Powered by TypePad

« Taking Charge! | Main | Tiger Woods Update »

November 29, 2009

Comments

boris

Clarice's link

clarice

Thanks, Boris..I should have done an LUN.

Charlie (Colorado)

Yeah, but that happens every day, so over 4 billion years it would be up to almost 0.000009%.

Fair point.

Where is the heat coming from?

yes, exactly. Without having done the arithmetic, it seems like one helluva lot of excess heat; is there really enough excess heat in the system to do it?

Frankly, it'd be a lot of magma too: the specific heat and the phase change energy of water is amazingly high.

But I was thinking about Hansen's notion that the whole of Greenland could melt in 10^2 years....

Not to be a snit, but let me be a snit: I'd bet the energy required to melt the ice is primarily latent heat (phase change), and not sensible heat (as you cite). Doesn't matter for the units of course, but we have impressionable minds here.

okay, so you explain that whole issue. I was too chicken.

Charlie (Colorado)

By the way, that link of Clarice's blames the start of the whole thing on Maggie Thatcher.

DrJ

okay, so you explain that whole issue.

grin! But you have so many more publications in the area!

Charlie (Colorado)

grin! But you have so many more publications in the area!

Why do you think I'm chicken?

bgates

2.85 million km³ of ice * (1000 m/km * 100 cm/m)³ * 0.9167 g/cm³ * 1 kg/1000 g * 334 kJ/kg =~ 8.7x10^19 kJ; that's the heat required to melt all the ice on Greenland.

The earth's atmosphere weighs ~ 5x10^18 kg and has a specific heat capacity of ~1.005 kJ/kg-K at the temperature range we're interested in. So melting Greenland would take as much energy as raising the temperature of the entire atmosphere by 17.4 degrees.

On the other hand, the ocean weighs 1.4x10^21 kg and has a specific heat capacity closer to 3.99 kJ/kg-K, so melting Greenland would take the energy of heating or cooling the earth's waters by 0.015 degree C.

Of course, some or all of this arithmetic may be wrong, but I'm sure I'll hear about it if it is.

DrJ

I'll look at it this evening, but that the difference between the air and the ocean is so large is right.

That's one thing I never understood about AGW: the oceans are a huge heat sink, and it is counterintuitive that even a large amount of CO2 would displace the *air* temperature by a few degrees. If it is in equilibrium with the ocean (or close to it) then that is a huge amount of energy.

That a natural system would not have built-in temperature-regulating elements to correct for things like solar irradiance changes over the years just does not seem right to me. This is not my area so my instinct might be wrong, though.

glasater

By the way, that link of Clarice's blames the start of the whole thing on Maggie Thatcher

Didn't get that inference at all. Maggie's guy Lamb went to his grave doubting greenhouse gas hypothesis.

pagar

The UN has a new story on Climategate.

Ralph

Some preliminary numbers:

Mass of Earth's Atmosphere: 5.30E+18 kg

(multiple sources for above)

Greenland Ice Sheet Volume:
2,850,000 cu km (Wiki)

Glacial Ice Density:
850 kg per cu meter

source: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10ae.html

Glacial Ice Density:
8.5E+11 (calc from above)

Mass of Greenland Ice Sheet:
2.423E+18 (calc based on above)

Will continue later, but thought I'd pass these along in case I've got my decimal points wrong!

pagar

The UN has a new slant on Climategate.

un-on-climategate-dont-worry-be-happy.

LUN

And send all the money you have.

I

DrJ,

I agree with you about the huge influence of the oceans. I've not yet seen (though it might be out there) any explanation by the "warmists" of how CO2 can be the cause of warming when it's a LAGGING indicator of the temperature (at least based on ice cores). That behavior is entirely consistent with what one would expect to happen as the oceans gradually warmed up and released some of their absorbed CO2.

pagar

Another version of the

UN coverup of the Climate Fraud

LUN

from the Guardian-UK

Note:The words in bold are not the actual title.

Ignatz

--I'll look at it this evening, but that the difference between the air and the ocean is so large is right.--

The warmists are well aware of the physics involved in melting that much ice so they have come up with the theory that increased temps will cause lubrication of the base of the ice sheets via liquid water infiltration thereby causing the ice caps to begin calving at an alarming rate into the ocean. As is so often the case they're long on theory and short on evidence.

--That's one thing I never understood about AGW: the oceans are a huge heat sink, and it is counterintuitive that even a large amount of CO2 would displace the *air* temperature by a few degrees. If it is in equilibrium with the ocean (or close to it) then that is a huge amount of energy.--

The alarmists will, when pressed, admit the ocean's heat content is far more important than the atmosphere's. However that is where Hansen etal come up with the idea that there is tremendous heat in the pipeline via ocean heating already and why we have to start living like Alley Oop instanter to avoid catastrophe. That idea was pretty effectively answered not too long ago but I have no idea by whom; just that I read a good paper on it.
As a CO2 sink, as opposed to heat, the ocean/land ratio is about 50/50. At least that is the ratio I've seen discussed most frequently.

--I've not yet seen (though it might be out there) any explanation by the "warmists" of how CO2 can be the cause of warming when it's a LAGGING indicator of the temperature (at least based on ice cores).--

They argue that even if it isn't a cause it is still a forcing when it is released.

DrJ

that is where Hansen etal come up with the idea that there is tremendous heat in the pipeline via ocean heating already

I don't understand. If you can recall the paper (or give me some suggested keywords) I'd really appreciate it.

DrJ

increased temps will cause lubrication of the base of the ice sheets via liquid water infiltration thereby causing the ice caps to begin calving at an alarming rate into the ocean.

Wouldn't that cool the oceans, and thereby limit any effect of the atmosphere warming?

Ignatz

--I don't understand. If you can recall the paper (or give me some suggested keywords) I'd really appreciate it.--

Been a couple of months and it might have been at Climate Audit which is only intermittently available. I'll poke around and see if I can find it.

--Wouldn't that cool the oceans, and thereby limit any effect of the atmosphere warming?--

Yes, but they argue the tremendous volume of ice would cause an accelerated and catastrophic sea level rise. The theory doesn't have to make sense it has to make a catastrophe.

In the meantime here is what I consider a must read concerning GISTEMP, Hansen, the robustness of what we are told global temperatures are doing and the difficulty of actually determining a global temperature at all. Be sure and read the comments.

Ignatz

--I don't understand. If you can recall the paper (or give me some suggested keywords) I'd really appreciate it.--

DrJ,

I think this may fit the bill. I think it's what I had looked at before. Found it binging "hansen ocean heating".

boris

Ignatz, both of those papers appear to base significant contribution in global temperature measurement to cycles ...

But climate is subject to cyclical changes. Some, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, have about a 40 to 60 year full cycle length. Others, like solar cycles that run 178 years, and Bond Events – a 1500 year cycle, are a bit longer. A 100 year record is inadequate to allow for these events.
Some cycles are known but others are not. Their influence on a global average may be sufficient to overwhelm any extimate of actual global heat accumulation.

Cycles have phase and amplitude and are not inconsistant with vector analysis. So there Charlie.

Charlie (Colorado)

You know, 7.2 meters over 100 years is 72 mm a year —nearly 3 inches a year.

Horrors.

clarice

NYT gives fair account of the hacked emails and the consequences to the CRU climate gang.LUN

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html?_r=4

Melinda Romanoff

Are not the seas a continuation of atmosphere, at different temperature and pressure, right down to the sea bed?

You are on the Moon, and from this vantage point, do the following. Try to imagine a slender tube that goes right to the center of the Earth. Then, ask yourself one question.

What are the ALL the possible physical influences on that entire little column? And can it be applied to the total set of columns that comprise that which is the system known as Earth?

I'll be back, and, yes, I have a point.

DrJ

Ignatz,

Thanks for the links. I've read the GISTemp one, and it is very interesting. It reminds me how hard the problem they are tackling really is. I'd still be interested in an uncertainty analysis, where the effects of the nature of the dataset, its manipulation, and the model parameters are examined. I'd be very surprised if such an analysis did not show a great deal of variability.

Melinda Romanoff

Oh shoot.

Clarice, many abracos for you on your Birthday!

(Can't do cedillas, yet)

Rick Ballard

DrJ,

Mort Webster at MIT has been following the uncertainty analysis situation wrt IPCC for some time. He lists a number of references to specific papers in this editorial comment.

clarice

My birthday's Wednesday. Melinda. You have time.

Melinda Romanoff

hit deserves a phone call, when I get up, at 4:30 AM, for the faulty calendar interpretation.

Rick Ballard

Lindzen Fires A Salvo In The WSJ

Clear, concise and as sharp as a scalpel.

Pofarmer

That idea was pretty effectively answered not too long ago but I have no idea by whom; just that I read a good paper on it.

Argo bouy's?

Melinda Romanoff

OK.

I will try to explain my thoughts verbally as to where I was going with this imagery.

The warmists observations, as they have explained them, seem to lack a systemic hypothesis for the whole of the composition that is Earth. The atmosphere could (and I am) be described as uninterrupted to the sea bed floor, just a difference of temperature and pressure, with ice being the solid form of the gas that just happens to float. The weak point of the climatists, in my eyes, is that they, and I can only envision their thoughts, view the Earth as a closed system, energy-wise, when heat is radiated (forced) from the surface, yet is mutually transparant to solar and galaxial influences. This leaves open a few simple questions.

What happens to radiative kinetic (heat) energy in a, near zero degrees Kelvin, vacuum? Is CO2 so dense at the furthest extent of the atmosphere that it acts as the sole gas present, and is impervious to external influences?

What role does magnetism play?

Does the addition of solar, or galaxial, ionization influence any of these gases in question?


These are simple theoretical questions.

(The discrepancy between sea level height in Viking time can be easily explained by the fact that there is less water around because it is too busy being ice. Glaciers melt at the bottom due to friction, and resultantly, move, greased by all that "fresh" water and significantly more weight upstream, usually identified by a denser icepack at the upper regions.

That's where I'll begin my argument, concept(hypothesis) first.

hit and run

But Melinda,it wasn't faulty. Go back to the 9:26AM comment..."your Official Birthday,Sunday before your actual birthday"

I don't make the rules,and I don't often follow the rules,but this one was mandatory.

Oh,and you can rest assured I know exactly what day Clarice's birthday is on. If I ever forgot that day,I'd be sleeping on the couch for a good long time.

Pofarmer

that is where Hansen etal come up with the idea that there is tremendous heat in the pipeline via ocean heating already

Gavin Schmidt has been pushing the whole Ocean Heat Sink thingy HARD at Real Climate. It doesn't bother them a whit that they have no evidence for it.


clarice

Rick, that is a great article.
Hit, come here a minute--just ignore that cudgel in my hand..nothing bad'll happen to you..double pinkie promise......

DrJ

Rick,

The Webster editorial is a step in the right direction. A lot more needs to be done, of course.

Similarly, the Lindzen editorial is good.

Thanks for those!

daddy

Ignatz,

Your 7:27 link was excellent---especially the author's replies in the comments section.

It is definitely past time for Tar and Feathers, but the important question is will we Tar and Feather, or will we instead simply stand ineffectually by while this pernicious power grab is foisted on a gullible world.

pagar

Daddy,@11:27pm
You've managed to sum things up very well. IMO, this whole fraud left the science side and moved to the power side long ago.

PMII

There's no Santa?

pagar

"There's no Santa?

There sure seems to be for the fraudsters
promoting the endless Climategate fraud. They just make another speech/publish another paper and the American government says how much more money do you need? How many more jobs do we need to wipe out? How can we help you create more fraud?

pagar

Here's some of the people who are scamming you on the Climategate fraud.

"That would be the same UN that not so long ago dealt with its own propensity for corruption by disbanding its anti-corruption task force; the same UN that once claimed Oil-for-Food was the most heavily audited program it had ever run;"

LUN

boris

This excerpt from the Lindzen editorial (linked by Rick) contains a dramatic claim.

... the whole report tends to be characterized by a single iconic claim.

The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

pagar

All one needs to know about Climategate.

"Climategate is the biggest worldwide conspiracy since Comrade Jozef Stalin ran all the Communist Parties from the Kremlin."

fdcol63

I've mentioned this before, but if anyone wants to know what's really behind the AGW "climate change" and Green movements, the author of this site does a phenomenal job of citing sources and providing references for his claims:

http://green-agenda.com/

It's really no surprise that most of the proponents of this crap are Leftists, Dems, and "former" Communists.

It's scary how successful they've already been in changing "Global Consciousness".

sylvia

Well I'm glad there is finally some discussion on "global temperature". I always thought it was odd people thought they could take a global temp and compare it year to year and come up with a 1 degree difference. I would think that is practically impossible. And I think I would like to take a little credit in being one of the only people that I knew who raised that point earlier on.

We need to figure out how much CO2 we can pump out before it actually seriously effects us. It's obviously isn't yet. Since we can't figure it out, I say let's just wait until Manhattan is under water. THEN we can start worrying about it.

memomachine

Hmmmm.

They didn't have microfiche in the UK in the 1980's?

memomachine

Hmmmm.

This whole CO2 discussion is starting to remind me of King Arthur's debate over swallows and migrating coconuts at the beginning of Holy Grail.

memomachine

Hmmmm.

Frankly the whole global warming thing never made any sense to me. The Earth has had dozens of ice ages ... which also implies that the Earth has had dozens of period between ice ages where the temperature had to be at least above freezing.

Unless Ugg the caveman was driving a Buick back then I find it hard to believe that humanity had anything to do with those. And if humanity, back then, had a choice in the matter I assume the vote, as exemplified by the spring migrating habits of college-age adults, for things to be warmer rather than colder since this would allow for fewer furry knickers all around.

Personally what I find curious in the world today is a certain emphasis on ... environmental stasis. People who scream the loudest about the Theory of Evolution, which I don't have issue with, also are the most intent on not having it work.

But what I find the most amusing of all though is when I ask the simple and deceptive question:

"So. What precisely -is- the normal temperature of the Earth anyways?"

Tully

*When a significant amount of ice-on-land (Greenland, Antarctica, etc.) melts, doesn't the decrease in weight cause the land to rise?*

Never saw this answered up-thread, so: Yes. It's called "post-glacial rebound.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame