quote:"increased ".." likelihood of strong El Niños"?
This is a quote from the paper that I edited so that, grammatically it more sense in my post. I don't think change it so much as to misrepresent the paper(to be sure please follow the link
)This is a quote from the paper that I edited so that, grammatically it more sense in my post. I don't think change it so much as to misrepresent the paper(to be sure please follow the link
)
mufcdiver.
I don't know which part of the paper your question relates to (a more exact ref would be appreciated), but for a general overview.
Earth's oceans and seas attract energy in a variety of ways and by varying degrees. I suppose the easiest way for me to explain this would be by considering the ocean as an "attractor" of energy. If I limit this to "heat caused by CO2" it isn't going to amount to much of a post, all GHG's would amount to a reasonable post, but the whole enchilada (including the logic behind the "Els and Las") would be a long post (all explanations would also be in "engineering speak", I'm not conversant enough with "papers" diversity yet).
Make your choice and I'll post what I can. Though, Jennifer's post here may help, as it's along the same line of reasoning as the paper you reference. An SRES:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...-ian-read/#more-6017
Best regards, suricat.
quote:More of a question really but in This paper from Hansen et-al, what are the mechanics for the transference of heat caused by co2 from the 'airier' portion of the atmosphere into the oceans to cause [with hind-sight] the "increased ".." likelihood of strong El Niños"?
I don't know which part of the paper your question relates to (a more exact ref would be appreciated), but for a general overview.
Earth's oceans and seas attract energy in a variety of ways and by varying degrees. I suppose the easiest way for me to explain this would be by considering the ocean as an "attractor" of energy. If I limit this to "heat caused by CO2" it isn't going to amount to much of a post, all GHG's would amount to a reasonable post, but the whole enchilada (including the logic behind the "Els and Las") would be a long post (all explanations would also be in "engineering speak", I'm not conversant enough with "papers" diversity yet).
Make your choice and I'll post what I can. Though, Jennifer's post here may help, as it's along the same line of reasoning as the paper you reference. An SRES:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...-ian-read/#more-6017
Best regards, suricat.
From the first paragraph
"Global surface temperature has increased 0.2°C per decade in the
past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in
initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse
gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific
than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños , such as those of
1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures
in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this
critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is
approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and
within1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.
We conclude that global warming of more than 1°C, relative to
2000, will constitute ‘‘dangerous’’ climate change as judged from
likely effects on sea level and extermination of species."
I've bolded the relevant sentence.
Is this more Butterfly effect?
"Global surface temperature has increased 0.2°C per decade in the
past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in
initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse
gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific
than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños , such as those of
1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures
in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this
critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is
approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and
within1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.
We conclude that global warming of more than 1°C, relative to
2000, will constitute ‘‘dangerous’’ climate change as judged from
likely effects on sea level and extermination of species."
I've bolded the relevant sentence.
Is this more Butterfly effect?
mufcdiver.
Quite the opposite. It's the upper point of stability for ocean surface temperatures. That's why they also claim "Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.", so it doesn't really get any warmer!
The "Butterfly Effect" is to do with "chaos theory", where the predictability of an outcome from a given set of start point data can result in multiple outcomes (the problem with climate models and why they need to be "tweaked").
As I said, this paper is an SRES paper (Special Report on Emission Scenarios). Which means that the paper's conclusion is biased by uncertainties in many areas (see the link in my last post). I suppose that you could say the conclusion of the paper includes a Butterfly Effect.
Having said that it doesn't really get any warmer, it can get cooler. History has shown this with our understanding of cool periods like the Dalton Minimum and Maunder Minimum etc. (associated with low TSI).
WRT "strong El Niño". This is the result of cyclical weather systems that come into phase. When they are out of phase they are given the label of La Niña because they are weak and effeminate (just how macho can you get)!
Hope this helps and if I haven't covered everything, please post again.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Is this more Butterfly effect?
Quite the opposite. It's the upper point of stability for ocean surface temperatures. That's why they also claim "Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.", so it doesn't really get any warmer!
The "Butterfly Effect" is to do with "chaos theory", where the predictability of an outcome from a given set of start point data can result in multiple outcomes (the problem with climate models and why they need to be "tweaked").
As I said, this paper is an SRES paper (Special Report on Emission Scenarios). Which means that the paper's conclusion is biased by uncertainties in many areas (see the link in my last post). I suppose that you could say the conclusion of the paper includes a Butterfly Effect.
Having said that it doesn't really get any warmer, it can get cooler. History has shown this with our understanding of cool periods like the Dalton Minimum and Maunder Minimum etc. (associated with low TSI).
WRT "strong El Niño". This is the result of cyclical weather systems that come into phase. When they are out of phase they are given the label of La Niña because they are weak and effeminate (just how macho can you get)!
Hope this helps and if I haven't covered everything, please post again.
Best regards, suricat.
Been digging around suricat and I think the the only way that the reflected energy from GHGs could effect the El Niños events with any balls would be if it was stored within the oceanic conveyor system and was released thus.quote:Originally posted by mufcdiver:
More of a question really but in This paper from Hansen et-al, what are the mechanics for the transference of heat caused by co2 from the 'airier' portion of the atmosphere into the oceans to cause [with hind-sight] the "increased ".." likelihood of strong El Niños"?
Wouldn't this take decades? even centuries?
Son of Mulder.
I recently saw an article on the WUWT site to do with solar cycle 24 being overtaken by cycle 25, thus no change of polarity.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...5-has-already-begun/
Which led me to a guest post by David Archibald indicated on another page of the WUWT site.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...-repeat-is-possible/
Where I found a link to; theglobalwarmingnow.wordpress.com site, which also linked (eventually) to:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=181
Now I'm interested!
Thus, I decided to address the source of the anomaly. NASA! The nearest subject that I found to this anomaly was this page;
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...ws/solarcycle24.html
but it isn't the full anomaly. There is a link at that page that suggests greater clarity, but the link is "broken" (the Apache server returns an Error 404, "URL not found").
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/sunspotcycle.shtml
By now I'm beginning to think that NASA, with its large budget, is skimping on the budget for their comms net stuff, but then I found this!
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/res...es/pubs/savc0707.pdf
By courtesy of the first page I saw at WUWT!
Is NASA winding the spring, then ducking out to avoid implication? I suppose I could be deluded into thinking of a "conspiracy theory" on this! There again, there is also pertinent evidence of a slide into some sort of sunspot minima period that includes low maxima level, seems to be initiated by NASA, but is somehow removed from NASA.
What are your thoughts SoM (either on solar activity, or NASA policy)?
Before you say it. Yes! I would also like the opinion of Steve_M on this!
Best regards, suricat.
I recently saw an article on the WUWT site to do with solar cycle 24 being overtaken by cycle 25, thus no change of polarity.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...5-has-already-begun/
Which led me to a guest post by David Archibald indicated on another page of the WUWT site.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...-repeat-is-possible/
Where I found a link to; theglobalwarmingnow.wordpress.com site, which also linked (eventually) to:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=181
Now I'm interested!
Thus, I decided to address the source of the anomaly. NASA! The nearest subject that I found to this anomaly was this page;
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...ws/solarcycle24.html
but it isn't the full anomaly. There is a link at that page that suggests greater clarity, but the link is "broken" (the Apache server returns an Error 404, "URL not found").
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/sunspotcycle.shtml
By now I'm beginning to think that NASA, with its large budget, is skimping on the budget for their comms net stuff, but then I found this!
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/res...es/pubs/savc0707.pdf
By courtesy of the first page I saw at WUWT!
Is NASA winding the spring, then ducking out to avoid implication? I suppose I could be deluded into thinking of a "conspiracy theory" on this! There again, there is also pertinent evidence of a slide into some sort of sunspot minima period that includes low maxima level, seems to be initiated by NASA, but is somehow removed from NASA.
What are your thoughts SoM (either on solar activity, or NASA policy)?
Before you say it. Yes! I would also like the opinion of Steve_M on this!
Best regards, suricat.
mufcdiver.
Well, Yes! However, it'll take a lot of ocean "mixing" to get ocean surface temps (or near surface depth temps) down to a depth where it can be included with the oceanic conveyor system.
GHGs (which radiate IR) only radiate to a few metres of ocean depth. Thus, any GHG "feedback" to ocean temp can only affect ocean surface temp, which also affects the "El's and La's" (bad grammar for emphasis).
UV directly infuses depths, that include the oceanic conveyor, with energy. What of this?
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Been digging around suricat and I think the the only way that the reflected energy from GHGs could effect the El Niños events with any balls would be if it was stored within the oceanic conveyor system and was released thus.
Wouldn't this take decades? even centuries?
Well, Yes! However, it'll take a lot of ocean "mixing" to get ocean surface temps (or near surface depth temps) down to a depth where it can be included with the oceanic conveyor system.
GHGs (which radiate IR) only radiate to a few metres of ocean depth. Thus, any GHG "feedback" to ocean temp can only affect ocean surface temp, which also affects the "El's and La's" (bad grammar for emphasis).
UV directly infuses depths, that include the oceanic conveyor, with energy. What of this?
Best regards, suricat.
Son of Mulder.
And then I found this paper describing a "lost cycle" at the start of the Dalton Minimum.
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalev..._SP477_lostcycle.pdf
Best regards, suricat.
And then I found this paper describing a "lost cycle" at the start of the Dalton Minimum.
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalev..._SP477_lostcycle.pdf
Best regards, suricat.
suricat
I've got to the stage now where there are so many cycles interacting with each other i'm not even convinced that the effect of any one can be identified in the global temperature record (even if it were reasonably accurate).
It may help Svensmark draw some empirical conclusions about cosmic ray efects.
There was a nice article on WUWT today which just about sums up the impact side of things as we've often discussed.
It makes me think more and more that the science and models is a sideshow to distract from solid, realistic planning vs artificial panic considerstions.
I particularly the perspective created by this quote from the essay.
""Consider that the global population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion this year. Among other things, this meant creating the infrastructure for an extra 4.3 billion people in the intervening 59 years (as well as improving the infrastructure for the 2.5 billion counted in the baseline, many of whom barely had any infrastructure whatsoever in 1950). These improvements occurred at a time when everyone was significantly poorer. (Global per capita income today is more than 3.5 times greater today than it was in 1950). Therefore, while relocation will be costly, in theory, tomorrow’s much wealthier world ought to be able to relocate billions of people to higher ground over the next few centuries, if need be.""
quote:What are your thoughts SoM (either on solar activity, or NASA policy)?
I've got to the stage now where there are so many cycles interacting with each other i'm not even convinced that the effect of any one can be identified in the global temperature record (even if it were reasonably accurate).
It may help Svensmark draw some empirical conclusions about cosmic ray efects.
There was a nice article on WUWT today which just about sums up the impact side of things as we've often discussed.
It makes me think more and more that the science and models is a sideshow to distract from solid, realistic planning vs artificial panic considerstions.
I particularly the perspective created by this quote from the essay.
""Consider that the global population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion this year. Among other things, this meant creating the infrastructure for an extra 4.3 billion people in the intervening 59 years (as well as improving the infrastructure for the 2.5 billion counted in the baseline, many of whom barely had any infrastructure whatsoever in 1950). These improvements occurred at a time when everyone was significantly poorer. (Global per capita income today is more than 3.5 times greater today than it was in 1950). Therefore, while relocation will be costly, in theory, tomorrow’s much wealthier world ought to be able to relocate billions of people to higher ground over the next few centuries, if need be.""
mufcdiver.
I was hoping that you would come back with a post saying that perhaps deep ocean forms the main "backdrop" for ocean surface and near ocean surface temps. Thus. During 'extended low UV insolation' scenarios the "backdrop" is "kicked away" and ocean surface and near surface temps are left solely to their own energy levels for temp maintenance.
This may well be a reason for the apparent correlation between solar sunspot proliferation and surface temp, but there is more to this, the 10 cm flux and solar wind speed may also factor (as well as shorter wavelengths of insolation "percolating" down as half, of quarter, wavelength pulses).
Best regards, suricat.
I was hoping that you would come back with a post saying that perhaps deep ocean forms the main "backdrop" for ocean surface and near ocean surface temps. Thus. During 'extended low UV insolation' scenarios the "backdrop" is "kicked away" and ocean surface and near surface temps are left solely to their own energy levels for temp maintenance.
This may well be a reason for the apparent correlation between solar sunspot proliferation and surface temp, but there is more to this, the 10 cm flux and solar wind speed may also factor (as well as shorter wavelengths of insolation "percolating" down as half, of quarter, wavelength pulses).
Best regards, suricat.
Son of Mulder.
Following a couple of rants on the C4 site on this very subject, I can only concur SoM!
That's why I proposed the tropo column WV and water content as a metric for climate (with an elastic altitude for the tropopause).
Let's hope so. Though I think that his expected effect is restricted to regions of WV saturation. Thus, mostly nocturnal effect.
To be honest, I can't recollect any of our discussions on "impact". Perhaps this is because I don't consider the result of "impact" to be beyond our ability to "respond" in all but the most unlikely circumstance.
However!
I'm all for it. China has been castigated for its action to limit population growth, but China is really the first to recognise the real problem and make some attempt to deal with it. I know this sounds callous, but at least China has evoked an honest policy (albeit a callous one) (but this is politics, not science).
Personally, I think that "education of the masses" on the subject of "over population" is more humanitarian, as it allows for personal preference and comes up with roughly the same population reduction as "The China Model" in the final equation.
But of course "science and models is a sideshow"! Just like we engineers find, no government can allow a "mad scientist" (modeller, or engineer) to control "POLICY"!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
I've got to the stage now where there are so many cycles interacting with each other i'm not even convinced that the effect of any one can be identified in the global temperature record (even if it were reasonably accurate).
Following a couple of rants on the C4 site on this very subject, I can only concur SoM!
That's why I proposed the tropo column WV and water content as a metric for climate (with an elastic altitude for the tropopause).
quote:
It may help Svensmark draw some empirical conclusions about cosmic ray efects.
Let's hope so. Though I think that his expected effect is restricted to regions of WV saturation. Thus, mostly nocturnal effect.
quote:
There was a nice article on WUWT today which just about sums up the impact side of things as we've often discussed.
To be honest, I can't recollect any of our discussions on "impact". Perhaps this is because I don't consider the result of "impact" to be beyond our ability to "respond" in all but the most unlikely circumstance.
However!
quote:
It makes me think more and more that the science and models is a sideshow to distract from solid, realistic planning vs artificial panic considerstions.
I particularly the perspective created by this quote from the essay.
I'm all for it. China has been castigated for its action to limit population growth, but China is really the first to recognise the real problem and make some attempt to deal with it. I know this sounds callous, but at least China has evoked an honest policy (albeit a callous one) (but this is politics, not science).
Personally, I think that "education of the masses" on the subject of "over population" is more humanitarian, as it allows for personal preference and comes up with roughly the same population reduction as "The China Model" in the final equation.
But of course "science and models is a sideshow"! Just like we engineers find, no government can allow a "mad scientist" (modeller, or engineer) to control "POLICY"!
Best regards, suricat.
suricat
I don't know if you remember suricat, but I was looking into UV effects on water (both frozen & liquid) on C4s boards with out a great deal of success. I even had an email exchange with Dr Paul Crutzen which came to nothing.
Have you had better luck?
quote:UV directly infuses depths, that include the oceanic conveyor, with energy. What of this?
I don't know if you remember suricat, but I was looking into UV effects on water (both frozen & liquid) on C4s boards with out a great deal of success. I even had an email exchange with Dr Paul Crutzen which came to nothing.
Have you had better luck?
mufcdiver.
Ah yes, Ah reemembeur eet well.
Yes, and again, I'm sorry if you had a bad time over this.
Prefer chance, or hapstance, to luck.
Because UV is high energy it has a tendency to alter chemistry during its absorption, thus UV was dubbed "chemical rays" during the 19th century, so much of the research into its increased inclusion within insolation (mainly because of the O3 hole) has been levelled at health issues and not GW issues.
There seem to be few papers that deal with GW by UV from what I can find online. However, the science seems sound enough to me. Water doesn't absorb much UV insolation:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html#uv
Stands to reason that if it's unimpeded by waterborne particulates (blue line), it'll get to about 700m of ocean depth (depth to extinction).
During this ocean penetration the energy must transit to some place, or other, and is probably "subdued" by means of a harmonic interaction (½, or ¼ wave depletion [reference radio aerial technology, it confirms both macro and micro admittance for EM absorption]). An "incomplete interaction" of this type wouldn't impart the total (chemical altering) energy of UV, just some of its value. Thus, longer wavelengths can gain from an incomplete interaction with a shorter wavelength (and vice versa, but not investigated in the case under discussion). Perhaps this is what "some people" call absorption "wings", or a "pressure broadening" type observation!
As it happens, the "deep ocean temperature" lower boundary is 750m. Is this to include the possible factor of UV insolation? It's just unfortunate that it hasn't been logged accurately yet (ces't la vie).
I still put my reputation on everything that I've posted here and on the old C4 site (that's one reason why I keep copies of all my posts, I'm just a "sincere engineer" in the "help and learn" loop).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
I don't know if you remember suricat, but I was looking into UV effects on water (both frozen & liquid) on C4s boards with out a great deal of success.
Ah yes, Ah reemembeur eet well.
quote:
I even had an email exchange with Dr Paul Crutzen which came to nothing.
Yes, and again, I'm sorry if you had a bad time over this.
quote:
Have you had better luck?
Prefer chance, or hapstance, to luck.
Because UV is high energy it has a tendency to alter chemistry during its absorption, thus UV was dubbed "chemical rays" during the 19th century, so much of the research into its increased inclusion within insolation (mainly because of the O3 hole) has been levelled at health issues and not GW issues.
There seem to be few papers that deal with GW by UV from what I can find online. However, the science seems sound enough to me. Water doesn't absorb much UV insolation:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html#uv
Stands to reason that if it's unimpeded by waterborne particulates (blue line), it'll get to about 700m of ocean depth (depth to extinction).
During this ocean penetration the energy must transit to some place, or other, and is probably "subdued" by means of a harmonic interaction (½, or ¼ wave depletion [reference radio aerial technology, it confirms both macro and micro admittance for EM absorption]). An "incomplete interaction" of this type wouldn't impart the total (chemical altering) energy of UV, just some of its value. Thus, longer wavelengths can gain from an incomplete interaction with a shorter wavelength (and vice versa, but not investigated in the case under discussion). Perhaps this is what "some people" call absorption "wings", or a "pressure broadening" type observation!
As it happens, the "deep ocean temperature" lower boundary is 750m. Is this to include the possible factor of UV insolation? It's just unfortunate that it hasn't been logged accurately yet (ces't la vie).
I still put my reputation on everything that I've posted here and on the old C4 site (that's one reason why I keep copies of all my posts, I'm just a "sincere engineer" in the "help and learn" loop).
Best regards, suricat.
Does UV have any interaction with water vapor in this way suricat?
Takes me back to ice melt and UVs role in it!
mufcdiver.
Do you know what, I don't know. It's a good question though.
OK! I've spent most of the night searching and I've turned up a few links. Google Books turned up an interesting title;
http://books.google.com/books?...v=onepage&q=&f=false
Don't ask me anything about the link, I've yet to read it. I also found this;
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1706486
A paper that suggests a change in the absorption spectra of WV when UV is also present. I'm not sure if this is instrumental biasing, or a change to the attractor (WV), but it looks to be connected to this Russian paper;
http://resources.metapress.com...1380464&size=largest
It's late and it looks like I've a lot of reading to do (when I'm able to get around to it), so it's beginning to look as though there could be another "biasing effect" caused by UV. Interesting!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Does UV have any interaction with water vapor in this way suricat?
Do you know what, I don't know. It's a good question though.
OK! I've spent most of the night searching and I've turned up a few links. Google Books turned up an interesting title;
http://books.google.com/books?...v=onepage&q=&f=false
Don't ask me anything about the link, I've yet to read it. I also found this;
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1706486
A paper that suggests a change in the absorption spectra of WV when UV is also present. I'm not sure if this is instrumental biasing, or a change to the attractor (WV), but it looks to be connected to this Russian paper;
http://resources.metapress.com...1380464&size=largest
It's late and it looks like I've a lot of reading to do (when I'm able to get around to it), so it's beginning to look as though there could be another "biasing effect" caused by UV. Interesting!
Best regards, suricat.
I found this from Australia which is bothered solely with clouds and refraction. It possibly asks more questions that it answers on here but it also begs the question; Are the right questions being asked?
mufcdiver.
I think your link is about "atmospheric lensing" of insolation (thus, local) and not the effect of insolation per se. It's 03:30 here and I really need some sleep. Though, I also doubt that the right questions are being asked.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
I found this from Australia which is bothered solely with clouds and refraction. It possibly asks more questions that it answers on here but it also begs the question; Are the right questions being asked?
I think your link is about "atmospheric lensing" of insolation (thus, local) and not the effect of insolation per se. It's 03:30 here and I really need some sleep. Though, I also doubt that the right questions are being asked.
Best regards, suricat.
Do you think this could stand a thread of its own suricat?
suricat here's another potential empirical falsification to follow over the next few weeks. It's easy to understand and plausible.
it's essentially looking at monthly raw temperature data and looking for temperature trends in long lived stations vs short stay stations. Very Interesting results. Shame he hasn't graphed them. I have and it looks a convincing result.
it's essentially looking at monthly raw temperature data and looking for temperature trends in long lived stations vs short stay stations. Very Interesting results. Shame he hasn't graphed them. I have and it looks a convincing result.