aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Could you expand about these dynamics? I mean, where is that heat "hidden", some general info about latitudes or depths (just to start looking through the intellectual stutter -the Internet-)
Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections
- Thread starter Poptech
- Start date
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
I offered that figure based on Meehl's just because it would infuriate you. I only used it to show the tendency for temperature change: observed (black line) and solar (red line). All the rest is red cape, you should ignore it. If you think "solar" was "modeled" then it's wrong, you'd debunk Georgieva's yourself. Saying that the red line is wrong and Georgieva's is right because of a scale factor would be a proof you don't understand what r means, what takes us to the very beginning: Georgieva's apparent conclusions are right while you avoid any analysis.
To the other ones that could have thought that I was introducing models to falsify Georgieva's after bothering in analyzing variables and numbers, I only can say
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
"Red cape" has no meaning in English that I am aware of.
The Meehl chart presumes TSI = total solar effects, therefore it is quite irrelevant to what Georgieva is saying - he starts with sunspot counts, and goes from that to a preference for aK. Scale factors are not relevent Meehl to Georgieva is apples to oranges.
Meehl is an example of modeling work that is falsified (or teetering on the edge of such) and the reasons would be in the implicit assumptions that he used, including that the single measurement of solar is TSI.
"Measured effect" in your Meehl chart is accurate up to what, year 2000? Let's have something a bit more up to date as evidence, shall we? I presume the Meehl chart was pulled from Grist.org's "How to Debate with a Global Warming Skeptic (And Lose Every Time)". One can do better debating without that reference than with it - it is obselete and misleading.
Infuriation Attempt, dismal FAIL.
Last edited:
Wangler
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,228
The Georgieva paper isn't that up to date itself, is it?
No no I’m not positing a fact - just suggesting a possible mechanism as an aside.
I barely understand this stuff myself. I’m struggling through this paper at the moment.
Oh please. Ever tried swimming in the ocean in winter?
Last edited:
Wangler
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,228
Thanks, Alec.
That's the one I got to before, but all it can do is give me monthly data.
It'll take too long to get the annuals that way..I did find another source, though.
thanks again!
macdoc
Philosopher
'Pears there are a number of things you are unaware of "El Toro"..
•••
DogB - you need to be careful about terms like " heat hidden" etc - the ocean and atmosphere have gradients and large circulation structures - thermohaline in the ocean, jet stream in the atmosphere both driven by the convection that are a result of those gradients.
That's what Alec was on about I think....
Just as eddies and still places form in a river there are slow moving ocean pools that can trap heat from say the Indian ocean and instead of mixing ( turn over ) with the very cold lower ocean the heat can build up as it did in 1998.Originally Posted by aleCcowaN
Could you expand about these dynamics? I mean, where is that heat "hidden", some general info about latitudes or depths (just to start looking through the intellectual stutter -the Internet-)
if you've ever done any diving you'll know how sharp a transition a thermocline can be - the same convective currents and pooling occurs in the atmosphere but at a far faster rate = weather. The same sudden temperature gradients occur at the top of convection columns....much fun to fly into on an already cold autumn day with good thermals but damn that transition can be sharp and very very chilly just at cloudbase..
Both distribute concentrated heat at the tropical band toward the poles and well as vertically through the various upper ocean, lower atmosphere where most of the activity takes place.
In a simple form if you watch a river that has an unstable formation, you'll see boils and eddies and whirlpools ( I used to hate crossing the eddy line in a kayak ) and sometimes in a rapid you'll see a fairly regular oscillation occurring due to unseen structures below and the interface with the eddy line and the main current.
The continental structures alter the flow of currents and formation of pools, there is a paper about the significance of the gap near Australia /Indonesia ( will try and find - there is a little here
http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/ocean-conveyor-belt.htm - good illustration that shows how critical that Indonesian gap is ) that indicates it may have a role to play in the geologically recent shift in ice age cycle patterns - if the ocean level drops it cuts circulation...yada yada yada and changes the heat transport.
That's one reason I think the Arctic is on a new trajectory - the current flow over the top has opened up changing many aspects of heat transport.
Both topography of the continents and the ocean basin structures in 3d alter how the currents in each transport energy and how much gradient can be maintained between the hottest portion of the respective geo-systems and the coldest - it would be a boring planet without that.
Some of those gradient structures oscillate in a long term pattern - multi-decadal that are still being teased out of our observations and reconstructions. NAO, ENSO
We've altered the land use and the heat capture - we don't know how that will impact on oscillations like the ENSO - will we get more La Nina's, more El Nino's and the Atlantic is still to be understood.
Here's a good article showing how the hot pools drive weather and local climate worldwide
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WarmPool/
If you overlaid that with ocean currents and atmospheric currents PLUS topography under both above and below the ocean it's easy to see how complex the gradients and subsequent circulation in ocean and atmosphere become.
But it is all driven by the energy in that tropical warmth and we've turned up the heat a tad...each and every year.
More energy, steeper gradients, more consequences and perhaps even permanent changes in some local climates ie southern Atlantic hurricanes.....
Because of the scale something like the big Indonesia quake which lifted an enormous portion of the sea floor may have unforseen consequences on the circulation through those gaps between Australia and Asia - letting hot pools grow even hotter leading to more extremes......one can imagine the change in the ocean and atmosphere circlation when the open gap between North and South America closed off.
I think what you were getting at is the existence of these hot pools when you said "hidden".....they are fairly obvious with our new sensors in space but their potential to build gradients and the strength of the "release" ( you know that few hot days before building up a big storm is a similar process ) is hard for us to plot.
The longer and hotter it builds, the stronger the storm that follows as energy is released across the gradient.
The hotter the pools, the stronger the El Nino....and we've turned the burner up and keep doing so.
As for the PDO - the pools build in different locations...nicely shown here
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
Very much terra incognita.
Bottom line tho - none of these are drivers as much as a few of the denier crowd are postulating lately
- they are consequences of heat build up at the equator in air and ocean. None add energy into the geo-sphere.For that we have the sun and GHG to keep it there. Our activities play a role in both of those.
Reflecting some out, keeping more in. Stay tuned, consequences to follow.....
Last edited:
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Use general knowledge (if any)
You got Meehl's wrong, he didn't do that. No of your "TSI"s there. You may criticize Hoyt and Schatten (Georgieva's seems trying to get a way around that).
30 Helens agree on that? You're trying to cover you don't get what r implies. It seems you have no problem to be acknowledge for mixing up the relation between two variables and what percentage of the variations of one is explained by the other one. Solar influence in global warming is accounted for a varying influence in the total change, around 25 or 30 in the last 150 years, I remember having read in the IPCC work about some 12% for the last 50-60 year.
Then, why you insist in pairing them? You know well the figure was used just to see two curves and compare their form. Is there anyone here you are trying to convince of the opposite?
Look, S., any time you use sales tactics on this I'll come back to Georgieva's -brought by you in this discussion and commented by you here (with more sales prolixity):
Why don't you argue on statistics, math and concepts and show you have a minimal foundation. You may have select your peculiar "r appreciation" because you can convince a lot of people about what you intended to -in the end most people has no education in these sciences-. Exploiting ignorance is also as old as the world itself.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Thank you for that paper.
I asked because I perceived some far parallel with some hypothesis of the anti-GW camp about the oceans being a heat accumulator that can explain 60 years or GW by itself (also some people saying about Earth interior heat pumping the system).
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Thank you very much for all that.
There are a few anomalies in sea temperature that I couldn't understand at all, not even speculate about their origin, and they may be related to this.
Wangler
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,228
In the Georgeiva paper, they averaged over 25 years, and here you average over 11 years. As you are aware, the differences are significant. Here are my two plots, the one over 11 year average:
And over 25 year average:
The averaging over a longer time period seems to "smooth out" the solar graph, and the result is a "nicer looking" correlation, apparently.
Would you be able to put up some LATEX? I afraid don't understand what derivatives and integrals you are referring too.
So is your conclusion that aK and temperature are not related?
Also, why stop at the last 50 years? Plots of the full data set appear to tell a different story:
11-year averages:
25-year averages:
Now, it is clear from all these plots that solar as described by aK-aa is not the only thing in play. Surely, though, it has some effect on temperature?
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
Minor detail: Climatic normal = 3 decade average(not 25 yrs), so for year 2000,1,2,3, we have the "norm" of 1971-2000. Essentially the 30 year average of 1985. Past averaged.
At 2010 they announce a new one. We could estimate and add another data point now.
I understand his use of "deriv and integral ..." in a loose grammatical manner, then it makes sense of a sort. Radiative balance , etc.
At 2010 they announce a new one. We could estimate and add another data point now.
I understand his use of "deriv and integral ..." in a loose grammatical manner, then it makes sense of a sort. Radiative balance , etc.
Last edited:
Makes sense to me just fine and I am English.
You can probably get away with using as little as 20 years.
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/results-on-deciding-trends.html
macdoc
Philosopher
There was just an article out on ocean heat that for the first time scientists could detect an an internal earth heat source signal - but it was vanishingly small.
What boggles my mind is the scale of power difference when heat comes FROM the ocean to the air - THAT is an awfully powerful weather generator when it's spread across a chunk of the Pacific or Indian ocean.
That's one reason I was surprised seeing deeper upper ocean temp as high as 4 degrees above the median......tremendous amount of energy there when translated into atmospheric terms.
Usually storms feeding on SST end up losing power as the top waters are disturbed, but with heat actually increasing with depth that's quite a fuel source.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
I used 11 years because that "is" the solar cycle. I invited everyone to find the "error". The matter is the solar cycle varying between 9 and 14 years and averaging 10.66 to 11.04 -it depends on the criteria chosen-. The two "potholes" -one about 1972, nowadays the other- may correspond, the first one, with the longer cycle happening those days (then two consecutive max. are out of one or two 11-year periods) and the other one with the incomplete cycle we are today (as a consequence, first and last values in every series, even with a 30 year smoothing, should be seen carefully).
When you use a longer period to smooth the curve you note four things:
- Both curves become "not as completely different as they looked". This is because of the smoothing process and all the data from 1930's that sneak into the analysis (in that period solar variation was an important part of climate change). Anyway, the carpet got hundreds of smashes but the bulges are still noticeable -maybe it has a lot of dirt below-.
- Solar activity average remains approximately constant. In fact, every indicator (not only aa-index or spot-faculae but actual magnesium isotopes in solar wind and many more -not so old nor so modern-) shows the sun quite "leveled" for more than 4 solar cycles (remember that the lower values for the '30s and '40s sneak up to 1975 in the graph)
- The 11 year figure let us see cycles and drawings in solar indicators but also a steady trend in world temperatures. The temperature trend has no solar cycle in it, at least within the same order of magnitude. The temperature trend also doesn't change much -except for the first 20th century values that influence the first dots in the series- when you use 25 or 30 year periods, but ak curls other loops.
- An r value -least of all as an hypothesis tested with low p- seems to be the wrong approach to measure the relation between the "loopy" ak and the "smooth" temperature. I think that other regression analysis and tests are due here, such as Durbin-Watson and others. It was about 1987 last time all those was in my mind and I never used them ever since, so I can't propose further deeper and stricter tests -I don't think the subject needs nor resists any additional analysis either-.
This relates to the answer to the other excellent questions you asked.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
I made some informal calculations based on several sea water temperature profiles I saw. I imagined a "malicious hot blob" of 20°x20° wide (2250km by 2250km, about half Canada or Eastern Europe), 200m depth, with a positive average delta-t of 2°C when compared with the temperature this water "should" have. This blob has gotten its sensible heat surplus by unknown means and it wouldn't release it. The extra heat accounts 8.5 x1021J.There was just an article out on ocean heat that for the first time scientists could detect an an internal earth heat source signal - but it was vanishingly small.
What boggles my mind is the scale of power difference when heat comes FROM the ocean to the air - THAT is an awfully powerful weather generator when it's spread across a chunk of the Pacific or Indian ocean.
That's one reason I was surprised seeing deeper upper ocean temp as high as 4 degrees above the median......tremendous amount of energy there when translated into atmospheric terms.
Usually storms feeding on SST end up losing power as the top waters are disturbed, but with heat actually increasing with depth that's quite a fuel source.
I supposed that this malicious blob suddenly "makes contact" with the air and start releasing all the extra heat depleting it in a period of 6 months. The heat will evaporate sea water and the atmosphere will recover it from latent heat. About 95% of that heat will contribute to earth temperatures to raise and 5% of it will melt sea ice -or prevent its creation-.
The heat ascending as latent will provoke 210,000 cubic meters of water per second as rains (the volume of flow of River Amazon). The residual heat will melt (or prevent freezing) half million square kilometers of sea-ice in both polar regions. The temperature will raise a global average of 0.28°C in that period (0.14°C yearly). An average of 0.47W.m-2 of extra heat that year.
My conclusion was that no matter how impressive all these figures are, and the abnormally hot year it produces, the hurricanes and typhoons it would provoke in the region where it drop down, and all the concomitant tragedies that make the human being to feel like a helpless creature, this is about two orders of magnitude below what is needed to provoke a "false GW trend" based on heat hidden in sea waters and sustained along 50 years. It suffices saying that water evaporation accounts for 78W.m-2 what provokes every second of every year a 16 millions cubic meters rain and snow fall (80 Amazons, or 900 Mississippis -so they don't feel left aside-), and hot blobs like this I described come together with cold blobs of similar size.
Summarizing, anybody can try telling me "it is the waves" or "it is the tide". One wave sent me to the hospital once. No gentlefolk, the sea is raising, gently, but raising. GW is here: it's grave, it's not urgent, but its trend is one of getting worse. If 60% or 95% proved anthropogenic, I don't care. Primitive people worry about urgent things and only care for their personal interests and their kin's within the short timespan of their lives. Civilized people care for both short and long term and have a sense of transcendence that exceeds their lifespan and their inner circle's.
Wangler
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,228
Alec, you might know this paper, in it Reid looks at solar irradiance through a proxy constructed from a 15-year Gaussian filter of the sunspot number. He chose 15 years so as to minimize the high variance in sunspot numbers between solar minimum and maximum, while keeping sight of long term trends.
He finds "The model results show that solar variability has dominated the temperature record prior to 1850, but since that time there has been an increasing contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse-gas loading."
He notes that the Solar cycle 19 (late-1950s to early 1960s) was one of the only cycles that directly impacted global temperatures.
He also finds a discontinuity in his global-temperature vs solar+GHG forcing starting at 1950, but he cannot explain (he mentions aerosol effects, for one).
So in answer to your question, perhaps there was some other climate mechanism that changed the time constant of the system at about that time.
Interesting to note that after 1980, he finds the global temperature trend to match solar+GHG forcing reasonably well.
I think that current global temperature trends (lower than expected), must somehow be related to the relatively weak solar cycle 23, and the current century-class minimum (but what about a longer time constant, then, I dunno).
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
I don't pretend to learn more about solar dynamics. I think many papers refer to sunspots within a historical perspective of climate because they have many centuries of data collected. Georgieva's paper analyzes if aK index (among other magnetic indexes) correlates well with solar activity. I think they should correlate aK with total irradiance -since the date those values are available- as Reid's illustrates in figures 3a and 3b. I'm sure there are many nice an recent papers out there doing this and arriving to sound conclusions, but we won't see them because they are of no help for any anti-GW argumentation, so they don't have free PRs.
I would handle Reid's and similar papers with care as they take physics and figures and cross it with models to start a speculation that triggers the debate, then, the advance of science, but I think that such papers are useful taken by a hundred together to make full analysis within large multidisciplinary groups. An example of this is what you're telling us about Read's
what sounds reasonable but it's more helpful to confirm the models than to state clearly the causes.
I'd say that my question is answered with more basic physics and mathematics. Variations in solar activity were a driver of climate change about 1850. Solar increased and temperature increased as well, at the same time because other factors started to play in climate change and "filled the gap". For 1950-1960 solar activity leveled -keeping its built-in "hysterical" variability- and other causes continued. Smoothing both curves by using a rolling mean doesn't solve the problem -using 70 or 80 maybe will keep it well hidden- but it sound to me like the "idontwannaknow" approach.
A simple observation may give us -simple mortals- a more useful insight. Looking at the problem reversed. We live in a planet that is globally cooling. Historical temperatures look like this
We have today that the consequences predate the causes, but in "ancient times" we have no explanation nor contradiction for the fact that temperature started to drop.
A "time constant" in the climate system that changes it's very unlikely when no important physical elements, architecture and parameters in the system are changing -just a few of them, very slowly-. I want to talk in a future post about the "anchor" that 1.2 billion cubic kilometers of deep and cold sea water represents. For now: we have an anchor that offers "viscose resistance", the sun keeps pretty constant but temperatures still raise.
I think we have that "viscose resistance" acting on the temperature gap given by the recent increases. Physics of solar activity tells that total energy varies less than 0,13% within a cycle, that is, about 0.08°C, though an increase of UV rays -up to 15%- may add some other effects about 0.03 to 0.06°C. Global temperatures have little traces of these variations as "coupling" effects -what was called "resonance" the other days- are pretty damped.
I am still due an explanation of the derivatives.