You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NC State Global Warming Professor accused of "recklessly falsified work"
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
The atmosphere (if it's warmer) can warm the oceans, too. Heat exchange.
but we see in the data from the studies I posted...
that the oceans warm or cool first, then air, then co2.
ocean heating via radiation conduction and/or convection is a complicated topic which I would term unsettled right now.
but we see in the data from the studies I posted...
that the oceans warm or cool first, then air, then co2.
ocean heating via radiation conduction and/or convection is a complicated topic which I would term unsettled right now.
Nevertheless, if the atmosphere is warmer than the ocean it is in contact with, heat exchange will occur and the water will warm.
I have read a bunch of stuff like this... where it seems that the heat goes from the ocean to the air... but not much the other way.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html
Solar Radiation: Much of the direct and diffuse solar short wave (less than 2 micros, mostly in the visible range) electromagnetic radiation that reaches the sea surface penetrates the ocean (the ocean has a low albedo, except when the sun is close to the horizon), heating the sea water down to about 100 to 200 meters, depending on the water clarity. It is within this thin sunlit surface layer of the ocean that the process of photosynthesis can occur. Solar heating of the ocean on a global average is 168 watts per square meter.
Net Back Radiation: The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation). This radiation is at much longer wavelengths than that of the solar radiation (greater than 10 micros, in the infrared range), because the ocean surface is far cooler that the sun's surface. The infrared radiation emitted from the ocean is quickly absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases residing in the lower atmosphere. Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter.
Conduction: When air is contact with the ocean is at a different temperature than that the sea surface; heat transfer by conduction takes place. On average the ocean is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere so on average ocean heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere by conduction. The heated air is more buoyant than the air above it, so it convects the ocean heat upward into the atmosphere. If the ocean were colder than the atmosphere (which of course happens) the air in contact with the ocean cools, becoming denser and hence more stable, more stratified. As such the conduction process does a poor job of carrying the atmosphere heat into the cool ocean. This occurs over the subtropical upwelling regions of the ocean. The transfer of heat between ocean and atmosphere by conduction is more efficient when the ocean is warmer than the air it is in contact with. On global average the oceanic heat loss by conduction is only 24 watts per square meter.
Latent Heat: The largest heat loss for the ocean is due to evaporation, which links heat exchange with hydrological cycle (Fig. 4). On global average the heat loss by evaporation is 78 watts per square meter. Why so large? ItÂs because of the large heat of vaporization (or latent heat) of water, a product of the polar bonding of the H2O molecule, as discussed in the Ocean Stratification lecture. Approximately 570 calories (2.45 x 106 joules) are needed to evaporate one gram (kilogram) of water! A gram of water is roughly one cubic centimeter, amounts to a loss of one centimeter of water per a square centimeter of ocean surface area. The water vapor leaving the ocean is transferred by the atmosphere eventually condensing into water droplets forming clouds, releasing its latent heat of vaporization in the atmosphere, usually quite remote from the site of the evaporation, thus representing a significant form of heat transfer, later heat transfer.
The annual heat flux between ocean and atmosphere (Fig. 5) is formed by the sum of all of the heat transfer process: solar and terrestrial radiation; heat conduction and evaporation. While the ocean gains heat in low latitudes and losses heat in high latitudes, the largest heat loss is drawn from the warm Gulf Stream waters off the east coast of the US during the winter, when cold dry continental air spreads over the ocean. An equivalent pattern is found near Japan, where the Kuroshio Current is influenced by the winter winds off Asia. It is in these regions that the atmosphere takes over as the major meridional heat transfer agent.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html
Solar Radiation: Much of the direct and diffuse solar short wave (less than 2 micros, mostly in the visible range) electromagnetic radiation that reaches the sea surface penetrates the ocean (the ocean has a low albedo, except when the sun is close to the horizon), heating the sea water down to about 100 to 200 meters, depending on the water clarity. It is within this thin sunlit surface layer of the ocean that the process of photosynthesis can occur. Solar heating of the ocean on a global average is 168 watts per square meter.
Net Back Radiation: The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation). This radiation is at much longer wavelengths than that of the solar radiation (greater than 10 micros, in the infrared range), because the ocean surface is far cooler that the sun's surface. The infrared radiation emitted from the ocean is quickly absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases residing in the lower atmosphere. Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter.
Conduction: When air is contact with the ocean is at a different temperature than that the sea surface; heat transfer by conduction takes place. On average the ocean is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere so on average ocean heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere by conduction. The heated air is more buoyant than the air above it, so it convects the ocean heat upward into the atmosphere. If the ocean were colder than the atmosphere (which of course happens) the air in contact with the ocean cools, becoming denser and hence more stable, more stratified. As such the conduction process does a poor job of carrying the atmosphere heat into the cool ocean. This occurs over the subtropical upwelling regions of the ocean. The transfer of heat between ocean and atmosphere by conduction is more efficient when the ocean is warmer than the air it is in contact with. On global average the oceanic heat loss by conduction is only 24 watts per square meter.
Latent Heat: The largest heat loss for the ocean is due to evaporation, which links heat exchange with hydrological cycle (Fig. 4). On global average the heat loss by evaporation is 78 watts per square meter. Why so large? ItÂs because of the large heat of vaporization (or latent heat) of water, a product of the polar bonding of the H2O molecule, as discussed in the Ocean Stratification lecture. Approximately 570 calories (2.45 x 106 joules) are needed to evaporate one gram (kilogram) of water! A gram of water is roughly one cubic centimeter, amounts to a loss of one centimeter of water per a square centimeter of ocean surface area. The water vapor leaving the ocean is transferred by the atmosphere eventually condensing into water droplets forming clouds, releasing its latent heat of vaporization in the atmosphere, usually quite remote from the site of the evaporation, thus representing a significant form of heat transfer, later heat transfer.
The annual heat flux between ocean and atmosphere (Fig. 5) is formed by the sum of all of the heat transfer process: solar and terrestrial radiation; heat conduction and evaporation. While the ocean gains heat in low latitudes and losses heat in high latitudes, the largest heat loss is drawn from the warm Gulf Stream waters off the east coast of the US during the winter, when cold dry continental air spreads over the ocean. An equivalent pattern is found near Japan, where the Kuroshio Current is influenced by the winter winds off Asia. It is in these regions that the atmosphere takes over as the major meridional heat transfer agent.
All Pettersson did was to used the model as it had been used to look at the disappearance of a pulse of CO2.
...from the atmosphere. That is patently not how the standard set up model was being used.
Not inherent means not inherent. You could redefine E(t) to include all contributions to atmospheric CO2 above the pre-industrial baseline, and not assume they are all anthro contributions. You could, in fact, define E(t) as you wish. If you could sort out the various contributions and knew their values you could add additional terms. This would not inherently change the model, but adding time dependence of the CO2 addition(s) would make calculating the sinking terms very much more complicated. As a necessary simplification, a CO2 pulse was assumed because that allowed simplified sinking terms, i.e., you could assume all of the CO2 that was going to be there was present at time = 0. This simplification was thought to be allowed by the assumption that additions were much more rapid then sinking.
The model assumes instantaneous addition of CO2 and looks at how fast this addition disappears by the various assumed sinking routes. The assumption that sinking is very slow compared to the rate of addition has now been shown to be incorrect by Petterssons work, and I think, Salby's work, when looked at in detail, also requires that the sinking rates be more rapid then the Bern Model assumed.
Pettersson tested the model by comparing the actual rate of net sinking of CO2 with the Model's prediction. That's a legitimate test of the Bern Model. All Pettersson did was to used the model as it had been used to look at the disappearance of a pulse of CO2. The Bern Model failed the test. Certainly the time constants used in the Bern Model and assumed by the IPCC must be incorrect, but it is also likely, from my perspective, that the form of the sinking terms in the model are also incorrect, because none of them take any concentration dependence into account. I think it is unlikely that all of the sinking reactions are zeroth order. They can be pseudo zeroth order if the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is high compared with its sinking rate, but the recent work makes that problematical too.
What a huge festering pile of pseudo scientific meaningless bullshit! Holy crap! We should call you Sideshow Bob.
You are just another intellectually dishonest tool (call it liar) like jem. That's all there is to it.
Like I said before. If you are not one of those people already working for a conservative think tank spreading doubt on the interwebs, and they are certainly out there, you should be.
but we see in the data from the studies I posted...
that the oceans warm or cool first, then air, then co2.
ocean heating via radiation conduction and/or convection is a complicated topic which I would term unsettled right now.
You always seem to forget the basic physical characteristics of CO2. Why is that, liar?
It's pretty simple. Even a righty can understand it. CO2 is a GHG. We have raised it's levels by 40%. That is causing the atmosphere to warm. That is causing the ocean to warm and the ice everywhere to melt.
I simply gave you my understanding.
Here, I just found this http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/berne-first-order-co2-absorbtion/ for you. It will save me a great deal of time and frustration if you will just study the article at the link which explains the Bern Model in a manner consistent with my own interpretation of the formula; thus saving me endless frustration and a great deal of time if I were to attempt to explain it in more detail, and as I mentioned I have no scientific software here that would allow me to properly input the Model's equations. I have access to such, but am not inclined to bother. If you have a different interpretation then mine, I'd be happy to consider it.
The basic problem is that the model provides results that differ from experimental observation. Therefore the model is at best only very approximately right. But my opinion is that it is so flawed as to be no longer useful at all other than as a means of comparing what would occur were the assumptions and the values of the parameters underlying the Bern Model correct.
I am in no way putting down those who developed the model, it was a best effort at the time, 1992 I think. Now it is time to move on.
There are no scientists whose work I have respect for saying that anthro CO2 contributions are unimportant, what they are saying is we don't know how important they are, but it looks more and more like they are less important to climate change then we had previously thought. Those who are jumping to conclusions that this is a settled matter, and the layman can not be faulted for that, are making what for trained scientists is a classic mistake.
I heard Mayor Bloomberg expounding on climate change in an interview of the bloomberg website. He is a very smart guy, but he is a businessman, not a scientist, and he can't evaluate the state of the our understanding directly. He has to rely on the conclusions of various panels as filtered through the news media. When you look at the unfiltered results you get different picture. One in which our understanding is very much in flux. It's unfortunate that this issue has been so politicized because it should have nothing to do with left/right politics (and I wish Jem and FC, for all their good contributions to the discussion here, would stop characterizing it that way).
Here, I just found this http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/berne-first-order-co2-absorbtion/ for you. It will save me a great deal of time and frustration if you will just study the article at the link which explains the Bern Model in a manner consistent with my own interpretation of the formula; thus saving me endless frustration and a great deal of time if I were to attempt to explain it in more detail, and as I mentioned I have no scientific software here that would allow me to properly input the Model's equations. I have access to such, but am not inclined to bother. If you have a different interpretation then mine, I'd be happy to consider it.
The basic problem is that the model provides results that differ from experimental observation. Therefore the model is at best only very approximately right. But my opinion is that it is so flawed as to be no longer useful at all other than as a means of comparing what would occur were the assumptions and the values of the parameters underlying the Bern Model correct.
I am in no way putting down those who developed the model, it was a best effort at the time, 1992 I think. Now it is time to move on.
There are no scientists whose work I have respect for saying that anthro CO2 contributions are unimportant, what they are saying is we don't know how important they are, but it looks more and more like they are less important to climate change then we had previously thought. Those who are jumping to conclusions that this is a settled matter, and the layman can not be faulted for that, are making what for trained scientists is a classic mistake.
I heard Mayor Bloomberg expounding on climate change in an interview of the bloomberg website. He is a very smart guy, but he is a businessman, not a scientist, and he can't evaluate the state of the our understanding directly. He has to rely on the conclusions of various panels as filtered through the news media. When you look at the unfiltered results you get different picture. One in which our understanding is very much in flux. It's unfortunate that this issue has been so politicized because it should have nothing to do with left/right politics (and I wish Jem and FC, for all their good contributions to the discussion here, would stop characterizing it that way).