Can the atmosphere really warm? Atmospheric gas retention.

[RegGuheert]

What is not happening is the world is not warming this century.
[Other denialist falsehoods snipped]

Reg, we have talked about this before, but clearly you haven't understood: weather involves short term fluctuations, climate is an average over a period of 15-30 years. I have presented the data showing that each decade has been hotter than the last globally. That means that the world is warming, it hasn't stopped. That's why we just had the hottest March-June on record globally. I can't make it any simpler than that. Your denial of the data and cherry picking some arbitrary point to count from means you either don't understand that random variations in temperature (weather) is not relevant to climate or you have an ulterior motive (probably political) for denying what is happening.

In your world, it seems BAD news, no matter how short in duration, is climate change but GOOD news is only weather:

I have lived in Southern California all my life. We are in record territory. Most likely we are experiencing the early effects of climate change:

Perhaps I should rephrase what I said. The world has been in a cooling trend for over a decade. Most likely, that cooling trend will accelerate as the sun comes down from the second peak of its current cycle.

You can deny the current cooling trend if you wish.

 

[Alric]

Climatologist Katharine Hayhoe debunks the cooling myth

https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/488926499135713281" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[klapauzius]

Perhaps I should rephrase what I said. The world has been in a cooling trend for over a decade. Most likely, that cooling trend will accelerate as the sun comes down from the second peak of its current cycle.
You can deny the current cooling trend if you wish.

Reg, the measured and published data prove you wrong.

I assume you are not willfully lying to us, i.e. I assume you are genuinely convinced that you know and speak the truth.

Would you explain to us, why you think we differ on something, that should be unequivocally clear by now to everyone?

After all, we CAN measure temperature trends over the years, and more importantly, we HAVE done so for over a century.

No matter how you normalize the graphs, over a century, the temperature goes up. And this trend does not change.

 

[Stoaty]

The world has been in a cooling trend for over a decade.

Reg, you seem like an intelligent guy, I can't understand how you can't analyze something this simple. If you take the year 1998, then perhaps you could say the "trend" has been level or slightly downward. However, that is disingenous because climate is not dependent on the temperature of one individual year, it is an average over time. You can't cherry pick your starting point and at the same time claim that you are talking about climate. Even at the decade level (should be 15-30 years for a true "climate" description) it is getting hotter every decade. Did you ever take statistics? Do you understand there is a lot of noise in the weather (which is why you need a long period of time to tease out the climate signal)? 12 of the last 13 years were the hottest on record but we are in a cooling trend? This goes completely against common sense.

 

[AndyH]

Case in point:

We know from science that the oceans are warmed by sunlight, not downwelling infrared.

What we've known for a very, very long time is that energy is transferred through three mechanisms - convection, conduction, and radiation. We also know that energy moves from high to low (hotter to colder).

Downwelling infrared does NOT warm the oceans. Sunlight does that. Anyone who claims otherwise really needs to learn a lot more about the physics.

"Sunlight" contains IR.

IR absolutely WILL heat water and other liquids. Just because IR doesn't penetrate very deeply into the water mass does not mean that no heat is transferred by radiation (consider the definition of 'absorption' - it's an energy transfer). Oceans and other bodies of water are not static - water is mixed by at least wind and convection- and that brings new water to absorb energy.

If IR does not heat water as you erroneously suggest, how does this work?
http://www.noblelight.net/infrared_heat_applications/ultrapure_water_applications/index.shtml

Edit... Bill - even a recognized climate denier says your view of physics is incorrect...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body/

 

[klapauzius]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IR absorption coefficients are orders of magnitude higher than for e.g. the blue to ultraviolet part of the spectrum.
The dip in the absorption spectrum of water lies between 200 and 1000 nm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water#mediaviewer/File:Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I guess this (IR not heating water) is another Reg-fact (tm), like the ongoing and accelerating cooling.

 

[WetEV]

Most likely, that cooling trend will accelerate as the sun comes down from the second peak of its current cycle.

They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist. . . .

Killed in battle during US Civil War. Some reports say he finished the sentence before getting shot and dying.

I should go back and find some of the quotes from 1996 about the "cooling trend" then "underway". I'm looking forward to the next couple of years. Are you?

You can deny the current cooling trend if you wish.

I'll let the data do the talking.

 

[donald]

I'll let the data do the talking.

So, what temperature line should the ocean have tracked recently?

 

[klapauzius]

So, what temperature line should the ocean have tracked recently?

Why should we ask this question?
According to Reg, it should be cooling, if you have been following the recent discussion.

 

[AndyH]

I'll let the data do the talking.

<snip>

So, what temperature line should the ocean have tracked recently?

We've covered that already, Donald, though from a systems view not from an 'only the ocean' view. The 'fact' remains that the planet - oceans included - was cooling toward our next 'regularly scheduled' glacial cycle.

By digging up fossil carbon the planet 'saw fit' to sequester last time the system had too much free carbon, we didn't accelerate a natural warming trend, and we didn't 'turn the curve' upward from a zero-slope condition, we reversed a cooling trend.

 

[donald]

We've covered that already, Donald, though from a systems view not from an 'only the ocean' view. The 'fact' remains that the planet - oceans included - was cooling toward our next 'regularly scheduled' glacial cycle.

'We' haven't covered that at all. That's what you said before, but it is patently not correct, as I said at the time. We are in a de-glaciating period.

But, whichever way it goes, what happens to the temperature of the ocean? If, presumably, it gets colder when glacial melt enters the oceans (?) then it will get warmer as glaciers form and differentially 'fix' the colder parts of the ocean from circulating.

I don't know which way around that goes, and it is not self-evidence what would happen.

I want to see a peer-reviewed publication showing what the oceanic temperatures would've been without AGHG.

The other thing about the oceans is this - to reach some vapour pressure with the increase in CO2 of the atmosphere, the oceans would absorb huge amounts of CO2. A quick back-of-envelope calc suggests they would have to have absorbed more CO2 than man has ever produced to reach a vapour pressure with the atmospheric CO2 concentration. If the CO2 vapour pressure is higher than it is in the atmosphere, and it all accounts for more CO2 than man has produced, then the only conclusion would be that the CO2 has come out of the oceans, and that the warming is releasing CO2 that has been stored within it. Warming should make the oceans better at absorbing CO2.

I'd like to see that base-line plotted. Which way do all these variables go, and which way would they have gone without anthropogenic emissions.

A speculation can be implied that man made emissions have acted to cool the planet, due to the particulate mass. The 'sudden' recent rise could be explained by the rapid increase in particulate emissions controls, and the 'hockey stick' we're seeing is the return to the post-little-ice-age ramp up that would've been more obvious without the mid-20th C emissions suppressing global warming.

 

[Nubo]

I want to see a peer-reviewed publication showing what the oceanic temperatures would've been without AGHG.

Honestly, I want to see your peer-reviewed publication. You seem to know more than the experts. Don't keep your light under a bushel.

 

[WetEV]

I want to see a peer-reviewed publication showing <request of the week removed>.

Really. Have access to this:

http://scholar.google.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spend some quality time there.

The other thing about the oceans is this - to reach some vapour pressure with the increase in CO2 of the atmosphere, the oceans would absorb huge amounts of CO2. A quick back-of-envelope calc suggests they would have to have absorbed more CO2 than man has ever produced to reach a vapour pressure with the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Let me guess, based on fresh water, not sea water. Or perhaps based on the whole volume of the ocean, not the well mixed fraction. The deep ocean turns over very slowly.

Do show your calculations.

 

[donald]

Let me guess, based on fresh water, not sea water. Or perhaps based on the whole volume of the ocean, not the well mixed fraction. The deep ocean turns over very slowly.

Do show your calculations.

I've no idea. Without any knowledge of partial pressures of CO2 in sea water, because I would presume the chemistry is very complex, I'd simply make a presumption of ratios by molar content. Is that reasonable?

So if seas take up 70% of the earth's surface, that's 350E6 square kilometers. So in the top 1 metre of water there is ~350E18 g of water, or 2E19 mols. If we're talking about an extra 60ppm of that being CO2 since 1980, then that's 1.2E15 mols, or 5.3E16 grammes per 1m depth.

I'm lead to believe estimates for the global output of CO2 are around 3E16 grammes.

So by my calculation, if the top 20m, say, of the world's oceans have equalised with the atmospheric CO2 then that top 20m would be equivalent to all the CO2 emitted by man for the last 50 years.

Is that anywhere near correct?

 

[klapauzius]

I want to see a peer-reviewed publication showing what the oceanic temperatures would've been without AGHG.

Assuming we care about temperatures in general not only ocean, try this:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.short" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/fig_tab/nature11574_F4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
or this for ocean temperatures


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/fig_tab/nclimate1553_F5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/abs/nature09043.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Donald, I would join WetEV in suggesting you start learning how to do a literature research and do it yourself.

http://scholar.google.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is really a great place to start!

You seem to imply that no such data exists, but of course it does and has been around for a while now.
I limited my search to 2010+ mostly, so you get the latest research on this, but earlier work is also of interest.

You do have some sort of university education, right? So you know how to read and understand scientific literature?

Just want to make sure we judge your abilities correctly....In Germany engineers typically have a master/Ph.D. level education, but in the US/UK this might be different? I have seen people here in the US, whose job description says "engineer", but they are really only mechanics/technicians or have only BS degrees.

If you never had higher education, of course then your difficulties in obtaining, reading and understanding the climate research literature are perfectly understandable and nothing you should be ashamed of. In this case keep asking!

 

[WetEV]

Is that anywhere near correct?

No.

 

[klapauzius]

The other thing about the oceans is this - to reach some vapour pressure with the increase in CO2 of the atmosphere, the oceans would absorb huge amounts of CO2. A quick back-of-envelope calc suggests they would have to have absorbed more CO2 than man has ever produced to reach a vapour pressure with the atmospheric CO2 concentration. If the CO2 vapour pressure is higher than it is in the atmosphere, and it all accounts for more CO2 than man has produced, then the only conclusion would be that the CO2 has come out of the oceans, and that the warming is releasing CO2 that has been stored within it. Warming should make the oceans better at absorbing CO2.

I'd like to see that base-line plotted. Which way do all these variables go, and which way would they have gone without anthropogenic emissions.

I am sure nobody thought of that before!
Let us know how the reviews went!

A speculation can be implied that man made emissions have acted to cool the planet, due to the particulate mass. The 'sudden' recent rise could be explained by the rapid increase in particulate emissions controls, and the 'hockey stick' we're seeing is the return to the post-little-ice-age ramp up that would've been more obvious without the mid-20th C emissions suppressing global warming.

A curious theory indeed, just not supported by any data or facts.

 

[WetEV]

I am sure nobody thought of that before!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Suess" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Stoaty]

For those interested in updated scientific information, there is a new report out "State of the Climate in 2013". Authored by 425 scientists in 57 countries. Here is where you can find the full report, etc:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140717_stateoftheclimate.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Highlights:

Greenhouse gases continued to climb: Major greenhouse gas concentrations, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide, continued to rise during 2013, once again reaching historic high values. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 2.8 ppm in 2013, reaching a global average of 395.3 ppm for the year. At the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the daily concentration of CO2 exceeded 400 ppm on May 9 for the first time since measurements began at the site in 1958. This milestone follows observational sites in the Arctic that observed this CO2 threshold of 400 ppm in spring 2012.

Warm temperature trends continued near the Earth’s surface: Four major independent datasets show 2013 was among the warmest years on record, ranking between second and sixth depending upon the dataset used. In the Southern Hemisphere, Australia observed its warmest year on record, while Argentina had its second warmest and New Zealand its third warmest.

Sea surface temperatures increased: Four independent datasets indicate that the globally averaged sea surface temperature for 2013 was among the 10 warmest on record. El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-neutral conditions in the eastern central Pacific Ocean and a negative Pacific decadal oscillation pattern in the North Pacific. The North Pacific was record warm for 2013.

Sea level continued to rise: Global mean sea level continued to rise during 2013, on pace with a trend of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm per year over the past two decades.

The Arctic continued to warm; sea ice extent remained low: The Arctic observed its seventh warmest year since records began in the early 20th century. Record high temperatures were measured at 20-meter depth at permafrost stations in Alaska. Arctic sea ice extent was the sixth lowest since satellite observations began in 1979. All seven lowest sea ice extents on record have occurred in the past seven years.

Antarctic sea ice extent reached record high for second year in a row; South Pole station set record high temperature: The Antarctic maximum sea ice extent reached a record high of 7.56 million square miles on October 1. This is 0.7 percent higher than the previous record high extent of 7.51 million square miles that occurred in 2012 and 8.6 percent higher than the record low maximum sea ice extent of 6.96 million square miles that occurred in 1986. Near the end of the year, the South Pole had its highest annual temperature since records began in 1957.

Tropical cyclones near average overall / Historic Super Typhoon: The number of tropical cyclones during 2013 was slightly above average, with a total of 94 storms, in comparison to the 1981-2010 average of 89. The North Atlantic Basin had its quietest season since 1994. However, in the Western North Pacific Basin, Super Typhoon Haiyan – the deadliest cyclone of 2013 – had the highest wind speed ever assigned to a tropical cyclone, with one-minute sustained winds estimated to be 196 miles per hour.

 

[donald]

Is that anywhere near correct?

No.

You asked me to show you my calculations. So now you show yours to the contrary.