Comments on: A Climate Change Paradox

By: BJ

BJ — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:40:53 +0000

It is uncleared to me that whether skeptics have taken into account that a vast amount of carbon dioxide will be absorbed by plants, the sea, and the increased number of algae which should be calculated in the model. Also why don’t skeptics look at coastal and island communities being affected by rising sea level as well as the erratic weather pattern changes that affect many farming communities around the world.

By: BJ

BJ — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:27:44 +0000

There is heat loss as the Earth radiate back into space as well as the fact that the ice in the Arctic and Antarctica melt into the ocean and increase the heat absorption capability of it; hence keeping the planet cool and the rate of global temperature rise at a slow pace at the moment. I guess when there is great migration of refugees affected by rising sea level come knocking then the climate-change deniers will take notice and panic.

By: Jennifer Marohasy » A Climate Change Paradox (Part 2)

Jennifer Marohasy » A Climate Change Paradox (Part 2) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:34:08 +0000

[...] and that change in ocean heat content is thus the most appropriate measure of global warming. In my previous post, working from first principles, I determined a discrepancy of 9:1 in the rate of warming from [...]

By: Nick Stokes

Nick Stokes — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:29:38 +0000

Michael, I tracked down your reference here. I see the problem. As I say, you have a logical loop, and there is a loop gain. You've used the IPCC fig of 3C, which was calculated from the increase in IR retained, multiplied by a sensitivity which included positive feedback. Then you've divided by a sensitivity kappa which did not include feedback to get a radiative load again. The second figure is smaller, so the end result (11.3) is much higher.

By: michael hammer

michael hammer — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:24:08 +0000

Hello Nick; Sorry to take so long to get back to you, I was distracted by other matters.

I gave the background to my figure of 11.3 in earlier replies but lets play by your numbes for a while. You commented in an earlier post that the true sensitvity should be 0.6C/watt/sqm. Lets examine this. According to IPCC (4th report) we have had 1.7 watts/sqM increase in retained energy from CO2 and doubling CO2 retains 3.7 watts/sqM. That means there is a further 2 watts/sqM increase between now and 2070. At 0.6C/watt/sqM that equates to 1.2C rise. But IPCC 4th report claims 3C rise by 2070 – a big difference. So maybe you argue that CO2 is not the only effect, other effects make up the difference? If so why harp on CO2 reduction it would only be 40% of the problem, why not harp on the 60%.

However IPCC and ther AGW movement strongly imply the 3C rise is due to CO2. If the 3C rise is due to CO2 then the sensitivity would have to be 1.5C/wat.sqM. Now you claim a total of 1.8 watts/sqM retained heat at present and 0.6C rise. I have a problem with the 0.6C since the story is that only temp rise since about 1960 is due to CO2 before that it was natural and since 1960 the sites I quote (AGW sites) all suggest 0.4C rise but again lets play by your numbers. For 0.6C rise at 1.5C/watt/sqM the extra radiated heat would be 0.6/1.5 = 0.4 watts/sqM. If I accept your claim of 1.8 watts/sqM retained heat that leaves 1.4 watts/sqM going to hetaing the earth. Compare that with the 0.38 watt/sqM you say you agree with and we have an almost 4:1 discrepancy.

If I accept your figure of 0.6C/watt/sqM there is the paradox that the rise by 2070 should be only 1.2C not 3C – a very significant difference. Using that 0.6C/watt/sqM with an 0.6C rise suggests 1 watt/sqM extra radiated energy leaving 0.8 watt/sqM absorbed which even so is double the 0.38 figure you say you substantially agree with – in short using your numbers there are 2 paradoxes, firstly the reatined heat is still double what can be accounted for and the projected temperature rise due to CO2 is overstated by 2.5 times.

I respectfully suggest there is a problem.

By: vinny

vinny — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:11:52 +0000

I have seen the link to Pielke above which shows no accumulated joules as observed in the oceans. As I understand it, because the oceans are hundreds of times denser than the atmosphere, then the amount of heat equivalent to a 1 degree temperature anomaly in the atmosphere would be equivalent to a tiny fraction of a degree if sequestered in the oceans. How are they supposed to measure such tiny increments of temperature? Wouldn’t the error bars be greater than the measured temperatures?

By: JAE

JAE — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:43:39 +0000

Sombody already provided the link; sorry for the repitition, I should have read all the comments. But maybe it’s good for emphasis. Wonder where Wong got her graphs?

By: JAE

JAE — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:39:28 +0000

It looks to me like the curves are bogus, according to Pielke, Sr. According to him, there has been no increase in ocean heat content for several years.

http://climatesci.org/2009/05/18/comments-on-a-new-paper-global-ocean-heat-content-1955%e2%80%932008-in-light-of-recently-revealed-instrumentation-problems-by-levitus-et-al-2009/

By: Nick Stokes

Nick Stokes — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:51:50 +0000

Michael, a good reason for comparing with what others have done is to debug your logic. Compared with Hansen et al, you’re in agreement on the ocean heating side, but have a vastly greater radiative input. So that’s where to look.

Start with this sentence:Now to get a 3C rise at the average claimed emission temperature (255K) requires an additional energy input (additional energy retained by greenhouse gases) of 11.3 watts/ m2. I don’t know where you get that from, but it is far too high. You’ve asked people to spot the flaw, but the fact is that you’ve gone around a big logical loop, with this as an unexplained step, when there is a simple, far more primary figure that you could work from.

By: Graeme Bird

Graeme Bird — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:16:27 +0000

I explained a possible way of looking at it earlier. If Forbush events punch heaps of joules in the ocean AGAINST the “rythym” of the sun-ocean dance, then instead of moving up to a new energy plateau we would expect the energy to be released step-fashion into the air over a number of months causing unseasonably hot weather.

El Nino events seem to follow Forbush events a lot of the time. Although I don’t think this is a perfectly cut and dried matter.