (would unequivocal be the right word for CLIMATE SCIENCE prior to 2003?) and, as flexible points out @ 157, equivocal in the context of the article by Trenberth.
Clearly John Peter’s assertion utterly misses the point regarding Ray Ladbury’s use of the word unequivocal, which was in reference to the planet’s warming, not the status of climate science.
John, you are clearly a smart and articulate individual. I keep hoping that you’ll turn your talents in a more constructive direction.
Harold Pierce Jr (154),
you might be interested…there is a nice paper, from Richter and Xie (2008, JGR), that describes precipitation changes in terms of latent heat bulk formula, and separating the influence of near-surface wind speed, near surface stability, relative humidity changes, etc
Oh, gosh, John Peter is trying to claim that working PhD physicists aren’t aware of the need for data.
The world is warming, and no one’s going to care if John Peter says “there’s no data!” or not.
Re 154 Harold Pierce Jr –
That’s not how wind affects evaporation. What happens is – without turbulence, mixing occurs by molecular diffusion, which is relatively slow (as is thermal conduction). To sustain a flux of water vapor, the concentration (relative to total air, assuming hydrostatic balance) must vary, so that molecular diffusion can result in a net flux of water molecules down-gradient. Thus the concentration of water molecules would have to decrease greatly from the surface through a relatively thin layer of air in order to sustain the flux of water vapor coming from the surface (would also be true of the temperature for sustaining a heat flux without convection). Surface heating can drive small-scale turbulence above the surface. Absent that, or in combination, the larger-scale wind can supply the energy to drive turbulent mixing, so that molecular diffusion (and thermal conduction) are only dominant over a very thin layer, so that the (potential) temperature and water vapor mixing ratio don’t change so much between the surface and where convection can take over, sustaining large fluxes with small gradients.
On the larger scale, wind can transport dry air over wet surfaces; otherwise, the air over wet surfaces would tend to become more humid and this would slow the rate of evaporation.
Correction – second to last paragraph of my 38:
…some places will have evaporative surface cooling with sensible surface heating (cold dry air blowing over warm water or a warm moist surface…
SHOULD BE …warm dry air blowing over cool water or moist surface…
Re 151 Ike Solem –
very interesting!
About midlatitude storms
1. As I understand it, because of midlatitude-storm-track-induced upwelling of cooler water (from a level that will take a while to fully recieve the global warming signal) in the Southern hemisphere, the midlatitude storm track activity could actually strengthen there.
2. with the Arctic lower troposphere+surface warming being particularly strong in winter, there is still the low-latitude hot spot of the upper troposphere that, so far as I know, is still there in summer.
(Baroclinic instability requires a vertical reversal of the quasi-horizontal PV gradient. In one of the simplest possible models of baroclinic instability, the PV gradient within the fluid layer is ignored and the tropopause is treated like a boundary like the surface, so that their are effective PV gradients at the upper and lower boundaries related to the temperature gradients there; the baroclinic instability then takes the form of of Rossby waves at the upper and lower boundary which mutually-amplify each other. If the temperature gradient at the surface weakens, that would reduce the growth rate. But increasing the temperature gradient at the upper boundary should increase the growth rate. Of course, there are other things that come into play in the full picture (or even in this simple two-level model.)
Also, the zone where the temperature gradient weakenning is greatest – I’m not sure but I don’t think it actually aligns with the storm tracks all that well and I wonder if/how that would reduce the effect on storm-track activity.
3. Very good point about the role of latent heating in extratropical cyclones.
4. Additional stuff, speculation on my part but based on knowledge of physics and thus interesting to consider – with the increased height of the tropopause (not necessarily following midltatitude storm track activity, as that shifts poleward, where the tropopause is lower; not sure how that balances out), a reduced lapse rate (which doesn’t happen everywhere, especially lower troposphere in polar winter – PS that also affects PV) doesn’t necessarily mean the temperature difference between the surface and tropopause is reduced. If the temperature difference between surface convective cooling and the distribution of atmospheric convective heating were increased, then the atmospheric heat engine would become more efficient – there would be more kinetic energy generated per unit convective flux (potentially larger hail, other things being equal, which of course they won’t but anyway…). This of course depends both on horizontal and vertical temperature variation.
5. I wonder what happens to mesoscale convection phenomena.
6. If the relative humidity stayed (or fractionally changed) the same for all locations in the four-dimensional climate, then the differences in water vapor mixing ratios would increase in proportion to the average water vapor mixing ratio. I wonder if that would enhance some types of severe weather – particularly increasing the strength of microburts, or downdrafts in supercells – or if those downdrafts were from higher heights, then if the larger-scale temperature gradient (and thus, geostrophic wind shear) within that layer is not reduced too much, the downdraft might supply greater PV to the surface and affect tornadic activity …?
Re my 161 Heating (or freshenning) some region of surface water would raise the sea level…
It depends on how the freshenning occurs; actually adding fresh water would increase the total mass there; the point is that if the mass of the water column were held constant, decreasing the density has to raise sea level, creating a high pressure within the water in the upper layer (not below the level where the density was changed); adding or removing mass affects pressure at all levels.
Rick brown @162
Welcome. Thanks for dropping by.
Someone with a long career in public service believing that
“…The basic elements of conservation planning will remain the same: identifying species and habitats of concern, establishing landscape-scale networks that include reserves (protected areas), a matrix that provides connectivity among reserves, and provision for aquatic and other special habitats (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). How and where these elements are applied will likely need to be modified and/or supplemented in light of climate change. Assessments of which species and communities are at risk will need to be revised to take climate change into consideration…”
is capable of better than ad hominid comments. Surprisingly directed towards the one who is attempting to communicate the needs for exactly the better climate data required to support the application of such beliefs!
That said, I appreciate compliments, even left-handed ones. As for meaning, you should try reading a whole thread sometime. Some observations are simply too complex to be expressed in a single post.
It’s a little late in our lives to turn our talents much. Thank you however for pointing out that I should communicate more clearly. I completely agree with that need.
156 (John Peter),
Your emphasis:
My emphasis:
Everyone here can clearly see what your basic position is. The point is to substantiate and defend it, not just announce it and assume that you are right.
As far the fictional quote… it was never intended as a direct quote (for that I use the blockquote tag). It was meant as a paraphrase of your position, and I think everyone here has interpreted the basic premise (again, this is a paraphrase, not a quote) of “we don’t have enough info” which by itself implies “so we have to wait.”
But fine, take out the “wait” part. You’ve said that the science is too uncertain for us to take any mitigating action (although we don’t have to wait to do so?).
So now you’re right, it’s not over. Once again, can you provide any clarification or support of this very, very vague proposition that climate science is not yet advanced enough for us to take any action to mitigate CC? (Something besides sarcasm and irritation and self inflation and phlogiston?)
#155 John Peter
Unequivocal is the appropriate term. Any other interpretation is most likely based in an incomplete understanding of the well established science, or intentional denialism.
flxible is correct about the rest of the interview. It is important when you hear a piece of information to actually explore it’s context. Facts out of context are often used to mislead understanding, especially by denialists but also by those that simply do not understand the science at sufficient depth.
Due to the complexity of the field, it takes a while to get to those contexts but the journey is worth the effort.
You personally can equivocate all you want, but that won’t alter the well established climates science.
Honestly, I don’t know what point you are really making because you come off as rather ambiguous. Usin’ high fallutin’ words, maght sound impressuv, but I gotta admit, ya sound a lot like a politician in your general manner and subtle manipulations of the relevant contexts and statements that are meant to guide you down a path of better understanding.
You see it doesn’t matter how intelligent you are. It only matters if you understand what you are talking about fomr a holistic perspective. . . that is from outside of your perspective, especially from those that are truly adept on these subjects, as I am well aware, are so many of the regular posters in this thread.
Heck, ya can weave a blanket wid dem sentences of yourn, but that don’t mean it’ll keep ya warm at night.
The fact that you don’t want to parse unequivocal and equivocal shows conclusively that you are not interested in the truth, but rather the ambiguity.
—
Fee & Dividend: Our best chance – Learn the Issue – Sign the Petition
A Climate Minute: The Natural Cycle – The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
John Peter, Is it seriously your contention that Trenbreth has doubts about whether it is warming? That IS a fascinating interpretation! Not supported by his writings, public statements, research or the evidence, but fascinating nonetheless.
I am particularly interested in the cherrypick of 2003. I mean after all 2005 was the warmest year as far as GISTEMP is concerned, and 2009 came in at number 2 and 2010 is a good candidate to break the record.
You claim to understand the science, and yet you seem to utterly dismiss the evidence that constrains climate sensitivity to more than 2.1 degrees per doubling and much else. Your focus on short time periods casts doubt on whether you even understand the concept of climate! And that you could listen to that Trenbreth piece and actually take away the message that there is any doubt that we are warming the planet is beyond understanding. John, I´ll say it again: It does you no good to scurry for the darkness of uncertainty every time the light of science shines your way. Uncertainty cuts both ways, and the edge is one helluva lot sharper on the high side of climate sensitivity than on the low. Learn that, and I might have some respect for your understanding of the science.
Also, if you would care to prove me wrong and come up with a convincing analysis that shows climate risk is bounded, please do so. No one would be happier to have one than I would. Upper limits to risk really make probabilistic risk assessment a helluva lot easier.
reCAPTCHA: Orrove eschatological
#171 re. myself
To be more precise, in my second paragraph (last sentence), I should have said “Facts out of context are often used to mislead understanding, especially by denialists but also by those that simply do not understand the science and/or the scientific conclusions and relevant contexts within the scope of the sciences from which those conclusions derive, at sufficient depth.”
I don’t know the science at sufficient depth, but I feel I have a reasonable understanding of the scope of the conclusions and how those conclusions were derived via the scientific method.
In other words I actually trust the science, error bars and all. It’s not blind trust. First thing I thought when I d news last month that we lost a large amount of phytoplankton was, okay, but if so, why did it not show up in the O2 trends? And could there be other mechanisms that are compensating?
Based on the evidence from multiple analyses, I’m confident there is a problem with the phytoplankton, and that it will likely get worse. But I’m not yet confident that particular paper nailed it, though it did draw attention to it and now we can get more scopes on it. More context and understanding is needed. For any interested, I did a small overview in my July ‘Leading Edge’ report.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/leading-edge/2010/jul-the-leading-edge
—
Fee & Dividend: Our best chance – Learn the Issue – Sign the Petition
A Climate Minute: The Natural Cycle – The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
John Peter (currently at #169), could you please provide some examples of what you mean by “ad hominid comments”?
Ray 171
You are not paying attention. I KNOW GW is a fact because it can and has been measured by scientists. I KNOW GW is a fact because it can be seen by anyone who has been living anywhere in the world around a glacier. I KNOW GW is a fact because it has warmed the ocean and raised its PH. I KNOW GW is a fact because it has altered growing seasons in time and space, discomforting living creatures all over the world. I KNOW GW is a fact so please don’t tell me anymore I suspect/believe/know GW isn’t a fact. Especially you, Ray Ladbury.
You seem knowledgeable of Risk Analysis yet you put all your eggs in one basket. You do it with climate sensitivity and you do it with CO2. When you stop to think you should know you shouldn’t do that and that you don’t have to. You know climate sensitivity is yesterday’s news and other GHGs and other processes are becoming more important. We all should know, Ray Ladbury included, that no one can predict the future. In addition Ray Ladbury knows that in real life normal distributions are rare, that AIG-like financial meltdowns are unexpected and that black swans are everywhere. You have dedication, energy, a fine mind and excellent communication skills. Look beyond your current very narrow basket.
I did not “cherry-pick” 2003, Kevin found it and not because of temperature. His conservation of radiation calculations, which are the only ones that all climate scientists have been using for the past twenty years, drifted out of balance. Neither Kevin nor you nor I want to discard thermodynamics so we are looking for lost heat. “We” certainly includes Kevin and I and I would hope that it will include Ray Ladbury. BTW, I accidentally stumbled across Kevin’s u-tube presentation but it’s the same message he has delivered as an invited speaker at semi-annual climate conferences for the past 3 or 4 years. It’s the same message that you will find in his numerous papers over that same time period. Get yourself up-to-date. Kevin believes it is critical to get the data to find the missing heat/energy. So do I.
This is of major importance to all of us, not just climate science. To adapt to “regional” change and mitigate or what ever we wish to engineer, a lot more ocean data is required. Engineers can not function without calculations, regional calculations need more trustworthy data and there is a serious scarcity of it and of planning to acquire it. On this thread and elsewhere one hears “Oh, more data, better understanding, scientists always plug for that. But we don’t really need it, we know warming is unequivocal, that’s incontrovertible.” We need only one egg – CO2 – in our basket”
Well, what if that’s wrong? Suppose we succeed at the enormous tasks involved in stopping or slowing down anthropogenic CO2. Suppose it comes boiling up out of the oceans or wherever it’s hiding from Kevin? What do you want to do then? Will anyone believe you?
Ray, in addition to being a fine editor, you’re a solid engineer. Kevin needs to know what, when and how our heat is being lost. Let’s work on it.
Bob 170
Untrue
Steve @174
Nice catch. I should have typed “ad hominem.
The relevance of discussions in this post and comments on the hydrologic cycle is illustrated by an article in Science (Aug. 20) – “Drought-Induced Reduction in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 2000 Through 2009” – Maosheng Zhao and Steven W. Running
Science 20 August 2010: 940-943.
The authors report that net primary production (accumulation of carbon in biomass) increased in the decade preceding the current one, but has since declined on a global level. The most important factors appear to be drought and a temperature-mediated increase in plant respiration, leading to an increase in CO2 production. These findings are consistent with the data reported in earlier comments indicating that as temperature increases, the rate at which water accumulates in the atmosphere is not matched by a similar increase in precipitation. As a consequence, many dry areas tend to become drier. Because precipitation does in fact increase to some extent, flood-prone areas may become wetter, but on a global average, the drying effect predominates.
The decrease in NPP also implies a reduction in the capacity of the terrestrial carbon sink to accomodate additional anthropogenic CO2 emissions – in essence, a positive feedback effect of CO2 on its own rate of atmospheric growth.
It will be dark outside here in Portland, Oregon 12 hours in the future.
It’s clear, John, that you do not understand Kevin’s point.
Let me repeat this snippet:
Why wouldn’t they believe climate scientists? Kevin’s saying we don’t have the data to, in essence, back up claims that the excess energy is “hiding’, as you put it, in the oceans. An event such as you propose would provide that data … oops, there it is, “boiling up” from just where we said it was hiding …
John Peter, with all due respect, I really don’t understand your point, or what appears to be your point.
We already KNOW that we need to rapidly phase out our CO2 emissions, which means we need to phase out fossil fuel use.
Your assertion that we somehow need “more solid scientific CC quantification” in order to affirm that imperative is just plain wrong, period, end of story.
What we ALREADY KNOW and have in fact known for years about AGW, is far more than sufficient to make the urgency of phasing out fossil fuels as quickly as possible abundantly clear.
Certainly, “more solid scientific CC quantification” might tell us about other things that we need to do in addition to rapidly phasing out fossil fuels — particularly with regard to attempting to adapt to the now inevitable and irrevocable effects of the warming that our GHG emissions have already caused, particularly on regional scales.
Likewise, I believe that empirical scientific observations of the ongoing effects of AGW already make it clear that we need to find ways to draw down the already dangerous anthropogenic excess of CO2 — but again, that is in addition to phasing out fossil fuels.
But that in no way changes the absolute and urgent necessity of phasing out fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
JPR @171, 173
Thanks for taking the time, I enjoy your posts and appreciate your advice.
If we are trying in this thread to, as rasmus put it to us
[edit – sorry, this is crossing over in the category of trolling and is taking the thread off topic. no more of this please]
Shorter Dr. Trenberth: it’s in the oceans
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/328/5976/316
#180–I’m with SA; it’s become increasingly unclear to me just what the point at issue is in the “John Peter” subthread.
I suppose that in general, though, acrimony and informational value tend to be inversely related.
Trenberth pdf here:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TrenberthSciencePerspectives-1.pdf
My take on the shorter version:
“We still don’t completely understand where the missing heat is.”
(For clarity, I don’t particularly like that conclusion, but that appears to be what it is.)
“We still don’t completely understand where the missing heat is.” Is a bit of misdirection for JP [just like his “collegial” addressing of others here] – an interesting and puzzling question for scientists, especially with respect to geo-engineering proposals, but the fact that the “missing energy” will bite us in the rear sometime is clear and SA states it correctly, we need to stop adding to the energy budget soonest, not wait to act until JohnPeter is satisfied that some as-yet unclear mitigation is appropriate.
SecularAnimist @180
I agree with you.
dhgaza @170
OK, just be sure to pick the right ocean.
Kevin McKinney
@183 I agree. Completely
@184 Right, me too.
Fix global. Find regional. Sleep soundly.
Hank Roberts @ 182
Thanks Hank, another good one, right on. But a wee bit too short, read their last paragraph.
“Proposals for addressing global warming now include geoengineering, whereby tiny particles are injected into the stratosphere to emulate the cooling effects of stratospheric aerosol of a volcanic eruption (15). Implicitly, such proposals assume understanding and control of the energy flow, which requires detailed tracking of energy within the climate system. How can we understand whether the strong cold outbreaks of December 2009 are simply a natural weather phenomenon, as they seem to be, or are part of some change in clouds or pollution, if we do not have adequate measurements?”
Patrick 027 — 19 August 2010 @ 9:22 PM “…key differences between the ocean and atmosphere…”
Don’t forget compressibility; air is, water isn’t.
Consider a lump of air at the top of the troposphere, and a lump of water at the surface of the North Atlantic, both cooling by radiation compared to their surroundings. The lump of air will shrink, according to the ideal gas laws, and the lump of water will shrink according to its coefficient of thermal expansion. Both will become denser and start to sink through their surrounding fluids – convective flow familiar to most of the readers of this blog.
As the cool lump of air descends, the increasing pressure of the surrounding air will compress it – some of the compression will go into reducing the volume, and some of the compression will heat the air. As the cool lump of water descends, it won’t compress or warm, even though the pressure is increasing.
The end result is that the troposphere has a vertical temperature gradient – dry, moist, or environmental lapse rate – that the oceans don’t have. Warm water floats on the surface, and the solar input is concentrated near the surface as you pointed out. Heat is carried by waves, currents, and conduction down into the ocean, but below a kilometer or so, the oceans are cool, over a relatively narrow temperature range. The Gulf of Mexico drops from ~24 degrees at the surface to ~8 degrees at 500 meters, but only to ~5 degrees in the next 500 meters.
JP, citing sources might help folks understand where you’re trying to take the conversation (and help you see why people aren’t engaging your issues much).
Yes, energy budget needed; yes, troposphere is connected to that. But mostly you’re restating familiar and obvious points, to anyone who’s been reading here a while. Trenberth has been clear about the need for, and difficulty and expense of, more and better instruments, e.g.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/NatureNV10.pdf
NATURE|Vol 465|20 May 2010
“The ocean is warming, isn’t it? — Kevin E. Trenberth
A reappraisal of the messy data on upper-ocean heat content for 1993–2008 provides clear evidence for warming. But differences among various analyses and inconsistencies with other indicators merit attention.
Global atmospheric temperatures at Earth’s surface are often taken as an indicator of global warming. Yet the atmosphere is battered by all sorts of natural variability associated with weather phenomena. More robust indicators of a warming planet come from evidence of increasing ocean heat content and associated sea-level rise. Yet observing sys-
tems to capitalize on these insights are in their infancy….”
(When reading that, if you notice a temptation to post about other uncertainties, I’d suggest a search beginning with site:realclimate.org followed by the keywords. That finds previous discussions. For example the ARGO thermometers: revised, not news)
More interesting, I think, would be to reread the original post and inquire about the ideas brought up there that suggest new ideas.
It helps to keep in consideration when discussing delays in responding to our problem with C02 emissions, many of us take into account the remarkable benefits accruing to certain parties from each year’s procrastination.
8 of the 25 largest corporations by revenue on the planet are firms primarily concerned with production and distribution of petroleum. Their combined annual revenue is ~2.2 trillion dollars.
In this case of the threat we face from fossil fuels, we confront corporations whose bylaws include nothing about public welfare that might substantially affect their financial performance. Leaving aside feel-good public perception cosmetics, their legally stated, mandated objectives are effectively divorced from social good.
In the past 100 years the art and science of industrialized public relations has been refined beyond what many of us can envision. Many of these campaigns do not respect the truth, indeed they cannot because to do so would render them ineffective. Public relations campaigns invade nearly every corner of our lives where people gather to communicate, from massive advertorial distribution all the way down to elementary school classrooms. In the middle, of late, are blogs.
So we have a situation where we face practically unlimited means, tremendous motivation, fully evolved methods to deceive the public. From the relatively little we know of this collective adversary to improving our behavior, we’re quite certain that this is not a hypothetical battle, it’s going on right now. We also know that honesty is counterproductive to these campaigns; preserving the current flow of revenue is their objective and that cannot happen if these communications efforts fully respect facts.
Each year of failure to address C02 emissions benefits the fossil fuel sector in an enormous way, we know this from published revenue figures. Their documented efforts to distort public discussion of climate change are a truly remarkable bargain for what they receive in return for paltry expenditures, arguably something in the neighborhood of ~0.5% of annual revenue for the entire time this prolonged argument has been going on. Fossil fuel concerns are richly rewarded by the tiny amount of money spent on prolonging effective decisions to seriously confront fossil fuel emissions via public policy.
We know we live in a synthesized climate of procrastination. Op-eds, pointless congressional investigations of climate scientists, multiple fossil fuel lobbyists per legislator, all of these are weather effects from this climate. We can be fairly certain these weather phenomena include paid shills appearing in any public venue where climate is discussed as avoiding the cost of doing so is immeasurably small compared to the stakes at hand. As with physical weather, hard attribution of particular opinions expressed in support of delay is impossible, but the statistics we’re confronted with make it impossible to assume we’re not speaking with a public relations puppet in such cases.
So, pointing no fingers here, just trying to explain a little bit why encouragement to do nothing may elicit surprisingly negative reactions from some of those following this matter closely.
John Peter (currently #177). I am very disappointed with your “nice catch” response to my identification of your “ad hominid” typo. This is because of the very large wasted humor value (argument to proto humans?). So instead, because claims of ad hominem criticisms are often claimed by common trolls who wish to sound educated, could you please provide a few examples of actual ad hominem comments that have been directed at you by Rick Brown, or whomever? I didn’t see any.
Re 190 Brian Dodge – Good point.
If the atmosphere were not so compressible, it would be possible to saturate the greenhouse effect (adiabatic cooling would bring the fluid to some finite nonzero temperature at the ‘surface’ at TOA, so large opacity would allow all emissions to come from very near that ‘surface’ temperature, etc; okay, there would be a layer where convection would give way to molecular conduction and diffusion, allowing a superadiabatic lapse rate there, but with limited effect… of course, this assumes none of the atmosphere evaporates into space forming some gaseous layer above it that provides some additional greenhouse effect :))
And the geometry of vertically-propagating mechanical waves would be altered.
But even with that, the atmosphere could still have a Hadley cell and midlatitude storm tracks. (Maybe the parameters of fluid dynamics would be altered so that their would be multiple storm tracks as could otherwise be the case for a more rapid rotation…?)
Water does actually cool or warm adiabatically upon changing pressure; the effect is just small. Because salinity is so important to determining density, the potential density is used in the ocean in the same way that potential temperature is used in the atmosphere (in the approximation of small compositional variations) (potential temperature and potential density value indicating density at a particular pressure that is conserved by adiabatic processes).
In either layer, a well-mixed (adiabatic) layer would have constant potential density. Static stability is greater if the potential density decreases with height more rapidly.
Both the atmosphere and ocean have some horizontal differential heating. Also including concentration or dilution of impurities in the ocean, this can drive overturning that increases static stability not just to zero but through positive values. But the atmosphere, also being heated significantly from below, tends to only get a little bit stratified overall.
Maybe the solar heating within the upper ocean combined with cooling at the surface might still drive Hadley cells, etc, in the upper ocean (?), but maybe the mixing driven from the winds (and tides and planckton) and wind-driven currents and mass rearrangements just dominate over such a pattern. Also, the solar heating of the water would be a maximum outside the atmospheric ITCZ (cloud cover) and the freshening of surface water by precipitation has to be mixed downward in order to have density-driven upward motion there… (no latent heating – oh, that’s another big difference between the atmosphere and ocean.)
PS forgot something about wind-driven gyres before. The Ekman spiral is an equilibrium solution in which the water at each level moves so that the coriolis acceleration balances the frictional acceleration – the later tending to generally pull the velocity toward an average between the velocity above and the velocity below. But continual input of momentum from the wind should tend to continue to accelerate the currents. The Ekman spiral spirals around and in toward a non-wind-driven (or more indirectly wind-driven) current at depth, which will not always be zero, of course.
The winds about the subtropics should continually add anticyclonic angular momentum to the water. The equatorward flow can balance this effect by bringing the water to where the planetary vorticity is less cyclonic, so that the water’s PV at a given location could reach a steady state value. The western boundary current can lose anticylonic angular momentum via viscosity/mixing (enhanced by larger horizontal shear via the larger speed via the narrowness of the current) as the speed drops toward the coast.
Part of the difference between atmsopheric and oceanic circulation behavior could be explained as a consequence of the greater kinetic energy per unit mass in the atmosphere; the effect of visocity at the surface, even over the ocean, is generally to slow the winds down, while the effect on the ocean is to add energy and significanly shape the circulation of the ocean.
PS not sure my second to last sentence of second to last paragraph of my prior comment is quite accurate (at the bottom of the ocean, an oppositely-handed Ekman spiral would tend to develop, so there would be some layer that couldn’t fit a single Ekman spiral and thus might not be in equilibrium but continue to adjust, which could ultimately result in some background flow throughout the interior…?)
But my last paragraph seems to be in agreement with something from a textbook (Hartmann, “Global Physical Climatology”, 1994, pp. 191-192) (it should, since I learned about it from that source, though with sufficicent intervening time that, after that comment, I decided I should review it to be sure, hence this paragraph), which makes the interesting point that divergence in the rest of the ocean caused by convergence in the upper ocean in the subtropics would induce anticyclonic vorticity there, which could be compensated by equatorward flow in steady-state circulation. Maybe more on that later…
Steve Fish @193
Yeah, ad hominid attack is pretty funny.
No more examples. Moderator said knock it off.
Conservation planning will require better climate science. If you have any substantive disagreement about this ask Rick Brown, he’s the expert.
BTW do you have any references for your trolling assertions? I’d sure like to see them.
[Response: Stick to substance–Jim]
176 (John Peter),
Simple denial. But it seems to work well for you, so you stick with it.
Yet you said it yet again in post 196, and you keep saying it, with no detail or support, as if the mere incessant echo makes it true:
Your response to not defending your own position is to direct people to another poster (Rich Brown).
The silence is profoundly deafening, and sums it up.
You’ve set yourself up as very well educated / widely read. You have a strong opinion on the subject. You chose to post here, and you chose what you said.
But you can’t defend it?
…(at the bottom of the ocean, an oppositely-handed Ekman spiral would tend to develop, so there would be some layer that couldn’t fit a single Ekman spiral and thus might not be in equilibrium but continue to adjust, which could ultimately result in some background flow throughout the interior…?)
Okay, never mind that part, it could be wrong…
Sphaerica @197
Conservation planning can be found in a National Forest Restoration Collaborative publication titled “The Implications of Climate Change at:
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/biodiversity_partners/implications_of_climate_change_for_conservation,_restoration_and_management_of_national_forest_lands.pdf
I believe there will not be enough climate science to do what the forest folk want to do. They will need regional data with much better granularity. The computers aren’t powerful enough to provide this from global models, regional planning will need better radiation accounting than Kevin can give them. The current level of understanding of horizontal heat circulation in the atmosphere (Hadley cells?), the level of understanding of horizontal heat in the oceans, the vertical depth of ocean heat storage and the coupling between them is not understood and the current data for the ocean – which covers over 60% of the earth’s surface and absorbs over 90% of the annual heat. Until recently, we assumed most of the heat remained at the surface where storage times were measured in decades and years, if we have to find Kevin’s lost heat in the deep ocean, where storage times can be centuries (or more?) we have a lot of rethinking to do. IMO Kevin’s lost heat is important – if we could do energy balance at a regional level we might avoid the global computer power in favor of more restricted calculations.
I believe the climate is warming, we can measure that. I don’t see myself as a denier. I am scientifically skeptical of AGW because, AFAK, the anthropological correlation can only be established over a very short time period, speaking paleoclimate-wise. In scientific terms, correlation is not causality. In crude terms it is only a mathematical form of guilt-by-association.
Even though I believe in global warming, I’m not at all sure we can do much about it. I certainly do not believe we can control it. I can support fossil fuel use reduction for a number of reasons starting with conservation by a growing population in a finite resource world. I don’t require AGW to support action requirements.
I have no trouble supporting CO2 emission restrictions because I believe in the tracking we did and the molecular tracing. After all, since we added so much it can’t be harmful to slow down. We should watch that we don’t impact regional agriculture though, plants need some CO2. I can’t defend that very well, I don’t claim any biological or chemical skills or even much knowledge.
I object to Ray’s and others use of such extreme terms as “unequivocal” or “incontrovertible”. I also am discomforted by your suggestion “We are introducing too much CO2, so the planet is heating is a result”. I really don’t to debate it any more, I’ll get labeled a “denier”. But you’ve put a lot of effort into this exchange and I wanted to be fair and try to offer some explanation of my logic and beliefs. As to my actions – well, the moderators have asked each of us to stay OT.
You’re right again, I do have strong opinions. The NFR ref was interesting to me, but I am not competent in that area. If you’ve understand my statements above, and followed the Kevin sub-thread you should also know why I believe that we need better climate science. It might even help the deafening silence.
OK?
> I certainly do not believe we can control it.
There’s your problem. Try this and the links on this page:
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1121