- Moscone West
Archive for the ‘atmosphere’ Category
Tags: IPCC, logarithmic CO2
Here’s another guest post from Ed Hoskins. This one deals with the IPCC’s own figures fro the effect of CO2 on global tamperature, demonstrating that due to the logarithmic limitation as this trace gas increases, future warming will be limited to within beneficial limits.
The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide CO2 on temperature
Ed Hoskins MAarch (Cantab) BDS (Lond).
The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is theoretically plausible, but its influence is known and widely accepted to diminish as its concentration increases. It diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration.
Global Warming advocates and Climate Change sceptics both agree on this. IPCC Published reports, (TAR), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information has been presented in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate) [i].
NASA has released the first images from its Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) at the AGU conference today. (more…)
Tags: agu fall meeting, NE Pacific
- GC33H-07Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature trends and variations, 1900-2012
Peter Morecambe: Institutional Climate Science, Prospects for Independent Researchers and Some ResultsPosted: December 16, 2014 by tallbloke in Analysis, Astrophysics, atmosphere, Big Brother, Blog, Celestial Mechanics, Cycles
Tags: james hansen, kyoto, Scafetta
Guest post from Peter Morecambe aka ‘Galloping Camel’
The Kyoto Protocol
Elites around the world tend to believe that rising levels of CO2 in our atmosphere will cause catastrophic climate changes. Collectively they wield enough power to shape energy policies in many nations according to commitments laid down in the “Kyoto Protocol” and subsequent accords. It is interesting to compare the fate of the Kyoto Protocol based on the work of “Climate Scientists” such as Michael Mann with that of the Montreal Protocol based on the work of people like McElroy.
The Montreal Protocol essentially banned the production of Freon and similar compounds based on the prediction that this would reduce the size of the polar “Ozone Holes”. After the ban went into effect the size of the ozone holes diminished. This may mean that the science presented by McElroy and his cohorts was “Robust” or it may be dumb luck. Either way, McElroy has credibility and “Skeptics” are ridiculed. The Kyoto Protocol did not fare so well.
Ferenc Miskolczi: The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s AtmospherePosted: December 13, 2014 by tallbloke in Analysis, atmosphere, climate, Clouds
Tags: Cloud radiative, Ferenc Miskolczi, greenhouse effect, IPCC, Tau
Well here’s a nice surprise. Out of the blue, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi has dropped a link onto Tim Channon’s thread, which goes to his major new paper, published by the SEI. So we are privileged to be among the first to read it and start a discussion. It challenges the entire basis of the IPCC AGW theory by deriving a theoretical atmosphere which fits observations and demonstrates stability of the Earth’s radiative balance. Thanks Ferenc!
By Kelly Dickerson for Yahoo News:
The sun’s magnetic field can bend Earth’s own magnetic field, and this twisting and turning may be allowing an influx of high-energy particles into the planet’s atmosphere. These particles can cause a buildup of electric charge that can trigger lightning strikes.
From 2001 to 2006, during a period when the sun’s magnetic field was severely skewing the Earth’s magnetic field, the United Kingdom saw 50 percent more lightning strikes than normal, according to the new study. This severe skewing happens regularly as the sun’s magnetic field shifts. Scientists say this suggests the sun’s magnetic field could be used to predict the occurrence of lightning.
At The Hockey Schitick MS has posted a brave article
“The Greenhouse Equation”
This seems to be a culmination of a series of articles.
[UPDATE: and another article showing a fit against Standard Atmosphere http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-greenhouse-equation-predicts.html /UPDATE]
Hockey Schtick: Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gasesPosted: November 24, 2014 by tallbloke in Analysis, atmosphere, innovation, radiative theory, Thermodynamics
Over at the Hockey Schtick, Michael has an interesting new angle on determining planetary surface temperature from pressure and gravity – a subject covered extensively here at the Talkshop over the last three years. Here’s an extract. Of particular interest here is his new method of using the centre of mass of the atmosphere as a reference point. Head on over to read the full post.
Step 2: Determine the height at the center of mass of the atmosphere
We are determining the temperature gradient within the mass of the atmosphere and the equilibrium temperature is thus at the center of mass. The “effective radiating level” or ERL of planetary atmospheres is located at the approximate center of mass of the atmosphere where the temperature is equal to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun. The equilibrium temperature of Earth with the Sun is commonly assumed to be 255K or -18C as calculated here. As a rough approximation, this height is where the pressure is ~50% of the surface pressure. It is also located at the approximate half-point of the troposphere temperature profile set by the adiabatic lapse rate, since to conserve energy in the troposphere, the increase in temperature from the ERL to the surface is offset by the temperature decrease from the ERL to the tropopause.
Step 3: Determine the surface temperature
For Earth, surface pressure is 1 bar, so the ERL is located where the pressure ~0.5 bar, which is near the middle of the ~10 km high troposphere at ~5km. The average lapse rate on Earth is 6.5 km, intermediate between the 10C/km dry adiabatic lapse rate and the 5C/km wet adiabatic lapse rate, since the atmosphere on average is intermediate between dry and saturated with water vapor.
Plugging the average 6.5C/km lapse rate and 5km height of the ERL into our equation (6) above gives
T = -18 – (6.5 × (h – 5))
Using this equation we can perfectly reproduce the temperature at any height in the troposphere as shown in Fig 1. At the surface, h = 0, thus temperature at the surface Ts is calculated as
Ts = -18 – (6.5 × (0 – 5))
Ts = -18 + 32.5
Ts = 14.5°C or 288°K
which is the same as determined by satellite observations and is ~33C above the equilibrium temperature with the Sun.
Thus, we have determined the entire 33C greenhouse effect, the surface temperature, and the temperature of the troposphere at any height, entirely on the basis of the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law, without use of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, nor the concentrations of greenhouse gases, nor the emission/absorption spectra of greenhouse gases at any point in this derivation, demonstrating that the entire 33C greenhouse effect is dependent upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.
Future low solar activity periods may cause cold winters in North America, Europe and Russia.
Jarl Ahlbeck – Abo Akademi University, Finland
Historically, low solar activity periods like the Dalton and Maunder Minima have been connected to cold winters in Europe. It seems very possible that the low solar activity forced areas of low pressures into a southern route or caused a negative Arctic Oscillation, AO, which in turn allowed cold air from the North Pole to flow across Europe. But can we obtain from real measurements that low solar activity really is able to do that?
This article caught my eye because Isaac Held stuck his oar in. Talkshop readers will have a field day with this I think.
Researchers show that a canonical view of global warming tells only half the story.
Genevieve Wanucha | Program in Atmospheres Oceans and Climate
November 10, 2014
In classrooms and everyday conversation, explanations of global warming hinge on the greenhouse gas effect. In short, climate depends on the balance between two different kinds of radiation: The Earth absorbs incoming visible light from the sun, called “shortwave radiation,” and emits infrared light, or “longwave radiation,” into space.
Upsetting that energy balance are rising levels of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), that increasingly absorb some of the outgoing longwave radiation and trap it in the atmosphere. Energy accumulates in the climate system, and warming occurs. But in a paper out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, MIT researchers show that this canonical view of global warming is only half the story.
A new facility here for creating clear air insolation data, without the more involved absorption effects or cloud, etc. needed some testing and so…
This plot appeared during July 2012 after Dr. Hans Jelbring made available hourly data from the Koorin Expedition to Daly Waters, Australia during the astral winter of 1974. A new plot trace has been added, computed by a new dynamic language library, a wrapper around an unaltered version of NREL SOLPOS. This produces an output value for one point in time, the plots here were created by a program feeding in different parameters, producing a time series, all very simple.
This result is similar to a result with data from Chilbolton Observatory, England from a Kip & Zonnen CNR4 net pyranometer / pyrgeometer. Around 22% of inward solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere in excess of that computed by SOLPOS.
Greenhouse gases effectively absorb infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the natural greenhouse effect.
Atmospheric radiation is strongly coupled to the temperature of the level at which it is emitted. In the troposphere the temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, -19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C.
Several Talkshop commenters have asked for more information on Ferenc Miskolczi’s theory about atmospheric law. The information is already on the Talkshop but explicitly bringing it out does no harm. The information is widely available.
There are two presentations which may be useful, a general one which touches on the theory and then an attempt by a colleague to explain.
As I understand it: The fundamental for Earth is water compensates for CO2 leading to a constant factor involving 1/3 for atmospheres. For Earth also the atmosphere can be considered as convection series connected with radiation. It fits for Mars and Lunar.
I’d not followed up on the saga of DMS, a reminder came up so I’ve dug out the tale up to 2003 or so. What then, can anyone add more? Because IPCC AR4 looks to me to be obfuscating. Best do a quick scan of the long article before dipping too deeply into links.
“Dimethyl sulfide (DMS) or methylthiomethane is an organosulfur compound with the formula (CH3)2S. Dimethyl sulfide is a water-insoluble flammable liquid that boils at 37 °C (99 °F) and has a characteristic disagreeable odor. It is a component of the smell produced from cooking of certain vegetables, notably maize, cabbage, beetroot and seafoods.”
And the smell of seaside. Stinky stuff is Sulphur.
Why mention this on the Talkshop?
Ocean critters produce the stuff, a very complex situation.
The C is produced from CO2. S probably from volcanoes. Predation of the critters is also involved etc. part of a food chain. Sulphur is in short supply, so bad that farming often needs additional input wherein lies yet another sad tale of enviro own goals, perhaps too why volcanic soils are lauded as highly productive.
- Abstract. Continuous measurements of atmospheric dimethylsulfide (DMS) have been performed over a 10-year period (1990-1999) at Amsterdam Island in the southern Indian Ocean. Atmospheric DMSranges from 5 to1930 parts per trillion by volume (pptv) and shows a clear seasonal variation with a factor of 20 in amplitude between its maximum in January (austral summer) and minimum in July-August (austral winter). Important deviations from the 10-year monthly mean as high as 100% have been detected, which could not be explained by changes in meteorology and/or oxidation capacity of the atmosphere. Comparison with a three dimensional (3-D) chemistry/transport model revealed that changes in the source strength of DMS as high as a factor of 2 were required to account for such DMS interannual variations. In addition, DMS variability was found to be closely related to sea surface temperature anomalies, clearly indicating a link between DMS and climate changes.
From this I assume there is a strong positive cloud seeding temperature coefficient but suitable data for an attempt at computing effect does not seem to exist.
Over on realclimate, (remember them?), Stefan ‘there is no pause’ Rahmsdorf has posted an article about why OHC makes a lousy climate policy target. I’ve left a comment concerning a sentence further down in the post, but here’s the intro:
The New York Times, 12 December 2027: After 12 years of debate and negotiation, kicked off in Paris in 2015, world leaders have finally agreed to ditch the goal of limiting global warming to below 2 °C. Instead, they have agreed to the new goal of limiting global ocean heat content to 1024 Joules. The decision was widely welcomed by the science and policy communities as a great step forward. “In the past, the 2 °C goal has allowed some governments to pretend that they are taking serious action to mitigate global warming, when in reality they have achieved almost nothing. I’m sure that this can’t happen again with the new 1024 Joules goal”, said David Victor, a professor of international relations who originally proposed this change back in 2014. And an unnamed senior EU negotiator commented: “Perhaps I shouldn’t say this, but some heads of state had trouble understanding the implications of the 2 °C target; sometimes they even accidentally talked of limiting global warming to 2%. I’m glad that we now have those 1024 Joules which are much easier to grasp for policy makers and the public.”
Dear Professor xxxxxxx,
I am trying to better understand the physics underlying atmospheric science and wondered if you could answer a question for me.
The Modtran model successfully predicts the local temperature throughout the troposphere, but how do we determine the extent to which the level of radiative activity at a particular altitude is the effect of the local temperature at that altitude rather than the cause of it?
I ask because it appears from my limited reading and understanding that the theoretical underpinning of radiative-convective models neglects the effect of sea level pressure on the rate of evaporation, which must surely have a significant effect on the rate at which the ocean is able to shed the energy input to it by solar radiation.
Tags: Missing variable fallacy
From the Guardian:
It was one of science’s strangest social events to date.
Some of the best known names in the climate debate – including Mail on Sunday journalist David Rose, blogger Anthony Watts, and Met Office scientist Richard Betts – shared salmon and civilities at a dinner party last month.
Hosted by the sceptical scientist Nicholas Lewis at his house in Bath in September, the group discussed their similarities, differences, and how they might calm the debate that rages across the pathologically provocative medium of Twitter.
“Both sides are really fed up with the outrageous alarmists who are not representing science properly. Both don’t like those who shout about it and call people names and take a polarised point of view,” says David Whitehouse from the sceptic thinktank The Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Oh the irony!
Cutting CO2 emissions is…
Yes, that’s right, deadly man-made CO2 is the largest cooling agent of the stratosphere as demonstrated by this computer-modeled representation of stratospheric cooling rates:
Image from blog article, originally in E M Smith’s article chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/le-chatelier-and-his-principle-vs-the-trouble-with-trenberth/