GREENLAND UPDATE

http://earthsky.org/earth/melting-in-greenland-sets-new-record-before-end-of-melting-season

Below is from Rog's Tallbloke site; http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/the-gulf-stream-today/

"Analysis, which clearly confirm that the Gulf stream has weakened and its path toward Europe is more CHAOTIC and FRAGMENTED. In fact as other editor of Nia had already reported in some articles, see - 2010 2009 biennium, within a few weeks it even registered a change in direction. Specifically, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, in some periods it was reported a change in direction.

The current seemed to deviate towards the coasts of Greenland, rather than continue to Europe. This anomaly confirms the discovery of prof. Fiammetta Straneo......."



tallbloke says:

"March 31, 2012 at 2:10 pm
The southern ocean absorbs more heat than the northern continents. The S.H. excess has to cross the equator to even out the planetary energy balance as it works towards maximum entropy. But this isn’t a smooth or steady process. The belching of SH energy in to the NH takes place on various timescales: seasonal, decadal, right down to glacial/interglacial frequencies. Whether the events are driven by cloud variation, or vice versa, I’m not sure. The very long term cycles are more than likely induced by the Milankovitch cycles.

The events are sure to alter surface biology, wind patterns and the changing volumes of dust and biota that end up in clouds. It’s a fascinatingly complex picture."


Dan says; And all that heat is what the AGW theorists say cannot escape to space as fast as it did not that long ago. The Skeptics just have to say that extra greenhouse gases don't amount to much and have no effect. I don't think people on the AGW side deny the sun warms the oceans, sometimes more and sometimes less, but what they do say is that the heat of the planet cannot escape as fast as it once did. Sure, we can trot out 'Climate Variation', but do the skeptics just use science to show that because things have warmed in the past, that explains things now, and BLOCK any new science showing different reasons for warming? All warming does not have to be the same kind of warming. Also, I made this entry for Mike Reid since we all know the hypothesis regarding a changing Gulf Stream and the cooling of Europe.

Rog said this below in an earlier post at BPL and it seems a little at odds with what he said about the Southern Oceans above, regarding their 'importance' ;

" I very much doubt the southern ocean "stores more heat" than any other region. This is unscientific parlance anyway. Thermal energy raises the temperature of cold water more than the same amount of energy raises the temperature of warmer water, but this doesn't mean more 'heat' is being 'stored'. 'Heat' is energy in transition from one form of 'stored' energy to another. Energy in transit. The southern ocean looks big on a Mercator projection map of the world, but in reality covers a much smaller area than the Pacific. "

Edited by wildlife on 08/31/2012 12:45:47 MDT.

I don't know enough to have an opinion Dan.
I simply wonder why some folk are so angry about the subject.
Hopefully the human race won't die out because it gets a bit warmer. If they do, then so what?

Lynn said,

" "You forgot Lynn - that makes 51"

Oi Dan, that is not true and not fair."

Lynn, you misunderstood me or/and I was not clear. I simply made a joke by saying Ken left you out of the head count by accident, so I bumped the number of people that pay attention to this thread to 51 instead of 50.

Mike, people are not all that mad really - it's debate and it's healthy. Some things will always matter more to some than to others. It may not really matter if we parish but we don't even know that. It may actually matter a lot. Mattering is an interesting subject. In my studies I have concluded that nothing matters - nothing certainly cannot matter. Say what? No, it's clear that nothing does matter - it is inherent in the phrase. Anyway, it's complicated.

Edited by wildlife on 08/31/2012 13:09:33 MDT.

Hi Mike,

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has been following an approx 65 year cycle. On old world war veteran I met last year on Ilkley Moor told me that in 1947 his family farm was snowed in and they couldn't get down the valley to Haworth. This was in June.

So I take it your frosty experience yesterday morning was near the East coast?

Dan points out that:

tallbloke says:

"March 31, 2012 at 2:10 pm
The southern ocean absorbs more heat than the northern continents.

This was sloppy wording on my part. I was referring to the area of all the ocean of the southern hemisphere. The imbalance between land and ocean area in the north compared to the south means absorbed energy has to cross from south to north because the ocean absorbs and retains more solar energy than the land surfaces. So rather than "the southern ocean", I should have said "the oceans of the southern hemisphere". Because cloud amount reduced since at least 1960 all the way to the super el nino of '98, as shown by the new papers I linked, more solar energy entered the oceans, predominantly in the southern hemisphere. Yet the southern hemisphere didn't warm as much as the northern. So energy must have been transferred in deep currents from south to north. This is why the Gulf stream moved northwards, hitting Greenland and warming the arctic ocean. That's why arctic ice has reduced while antarctic sea ice has increased.

If you have a more coherent and complete explanation then please set it out so we can discuss it.

The co2 theorists know that downwelling longwave radiation doesn't heat the ocean, so as you point out, they argue that increasing co2 affects the optical depth of the atmosphere limiting outgoing longwave and increasing the "effective altitude of emission" of energy back to space. They say this means the radiation is then occuring from a higher and colder place, and so the temperature of the entire atmospheric envelope is forced to rise so that sufficient radiation to space occurs to bring the planet back into energy balance.

However, there are problems with this argument. Here are a few of them.

1) The 'effective altitude of emission' is a theoretical construct - it s not observable or measurable in the real atmosphere. Most radiation to space actually occurs from the cloud tops higher up, or escapes directly from the surface through the 'atmospheric window'.

2) No increase in the optical depth of the real atmosphere has been observed or measured since measurements using heliopyrgeometry started at Davos in the Swiss alps 80 years ago. (See the work of Douglas Hoyt)

3) The atmosphere can't heat the oceans to any measurable degree. Measurements indicate near surface air temp changes lag sea surface temperature changes by 4 months, and are on average 2C cooler than the ocean surface. The ocean drives the atmospheric temp, not the other way round.

4) As you saw from the graph of Outgoing Longwave Radiation I posted a while back, OLR increased from when measurement began in 1948 all the way to the early 2000's by around 5W/m^2 according to the NCEP reanalysis of radiosonde data. This data is not without problems, however, I don't think it is as bad as some people try make out (because it contradicts the idea that extra co2 is reducing OLR), for the following reason.

Three years ago I made an interesting discovery. Specific Humidity at the 300mb level (near the tropopause where most radiation to space occurs), as measured by the same radiosonde balloons, correlates closely with the Sunspot number, when the data is averaged over 83-96 months.

.

This strongly indicates that the Sun, not co2, is controlling humidity levels high in the atmosphere where most of the radiation to space occurs. This would explain why the radiative balance of Earth stay's pretty constant despite changes in solar input through changing cloud cover. OLR increases when cloud amount drops, more or less balancing the extra energy being absorbed by the oceans. The whole system has to warm when the sun gets stronger as it did over much of the C20th, but the negative feedbacks in the system always act to moduate and moderate the effect of the stronger sun. One of these is to liberate the energy stored in ice and the consequence is more heat can then be lost from the polar ocean in the Autumn which has a smaller insulating blanket of ice above it. The energies involved make co2 a tiny bit player in this act, and as the arrow of time and thus causality shows, their changing levels are more a consequence than a cause of temperature change.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/01/2012 02:39:43 MDT.

New papers contradicting the IPCC 'consensus' are rapidly growing from a trickle a couple of years ago, to a torrent now. This one confirms what I have been saying about a reduction in cloud cover, and about the movement of the jet streams polewards during the mild and beneficial global warming at the end of the last millenium.

Journal of Climate 2012 ; e-View
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00280.1
A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009: Long-Term Trends, Relation to Aerosols, and Expansion of the Tropical Belt

Ryan Eastman and Stephen G. Warren
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195

Abstract
An archive of land-based, surface-observed cloud reports has been updated and now spans 39 years from 1971 through 2009. Cloud-type information at weather stations is available in individual reports or in long-term, seasonal, and monthly averages. A shift to a new data source and the automation of cloud reporting in some countries has reduced the number of available stations; however this dataset still represents most of the global land area.

Global average trends of cloud cover suggest a small decline in total cloud cover, on the order of 0.4% per decade. Declining clouds in middle latitudes at high and middle levels appear responsible for this trend. An analysis of zonal cloud cover changes suggests poleward shifts of the jet streams in both hemispheres. The observed displacement agrees with other studies.

Changes seen in cloud types associated with the Indian monsoon are consistent with previous work suggesting that increased pollution (black carbon) may be affecting monsoonal precipitation, causing drought in North India. A similar analysis over northern China does not show an obvious aerosol connection.

Past reports claiming a shift from stratiform to cumuliform cloud types over Russia were apparently partially based on spurious data. When the faulty stations are removed, a tradeoff of stratiform and cumuliform cloud cover is still observed, but muted, over much of northern Eurasia.

Where do you get this stuff like this I have copied from you below? I never encounter what is in those 2 points in my reading. I think you are ascribing something to the AGW people that is not theirs. Also, I found the paper I earlier mentined that in fact talks about a shrinking upper atmosphere (from the AGW side). I know it is not the only one. If what you are saying is true, the Parts Per Million of CO2 would not be increasing, the atmoshere would just be expanding. The points immediately below are what you ascribe to the AGW side that I don't think exist. Perhaps you are 'projecting'. The AGW people actually say that because CO2 keeps the heat (OLR) in and keeps the energy balance from occuring, that the upper atmosphere shrinks due to the lack or Longwave Radiation to keep it warm. Perhaps you can elaborate on your 'atmospheric window'.

1) The 'effective altitude of emission' is a theoretical construct - it s not observable or measurable in the real atmosphere. Most radiation to space actually occurs from the cloud tops higher up, or escapes directly from the surface through the 'atmospheric window'.

2) No increase in the optical depth of the real atmosphere has been observed or measured since measurements using heliopyrgeometry started at Davos in the Swiss alps 80 years ago. (See the work of Douglas Hoyt)

As for your 3), you already point out in your list that " The co2 theorists know that downwelling longwave radiation doesn't heat the ocean,....

As for your 4), I don't believe we had the ability to measure OLR that effectively that early and NASA certainly shows a decrease of OLR currently, even though we still have high temps and Incoming Solar Radiation has not decreased relatively speaking. This would create a negative feedback situation where larger storms would be produced to make up for the decreased OLR. The thing is, the big storms do not release all of the energy, even in a given storm, and the CO2 certainly is not 'released'.

Rog also said, " Yet the southern hemisphere didn't warm as much as the northern. So energy must have been transferred in deep currents from south to north. This is why the Gulf stream moved northwards, hitting Greenland and warming the arctic ocean. That's why arctic ice has reduced while antarctic sea ice has increased."

Rog, that's a no brainer except for the reason for increasing Antarctic 'sea' ice. Your first senrence there answers that puzzle (not as much but still warming - see Judith Curry link);

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/antarctic-ice-future/

Edited by wildlife on 09/01/2012 14:35:12 MDT.

Dan says:
Where do you get this stuff like this I have copied from you below? I never encounter what is in those 2 points in my reading. I think you are ascribing something the the AGW people that is not theirs.

Perhaps the definitive exposition of AGW theory is in Ray Pierrehumberts book Principles of Planetary Climate

Here's an excerpt, P149:
"The concept of an effective radiating level nonetheless has merit for real greenhouse gases. It does not represent a distinct physical layer of the atmosphere, butrather characterises the mean depth from which photons escape to space."

Dan says:
NASA certainly shows a lack of OLR currently.

Link to a graph?

Dan says:
Incoming Solar Radiation has not decreased relatively speaking.

TSI since 2000
.

Cloud cover increased after 1997 according to ISCCP and Earthshine projects

Equatorial OLR from satellite records
.

Where is this decrease Dan?

Edited by tallbloke on 09/01/2012 12:47:37 MDT.

Rog posted;

Dan says:
Where do you get this stuff like this I have copied from you below? I never encounter what is in those 2 points in my reading. I think you are ascribing something the the AGW people that is not theirs.

Perhaps the definitive exposition of AGW theory is in Ray Pierrehumberts book Principles of Planetary Climate

Here's an excerpt, P149:
"The concept of an effective radiating level nonetheless has merit for real greenhouse gases. It does not represent a distinct physical layer of the atmosphere, butrather characterises the mean depth from which photons escape to space."

Dan says:
NASA certainly shows a lack of OLR currently.

Link?


Rog, I changed 'lack' to 'decreased' or 'decrease' before you posted (just to let you know). Nevertheless, it still stands. There is plenty of NASA info showing decreased OLR while while there has not been significant change in ISR.

As for the other point regarding the expanding atmosphere, I think I made my point that it is your side saying these things and Reinterpreting what the AGW people say. I will have to read it. You and your side continue to put words into the AGW mouth. This is not surprising. Just were does it say anything in your excerpt about an expanding atmosphere? Maybe you can find something better to quote?

Edited by wildlife on 09/01/2012 12:57:02 MDT.

Dan says:
There is plenty of NASA info.

Indeed there is Dan. So much in fact, that I'm not going looking for a needle in a haystack. So are you going to stand there waving your arms all day or show us the specific data which you think supports your assertion?

There is plenty of NASA info showing decreased OLR while while there has not been significant change in ISR.

I'm guessing ISR is "incoming solar radiation"? You got a reference for that or did you just make it up on the spot? Define it please. How does it differ from the accepted definition of TSI (total solar irradiance)?

Dan says:
Just were does it say anything in your excerpt about and expanding atmosphere? Maybe you can find something better?

Get Ray Pierrehumbert's book out of the library and read it. Then come back and apologise for accusing me of mischaracterizing his conception of how the greenhouse effect works. Then we'll discuss it further.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/01/2012 13:05:58 MDT.

So I guess that means you can't find any more references in the book to the expanding atmosphere theory? You are the one making the claim and you can't support it and you are going to waste our time telling me to go to the library? I already said our side is not saying that - you said our side says that, and what you gave us does not support it.

Another thing that is wrong with you statement below is that CO2 theorists don't claim the energy can get back into balance - that is the issue with extra CO2 - it does not allow us to go back to previous balance levels.

Rog said, " The co2 theorists know that downwelling longwave radiation doesn't heat the ocean, so as you point out, they argue that increasing co2 affects the optical depth of the atmosphere limiting outgoing longwave and increasing the "effective altitude of emission" of energy back to space. They say this means the radiation is then occuring from a higher and colder place, and so the temperature of the entire atmospheric envelope is forced to rise so that sufficient radiation to space occurs to bring the planet back into energy balance. "

It's easy to see that you have a rather complex misquotation or rather misrepresentation going on there.

Edited by wildlife on 09/01/2012 14:21:16 MDT.

Here you are Dan, paste in the url below and scroll down to Page 150. Then read from

"In a nutshell here's how the greenhouse effect works"

http://bit.ly/PUeFJ4

Once you understand that, come back and discuss it and I'll be able to see whether you have got it straight.

Clue: No-one is talking about "an expanding atmosphere". Pierrehumbert is saying that a greater concentration of greenhouse gas will force the effective radiating level to a higher, colder region, which is exactly what I told you six posts ago.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/01/2012 15:08:07 MDT.

This is what you said, " and so the temperature of the entire atmospheric envelope is forced to rise..."

Last time I checked, if the temperature of an ENTIRE Atmospheric envelope rises, then it also expands.

Also, my mistaken use of ISR was just an attempt to make it easier for people less educated on the subject to understand more easily. We should be trying to increase readership here from 51 to about 70 at least.

Here is some quick reference to decreasing OLR (above the atmosphere of course);

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Edited by wildlife on 09/01/2012 15:22:28 MDT.

And where on John Kook's propaganda page is there any discussion of the prevalent greenhouse gas (water vapour) which represents the vast majority of the atmospheric greenhouse effect Dan? Where is there any information regarding the OLR across the ENTIRE spectrum?

Nowhere, because that would show you just what I've shown you.

.

Full spectrum OLR from the eqatorial region (most of the Earth's outgoing energy) has not decreased. If anything it has increased over the period of the satellite age.

Here's the global picture of Full spectrum OLR from 1974 (74-79 less certain - there's actually a break in the data in 1978).

.

This shows that OLR fell during the warming period, but increased again over the last decade even though the co2 level continues its steady upward plod all the way from 1950. What could cause OLR to rise and temperatures to flatten out or decline a bit? Negative feedback from increasing cloud cover could.

You've been suckered.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/01/2012 17:06:32 MDT.

"So I take it your frosty experience yesterday morning was near the East coast?"

Yeah. I live right on the coast Rog, so wasn't affected personally. Workmates who lived farther inland were though. I've had snow in every month of the hear on mountain tops, but never cold temps like that lower down in August. I heard the temp was -2.4C.

It was a cold night alright. The ocean has been losing energy, and I think we'll see more of this soon. It was thought an El Nino was brewing this year, but look what has happened to the subsurface Pacific Warm Pool over the last four months.

.

Pierrehumbert also says "The precise magnitude of the resulting warming depends on the fairly well-known amount of amplification by water vapor feedbacks and on the less-known amount of cloud feedback. There are indeed uncertainties in the magnitude and impact of anthropogenic global warming, but the basic radiative physics of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect are unassailable".

In that text book that Rog pointed us to, Pierrehumbert says "the earth is absorbing about 1W/m2 more from solar absorption than it emits to space as infrared...it is a direct consequence of the rapid rise of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, caused by the bustling activities of Earth's inhabitants. The rapid greenhouse gas increase has cut down the OLR, but because of the time required to warm up the oceans and melt ice, the Earth's temperature has not yet risen enough to restore the energy balance".

Dan, I don't know why you bother here. Rog has an agenda, and that agenda is to cherry pick the stuff that supports his ideas, and exclude those that don't. This is not a scientific argument but a religious one. You certainly are not going to change his mind, and he won't be changing yours, so the dialog seems pointless to me.

RayPierre is certainly a high priest of the church of global warming, but his sums don't add up. The oceans aren't warming and global sea ice is near a 30 year high taken as an annual average - despite the record summer melt in the arctic. And the OLR data from NOAA shows he's wrong there too. He has his head too far up his theory to look at the data in a dispassionate fashion.

Stubborn things facts.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/02/2012 17:45:59 MDT.

Roger, 'cherry picking' is pointing us to a textbook to explain your theories, then dismissing what the author says because you think he is a "high priest of the church of global warming".

Lynn, I pointed Dan to the textbook to have it explain the theory he believes in to him. HIS theory, not mine. Get your facts straight please.

And the laughing gnome is indeed one of the founder members of the realclimate team. He a computer programmer by the way, not a trained Earth scientist.

You were the one who started bandying the 'religion' slur around - remember?

And I didn't dismiss his theory because he's one of the high priests of AGW. I criticised it because it doesn't accord with the MEASURED DATA.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/02/2012 18:19:57 MDT.