Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[a_unique_person]

I don't know who those people are, but that made me think of something.

If a super El Nino (which nobody really knows the cause of still) causes massive warming of the pacific, and then the entire world, and that leads to a jump in CO2 levels (it did), and CO2 causes more warming of the oceans, and that causes CO2 to rise faster, would that make the oceans a feedback? Or is CO2 causing a feedback?

People know the cause, they can't predict when they will occur.

 

[a_unique_person]

The fact remains that solar cycles have no statistically significant change on global temperature. Even of someone can identify some weather pattern with a small correlation to the solar cycle, so what. Changes in greenhouse gasses are 10 – 100 times stronger in their impact on the earth’s energy balance.

The thing that is really funny is that the same people who complain about a small amount of positive feedback that exists with greenhouse forcing also insist there must be some much more massive amplification at play wrt variation in solar activity. The believe this despite the multiple lines of evidence supporting the scientists on the former and the complete absence of data or even a plausible mechanism supporting the latter.

Some people don't seem to understand what a cycle is. Perhaps ofthey think of a wheel turning around. A point on the rim of the wheel goes up and down as it turns, but it always returns to the same location in space.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by r-j View Post
I don't know who those people are, but that made me think of something.

If a super El Nino (which nobody really knows the cause of still) causes massive warming of the pacific, and then the entire world, and that leads to a jump in CO2 levels (it did), and CO2 causes more warming of the oceans, and that causes CO2 to rise faster, wou

Geez beat it in with a stick

YES that is a positive feedback for warming and you can add into that additional water vapour as an magnifying factor.

I see you still have not grasped the basics of the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Cause and prediction of timing are two different things and ENSO is not an outside the box driver like volcanos, GHG and orbitals.
It has a strong impact on regional climates especially Australia and S America and some impact on North America.

 

[Reality Check]

It sure is in our Climate Change times. Notice our variable star is getting much more attention

Notice that our variable Sun has had much attention for decades if not centuries, Haig !

Linking to a video at all is dubious, Haig.

Linking to a video from the crackpots at Thunderbolts (the "Sun is a giant light bulb" proponents!) is just exposing some gullibility though. You must be able to tell the difference between actual science and fantasies from cranks, Haig, (or not )!

In the real world the current cycle is not surprising to actual solar physicist: Solar Cycle Prediction

The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 67 in the Summer of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 66.9 (in February 2012) due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high. The smoothed sunspot number has been rising again towards a second peak over the last four months and is approaching the level of the first peak (smoothed sunspot number was 65.6 in July of 2013). We are currently over five years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.

Note the graph where the observed sunspot activity is mostly within the predictions.

And since this is a climate thread I will remind you yet again that
* the Sun has been cooling slightly over the last 35 years and global temperatures have been rising over the same period.
* if a Maunder Minimum were to happen climate models show no global cooling, just a small decrease in the rate of warming.

 

[Reality Check]

Once again, real science differs from the JREF experts. What a shock.

What a shock that someone has the fantasy that they can read the minds of every JREF poster in this thread !

Real science says that the Sun is not classified as a variable star.
Real science says that the Sun's output increases as the Sun ages.
Real science says that the Sun's output varies periodically with the sunspot activity.
Real science says that the Sun's output varies randomly with the chaotic nature of a big ball of gas heated by fusion.

I do not disagree with the above real science.

Now expect inane questions about the meaning of the words "real", "science", "variable" and may be even "Sun" !

 

[lomiller]

I don't know who those people are, but that made me think of something.

If a super El Nino (which nobody really knows the cause of still) causes massive warming of the pacific, and then the entire world, and that leads to a jump in CO2 levels (it did), and CO2 causes more warming of the oceans, and that causes CO2 to rise faster, would that make the oceans a feedback? Or is CO2 causing a feedback?

Feedback factor is way to small to have a noticeable impact. It's be tiny even compared to the background noise.


Also I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "nobody knows the cause of El Nino" it's part of an osculation predicted by climate models. Also not that it doesn't really warm or cool anything Nino/Nina cause warm water to either sink or stay near the surface. The warm water is still present someplace.

 

[r-j]

The solar constant is not in fact perfectly constant,
but varies in relation to the solar activities.

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter3/Ency_Atmos/Radiation_Solar.pdf

The consensus seems to be that the sun varies very little in the visible spectrum, not enough to cause much change on earth.

But the UV varies much more (maybe 30 times more than the visible), and that does cause noticeable changes in the atmosphere, and those changes can and do effect the earth.

Changes in ultraviolet irradiance[edit]
Ultraviolet irradiance (EUV) varies by approximately 1.5 percent from solar maxima to minima, for 200 to 300 nm UV.[43]
Energy changes in the UV wavelengths involved in production and loss of ozone have atmospheric effects.
The 30 hPa atmospheric pressure level has changed height in phase with solar activity during the last 4 solar cycles.
UV irradiance increase causes higher ozone production, leading to stratospheric heating and to poleward displacements in the stratospheric and tropospheric wind systems.[44]
A proxy study estimates that UV has increased by 3.0% since the Maunder Minimum.[45]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Changes_in_ultraviolet_irradiance

There are claims that none of that can outdo the changes from greenhouse gas forcing, which might be true. The thing is, because there is little doubt that burning fossil fuels, making cement, and cutting down forests isn't going to stop, (and other sources of greenhouse gases, CfCs and methane and NO2 from aircraft, etc etc) we will see what happens. Like some have said, there is this huge experiment going on, and just as we have seen what the last 25 years will bring, we will see another 25 years.

I'm of the opinion it will be bad, but I am a bit of a pessimist. One reason I use skepticism to counter my emotions.

 

[r-j]

Also I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "nobody knows the cause of El Nino" it's part of an osculation predicted by climate models.

Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study.

Also not that it doesn't really warm or cool anything Nino/Nina cause warm water to either sink or stay near the surface. The warm water is still present someplace.

No, that isn't the cause of the warming caused by an El Nino. Because the warm water prevents the usual cold water from reaching the surface, the absence of cold upwelling increases warming. It's no coincidence that an El Nino event raises the global temperature.

 

[a_unique_person]

No, that isn't the cause of the warming caused by an El Nino. Because the warm water prevents the usual cold water from reaching the surface, the absence of cold upwelling increases warming. It's no coincidence that an El Nino event raises the global temperature.

It all depends what you mean by 'raising'. If you mean there are cyclical temperature changes, then yes. If you mean permanently, then no.

 

[Iamme]

Post #3275...`the suns output increases with age`?
Yipes, lets sure hope we are not slowly being cooked to death and its started already.
And that CO2 is coincidently increasing at same time.
The sooner we get people started on Mars, the better.
.
I always think that since (food?) scientists have wafted on eggs, and other debateable issues regarding science...wouldnt it be something if they were wrong about the sun, and we are actually in the `last days`? And we debate technical (tree) stuff that winds up meaningless because our (forest) sun just explodes one day. And as the Earth goes black at noon, scientists are scrambling going ``What the h*** happened here?!`` Stephen Hawking goes to his drawer and downs a quart of cyanide, Drano or something!
Anyone else here ever have such gloom and doom thoughts as this?

 

[Pixel42]

Post #3275...`the suns output increases with age`?
Yipes, lets sure hope we are not slowly being cooked to death and its started already.

Of course it's started already. And the planet will eventually be cooked to death. Fortunately the timescale for this particular forcing is billions of years.

 

[Iamme]

Of course it's started already. And the planet will eventually be cooked to death. Fortunately the timescale for this particular forcing is billions of years.

40 years will suit me fine! Lol
Selfish, yes.
.

Yesterday i told someone my great uncle if he could come back to life would be flummoxed to try to figure out say LED tvs. He used to be (tube type) tv repairman.
.

My point is, if only we could live on Earth forever, to see and maybe contribute to all the future changes.
But then to have the sun do everyone in. Even being on Mars wont help.
It be neat to live to see the day if man ever makes it to another star system.
If man doesnt kill himself off, our future existance would require we DO make it to another star system.
.
But, first things first. We could conceivably wind up starting WW3 over the global warming issue if say some countries dont cooperate over certain global warming treaties! Then instead of CO and other byproducts in the air, we`d have radiation in the air instead.
.
I`m always thinking ahead...usually negatively.

 

[lomiller]

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter3/Ency_Atmos/Radiation_Solar.pdf

The consensus seems to be that the sun varies very little in the visible spectrum, not enough to cause much change on earth.

The visible spectrum dominates the suns energy output. This is why we have evolved to see in the visible spectrum...

The measure that has been unused in this thread is TOTAL insolation, or the total energy output reaching the earth and this changes very little across the solar cycle. As I said above the impact on the earth’s energy budget of the solar cycle is 10-100 times smaller than the IR retained inside the atmosphere by CO2.

 

[lomiller]

Oscillations in any system are a property of the system. There is never an individual cause nor does it even make sense to think there being one. If you can reproduce them when you model the system then you understand how it arises.

No, that isn't the cause of the warming caused by an El Nino. Because the warm water prevents the usual cold water from reaching the surface, the absence of cold upwelling increases warming. It's no coincidence that an El Nino event raises the global temperature.

Again neither Nino/Nina change heat content, they meanly move heat around. How do you suppose cold water can upwell without warm water subsiding?

 

[Belz...]

Again neither Nino/Nina change heat content, they meanly move heat around.

They do tend to be jerks about it.

 

[r-j]

The visible spectrum dominates the suns energy output

Sunlight, at an effective temperature of 5,780 kelvins, is composed of nearly thermal-spectrum radiation that is slightly more than half infrared. At zenith, sunlight provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatts per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
Wow, you are wrong once more.

The measure that has been unused in this thread is TOTAL insolation, or the total energy output reaching the earth and this changes very little across the solar cycle.

Wrong again, as the changes from the UV in the upper atmosphere have been found to effect the lower atmosphere. So the UV changes matter.

As I said above the impact on the earth’s energy budget of the solar cycle is 10-100 times smaller than the IR retained inside the atmosphere by CO2.

That makes little sense. First you say there is no change from the sun, then you say it's "10-100 times smaller than". Does the sun change or not?

Again neither Nino/Nina change heat content, they meanly move heat around.

You don't seem to know much about circulation and heat exchange.

 

[Trakar]

The visible spectrum dominates the suns energy output. This is why we have evolved to see in the visible spectrum...

Slight, but important, correction: "The visible spectrum dominates the Sun's energy output,...from the perspective of the Earth's surface."

This qualification is necessary because of the nature of our atmosphere which is predominantly transparent to visible spectrum light while light beyond and below the visible spectrum tend to interact with atmospheric components outside of some very narrow windows.

 

[lomiller]

They do tend to be jerks about it.

LOL, autocorrect gone wrong. Should be “merely”

Children can be very mean at times and these two can be downright nasty depending on where you live...

 

[lomiller]

Slight, but important, correction: "The visible spectrum dominates the Sun's energy output,...from the perspective of the Earth's surface."

This qualification is necessary because of the nature of our atmosphere which is predominantly transparent to visible spectrum light while light beyond and below the visible spectrum tend to interact with atmospheric components outside of some very narrow windows.

True but even without atmospheric interference most of the Suns energy output is in or near the visible spectrum. A lot of near visible UV gets chopped out but there isn’t a major absorption band on the IR side until you hit one for water at ~900nm.

 

[Trakar]

So, if a CO2 molecule transfers the energy of the IF it just absorbed, to a N2 molecule, does the N2 molecule stay more energetic? Or would the N2 lose this energy by collision with another molecule? If the N2 can't absorb the IF, does that mean it can't radiate the energy away? It can only lose this energy by collision with another molecule?

Does this mean that if there were no greenhouse gases in the air at all, the N2 couldn't lose the energy? How would the energy return to space?

Oh my head exploding time again. I'm done.

The energy absorbed by CO2 from IR generally does not reappear as directional velocity, as I told you when you first asked the question. It does cause a slight increase in vibrational energy within the bonds of the molecule (flexure of the bonding angles and/or stretching of the bond), this state is unstable and generally results in a re-emission of IR energy allowing the molecule to drop back to its more stable configuration within a generally short period of time. It is the temporary retention of the energy in the excited state that makes the subsequent emission directionally random. The kinetic energy transfers from molecular collision are a different order of energy transfer and are not generally due to IR issues. Most gaseous molecule collisions, as explained by Kinetic Molecular Theory, are considered perfectly elastic, they do not gain or lose velocity through impacts with other gas particles, they simply rebound at an appropriate reflection angle, and maintain average gas motion velocities for the existent thermal equilibrium.

This is all pretty basic physics that should have been at least touched upon in most High School courses. Atmospheric gases tend to gain heat from contact with warm solids and the evaporated liquid constituents often emitted by warm surface features and then spread that heat throughout the atmosphere through convective flow. There is some radiative warming but it is a minor component of atmospheric warming under most terrestrial environmental ranges. This can be looked at in simplified form in any of several Single Layer Models of atmospheric warming and in more detail in the various Multilayer Models.

Conduction from the warmed surface of our planet (due to absorption of solar radiations, and the absorbed reflected IR from GHGs) accomplishes almost all atmospheric warming. As this warmed gas expands it rises, convecting this surface heat up into the atmosphere. As the pressure drops, the gas expands more, this expansion reduces the energy level in the mass of gas resulting in a cooling (Gas Laws). Moisture in the air condensates releasing its latent energy. The effects of these processes (conduction, convection, evaporation, expansion and condensation) are part and parcel of the Earth’s energy balance. These processes produce the movement of gases in our atmosphere giving rise to the "weather zone" of our atmosphere (the troposphere, from the Greek "tropos" meaning mixing or turning).