Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[r-j]

• Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.
• When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).
• This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).
• Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).
• So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
• If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." (Evans 2006).
• If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).
• Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening (Jones 2003).
• With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).
• An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

I'd much rather read and talk about the information and understandings a poster has grokked from published references than what he has read about some third party's opinion of the reference. I can't question the third party, but I can ask questions of any poster expressing his own opinion, considerations and understandings.

Yes, and posting a bunch of links to how CO2 is increasing is lame. Nobody in this thread has ever questioned the increase, much less claimed it isn't happening.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, and posting a bunch of links to how CO2 is increasing is lame. Nobody in this thread has ever questioned the increase, much less claimed it isn't happening.

Did someone question that CO2 correlates with atmospheric temperatures ?

Because if not, you're one step away from the A in AGW.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... You are embarrassing yourself here. ... AGW adds to the total heat in the system. Heat is energy, not necessarily temperature in all cases, certainly not a 1-1 ratio. It takes a whole lot more heat to warm water from 31 to 33 degrees than it does to warm that same water from 33 to 35 degrees.

Please expand on this point.
Let's learn some "basic physics" together.

Let's start with the definition of "calorie", okay?

1a : the amount of heat required at a pressure of one atmosphere to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius that is equal to about 4.19 joules

This says nothing about the amount of heat required to raise the temperature changing as temperature changes. The implication I derive is that the difference in heat content between a gram of water at 33 and a gram of water at 31 is the same as the difference in heat content between a gram of water at 35 and a gram of water at 33. Is this mistaken? Where?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Please expand on this point.
Let's learn some "basic physics" together.

Let's start with the definition of "calorie", okay?

This says nothing about the amount of heat required to raise the temperature changing as temperature changes. The implication I derive is that the difference in heat content between a gram of water at 33 and a gram of water at 31 is the same as the difference in heat content between a gram of water at 35 and a gram of water at 33. Is this mistaken? Where?

Yes it is mistaken. You forgot the energy required for phase change from Ice-->Water

I am not going to go digging out my 30 year old text books to do the exact calculations for you. But I haven't forgotten my "basic physics"

ETA Oh and BTW We are melting a LOT and I mean a LOT of ice!

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Incorrect, the various ocean cycles and variations (PDO, ENSO, ADO, etc) transfer energy within the system. They cannot change the total energy in the system. La Nina causes more energy to be transferred to lower depths.

Neither can any change in the chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere change "the total energy in the system". Ultimately, all the energy (thus all the heat energy that thermometers and temperature proxies like tree rings can detect) in "the system" derives from one or another of three sources: 1) impacts (gravitational kinetic energy), 2) radioactive decay, 3) solar energy. CO₂ also "transfer(s) energy within the system".
Where do I err, here?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yes it is mistaken. You forgot the energy required for phase change from Ice-->Water

I am not going to go digging out my 30 year old text books to do the exact calculations for you. But I haven't forgotten my "basic physics"

ETA Oh and BTW We are melting a LOT and I mean a LOT of ice!

Okay. F, not C.

 

[macdoc]

That's a poor example...the more critical difference is in the cryosphere as mentioned.
BTW there are latent heat issues in change of state to water vapour and sublimation.

The enthalpy of fusion or heat of fusion is the change in enthalpy resulting from heating a given quantity of a substance to change its state from a solid to a liquid. The temperature at which this occurs is the melting point.
The 'enthalpy' of fusion is a latent heat, because during melting the introduction of heat cannot be observed as a temperature change, as the temperature remains constant during the process. The latent heat of fusion is the enthalpy change of any amount of substance when it melts. When the heat of fusion is referenced to a unit of mass, it is usually called the specific heat of fusion, while the molar heat of fusion refers to the enthalpy change per amount of substance in moles.
The liquid phase has a higher internal energy than the solid phase. This means energy must be supplied to a solid in order to melt it and energy is released from a liquid when it freezes, because the molecules in the liquid experience weaker intermolecular forces and so have a higher potential energy (a kind of bond-dissociation energy for intermolecular forces).
When liquid water is cooled, its temperature falls steadily until it drops just below the line of freezing point at 0 °C. The temperature then remains constant at the freezing point while the water crystallizes. Once the water is completely frozen, its temperature continues to fall.

The difference change in ocean temps is indicative of a massive amount of energy trapped compared to the low density of the atmosphere and its transient temperature swings.

Which is why the "pause" isn't...just a bit more stored in the ocean than the previous decade. That's one aspect of La Nina and it would be a bit of bought time if there were more frequent La Nina's as a result of AGW ....too early to tell.

with permission from realclimate

Does not change the reality

It's getting warmer
We're responsible.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Neither can any change in the chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere change "the total energy in the system". Ultimately, all the energy (thus all the heat energy that thermometers and temperature proxies like tree rings can detect) in "the system" derives from one or another of three sources: 1) impacts (gravitational kinetic energy), 2) radioactive decay, 3) solar energy. CO₂ also "transfer(s) energy within the system".
Where do I err, here?

Where do you err there? Also easy. You forgot radiation into space, which BTW is reduced when the atmosphere contains more CO2 transferring a greater % back down to earth. Since energy radiating into space leaves the system, the "the total energy in the system" increases (eta When less leaves into space).

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Okay. F, not C.

That's right, I am a farmer from Oklahoma. What did you expect me to use? Kelvin?

 

[macdoc]

Neither can any change in the chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere change "the total energy in the system".

Did you perhaps forget a time scale?? how quaint
....the chemistry certainly can and does change the retained energy - that is the radiative balance and we have indeed changed it.
Theory and evidence concur...and sensible educated person without an outside agenda would acknowledge that.....and move on to deal with the consequences.

 

[Mikemcc]

That's right, I am a farmer from Oklahoma. What did you expect me to use? Kelvin?

Damn it, why on Earth doesn't the US, Liberia and some other god-forsaken hole catch up with the rest of the world and use metric.

I have a copy of a book covering subjects for the PE exam in the US, and it is solidly using Imperial and the odd US corruptions of it. Seriously, does anyone still use BTUs...?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Damn it, why on Earth doesn't the US, Liberia and some other god-forsaken hole catch up with the rest of the world and use metric.

I have a copy of a book covering subjects for the PE exam in the US, and it is solidly using Imperial and the odd US corruptions of it. Seriously, does anyone still use BTUs...?

We do.

 

[Mikemcc]

Neither can any change in the chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere change "the total energy in the system". Ultimately, all the energy (thus all the heat energy that thermometers and temperature proxies like tree rings can detect) in "the system" derives from one or another of three sources: 1) impacts (gravitational kinetic energy), 2) radioactive decay, 3) solar energy. CO₂ also "transfer(s) energy within the system".
Where do I err, here?

Good for you, you mentioned solar, the energy source that is forced by GHGs...

Energy comes in as visible light, gets absorbed (increasing energy at ground level) and radiates as IR (good old Stefan-Boltzman radiation),a portion gets captured by GHG. The radiation from the ground is always upward, yet the re-release of IR from the GHGs is in all directions, including ground-wards. The absolute basic re-iteration of r-j's precious 'Global Warming Theory'...

If you increase the concentration of GHGs the energy re-directed gound-wards will increase. Each step in the chain is logical (except to the most extreme denier).

Your sophistry is in wanting to re-define the boundaries of 'the system'. Those who wish to look at the 'pause' or 'hiatus' only wish to look at global surface temperatures. Realists say that the boundary really exists at the (rather diffuse) boundary of our atmosphere. At that point the only inputs are solar TSI and extra-solar cosmic radiation. TSI is declining and recent evidence discounts the significance of cosmic radiation.

That leaves us with a system including deep ocean, shallow ocean, surface interactions, tropospheric and stratospheric layers. ENSO, etc only effects the first three. I re-iterate that it cannot create energy, only redistribute it.

Your other two sources are orders of magnitude too low to be affecting climate in any measureable way.

PDO, ENSO, ADO are factors within the system that generate variability, they are not drivers.

 

[Mikemcc]

We do.

Exactly, you guys are weird. Seriously why use such an odd unit (just under a third of a Whr)? Despite the UK desperately clinging on to pints of beer and miles between cities even we agreed that changing units that relied on powers of ten is sensible!

 

[Mikemcc]

Please expand on this point.
Let's learn some "basic physics" together.

Let's start with the definition of "calorie", okay?

This says nothing about the amount of heat required to raise the temperature changing as temperature changes. The implication I derive is that the difference in heat content between a gram of water at 33 and a gram of water at 31 is the same as the difference in heat content between a gram of water at 35 and a gram of water at 33. Is this mistaken? Where?

Damn it, SI metric, cgs was for the US engineers who hated big numbers when they were forced to metric. Nobody thinks in terms of dynes...

Your problem is in the boundaries. To maintain a steady temperature at a cold-warm boundary ( such as the ocean - atmosphere boundary), the warmer medium requires more energy input because it radiates, and conducts into the cooler medium and causes convection currents, each of these draws energy from the warmer medium. Each also has it's own discrete capacity and then there's also latent heats...

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Exactly, you guys are weird. Seriously why use such an odd unit (just under a third of a Whr)? Despite the UK desperately clinging on to pints of beer and miles between cities even we agreed that changing units that relied on powers of ten is sensible!

That's easy. We leave the simple math for the simpletons, and us weirdos (that may or may not have 10 fingers and toes) save the harder fractions for ourselves as brain exercise. Those Brits had something back in their heyday. It might have been complicated, but it made them smarter. Now they only need to be smart enough to pour a pint of beer, get drunk and if in doubt, take their shoes off and count toes.

PS I hope you realize I am just pulling your leg. I actually wouldn't mind going metric. I had to do a lot of conversions when I was a marine engineer. Double the tool kit, twice the spare part stock needed, things like that.

 

[Pixel42]

Neither can any change in the chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere change "the total energy in the system". Ultimately, all the energy (thus all the heat energy that thermometers and temperature proxies like tree rings can detect) in "the system" derives from one or another of three sources: 1) impacts (gravitational kinetic energy), 2) radioactive decay, 3) solar energy. CO₂ also "transfer(s) energy within the system".
Where do I err, here?

You don't err, but you haven't completed the story.

Think about lying on your bed in a cold room. Your body loses heat quite quickly. You feel cold.

Now think about lying on your bed with a duvet over you. The heat of your body is retained, so you stay warm. Your body isn't producing any additional heat, but you're still warmer than you would otherwise be.

The greenhouse gases act like the duvet, they keep more warmth at the earth's surface for longer than would otherwise be the case. It's not that there's any additional energy, it's just that that energy is retained as warmth at the earth's surface instead of being lost to space. If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the earth's surface would be about 30C colder than it actually is.

 

[Mikemcc]

That's easy. We leave the simple math for the simpletons, and us weirdos (that may or may not have 10 fingers and toes) save the harder fractions for ourselves as brain exercise. Those Brits had something back in their heyday. It might have been complicated, but it made them smarter. Now they only need to be smart enough to pour a pint of beer, get drunk and if in doubt, take their shoes off and count toes.

PS I hope you realize I am just pulling your leg. I actually wouldn't mind going metric. I had to do a lot of conversions when I was a marine engineer. Double the tool kit, twice the spare part stock needed, things like that.

Tell me about it. I have an Imperial Allen Key set (not wrenches...) just for one bolt in one component of our kit...

 

[Trakar]

New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return! So that explains "the pause" but he still expects more AGW later. Is that having your cake and eating it? and isn’t La Ninja he talks about, the massive cooling of pacific ocean that seriously affects leather backed turtles, you know heroes in a half shell ?

If there was a post on AntWatt's site saying that the sky is blue, the author of the article would (with a 99.999% probability) still find a way to be totally incorrect in describing the causation, the mechanism and the implications of the effect. Please reference a legitimate scientific analysis and finding for this assertion on your part.

 

[macdoc]

Excellent summary of GHG Mikemcc
Now we'll proably hear volcanos or how do we know it's from us

The incredible energies to melt 100's of cuKM of ice should give people some ideas of what we've unleashed.