Earlier this year I spent a week at the beach, more specifically at Bluey’s Beach, on the NSW mid-north coast. My daughter and partner are both keen surfers. So, always in search of that best wave break, we also visited Boomerang, Elizabeth, Seal Rocks and a few other beaches.
I’m used to southeast Queensland with the summer water temperature a very pleasant 26C or so, and expected the same in NSW.
But the first day we went surfing it was a very cold 14C!
So much for the global warming of sea temperatures I thought as I shivered on the beach that day.
The locals explained that it was unusual, but they didn’t seem to have a good explanation. Interestingly, the water wasn’t so cold every day or at every beach.
According to a recent article in Sydney’s The Daily Telegraph a “massive, mysterious whirlpool of cold water” formed off Sydney in January and is still active “forcing the sea surface to fall almost 1m and ocean currents to change course”.
So sea levels are falling off Sydney?
According to the CSIRO, oceanographers have identified a huge, dense mass of cold water off Sydney but know very little about what causes it.
“What we do know is that this is a very powerful natural feature which tends to push everything else aside – even the mighty East Australian Current,” says CSIRO’s Dr David Griffin.
Dr Griffin, from the Wealth from Oceans Flagship Research program, said cold-water eddies regularly appear off Sydney.
“Until 20 years ago we would not have known they even existed without accidentally steaming through them on a research vessel,” he said.
“However, now that we can routinely identify them from space via satellite, marine scientists can evaluate their role as a source of life in the marine ecosystem.”
Reaching to a depth of more than 1000m, the 200km diameter ocean eddy has a rotational period of about seven days. Its centre is about 100km directly offshore from Sydney.” [end of quote]
Now I’m waiting for a best AGW explanation for this dramatic, even if localized and ephemeral, drop in sea level and sea temperature.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
AGW? Come on Jennifer, you can do better than that. They already said they have no idea, and research is being done. Lets wait and see. It is a very interesting phenomenon.
Jennifer with respect to CSIRO; There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to fluid vortex phenomena. They all depend on some extra energy input.
You can all guess where that may be coming from at this moment but your clue as before is that NOAA chart, the one Luke gave us and as I used for Bass Strait warming (coral bleaching)
There’s no increase in sea temps, Jen. Lindzen made that point in the NYC debate and no one was able to disagree. They tried and were reduced to making gurgling sounds.
He said that recent research has shown previous studies to be incorrect. This in fact fits in easily with the view that the seas have a long “memory” as they call it and that a .6 degs increase in global temps since the turn of last century would make any argument that the seas are warming a laughable proposition.
Lindzen skewered the warmers in that debate and all they were left with was impugning people’s honesty….. about the same as what the faux economist does with his time. “The debate is over”? Yea, it is if your mission is to steal and attempt to ration energy.
The warmers fall into two sets. The dupes and those who are using this argument to further their attempt to steal.
Gavin
Please provide envidence that the most recent reaearch is oncorrect… in that the seas are warming. The atmosphere would have to warm first before there is any noticable warming at the ocean level. This would occur over a period of 200-500 years at best.
Further to that, the idea that a .6 deg increase in atmos. temps over the past 100 years would have any impact on the oceans is a stupid proposition that only an idiot would swallow.
Changes in coean temps at fixed points only indicates changes in water movements and currents.
Don’t be duped by this horse shit.
“Now I’m waiting for a best AGW explanation for this dramatic, even if localized and ephemeral, drop in sea level and sea temperature.”
That’s when religious faith comes into it.
Does every thermal event on earth require a direct link that either supports or detracts from arguments about global warming?
I understand where you are going with this but from a rational perspective I would hate to see every brief shower be used to argue one way or the other.
Mostly likely not relevant to ephemeral cold eddies but on the broad topic at least – we don’t normally discuss much about AGW and ocean circulation.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L03712, doi:10.1029/2005GL024911, 2006
Antarctic ozone depletion causes an intensification of the Southern Ocean super-gyre circulation
W. Cai
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
Recent climate trends over the Southern Hemisphere (SH) summer feature a strengthening of the circumpolar westerly and a weakening of the midlatitude westerly extending from the stratosphere to Earth’s surface. Much of the change is attributable to Antarctic ozone depletion. However, the consequential ocean circulation changes are unknown. Here I demonstrate that the observed surface wind changes have forced a southward shift and spin-up of the super gyre, which links the subtropical South Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Ocean circulation, advecting more warm water southward. The circulation change includes a strengthening of the East Australian Current (EAC) flow passing through the Tasman Sea. The southward shift may be responsible for the observed unusually large warming in the SH midlatitude ocean and may contribute to the reported range extension to the south of many marine species in the South West Pacific.
http://www.ird.nc/UR65/SPICE/Malanda/malandaproceedings.pdf
The response of the Southern Hemisphere ocean circulation to climate change is not as well
studied as the Northern Hemisphere counterpart. Observational studies have revealed an upward
trend of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) over the past few decades, although the relative
importance of greenhouse, ozone depletion and natural variability in forcing the trend is not fully
conclusive. Here we demonstrate, via the Sverdrup relationship, that the associated change in wind
stress curl causes a southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere subtropical gyre, particularly the
Eastern Australian Current (EAC), leading to an intensification of the southern part of the gyre
circulation. Climate models forced by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change scenarios
project a continuing upward trend of the SAM into the future. In response, the EAC moves
southward by up to 8◦ by year 2070. The intensified EAC generates a warming rate in the Tasman
Sea that is greatest in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) with significant implications for sea level rise.
The southward shift is a part of annular-scale circulation changes that involve all subtropical gyres
of the Southern Hemisphere. The changes significantly alter the boundaries of bio-diversity and
generate accelerated warming and sea-level rises in regions where the southward flowing current
intensifies. Although the circulation change can primarily be attributable to changes in wind stress
curl, it is found that the pattern of curl changes actually reflects the pattern of heat flux changes,
indicating the coupling between momentum and heat fluxes. The detailed thermal and dynamical
coupling process awaits a thorough examination.
Ha ha jc: believe it or not I’m positively the last person to be duped by any h/s raked up here. Go back (if you can find it) to my recent Canberra stormy note to Jen. There I said this sudden burst of late summer super cell storms was most probably due to warming shallow waters around Bass Strait.
Since then those same waters are most likely to be found again in the Tasman via NOAA.
NB every towering vortex engine needs a driver. Also direct experience with industrial models way back still has me looking for the inner and outer cones ie the differential in each case.
I reckon its the kraken spawning, or could this be that spanish chap or spanish girl reversing roles finally. Lag in ocean. Hope it’s not the kraken.
Hhmmn, 1000 metres deep and 200km diameter, I guess that much circulation of what is clearly an upwelling of deep ocean water means that a similar volume has descended elsewhere.
It would be interesting to see what the CO2 levels are in this upwelling. Any leads?
And of course, it makes it pretty clear that any ocean acidification model that assumes that CO2 is only mixed in the top 100 metres of ocean is way off the mark. Not only has a huge volume of CO2 laden surface water taken a big dive, an equal volume of deep water has come to the surface to absorb a lot more CO2.
Oh dear, and ocean acidification theory sounded soooh plausible to the bimboscenti.
hmmmm – pity the measurements say otherwise. Thanks for playing.
jennifer,
I came down the coast to Port Stephens a couple of weeks ago, sea temps dropped only 3 or 4 degs from Moreton Is. You can confirm electronic readings of sea temps when you cop a face full of sea water.
But we were way off shore, there was far more wind there. The wind was restricted to a band offshore, about +40 miles, once we came in it died.
I dont know if it is so unusual, a few years ago I was off shore and we had jumpers on whilst on the coast bushfires raged in+38degsC. I think technology is attempting to fill the gap left by the absence of experience.
File this under the “O dearie me dept”
Big climate gabfest in UK titled *Guardian Climate Change Summit 2007*
*A one-day summit examining how your organisation needs to prepare for, and combat climate change*
One would imagine that Luke would be a keen supporter.
Lead sponsor: Shell
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatesummit
So what do the measurements say, boy wonder?
JC – what twaddle – do you ever read anything.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/trends.html
Furthermore you might ponder why the sea level has increased if the seas have not warmed. I know it’s hard to fathom.
You might also find evidence of warming from satellite observations but that’s a job for gimps to google.
So as far as horsey doo is concerned you might want to move your position and clean your shoes.
Rog, next time your off Moreton Island you should head in and park the boat. i’m often in town and would be happy to buy you a beer.
PS I know Motty and Luke also live in the vicinity, I could try and convince them to join us for a drink?
howz yer sand bags by the briny?
Luke
The evidenmce is that sea levels have been consistently going up since the end of he last Ice age.
Are you actually asking me to believe the ridiculous proposition that the sea level has gone up because the atomospheric temp has increased by all of .6 degs? If you are, you need to get off the stupid pills.
In any event ocean “memeory” (they call it) takes about 300 years to filter through. Sensitivity is also about 10% for oceans.
Which makes me think this whole AGW thing is presently one huge hoax.
So why do you think the sea level has increased then – water from magical sources – spontaneous generation of new water – it’s raining more – the ice caps have all melted ? Come on – get with the program. Let’s not be silly now.
On beers – imagine that – what an interesting meeting! (I’m not sure you park a boat though Jen ~~)
Jennifer: to put your thread into proper perspective I did this google “latest sea level rise 2007” then read on for a bit page by page. I came to several conclusions –
1) There is considerable alarm based on a host of opinions about new data;
2) Beyond sea level measurements and climate models there is indisputable evidence of ice loss and this surprise; seas are rising now but mostly due to warm water expansion!
Sea levels have been going up at a steady 10 MMM per decade since the end of the ice age, luke. I already told you that, please keep up. And stop scaring the kids.
So why has it gone up. Just because ?
before I accept any statement that sea level has risen I want to see a proper set of data points representing every part of every ocean, and confirmed by satellite scans.
And then I want to see that data presented in a way that tells us exactly what proportion of stations have risen and what proportion have fallen, and by how much within what normal range of variation.
The current data is unrepresentative swill presented in misleading format. It masks significant variation between stations less than 500km apart while leaving gaps greater than 2000km un-recorded.
At the very most, Pacific sea level has only risen 0.3mm a year for the past half century but this still has major distortion from air pressure changes that need to be excluded.
See the paper, “What the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project is Telling Us”.at: http://www.bom.gov.au/pacificsealevel/presentations.shtml
Go to Table 2 P.9 and observe how this oft quoted figure of 0.67mm of average sea level rise is distorted by two anomalous records from Fiji and Rarotonga. When these are excluded the average of the remaining 18 stations is only 0.3mm a year or 3cm over 100 years.
But as mentioned earlier, this is inadequate data of insufficient duration but the implications are of much lower than reported sea level rise that appears to match lower than reported temperature rises.
Not only does hot water expend, so does hot air!
Listen to Ian demanding stuff. What a jerk. Find out yourself or disbelieve mate. Do you own research for a change as anything we post will only be met by stupid inane comments in your job as self-annointed industry spokesperson, sophist and spoiler. Jigs up for you matey boy. Basically Ian’s new level of sheer stupidity is that if you don’t sample every cm of the earth’s surface he’ll reject the information. That’s intelligent. Not.
The recent review by Church has the work on sea level rise and it’s been quoted before.
That’s about it, Luke. He demands information, and you can guarantee that whatever he is told, it’s wrong.
Let me gues Ian, your conclusion might be something like… ‘in some places sea levels go up, in other places sea levels go down, over time sea levels change.’ Therefore CO2 does not cause warming, let alone warming we should be concerned about.’
Meanwhile Jen stares at her watch, believing AGW should be a theory of everything or discarded.
I suppose the IPA crew could explain climate as orchestrated by an invisible hand.
Gosh, all this blog rage over a comprehension deficit. I don’t recall demanding anything of Luke, SJT et al. I simply stated the information I require before I will accept any statement in respect of sea level change.
That is the standard of substantiation applied by all my peers in the business world. Company Directors are required to comply with this sort of substantiation standard every time they publish their annual financial statements. And I don’t see any reason why the so-called science community should be exempted from these community benchmarks in reporting integrity.
But clearly, the boys are a bit frustrated at having holes punched in their references. But it is about time because we have lost count of the number of times one or more of these bozos have claimed that such and such an issue was comprehensively refuted ages ago by xxx expert, only to find that the supposed comprehensive refutation was nothing more than a couple of undergraduate blog corporals polishing their sneers in a fact vacuum.
I agree with John – it’s the Kraken spawning. At least my imagination can work on that instead of all these mind numbing quotes from the ‘literature’. My borehole is still dry.
No Ian – utterly desperate attempt at spin – at some point you realise that whatever we say you’ll construct a sophist’s argument against simply for sport. You’re not fair dinkum (mate!).
If you were fair dinkum you’d be applying similar rigour on contrarian theories as well but you don’t. Can they all be right ? You’re happy to allow the most outrageous contrarian twaddle wander past your nose and let it go. So don’t give me this stuff about standards – it’s simply political for you and you know it. It’s about sides not science.
Ian, the whole your punching has nothing to do with references.
While your mixing it with your peers in the big wig corporate world and clearly too important to tackle the nitty gritty issues (like generating and/or understanding data – heaven forbid!), your ‘so-called scientists’ are trying to get simpletons like yourself to understand CO2 warms the planet.
Wow, thats complex. Need it again? CO2 warms the planet.
Now Ian, what caused the statistical anomolies in the Fiji and Rarotonga that warrant their removal from the data? Are these anomolies in a controlled experiment caused by failure to control variables? Or do you just want them removed because you don’t like the look of them. Wow, I didn’t know science was so easy. You just remove observations that don’t fit your theory.
Given your command of statistics, perhaps you could explain why in the interest of accurately interpreting the data you would remove the ‘anomolies’ of Fiji and Rarotunga, noting that these ‘anomolies’ are the product of over 20 years data.
Anthony,
Normally I wouldn’t bother… but “CO2 warms the planet” – AND repeated / stressed! ROTFL – Made me spill my coffee and get strange looks! Classic.
Just shows the power of propaganda and how (maybe only probably in this case) bright individuals can be convinced to believe utter drivel. Need it again? UTTER DRIVEL.
Methinks that there are only two ways that the planet can warm: externally via fusion energy i.e. sun; and internally via fission energy i.e. from the decomposition of radioactives within the Earth.
Anything else is a zero sum game – including heat “created” by continental movement (lava etc). The overall heat budget of the Earth remains constant – some places get warmer and some places correspondingly cooler.
cheers
Arnost
A favourite trick around here. Take a claim, then ignore the obvious meaning, and pillory the person who made the claim by laughing at your interpretation of the claim. Grow up.
CO2 warms the earth the way a greenhouse warms the plants inside. It’s not “UTTER DRIVEL”.
The point of debate is, how valid is ‘enhanced greehouse’ due to positive feedback.
Applying Ian’s statistical genius, if I remove the outrageous anomolies (i.e, any reading below -2), the average increase is 1.19mm/yr! Crikey, they were out by a factor of almost 2!!
I am still trying to work out what you mean by this Ian: ‘But as mentioned earlier, this is inadequate data of insufficient duration but the implications are of much lower than reported sea level rise that appears to match lower than reported temperature rises.’
You seem to be confused Ian, but allow me to clarify for you. You think that sea level rise is lower than what is reported (because the statisticians failed to delete data which showed increases) and that your new abridged sea level rise of 0.3mm/yr using doctored data is more in line with actual temperature change (again, whose rises have been over reported – although you do not provide evidence, just insinuate).
So this means you agree sea levels rise with temperature, but just not as much as actual data shows. You need to doctor data sets to get the real result. Is that what you are saying?
Arnost, my apologies. In my attempt to fathom Ian’s logic I misrepresented my meaning (I am still dumbstruck that he cannot understand the CO2 lag!).
I don’t doubt that the sensitivities and feedback effects are debatable (and now the meaning of the word ‘crises’!), but I am leaning towards prudent risk management and reducing GHG emissions.
Anthony – no apology necessary. Only picking on you to make other people have a real think on the issues. So my apologies for using you like that. cheers
SJT however, is in a pugilistic mode. So to comment on his Post Modernist doosie of a last sentence – Štill Ǔtter Ňonsence! ☼
cheers
Dear oh dear – nothing like trying to be clever and falling flat on your face! LOL…
Meant to be “Utter” with the same arrow pointing to the “U”… worked in preview.
It always amazes me how many experts there are on something they have never seen, like electricity CO2 is not visible. Unless its hot ice. When it comes to light bulb replacement, call in a peer reviewed expert.
On topic…
Sydney’s Feb 07 summary:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/sydney.shtml
The average minimum temperature at Ob Hill of 20.6°C was 1.3°C above the historic February average. This is the 4th highest on record for February and the highest since 20.8°C in 1998.
This provides some relief to the Global Warming proponents who may have been concerned with the fact that the extreme max temp at Ob Hill failed to reach 28oC – last time this happened was way back in 1957. It is the only 3rd time where max temps didnt exceed 28oC, with the 1st one being in 1873 (27.2oC). Also the mean max of 26.0oC was 0.2oc below average.
Analysis: The cooling affect of prevailing south-east to north-east sea-breezes contributed towards the cool max temperatures along the coast however, BUT, by the same token they also contributed to warm min temperature.
http://www.marine.csiro.au/remotesensing/oceancurrents/SE/latest.html
Go to the above CSIRO link and click on [PREV] link to go back one day to see the cold water eddy. Do this as many times as you like – you can go back quite a few days.
cheers
Arnost,
do you need a lecture on what positive feedback is in the scientific/engineering sense? It has nothing to do with post-modernism, or feeling good about yourself.
Think of of a PA when the microphone sends one of those piercing squeals into your eardrum. That’s positive feedback. Not so common these days, they have devices to avoid it.
If you read closely Anthony you will find that both Rarotonga and Fiji are subject to subsidence which has distorted the data. Pay attention.
And on the topic of excluding data that appears to be major anomalies, you may be intrigued to know that the Vostok Ice core data was treated in that manner with just about any early CO2 reading above 190ppm being excluded due to an assumed “contamination”. I accept that in some instances this is necessary but not when the assumed contaminated record is well within historical norms.
And as for your comprehension problems, Anthony, I would have thought it was quite obvious that I was cautioning about the quality of the earlier sea level data and alluding to the fact that earlier temperature records also have some QA issues that have resulted in exaggerated reports of warming, that are similar in scale to the exaggerated sea level rise.
As for you being “dumbstruck” that I don’t understand CO2 lag, keep it up. If you can be disabled by the inventions of your own mind then go for it. For the record, clown, for the CO2 lag to eventually contribute to climate feedbacks it must eventually catch up to temperature change. Or more accurately, the temperature rise must slow to a point where the CO2 catches up.
You and some of the other morons appear to have trouble understanding that a graph is a representation of a series of points in time. And if the CO2 is lagging by 800 years then clearly it is having an effect long after the temperature has risen further. In such cases it is plain idiotic to suggest that the emissions that take place in year 2100 are driving temperature increases today.
And frankly, matey, you sound like you haven’t had a bowel movement for a few days so best go get some roughage and spare us all the tedium. And lay off the cheese.
Classic invective from Ian – what we pay our money for. “matey” – woo hoo. ROFTL.
Nothing like a bit of wire brush and Dettol from Ian to make you stand up straight.
Anyway Anthony don’t take it personally – Tourette’s sufferer’s know not what they do. Ian at homee?
http://www.tourettesguy.com/videos/montage/
Oh yea pity the height is GPS corrected for whoopsy daisy with the sinking.
And I’m bent over double – if there’s a lag we don’t have any forcing to CO2 today. SJT are you getting this ! ROFTL.
Ian
you still clealy don’tunderstand. The 800 year lag is because it is a feedback. In this case, the forcing, the thing at the sharp edge, is CO2. The feedbacks, such as albedo, glaciers, etc, are trailing, by 200 years are more, although already feedback such as water vapour is kicking in.
Completely off topic , but I am becoming extremely frustrated whilst enjoying the entertainment, Luke WOTFD ROTFL mean?
Given his lecture re PA systems – then feedback must work like this: Imagine there’s this piercing squeal in my eardrum, (that’s the consequence of positive feedback according to SJT), then some time later (maybe 800 years or so?) there occurs a noise that caused the (I guess temporally tele-connected) amplifying cumulative causation (that’s the forcing – actually the sharp edge by the way) which casued the piercing squeal in my eardrum…
Have I got this right?
Jim, ROTFL (which is what I’m doing at the moment given SJT’s last comment) is Řolling Ŏn Ťhe Floor Ĺaughing!
cheers
Lag = Still waiting for some thing to happen.
Years ago our mine was loosing acid between tank and plant. After months of hide and seek my distressed workmate ran up all covered in debris screaming he had discovered the leak.
He accidentally flushed a tree covered bank up behind the works while cleaning up sludge with a 2 inch fire hose. He was lucky enough to see the ground swell before the hillside exploded.
Positive feedback = amplifying & explosive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback
Thanks Arnost – I was expecting something more ribald!
“for the CO2 lag to eventually contribute to climate feedbacks it must eventually catch up to temperature change. Or more accurately, the temperature rise must slow to a point where the CO2 catches up. ”
I’ll assume you meant to say – ‘for the CO2 lag to contribute to warming it must….catch up to temp increase’. If I don’t your sentence makes no sense (marginal at best)
Ian, if CO2 lags temperature, why does it then need to ‘catch up’ or lead temperature for it to be proven it causes a temperature increase? All CO2 needs to do is contribute to either the net temp increase after it has been released(along with other feedbacks) and/or speed up the warming.
Your concern may be legitimate if there was a perfectly linear relationship between CO2 and warming and if whatever contributed to the initial warming and CO2 increase (800 years later) had disappeared by the time the two came together. However unfortunately this is planet earth and assuming such a relationships would be rediculous.
CO2 causing temp increase has been proven as a physical relationship. Your aware of the greenhouse effect aren’t you?
Do you doubt CO2 causes warming? Or do you doubt CO2 can initiate warming? Or do you doubt CO2 can initiate warming with resultant feedbacks that also contribute to warming. It would really help if you could express yourself clearly so we understand your position.
I’m sorry, but this next sentence just flat out does not make sense.
“And if the CO2 is lagging by 800 years then clearly it is having an effect long after the temperature has risen further. In such cases it is plain idiotic to suggest that the emissions that take place in year 2100 are driving temperature increases today.”
I don’t think anyone other than yourself has suggested that any emission has an effect BEFORE it is released.
As for the Vostok Ice data, when I look at something like this…
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/cryosphere/data2.html
I note the earliest record starts out at about 280ppm. Who is scrubbing what again? Let me guess, your 190ppm cut off point whas a typo?
Try again Ian, we are here to help.
Ok, here is an analogy that may help.
Scenario1 = A person falls over (initial forcing) and grazes there knee and breaks a leg (feedbacks 1 and 2). Reduced to crawling, skin gets scraped away from their legs causing bleeding (feedback 3). Exhausted after a few hours they stop to sleep and get picked at by animals (feedback 4). Giving up, they crawl into a ditch and pass away.
The forcing and feedbacks all contribute, to differing extents, to the person passing away. It can’t be said there was a sole causal agent, but falling over initiated it. Historically, axis tilt is understood to have been the initial forcing (like falling over).
Scenario2 = A person is walking along and animals attack their legs.
It is conceivable after the attack, the person could be reduced to crawling and pass away. And so animals attacking the legs would be considered the forcing. Note – they were previously feedback.
I’ve figured it out!
The increase in CO2 over the last century or so has caused the Medieval Warm Period!
cheers
Arnost
Arnost
if you have nothing to say, other than when cornered making stupid jokes like a four year old, just nick off. What do you honestly think you are contributing here?
Arnost, Ian beat you to it.
No cred for you.
It is a clever ploy to actually retreat to basics to avoid the issue guys, but the facts are that the lag is too long to be a significant part of the feedback loop.
This repetition of fundamentals may convince the gullible but for CO2 to have played a significant feedback role then, clearly, the CO2 must have remained active for much, much longer than its generally assumed life. Note from;
http://www.eurocarbonltd.com/global_warming.htm
“CO2 duration stay is variable (approximately 200-450 years) and its global warming potential (GWP) is defined as 1.
Methane duration stay is 12 +/- 3 years and a GWP of 22 (meaning that it has 22 times the warming ability of carbon dioxide)
Nitrous oxide has a duration stay of 120 years and a GWP of 310
CFC-12 has a duration stay of 102 years and a GWP between 6200 and 7100
HCFC-22 has a duration stay of 12.1 years and a GWP between 1300 and 1400
Tetrafluoromethane has a duration stay of 50,000 years and a GWP of 6500
Sulfur hexafluoride has a duration stay of 3,200 years and a GWP of 23900.
Other sites suggest CO2 life is 100 to 500 years but when we look at the main natural GH gasses we get;
CO2 100 to 500 years
CH4 methane, 9 to 15 years
Nitrous oxide 120 years
CFC-12, 102 years, and
HCFC-22, 12.1 years.
So clearly, none of these candidates are likely to be doing much feedback after an 800 year lag.
The ways that CO2 breaks down, according to the same source, are;
“Greenhouse gases (GHG) are gaseous components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes between 9-26%; and ozone, which causes between 3-7%, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons. The greenhouse gases, once in the atmosphere, do not remain there eternally. They can be withdrawn from the atmosphere:
– as a consequence of a physical phenomenon (condensation and precipitation remove water vapor from the atmosphere).
– as a consequence of a chemical phenomenon intervening within the atmosphere. This is the case for methane, which is partly eliminated by reaction with the hydroxyl radical, OH·, which is naturally present in the atmosphere, to produce CO2 and water vapor (this effect due to the production of CO2 is not included in the methane GWP).
– as a consequence of a chemical phenomenon intervening at the border between the atmosphere and the other compartments of the planet. This is the case for CO2, which is reduced by photosynthesis of plants, and which is also dissolved in the ocean to form bicarbonate and carbonate ions (CO2 is chemically stable in the atmosphere).
– as a consequence of a radiative phenomenon. For example the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun and cosmic rays break molecular bonds of species in the upper atmosphere. Some halocarbons are dissociated in this way which releases Cl· and F· as free radicals with disastrous effects on ozone (halocarbons are generally too stable to disappear by chemical reaction in the atmosphere)”.
So while SOME CO2 MAY linger for 500 years in certain circumstances, most will not. And clearly, methane et al will certainly not, as claimed by self appointed experts on this blog, still be present for a feedback loop after, or even during, an 800 year lag.
It is also timely to remember the reported relative contributions of these gases and, more importantly, the degree of overlap.
“The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes between 9-26%; and ozone, which causes between 3-7%, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons”.
The addition of clouds to the equation takes the contribution of water vapour in all forms to 90% and when we add the other maximum contributions we get 90+26+7+ a bit more from the minors for a total of 123% which means there is at least 25% redundancy or overlap.
When we add the minimum percentages we get 56+9+3+(2)? for a total of only 71% so there are obvious substitution capacities at play.
So when we have a basic level of CO2 of 280ppm that is performing some warming function but we also have a feedback sequence following an orbital change then the very maximum that CO2 could contribute to the warming would be 25%. But when that CO2 is observed to lag the warming by 800 years then the most probable situation is that almost all of the warming has come from water vapour and cloud.
It should also be noted that the orbital shift that all agree is the initial warming agent is not a single event that kicks things off and then retires to the bench. This orbital warming is on-going as part of an orbital cycle. And any warming that water vapour and clouds were unable to deliver could certainly be delivered by on-going orbital influences and solar radiative forces.
Ian
“So while SOME CO2 MAY linger for 500 years in certain circumstances, most will not. And clearly, methane et al will certainly not, as claimed by self appointed experts on this blog, still be present for a feedback loop after, or even during, an 800 year lag.”
You haven’t got a clue, have you?
The life of CO2 in the atmosphere has nothing to do with it acting as a feedback.
Bolsh – what a long winded load of cobblers. The CO2 outgassing from the ocean would be a progressive ongoing and continuing impact. This big burp theory is STUPID.
Each movement out of an ice age depends on the interaction of the 3 Milankovitch orbital mechanisms. So while the last interstadials may be regular it ain’t always so – like the one we’re in now suggests. Over the long time periods involved the solar and CO2 forcings will wax and wane in some sort of sinusoidal combination. And so without human activity of massive volcanism this would settle out into some sort of equilibrium from the various forcing combinations with a certain temperature outcome.
Be careful you’re no arguing for no greenhouse effect at all as that’s what you’re close to.
Now along comes humanity and dumps double that equilibrium amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in a relative geological blink – 200 years. That is the perturbation.
And in any case we may not even know as much as we think – in the deeper geological past CO2 and CH4 look to have led ! And furthermore the chemistry of the lag itself if being challenged.
In any case why not look at alternative lines of evidence – we know spectral bands are closing from the satellite view – so where’s the energy going? Lost by magic Ian?
And we know that Philipona’s excellent trilogy of papers gives measured answers very close to MODTRAN. He even finds a water vapour enhanced feedback from greenhouse warming.
And you’ve ignored Gavin’s little paper showing you that solar output ain’t changed enough to explain the current warming – so what’s you hypothesis then Ian – spontaneous warming?!?
So don’t just pick a one little issue – give us the grande exposition Ian. The full tour of the solar system. When you start using MODTRAN we’ll look worried.
Ho hum. So boring.
Maybe Biggsy will throw in something challenging to stave off the tedium and yawns.
“So clearly, none of these candidates are likely to be doing much feedback after an 800 year lag.”
Nice theory Ian, were they all released at the same time, 800 years ago, in a one off event? Why can’t something initiate the temperature increase (axis tilt), and 800 years later, CO2 start being release to further increase temperatures?
You seem to understand that axis tilt has an ongoing effect after it has occurred, why don’t you see that CO2, methane, etc etc could be steadily (or rapidly) released over time and so have an effect beyond the lifetime of the intial particle released?
Scientists have measured the change in warming caused by axis tilt and guess what… it can’t explain ALL the warming for warming periods on its own. Here come feedbacks….
After taking yourself through all that data, I actually think you might be closer to getting it.
“the very maximum that CO2 could contribute to the warming would be 25%”.
A gas’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is very different to its warming potential. You need to look at Global warming potential again. Ok, let me use this logic. Water vapour is 70% of the greenhouse, therefore it can cause 70% of warming right? Ok, now try to find the global wamring potential of water vapour.
“So when we have a basic level of CO2 of 280ppm that is performing some warming function but we also have a feedback sequence following an orbital change then the very maximum that CO2 could contribute to the warming would be 25%. But when that CO2 is observed to lag the warming by 800 years then the most probable situation is that almost all of the warming has come from water vapour and cloud.”
I can’t believe you can write this sentence and not get it. Try it again but start with the orbital change, then imagine feedbacks (ice cover changes, glacial changes etc) then 800 years later after a degree of warming, CO2 is released and kicks in as a feedback, accelerating the warming.
Note that just because CO2 didn’t start it in this scenario, doesn’t mean it can’t cause warming! It is the equivalent of saying that pouring petrol on a fire thats already burning can’t make it hotter because the petrol didn’t start the fire!
Give that man a cigar. Ian, Anthony can get it, why can’t you?
Premise 1: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning simply that it absorbs and redirects infrared radiation (but not shorter-wavelength radiation).
Premise 2: In the last 150 years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by approximately 35 percent.
Premise 3: Over this period global temperatures have increased by 0.6° C.
Inductive conclusion / hypothesis: The increase in CO2 caused the increase in temperature.
So the physics behind this should be quite clear. Essentially, the sun constantly bombards the earth with a significant amount of high-energy radiation with short wavelengths, such as visible light. Some portion of this is absorbed by the land and oceans, where it does work by moving electrons around. This work consumes energy, and the radiation that is subsequently re-emitted by the Earth is lower-energy / longer-wavelength infrared radiation. As the re-emitted infrared radiation travels through the atmosphere on its way back to space, some of it is absorbed by CO2 molecules and then scattered, so that some portion of this absorbed energy is then re-directed back towards the Earth. All else being equal, the more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, the hotter it gets. As the atmosphere heats up, polar ice caps tend to melt; this reduces the amount of solar radiation that is reflected and therefore causes further heating.
Seems straightforward – but here’s the problem. In a simplified model of the planet, in which the complexities created by things like water vapor, convection, clouds, trees, polar ice caps, solar flux and so on are all ignored, it is pretty straightforward. But the Earth is nothing like that planet. Any change, including pumping out more CO2, initiates an incredibly complicated set of both positive and negative feedback effects. Some of these will tend to magnify the greenhouse warming impact, and others will tend to dampen it.
For example, an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the CO2 will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere which in turn leads to a further increase in temperature. Or more CO2 leads to faster plant-growth and more phytoplankton which pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere and therefore reduces warming. The list of such potential effects is very long; many of these feedbacks effects interact with one another; these interactions interact with one another; and so on until equilibrium is reached.
Uncertainty about feedback effects goes to the heart of how much, if at all, we should be worried about global warming.
The climate models attempt to quantify the impact of these feedbacks. These models are the basis for the oft-cited predictions of how much global temperatures will rise based on CO2 emissions. As with all models, they are only approximations to reality. They divide the surface of the Earth plus its atmosphere into a set of slices, usually about 200 kilometers on a side and about a kilometer thick. A set of rules for how the slice-shaped elements in the model interact with one another is established based on our understanding of atmospheric physics, e.g., if an element heats by X° C, then within the next hour the adjacent elements will heat up by Y° C. A set of initial conditions is estimated for things like the current temperature of each element. The model then advances to the next hour based on the set of rules. Each element then has a new value. Then the model advances through the following hour of changes, and so on for a simulation of many years of climate evolution
The models use known laws of atmospheric physics to establish the rules in these models whenever possible, but there are big gaps. Most obviously, the bulk of the real physics of convection, cloud formation, and so forth happens at scales much smaller than 40,000 square kilometers. The modelers attempt to ground these parameters in physical laws as best as possible, but they represent estimates of a compilation of many smaller-scale processes. Even if the physics of each of the smaller-scale processes is perfectly understood, the parameters are still a piece of patchwork, and large uncertainties are inherent in them. Even more fundamentally, the physics for some of the feedback effects believed to be most important is not well understood. And finally, many plausibly hypothesized feedback effects that could massively influence temperature are not included in the models at all. These models are complicated as compared to simulation models used in some other fields, but are extremely simplistic as compared to the actual global climate.
Simulation tools are validated by asking two questions: 1) Are the quantitative relationships within it based on a reasonably COMPLETE SET of proven physical laws?, and 2) How accurately does it predict future outcomes given COMPLETE input data? For climate models, the answers are “partially” and “unknown.”
The last question that has to be asked is what is the natural state of equilibrium? We know that CO2 / temperatures have cycled. But there never was a runaway feedback loop that turned Earth into Venus or Pluto. Therefore there have to be equilibrium points. What are they given the complexity of the potential interrelationships? We don’t know. And these are therefore not included in the climate models.
Bottom line is that nobody can reliably quantify the size of the future climate changes, or even bound them sufficiently to guide action. The total impact of global temperatures over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe (in both a warming and cooling outcomes). As such, they are meaningless.
My last snipe…
In the same way that everyone pointed at HCFCs in the eighties as the sole cause of the ozone hole, pointing at CO2 feedback as the sole cause for global warming is nonsensical. (The Montreal Protocol eliminated HCFCs in 1987 – but the ozone hole has not decreased in size at all in the last 20 years – According to ESA, the ozone hole area reached 28.0 million km2 on 25 September 2006, very close to its maximum in 2000, which peaked at 28.4 million km2).
cheers
Arnost
“in which the complexities created by things like water vapor, convection, clouds, trees, polar ice caps, solar flux and so on are all ignored,”
WRONG !! They’re not all ignored at all.
“Or more CO2 leads to faster plant-growth and more phytoplankton which pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere and therefore reduces warming. The list of such potential effects is very long; many of these feedbacks effects interact with one another”
** PITY despite the biosphere’s best efforts the CO2 rates are going up up up increasing to 2ppm per year in recent years. Also don’t forget (despite Ian’s envelope) the northern peat bogs and tundra may be serious poistive feedbacks. Methyl hydrates await on the ocean floor and have been bubbling of late – feedbacks just don’t go one way !!
On model accuracy – well we don’t have a replicate planet Earth. The only way you can assess the models’ performance to see how they compare against a vast array of validation data and issues of predicting current and historical climate. Then decide whether that “accuracy” is enough.
The real major future unknown is what humanity does or does not do about CO2 emissions.
Without models we also now have a century of observation. Do not the last 30 years also give a clear case that things are changing dramatically climatewise consistent with AGW theory with really no other explanations fitting.
You have neglected the observational science that can measure the increasing greenhouse effect from space and from radiometers on the ground.
“Bottom line is that nobody can reliably quantify the size of the future climate changes, or even bound them sufficiently to guide action.” SAYS YOU ! Your opinion only based on what?
OZONE – wrong. You would not expect a vast improvement as yet. We’re talking 30-50 years. It’s called lag ! Which is why acting on CO2 sooned than later is also important. WHat you’re seeing with ozone is about what you’d expect !!
Arnost – a very scant selective analysis.
Arnost
at least you are starting to argue the point, none of this ‘CO2 is only present in small quantities, so how can it have any effect’ rubbish.
The scientists have made predictions, based on their models. Those predictions seem to be standing up. That is how you can say the models are working. The troposphere is warming up, as predicted, now that Christy has finally fixed up his data. He still doesn’t believe in global warming being a problem, but at least he is not throwing out a red herring any more.
Luke – thanks,
With your opening line above, you are twisting what I was saying somewhat… naughty naughty… .
Take a look at SPM-2 and tell me what are the most prominent forcing comoponents? GHG and aerosols.
Why these? GHGs because its politically expedient, and aerosols because they are the mechanism that the models use to explain the dip in temps last century which the models through the overemphasis on CO2 otherwise can’t explain.
Futher the models’ accuracy won’t / can’t be validated for decades. They may hindcast well for last century if the aerosols and such a tweaked – but they can’t hindcast the LIA and MWP longterm. (The team’s already gotten tried to get rid of the inconvenient facts of the MWP and LIA – and if you follow the debate on CA it appears that the inconvenient dip in temps last century is about to go as well).
My assertion is that the models are selective and simplistic when compared to Earth’s climate stands.
Bottom line is that the models predictive value is questionable. Given this I think the focus on CO2 is much overplayed.
cheers
Arnost
Well the point is that when you add solar, aerosols and greenhosue together you do simulate the temperature development of the last century quite acceptably. And what’s your basis for saying they’re tweaked. And do you think simulating the evolution of temperature development is the be-all and end-all of validation. It’s one of 100 issues of validation.
GHGs are politically expedient?? Come on – that’s nonsense in the evolution of this debate – all the greenhouse science was fought up from first principles with no political intent in mind. Most people would have been unaware. It’s very hard to throw all these climate forcing factors together – come up with something that resembles the Earth’s diverse climate regions, the seasons etc and imply that it’s all tuned like a multiple regression. It is a tad more complex than that.
The politics of climate change have really only accelerated post the Rio environment conference. It was in a backwater as an issue before that. You don’t get 1000s of papers in the science literature simply on political expedience – some science has to be transacted.
And we appear to have no shortage of critics wanting to shoot the other guy down.
Overemphasis on CO2 – says who? Why do you say this. Golly gee – climate models are complex beasts – who says they’ve overemphasised CO2? You do?
As for simulating the LIA and MWP – well firstly they would have know what the global extent of the LIA and MWP was? What reference would you suggest?
And do you really know they can’t simulate MWP and LIA features?
“http://www.mad.zmaw.de/fileadmin/extern/Publications/simulation.pdf”
The external climate forcing and the simulated global
annual near-surface air temperature (SAT), is represented
in Fig. 1. The model simulates a temperature
maximum around 1100 AD, the Medieval Warm Period
(MWP) (Jones et al., 2001), with temperatures very similar
to the ones simulated for the present period. The
existence of the MWP has been recently a matter of considerable
debate, since proxy data have not yielded a
consistent picture of its existence (Bradley et al., 2001;
Broecker, 2001). In this simulation, the MWP was a global
phenomenon, probably caused by the maximum in
solar activity in the 12th century. From 1300 AD global
temperatures decrease and the simulation enters the so
called Little Ice Ice (LIA) lasting until about 1850 AD
(Jones et al., 2001). Temperatures in the LIA were about
1 K colder than todays values, the cooling peaking in
the Late Maunder Minimum (Eady, 1976) (around 1700 AD) and the Dalton Minimum (Jones et al., 2001)
(around 1820 AD), when simulated temperatures are
about 0.25 K colder than the LIA mean. The cooling
is a global phenomenon with a regional maxima around
a latitude belt of 60N over land areas (Zorita et al.,
2004). Subsequently, global temperatures start increasing
almost continuously into the 20th century until the
end of the simulation. The simulated secular warming
trend in the 20th century is approached, but not surpassed,
by warming trends around 1100 AD and in
the 18th century. A shorter simulation of the last 500
years with a slightly different model version yields similar
results.” {ENDS}
The only reason that CO2 is emphasised is that we’re on the way to doubling the concentration in the planet’s atmosphere in a geological blink of an eye, with significant observed climate changes between 280ppm and 390ppm already, a diverse wide body of evidence, and known physical properties of the gas.
What do you think we should emphasise and why. What else is changing?
I’m not saying models are perfect but any means. I’m not saying we know the exact course of evolution of CO2 in the atmosphere given humanity’s desire to something about the issue but balanced as rapid economic development based on fossil fuels.
But Arnost – AGW is an issue of personal, national and global risk assessment. It is a difficult decision with imperfect knowledge. But we do need to check the abilities of the models and their responsiveness, not simply assume what they do and do not do.
Saying overemphasis on CO2 is simply a value judgement – what’s the scientific logical argument and any evidence for saying other features are having more of an effect to justify that claim.
The more I read these articles the more apparent it is that fools are trying to turn a Political issue into a voodoo science issue.
Global warming and global cooling are each 1/2 the sum of global climate. BIG DEAL Been that way for billions of years.
The big issue is the Voodoo science and unholy grab for fame and fortune by the EcoMarxists, most of whom took their scientific base from Al Gores’ Hollywood movie.
Some of these funding parasites want a Nobel prize, some want their own TV shows, nearly all need an education in ethics.
Then they would be honest enough to acknowledge the growing list of former IPCC scientist who have had their work altered, at times radically, by “politicians” within the IPCC for political purposes. NOT environmental!!
The EU needs a carbon tax to fund the Billions of Boomer retirees’ pensions and claims to freebees.
The UN sees itsself as the One Worls Govt and is using the one thing the affects us all as their platform. The worlds climate.
The EcoMarxists see this as their opportunity to bury the Western built Industrial Complex and implement their own. Q. wno funds the EcoMarxists???
Al Gores G.I.M???
Show me where the models have been wrong? On anything? Because we don’t know everything, we know nothing? Au contraire. And with full scientific authority.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
Luke there arn’t any. It’s not the Sun. It’s not cosmic trays and it’s not Mars, or parking lots. What’s left would be a sorry quasi-religious argument from ignorance if it wasn’t based entirely on lies. Deliberate lies.
sorry for poor grammar in the previous post. I meant Billions of Euros’.
Read this note, its an article on the IMF web.
It supports my contention that MOST of the drive for a Carbon Tax has been driven by the political class of the EU. Kyoto is a wank, now more readily accepted as such than denied. The EU states are Welfare states. Cradle to grave stupidity.
They simply cannot fund these people into old age so what they needed was a tax. BEEudiful.
A Moral Tax, one that saves the world from itsself. The troubles began when not every other nation jumped on board, therefore putting EU manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage.
Bloody democracy !!
The Sun might never set on a globe like ours but hopefully it is starting to set on this criminal scam involving CO2.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2004/06/pdf/picture.pdf
That’s horeshit.
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5877
Why did they want to suppress scientific facts? MOney you ignorant moronic fool. You haven’t yet seen criminal in this affair. When you do it will be on your side.
You know what buddy, none of this has any bearing on who can grow old or not. or what constitutes “welfare.” That’s in nature’s hands. When nature kills. It kills according to location, location, location, just like a real estate salesperson adjusts their price for a parcel. So screw your wingnut anti-welfare crap. If you’re in the way of a wave, you’ll die. Stupis is as stupid is.
Ecomarxists and World govt – come on ! ROTFL.
Getting the UN to agree and do anything is more of a challenge than world govt.
How about some positive stories about making money out of climate change needs.
Some stories from the US of A.
http://www.ge.com/ecoreport/files/ge_2005_ecomagination_report.pdf
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/108/open_lightbulbs.html
http://www.geconsumerproducts.com/pressroom/press_releases/lighting/gelcore/Walmart_LED_display.htm
Luke – thanks for your patience… I’m sulking here with what looks like another Labor landslide. I have no idea how ordinary people can even contemplate returning a government that has turned the “premier” state into a basket case. I was hoping that there would be at least a little bit of a protest vote…
To the topic.
The world warmed over the last century, about 0.45°C between 1905 and 1945 and about 0.45°C between 1961 and 2001.
CO2 concentrations went up about 10 ppm between 1905 and 1945 and about 70 ppm between 1945 and 2000.
So while the CO2 could have caused the warming between 1961 and 2001, it could not have caused similar warming between 1905 and 1945.
If the warming between 1905 and 1945 was not caused by CO2 then what caused this? The IPCC does not specify what this something else is, and the models don’t have an explanation either.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
Have a look at the forcings used in the models to hindcast last century temps – there’s nothing there to explain the temperature increase in the first half of the last century.
Dodgy at best – CO2 is being framed.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost – refer
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/450.htm#fig127
and
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
These simulations explain the 20th century temperature trend to be a complex combination of CO2, solar, sulphate aerosol and volcanic dust combinations. However there is no appreciable component of solar increase in the last 30 years.
In any case this is only one example of evidence – there are direct measurements.
Luke
I am not saying that the models don’t reasonably follow observtions. I am saying that the modelas are using dodgy forcings to do so.
You asked me for a scientific logical argument and any evidence for saying other features are having more of an effect to justify that claim.
The data in my previous link is from Gavin’s Model E, the principal model used by IPCC. The data shows that CO2 (and other GHGs) is basically the only thing that “causes” warming and that aerosols are the only thing that “cause” a cooling.
Lets leave CO2 aside for the moment and look at the aerosols.
Let’s say that the aerosol spike in the early 90’s is Pinatubo http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0703-083 – the second biggest plinian event this century. Given this as a baseline, one can sort of guess that the spike in the eighties is El Chichon (I guess that even if a only a very moderate explosion it had extremely high SO2 in ejecta http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1401-12=)
But what is the spike in the 60’s. I can’t find anything that compares to say Cerro Azul in 1932 (about 1/2 the size of Pinatubo http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1507-06=) or most interestingly Katmai in 1912 (about 2x the size of Pinatubo http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1102-18-).
It appears that volcanism’s impact is conveniently understated in the early part of the century, and conveniently overstated in the latter part to mitigate the runnaway forcing that’s being calculated by the models from CO2 so that it hindcasts.
As I said CO2 is being framed.
cheers
Arnost
No you don’t know that all Arnost – sheer speculation on your part unless you know how they modelled volcanism and on what basis with what data. You don’t have to see little blips everywhere you would like one either .. ..
HAve you discounted other mechanisms like EL Nino years> La Ninas?
Interesting philosophical stuff Arnost – you’re now subscribing to the theory that a whirlwind blowing through a junk yard might build a 747? Remember these model runs are long complex and expensive to run – some others group’s work – not necessarily the IPCC’s – you’re suggesting they kept fiddling until they got what they wanted?
You have not done your homework I’m afraid and are just speculating? overstated – understated – say who and why?
You have also TOTALLY ignored all the other evidence I have quoted above – satellites, radiometers etc. Funny how all the diverse lines of evidence tend to line up.
OK and if it is not CO2 – what’s your mechanism?
And here’s why is say you have not done your homework and your volcanism comments are unsubstantiated by best available science not anecdotes.
Sato et al. 1993
Sato, Mki., J.E. Hansen, M.P. McCormick, and J.B. Pollack, 1993: Stratospheric aerosol optical depths, 1850-1990. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 22987-22994.
A global stratospheric aerosol database employed for climate simulations is described. For the period 1883-1990, aerosol optical depths are estimated from optical extinction data, whose quality increases with time over that period. For the period 1850-1882, aerosol optical depths are more crudely estimated from volcanological evidence for the volume of ejecta from major known volcanoes. The data set is available over Internet.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/
http://xena2-prod.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca/gdp/search?action=entrySummary&entryType=productCollection&entryId=5460&entryLang=en
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/trop.aer/
Radiative Forcing by Volcanic Aerosols from 1850 through 1994
Natalia G. Andronova1, Eugene V. Rozanov1, F. Yang1, Michael E. Schlesinger1 and Georgiy L. Stenchikov2
(1) Climate Research Group, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
(2) Department of Meteorology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 USA
________________________________________
It has been hypothesized that volcanoes have contributed to the increase in global-mean surface-air temperature that has been observed from the middle of the last century to the present. This hypothesis states that although the net radiative forcing of a volcano is negative and thus major volcanoes result in a cooling of the global-mean surface-air temperature for one to two years, the decrease in the number of major volcanoes from the 19th to the 20th century resulted in a relative warming of the climate. However, it has been difficult to test this hypothesis quantitatively because of the large uncertainty about the radiative forcing by volcanoes – the change in net radiation at the top of the atmosphere. This uncertainty exists because of our lack of knowledge about the altitude at which volcanic gases have been injected into the stratosphere, the composition and dispersion of the volcanic aerosol created therefrom by gas-to-particle conversion, and the radiative properties of these volcanic aerosols. Even observations by the NOAA-11 and ERBE satellites of the net radiative forcing from 40°S to 40°N by the most-recent major volcano, Pinatubo, yield an uncertainty greater than 100% [Minnis et al., 1993]. Nonetheless, the aerosol from the Pinatubo volcano was observed more intensively and completely by satellite-based and ground-based instruments than the aerosol from any antecedent volcano. Accordingly sufficient data about the Pinatubo aerosol are now available to permit calculation of its radiative forcing using a detailed radiative transfer model. We do so in this study and then obtain a simple parameterization for the zonal-mean forcing in terms of the zonal-mean aerosol optical depth, solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere, fraction of the daylight part of the day, planetary albedo, and effective temperature at the top of the atmosphere. The resulting parameterization gives reasonably good agreement with the radiative forcing calculated by our detailed radiative transfer model for the Pinatubo aerosol, and for surrogate volcanoes having different latitudes and injection altitudes. We have applied this parameterization to calculate the radiative forcing of volcanoes from 1850 through 1994 (see Fig. 1), using the volcano aerosol optical depths compiled by Sato et al. [1993]. From Fig. 1 it can be seen that the intensity of the volcanic activity during the second half of the 19th century was less than for the second half of the 20th century. The maximum negative forcing in the 19th century occurred between 1880 and 1888 and was not greater than -5 Wm-2, while the maximum negative forcing in the 20th century occurred between 1960 and 1994 and was greater than -10 Wm-2. It can also be seen that from 1850 to 1994 there were long periods of time when there was no major volcanic activity. Figure 1 shows that the radiative forcings by the different volcanic eruptions are not similar. For example, the forcing by the volcanoes during 1883 – 1887 has a latitudinally wide signature, with almost constant forcing from -2 to -4 Wm-2 during a 2-year period, with a small area of maximum negative forcing that lasted less than two months. In contrast, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo has a narrow area of maximum negative forcing for half a year, with values smaller than -1.5 Wm-2 during the second year. Also it can be seen that the eruption of El Chichon in the Northern Hemisphere in 1982 did not extend into the Southern Hemisphere, even though its forcing was comparable to that of Pinatubo. The reasons for these differences in forcing are the location of the volcanoes and the stratospheric circulation there.
Luke – bollocks
Been through all the sites and nowhere have I been able to get an answer as to why there’s such a dearth of volcanic activity in the first half of the century.
So for the benefit of the readers, in the IPCC aerosols forcings http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
these are the volcanos that (I beleive) they represent:
1902 spike – Santa Maria 5.5cu km ejecta
1991 spike – Piantubo 10 cu km ejecta
1982 spike – Probably El Chicon – I say probably since I can’t find a good source for the quantity of ejecta. Best estimate: El Chichon’s eruption was smaller than that of Mt. St. Helens which ejected about 1 cu km ejecta.
1963 spike – Probably Agung about the size of St Helens at 1 cu km ejecta.
So if these are the baseline then please explain why there is no spike for these in the first half of the century for:
1912 maybe a bump – Katmai / Novarupta 20 – 30cu km ejecta
1932 no spike – Cerro Azul 9.5cu km ejecta
1956 no spike – Besymianny, in Kamchatka, (though like St Helens mostly sideways) was notable that it blew 8 cu km of ejecta into the atmosphere.
I ask again – why are these ignored in the first half of the century and pissy little volcanos like Agung and El Chichon are included. Surely the biggest volcano in the century by more than a factor of two should cause more than a blip?
Over to you.
cheers
Arnost
No bollocks back – purely anecdotal by you I’m afraid. You said they ignored early volcanic activity – they don’t. You would have noted some volcanoes didn’t get to both hemispheres.
“Also it can be seen that the eruption of El Chichon in the Northern Hemisphere in 1982 did not extend into the Southern Hemisphere, even though its forcing was comparable to that of Pinatubo. The reasons for these differences in forcing are the location of the volcanoes and the stratospheric circulation there.”
There’s a tad more in this issue than looking for blips because Arnost plots a time-line eruption.
Check out http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/ again – no activity in the 1800s eh ? – get fair dinkum Arnost. You’re utterly wrong.
This is science not Arnost’s selected opinions – just because a few of your favourites didn’t “appear” make the impact you wished for maybe is for very good reasons which you had not done the slighest bit of investigation.
You’re just quoting stuff off the top of your head without the slighest ounce of investigation as to what they’ve done or their methology.
Or perhaps you’ve thoroughly researched what Sato et al. 1993 actually did – care to inform us?
Also – other evidence on CO2 again totally ignored.
Luke, great discussion… thanks.
By the way – “No activity in the 1800s eh ? – get fair dinkum Arnost. You’re utterly wrong.” Where did I say that? You’re making things up again. Naughty naughty.
The two graphs in the link above are interesting. Both graphs are basically flat between say 1915 and 1963.
So this tells me there were no “tropical” volcanos (i.e. not one blip in the second graph – a perfect flat line). Therefore Kelut 1919, Rabaul 1937, Lamington 1951 etc etc etc (all tropical volcanos almost as big as Agung which appears to be the huge forcing in the 60’s) never happened. Gimme a break…
I’ve had a wine or two, but let’s see if I got this right:
Premise 1: Non tropical volcanoes, REGARDLESS of how BIG THEY ARE DON’T affect the climate.
Premise 2: Solar impact / sunspot activity has NO effect.
Premise 3: Over the first third of last century global temperatures have increased by 0.45° C, in the middle third of last century the temperatures have decreased by 0.3° C and over the last third they have increased 0.45° C.
Premise 4: Tropical volcanos cooled the globe only in the last century.
Inductive conclusion / hypothesis: The increase in CO2 caused the increase in temperature.
Lets test it:
Sanata Maria was a tropical volcano almost as big as Pinatubo – so if I include Pinatubo I would look like a total jerk if I exclude it. But that’s all right – it’s right at the beginning of the data plot so I’ll just zero out it’s effect.
Katmai/Novarupta was more than twice as big as Pinatubo – so if I exclude it I would look like a total jerk – but hang on – It’s not a tropical volcano! Get rid of it. And also all the other non tropical biggies. Woo Hoo!
What about the other tropical volcanos? Well nobody’s ever heard of them so who cares. Get rid of them.
Let’s run our model – CO2 increases so does the temps – BEAUDIFUL.
Shit! The temp’s are going down in the middle part of the century and CO2 says they should raise. Can’t use the sun – that will stuff up the next hundred years. What to do? Will think of something. Get back to it later!
The last third of the century is now too hot – nobody will believe that the global averages have gone up 2° C… Let’s throw in a couple of tropical volcanos to cool the thing down. Lets see Agung, El Chichon, and of course Pinatubo.
BEAUDIFUL – the model’ spot on apart from that pesky middle of the century cooling.
I know! We got rid of the MWP and LIA by bamboozling the pundits, maybe we can do the same with the middle of the century temps.
If only we didn’t have thing like this in print http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf – that graph on page 961 could cause problems. On second thoughts, don’t worry – too long ago, nobody will see it and we can always say that Hansen was drunk (works for Gavin :)). Let’s see we can adjust the temps before the cooling downwards (Oh call it due to UHI – the deniers can’t argue with that can they – stick it to the bastards). Lets see what we have http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif .
BEAUDIFUL – the model’s spot on!
Lets publish – the models all agree that the next 100 years will BLAH BLAH BLAH – You’re all going to die unless you stop breathing and emitting CO2!
Hang on – won’t the models rocket out again in the next ten years if we don’t have a convenient volcano to adjust them? On second thoughts who cares – our funding will run out by then! So not a problem.
And the pre-adjusted data? It’s on a disk somewhere so that’s cool too…
Cheers
Arnost
Arnost – mate – you’ve got a large problem – and we’re going to sort this out by reading the actual paper – but they’ve measured optical parameters with real data – you wanna argue with that?
“For the period 1883-1990, aerosol optical depths are estimated from optical extinction data, whose quality increases with time over that period”
So who says any of these volcanic events were discarded. Arnost you’re just raving. How ould you like to model the volcanicc effects given you don’t like what the IPCC is doing? Your alternative is what?
What’s your issue with p 961 anyway?
Luke
My problem is that CO2 couldn’t have caused the warming in the early part of last century. CO2 certainly did’nt cause the cooling in the middle.
So what did?
Attributing “global warming” solely to CO2 is a dodgy at best.
cheers Arnost
For heavens sake Arnost – (1) solar + CO2 (2) aerosols. Re-read all of above with eyes open.
So in return Arnost – solar can’t have caused the warming in the last 30 years – what did?
Why is it dodgy – simply because you “don’t like it”. What’s so difficult about more greenhouse gases. It’s pretty basic isn’t it?
Again no response on other lines of evidence. Sigh. Mono-directional.
Привет.
Продаю персональный сертификат WebMoney за $99.
Можете проверить: WMID 322973398779 Redfern
Всё чисто, не одной жалоб. Сделан на утерянные документы. Всё законно.
Если нужно, то есть сертификаты ещё.
Стучацо в личную почту на Вебмани.
Это не спам. Не пишите на мой WMID жалобы в арбитраж Вебмани.