Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

The seasonal variation is due to the difference in sea area between the hemispheres. You see similar variation in the CO2 concentration because of spring / summer vegitation growth in the Northern Hemisphere.

Maybe needs to be refined as the focus seems on the equinoxes where the changes over time period are most notable....sea ice forming / sea ice melting both of which are phase change with the accompanying thermal implications with heat of fusion.

Lots of good stuff here
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/polynyas.html

But I could not begin to guess the level of influence on the global energy picture
Ice melting in spring is going to cool the ocean surface and drop the sealevel...again - I do not have any idea of the broad scale numbers that entails nor what the implications are of the resulting fresh water layer on ocean levels.

 

[DC]

"he Earth is closer to the Sun so it can gather some 1408 W/m2 top of the atmosphere."

non of the measurements of TSI I have seen went over 1400.. not even close.

did I miss something?

 

[aleCcowaN]

"he Earth is closer to the Sun so it can gather some 1408 W/m2 top of the atmosphere."

non of the measurements of TSI I have seen went over 1400.. not even close.

did I miss something?

Remember that those 1400 or 1300 are measured perpendicularly to the sunbeams, and other values mapped are averaged during 24 hours period, including nights.

To add to the global warming sceptic notebook: If the Earth were a sphere, its area would be exactly 4 times the area of a circle of equal diameter.

So, the circle gets 1400, and the sphere averages .... pip pip pup pip -meaning 1400/4 =- ... 350

Compare this famous figure with this other famous figure. Does it now make sense?

If this is not what you were talking about , you may read carefully the blue text in that post of mine above and make sense of it.

Please, everyone, stop talking of ESL and pay attention to the real problem: SFWT (science as a first way of thinking)

 

[DC]

Remember that those 1400 or 1300 are measured perpendicularly to the sunbeams, and other values mapped are averaged during 24 hours period, including nights.

To add to the global warming sceptic notebook: If the Earth were a sphere, its area would be exactly 4 times the area of a circle of equal diameter.

So, the circle gets 1400, and the sphere averages .... pip pip pup pip -meaning 1400/4 =- ... 350

Compare this famous figure with this other famous figure. Does it now make sense?

If this is not what you were talking about , you may read carefully the blue text in that post of mine above and make sense of it.

Please, everyone, stop talking of ESL and pay attention to the real problem: SFWT (science as a first way of thinking)

http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt not even close to 1400

 

[aleCcowaN]

The seasonal variation is due to the difference in sea area between the hemispheres. You see similar variation in the CO2 concentration because of spring / summer vegitation growth in the Northern Hemisphere.

Maybe needs to be refined as the focus seems on the equinoxes where the changes over time period are most notable....sea ice forming / sea ice melting both of which are phase change with the accompanying thermal implications with heat of fusion.

I'd rather see the forest before being charmed by every different tree.

If the planet gets 1408 W/m2 divided by 4 in January 4th and averages 12.1°C of surface temperature, while it'll only get 1316 W/m2 divided by 4 next July 3rd, a date the average expected temperature is some 15.7°C and a warmer planet radiates more energy into space. What is what heat in/heat out is telling you about this? Is this a valid way of thinking or not?

[“I'm a bad widdle boy!” ―Gabbo's catchphrase]

 

[aleCcowaN]

http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt not even close to 1400

Enough! Next time, I'll put you on ignore!

First, how do you dare to use "not even close to 1400" with a number that is not 400 or 1050? You may feign that something like 1399.9 is not even close to 1400 because of a criteria made of rubber and needed just for dialectical purposes. But that only can be done malafide (kind of bösartig)

Second, how do you dare to say what you did without even looking there properly? Do you have a problem reading or using simple search functions in your browser?

Stop wasting my time!

 

[aleCcowaN]

You do not have to numerate to understand concepts and visualize processes.

Reading a table of numbers for sea temperature - you might visualize the shift over time of a proto-El Nino.
I prefer this

I don't need to know how to calculate the thermal energy to melt a cubic KM of ice. I do need to know approximately what that portends short term and long term.

Certainly, just that figure is enough to put you in the way to quickly reply this question. No calculations needed at all -unless you want to check it out also by using calculations-.

The question of water vapour that Trakar commented is a very important one. I have here just two images of water vapour content in the atmosphere for September 2012 and 2013.





This is the colour scale in centimetres of liquid water



Can you tell if more water vapour during 2013 amounts for those 9 mm? Let's not forget that seasonal signals already get the snow, water retained in the hydrological system and all those effects. At least they do with averages.

But there're the data source for both images available just to get to a number for water vapour. I got the average total water vapour content for both Septembers in a grid of 0.5° by 0.5°. I'll let you all know my conclusions, provided some advance from other posters in analysing this issue.

 

[DC]

Enough! Next time, I'll put you on ignore!

First, how do you dare to use "not even close to 1400" with a number that is not 400 or 1050? You may feign that something like 1399.9 is not even close to 1400 because of a criteria made of rubber and needed just for dialectical purposes. But that only can be done malafide (kind of bösartig)

Second, how do you dare to say what you did without even looking there properly? Do you have a problem reading or using simple search functions in your browser?

Stop wasting my time!

i stand corrected, you was right, i was wrong.

bye

 

[aleCcowaN]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_33325538f42d0be7c4.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_33325538f42ee36fd7.jpg

This is the colour scale in centimetres of liquid water

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/33325538f431be9ff6.png

Can you tell if more water vapour during 2013 amounts for those 9 mm? Let's not forget that seasonal signals already get the snow, water retained in the hydrological system and all those effects. At least they do with averages.

But there're the data source for both images available just to get to a number for water vapour. I got the average total water vapour content for both Septembers in a grid of 0.5° by 0.5°. I'll let you all know my conclusions, provided some advance from other posters in analysing this issue.

To save time. I've already processed the raw data of those images and this is the result:

The water vapour content in the atmosphere, expressed as the thick of a layer evenly distributed all around the planet was:

September 2012: 15.32 mm
September 2013: 15.17 mm

Comments about precision:

Error margin for original data was left aside because it's minimum for the purpose of this calculation.

Both graphics showed 5.5% of the grid elements as no-data.

To deal with that, all the elements above 30°N or below 30°S -mostly dry areas nearby the poles not covered by satellites and areas in the fringes of sea ice where scattered floes may have altered the results, also pretty dry areas- were assigned a 0 value.

Al the empty elements between 30°S and 30°N were surrounded by near to end of the scale values (6 cm), so I forced all of them to the top of scale and assigned 6cm. A sensible inspection tells the real values may have been just a bit above 6cm and hardly reaching 7cm in exceptionally wet locations.

Both assignations are opposite in effects.

A sensible rule of thumb error estimation makes to think of a sigma of about 2% with a little bias towards underestimation.

Some conclusions:

Of course, we still have to account for liquid and solid water in the atmosphere. That is always less than the water vapour content (50% is typical). So the bit "the total amount of water in the atmosphere amounts to a one-inch layer of water at any given time" remains to be true. And it has to be that way.

But the comparison of September of 2012 and September of 2013 makes us think that maybe 1 mm of the sea level variation, at most, can be explained by water content in the atmosphere, and that is probably to mean that in 2013 the atmosphere contained less water, so the sea-level drop would be even larger.

It's left the differences in snow cover during both Septembers. You may use the reanalysis tool, but I promise you'll only find a couple of millimetres.

So the question stands a bit changed:

Why on Earth the ocean level dropped 8 mm from September 2012 to September 2013 while the atmosphere wasn't retaining much more water (even probably less), it didn't snow a lot more, glaciers and ice sheets continued to melt, and the oceans become warmer during the exact same period?

The answer might be a Gordian knot in replying denialists myths and extremely dyer long term forecasts based on models.

 

[aleCcowaN]

By the way

Congratulations everybody!!!

We're living now the Mauna Loa 400 ppm era.

From the first time in ages April CO2 levels at Mauna Loa were above 400 ppmv every day.

This is an achievement that would have been impossible without the contribution of every person in the planet.

 

[r-j]

Not me. I've been carbon negative for the last decade. I take more CO2 out than I add each day.

It's all you people with a carbon footprint to blame.

 

[r-j]

If you actually care about your carbon load, and can't plant trees to offset it, I would be glad to do it for you.

Figure out your carbon footprint, then we can compute how many trees, then we can discuss the price.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I knew you do all this for the money. Same as Hansen!

Sorry, I've already booked trees planted in the Leonardo DiCaprio forest.

Seriously, I sold the lot I have told y'all some time ago, and I had planted part of it, about one and a third acre, with eucalyptus, poplars and willows (wet soil), so my yearly four and a half tons of carbon are to be absorbed during the next 5 or 6 years -if the new owners fell them, their fault.

I hope to start again in a new plot as soon as I solve some issues and make my mind about the location.

 

[r-j]

I knew you do all this for the money.

And the fame. Don't forget about the glamor.

 

[r-j]

Why on Earth the ocean level dropped 8 mm from September 2012 to September 2013 while the atmosphere wasn't retaining much more water (even probably less), it didn't snow a lot more, glaciers and ice sheets continued to melt, and the oceans become warmer during the exact same period?

You are asking the wrong questions. It certainly did snow more, a lot more, which you would know if you checked the data. In fact, December 2012 had the most snow ever recorded, since global records began. October and November were huge as well.

Most glaciers and all the ice sheets grew in that time period, since there was so much snow. )(up at the source, that's where glaciers and ice sheets collect the snow that forms them)

Since at high altitudes snow does not just melt and flow back to the sea, snow is the most likely reason for any unusual drop in sea levels.

And the oceans did not warm. In fact, the decade long trend shows them to be cooler.

So the question should be, why don't you know any of this? That way, you wouldn't be asking questions that are flawed.

And I wouldn't have to school you on these things.

 

[Corsair 115]

Not me. I've been carbon negative for the last decade. I take more CO2 out than I add each day.

It's all you people with a carbon footprint to blame.

You can offer some proof for this assertion, yes? (I would hope so, otherwise it's unsubstantiated braggadocio.)

 

[macdoc]

Why on Earth the ocean level dropped 8 mm from September 2012 to September 2013 while the atmosphere wasn't retaining much more water (even probably less), it didn't snow a lot more, glaciers and ice sheets continued to melt, and the oceans become warmer during the exact same period?

it rained a lot in Brisbane.?

Australia floods of 2010 and 2011 caused global sea level ...
www.desdemonadespair.net/.../australia-floods-of-2010-and-2011.html
Aug 24, 2013 - Australia floods of 2010 and 2011 caused global sea level to drop – 'Only in ... in flood waters in an industrial area of Brisbane 13 January 2011.

 

[aleCcowaN]

it rained a lot in Brisbane.?

Yes, and the lake named after my relative must have been brimming .

The notion isn't as preposterous as it looks, but being Australia large as a fiftieth of world's oceans we need an average layer of 35 cm of water to accumulate and stay in lakes, low lands , the soil and the water table all around the country, from Perth to Brisbane -like saying "from Los Angeles to New York"- and be constantly kept that way season after season just to make for those 7 mm. I bet that such greening deserts should have changed albedo and made the region and the whole world to warm.

It's a pity that Australia was drying during the lapse the ocean level dropped those 9 mm in my question.

Time to give a new hint: most of those 9 mm of water were still in the very oceans.

 

[aleCcowaN]

While you find a final, simple answer to account for most of those 9mm, some interesting information (more related to that answer than what you would imagine)

Recent sea surface height anomaly.

The same: Residuals.

NASA:
ScienceCasts: El Niño - Is 2014 the New 1997?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Speaking of ENSO ...

According to the Aussies http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/ This is the wrap-up archive of what you could see in that page, that date (Attention page 4).
Next update 3rd December.

Climate models aren't perfect, of course, but the chances of another La Nina must be minute.

(stricken text and link added in Comic Sans, done by me.)

It's a boy!

When y'all find the answer to those 9 mm, you'll have a bit of what made me say what's quoted above, back in November 29th, 2013.

Today, BOM's POAMA still doesn't see any Niño coming. I hope they are right for their own good, otherwise the fires will make them see how dear was the price paid to content the savage Australian denialist tribe, worthy successors of those early penal colony inmates.

[Regards to our good friend bit_pattern. He's missed.]