From an Oregon State University Media Release (h/t to Leif Svalgaard)
Long debate ended over cause, demise of ice ages – may also help predict future
)
The above image shows how much the Earth’s orbit can vary in shape.
This process in a slow one, taking roughly 100,000 to cycle.
(Credit: Texas A&M University note: illustration is not to scale)
CORVALLIS, Ore. – A team of researchers says it has largely put to rest a long debate on the underlying mechanism that has caused periodic ice ages on Earth for the past 2.5 million years – they are ultimately linked to slight shifts in solar radiation caused by predictable changes in Earth’s rotation and axis.
In a publication to be released Friday in the journal Science, researchers from Oregon State University and other institutions conclude that the known wobbles in Earth’s rotation caused global ice levels to reach their peak about 26,000 years ago, stabilize for 7,000 years and then begin melting 19,000 years ago, eventually bringing to an end the last ice age.
The melting was first caused by more solar radiation, not changes in carbon dioxide levels or ocean temperatures, as some scientists have suggested in recent years.
“Solar radiation was the trigger that started the ice melting, that’s now pretty certain,” said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at OSU. “There were also changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and ocean circulation, but those happened later and amplified a process that had already begun.”
The findings are important, the scientists said, because they will give researchers a more precise understanding of how ice sheets melt in response to radiative forcing mechanisms. And even though the changes that occurred 19,000 years ago were due to increased solar radiation, that amount of heating can be translated into what is expected from current increases in greenhouse gas levels, and help scientists more accurately project how Earth’s existing ice sheets will react in the future.
“We now know with much more certainty how ancient ice sheets responded to solar radiation, and that will be very useful in better understanding what the future holds,” Clark said. “It’s good to get this pinned down.”
The researchers used an analysis of 6,000 dates and locations of ice sheets to define, with a high level of accuracy, when they started to melt. In doing this, they confirmed a theory that was first developed more than 50 years ago that pointed to small but definable changes in Earth’s rotation as the trigger for ice ages.
“We can calculate changes in the Earth’s axis and rotation that go back 50 million years,” Clark said. “These are caused primarily by the gravitational influences of the larger planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, which pull and tug on the Earth in slightly different ways over periods of thousands of years.”
That, in turn, can change the Earth’s axis – the way it tilts towards the sun – about two degrees over long periods of time, which changes the way sunlight strikes the planet. And those small shifts in solar radiation were all it took to cause multiple ice ages during about the past 2.5 million years on Earth, which reach their extremes every 100,000 years or so.
Sometime around now, scientists say, the Earth should be changing from a long interglacial period that has lasted the past 10,000 years and shifting back towards conditions that will ultimately lead to another ice age – unless some other forces stop or slow it. But these are processes that literally move with glacial slowness, and due to greenhouse gas emissions the Earth has already warmed as much in about the past 200 years as it ordinarily might in several thousand years, Clark said.
“One of the biggest concerns right now is how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will respond to global warming and contribute to sea level rise,” Clark said. “This study will help us better understand that process, and improve the validity of our models.”
The research was done in collaboration with scientists from the Geological Survey of Canada, University of Wisconsin, Stockholm University, Harvard University, the U.S. Geological Survey and University of Ulster. It was supported by the National Science Foundation and other agencies.
UPDATE: Science now has the paper online, which is behind a paywall. The abstract is open though and can be read below:
| Science 7 August 2009:
Vol. 325. no. 5941, pp. 710 – 714 DOI: 10.1126/science.1172873 |
Research Articles
The Last Glacial Maximum
Peter U. Clark,1,* Arthur S. Dyke,2 Jeremy D. Shakun,1 Anders E. Carlson,3 Jorie Clark,1 Barbara Wohlfarth,4 Jerry X. Mitrovica,5 Steven W. Hostetler,6 A. Marshall McCabe7
1 Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
2 Geological Survey of Canada, 601 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E8, Canada.
3 Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
4 Department of Geology and Geochemistry, Stockholm University, SE-10691, Stockholm, Sweden.
5 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
6 U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
7 School of Environmental Science, University of Ulster, Coleraine, County Londonderry, BT52 1SA, UK.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leland Palmer:
“This seems to be the simple truth. We are changing CO2 and other greenhouse gases much, much more rapidly than the climate system has ever dealt with before.”
But when all else fails, that is the fall back position of propagandists. No matter the lack of evidence of catastrophic warming, mankind is said to be changing the atmosphere much more rapidly than the earths climate has EVER dealt with before.
Ever dealt with before! Really? Certain periods in the geological past have resulted in vast releases of sequestered CO2. I am thinking of the Deccan Trappes during the Cretaceous. It is estimated that the area covered by these lava flows reached 1.5 million square kilometers – half the land area of India. Could mankinds burning of fossil fuels really match that?
During the late Ordovician CO2 levels were 16 times higher than today yet a glaciation occurred. During the whole mesozoic era, CO2 levels were between 1500ppm and 2000ppm. It was the oligocene that was the beginning of a long fall in CO2, reaching levels that have hardly if ever occurred before on earth. It was these low levels that led to the evolution of the C4 photosynthesis pathway, an adaptation to carbon scarcity.
Far from putting the atmosphere into a dangerous and unprecedented composition, we have set the biosphere on its tiny first step back towards home.
Leif Svalgaard (08:27:53) :
Nasif Nahle (22:42:30) :
If heat was retained, it would be as potential or kinetic energy and it would stop being heat
Heat is the kinetic energy of the molecules bouncing around or vibrating.
Heat is energy in transit from one system to another system, i.e. energy which is introduced into a system. That’s heat.
Thermal energy is both, potential and kinetic energy stored into a system. Heat is thermal energy transferred between tow systems. You are referring to thermal energy, not to heat; however don’t worry, it is a common confusion.
When transforming potential energy to kinetic energy (which is moving energy), the system loses energy, that is, photons which are dispersed to cooler systems or heat.
Mike,
Only time will tell (alas, we’ll be screwing with our climate before we understand it though).
That 1186 year cycle is a mystery though. I could see the long term recovery from the LIA as potentially a modulation on the Obliquity cycle, but the rate of change of the 1186 yr cycle is absolutely amazing. I believe it’s real because if you pick them out in the GISP2 data, you can see matching and opposing spikes in the Vostok ice core as well. Whether it’s the short spikes or the long term trends, they always seems to be opposing.
Anybody have any theories as to the driver of the 1186 yr spikes?
I could see the longer term cycle being of orbital variation (wobble) including the LIA recovery (insolation changes), but not at the rate of the 1186yr spikes.
Oceanic? Solar? Cosmic?
http://s852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/etregembo/?action=view¤t=GISP2_VOSTOK_INTERGLACIAL.jpg
Oops! I wrote:
“Heat is thermal energy transferred between tow systems.”
It should have said:
“Heat is thermal energy transferred between two systems.”
Please, correct my phrase. Thank you so much! And sorry. 🙂
Nasif Nahle Sensei (13:12:29) :
There must be a serious discussion on the actual heat capacity of some brains vs. empty skulls 🙂
Alexej Buergin (11:45:55) :
ERIC: Assuming CO2 is close to an ideal gas
V=RT/PM, where M is the mass of a mole of CO2 or approximately 44gms.
R is the ideal gas constant and T is the absolute temperature.
ALEXEJ BUERGIN: Since the standard values (in SI units) are R=8.31, T=273, P=101000 and M=0.044, the Volume would be 0.510 cubic meters ?
ALEXEJ BUERGIN: I will answer myself:
The correct formula for the ideal gas is pV=nRT, n number of moles. The mass of a particle or of the gas (M) plays no role.
That changes when one calculates the density M/V; then one can see e.g. why moist air is LIGHTER than dry air.
The Volume of the ideal gas at 0°C and 1013hPa is about 23 Liters.
The original question was ‘was is the Specific Volume of CO2’ so Eric is right
0.510m^3/kgm.
This is just devastating to warmenist claims. It proves that even just over the past few tens of thousands of years, solar effects dominated.
Most significantly, this says we are almost certainly heading into another Ice Age that will kill billions of people and probably end human civilization as we know it. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions under such circumstances is insane.
During the late Ordovician CO2 levels were 16 times higher than today yet a glaciation occurred. During the whole mesozoic era, CO2 levels were between 1500ppm and 2000ppm.
Yes, good point. I have pointed to the Ordovician glaciation and asked warmenists “If CO2 is such a strong driver of temperature, how could there be massive glaciation at levels 16 times higher?” I have yet to get any coherent response. The Ordovician glaciation also has large implications for the next few thousand years, as we head into a cooling phase: it suggests CO2 will not save us.
When do we get the movie … “The Complete Inconvenient Truth .. Abridged”
Nassif wrote:
“Eric wrote:
“You misunderstand the Greenhouse theory of global warming if you argue that the heat capacity of the air is to small for the theory to be correct. The heat capacity of the air doesn’t determine the greenhouse effect.”
Mm… Am I arguing that? Could you define the term “heat capacity”, and what is the heat capacity of the air? You also must to explain why you say that heat capacity is not important in heat transfer.”
Heat capacity is the change in energy divided by the change in temperature of a specific amount of material. The heat capacity of the air is unimportant in the greenhouse effect, which may proceed even if the temperature of the air is constant. The greenhouse effect reduces the rate of flow of energy toward space, even if the air does not gain heat, below what it would be if the greenhouse gases were absent from the air. The reduction in flow rate does not depend at all on the heat capacity of the air. It does depend on the temperature profile of the air, which gets most of its heat from the ground.
The rate of global temperature increase will depend on the effective heat capacity of the earth atmosphere system, dominated by the huge heat capacity of the oceans. The ultimate temperature change due to the forcing effect of an increase in greenhouse gas concentration is independent of the earth’s heat capacity.
Nassif wrote:
“Eric wrote:
The greenhouse gases actually reduce the flow of radiation from the warmer earth’s surface by absorbing it and reemitting half it back towards the ground.”
There is no back radiation warming up the surface because induced emission avoids it.
Now tell me, from your suppossition, what’s the percentage of heat radiated back to the surface from the absorbed heat by a parcel of air?”
It is not supposition. The best estimate from peer reviewed research says that
492W/M2 is sent upward from the surface of the earth towards the atmosphere, and 324W/M2 of this energy flux is returned by downward radiation.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf
Nassif wrote:
“Eric wrote:
“The topmost layer of the atmosphere, which emits 50% of the radiation it has absorbed, directly upwardunimpeded, toward outer space, where it is lost to the earth, is cooler than the surface of the earth. ”
If you have not noticed it, you are agreeing with me when I said that warmists say the air have an emissivity of 50% or of a black radiator. 50% downwards and 50% upwards? Heh!”
You don’t understand what the meaning of emissivity is and what the concept of an absorption band is. You are so misinformed, you don’t understand what it is that you don’t understand.
I said the 50% of the radiation emitted goes upwards and 50% goes downwards. This relates to the energy in the absorption band of CO2. A black body will absorb all of the energy that is incident on it regardless of wave length. CO2 gas in the atmosphere, since it has a limited absorption region in the spectrum is not a black body.
The two month difference between the name of the month and the number of the month is due to changing the starting point of the year, not adding two months.
The year used to start with March. This is similar to the starting point of the Chinese calendar. A similar change happened to the day. We now start a new day at midnight instead of sundown.
Phil. (14:17:51) :
The original question was ‘what is the Specific Volume of CO2′ so Eric is right
0.510m^3/kgm.
Amazing! The density of carbon dioxide in the current atmosphere is 0.000746 Kg/m^3 (or 385 ppmV); consequently, its specific volume is 1340.5 m^3/Kg. This means that one (1) Kg of carbon dioxide is dispersed into 1340.5 cubic meters of air. 🙂
As a comparison, the specific volume of Nitrogen in the current atmosphere is 0.625 m^3/Kg, and the specific volume of water vapor at RH = 85% is 39.22 m^3/Kg.
On the other hand, the absorptivity of water vapor at standard Pp is 0.75, while the absorptivity of carbon dioxide at its current Pp is 0.001.
Do you still believe the carbon dioxide at its current concentration in the atmosphere and with its current thermal properties is capable of causing a disastrous, horrible climate change?
What you are doing is resourcing to physical constants of a bottled comercial CO2 with a density of 1.977 kg/m^3, at 0 °C and a pressure of 34.85 bar, not to the real magnitudes found in nature.
Amazing!
Syl says:
You’ve crammed several mistakes into one paragraph. First of all, the 10 C or so change was in the polar regions where the ice cores are. The global temperature change between the last glacial maximum (LGM) and now is estimated to be about 5-6 C. Second of all, Hansen most definitely does not claim that CO2 is responsible for most of the change. By looking at the magnitudes of the various forcings, the estimate is that CO2 is responsible for about 1/3 of the change. (See http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/hansen.pdf … especially Fig. 3 and accompanying text.) It is rather interesting that so many people who think that Hansen is wrong haven’t even bothered to familiarized themselves with the most basic points of his arguments, which are even available in such popularized places as Scientific American. Finally, as Mike Lorrey hinted at (although he got the details wrong), the effect of CO2 is not linear…It is approximately logarithmic, so what matters is the fractional increase, not the absolute increase.
Actually, the best estimate of how much warming is due to CO2 is obtained by looking at it contribution to the estimated total global radiative forcings…and that gives the estimate of 1/3. However, what is most relevant is that the estimate of the total temperature change divided by the total radiative forcings gives us an estimate of the climate sensitivity in C per (W/m^2), from which we can then estimate the expected temperature change due to the known radiative forcing (~4 W/m^2) that occurs when the CO2 levels are doubled.
You may start a new day at midnight, navies tend to start it at noon.
But I know what you mean which is why the British army on Z time does not allow the use of 00.00 in orders: it is either 23:59, the day before, or 00:01, the day following.
As for the ancient Roman calendar it seems the consuls and other magistrates were very lax about trying to keep the calendar in close agreement with the seasons. Whilst sojourning in Egypt after defeating Pompey one J Caeser consulted the astronomers of Alexandria who drew up a new calendar for him. This is the Julian calendar, later slightly amended by pope Gregory into the Gregorian we use today.
In England there was a lot of opposition to going over to the Gregorian, which is today well ahead of the Julian, hence the famous election slogan of ‘Give us back our eleven days’ when we changed over to the modern calendar.
Not as foolish as it sounds, rents were payable on the quarter days so the changeover cost many poor people a significant amount of money.
But it gave the wealthy a handy one off bonus. A bit like cap and trade really except that there were genuine reasons for the change and the financial effect was a one off: it was not a permanent tax.
Kindest Regards.
Joel Shore (16:58:05) :
Actually, the best estimate of how much warming is due to CO2 is obtained by looking at it contribution to the estimated total global radiative forcings…and that gives the estimate of 1/3. However, what is most relevant is that the estimate of the total temperature change divided by the total radiative forcings gives us an estimate of the climate sensitivity in C per (W/m^2), from which we can then estimate the expected temperature change due to the known radiative forcing (~4 W/m^2) that occurs when the CO2 levels are doubled.
4 W/m^2 (a guess) of radiative forcing means that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would cause a change of temperature (some people say it’s an anomaly) of 0.7 K.
Does anyone know of objective, factual information that suggests that the earth is approaching another glaciation? We all “know” that we are in an interglacial period that will run out some day, but is this knowledge solely based upon the undoubted fact that it has happened this way in the past? The earth has endured several epochs of glaciation in the past, and each one has come to end at some point. I gather that glaciation is overdue and on average should have started three or four thousand years ago. Please do not assume that I am making a claim that the current glaciation epoch has come to an end — I am simply saying that I think that this possibility should be acknowledged unless there is evidence to the contrary.
To be blunt NO.
You are right that we live in an ice age and that these interglacials such as the current one are mere fly by nights. They pop up and hang around for a few thousand years before vanishing again for reasons we wot not of.
But they are very nice and warm and warmer would be even nicer: as would higher levels of CO2.
Alas it is not within our power at the moment to affect the climate or indeed its levels of CO2 so we must just adapt as best we can.
Kindest Regards
Nasif Nahle says:
The 4 W/m^2 is not a guess. It is a value (to within ~10%) that even Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen seem to accept. And, the evidence from what we understand to be the difference in forcings between the Last Glacial Maximum and now is that the change in temperature that this would cause would be more like 3 C, although no serious scientist claims to know this value exactly. You must be the most brilliant climate scientist alive to KNOW that this will cause a change of temperature of 0.7 C.
Nogw (09:13:18) :
A guess: Are oscillations always harmonic or regular?, what if sudden changes?
crosspatch (15:59:06) :
Now that assumes the changes ARE gradual. Maybe they aren’t. Maybe alignment of things causes a sudden change in the shape of the orbit.
Interesting and perceptive comments. I think sudden changes to Earth’s orbit caused by the periodic motion of the outer planets would be unlikely, but my research shows that changes to the sun’s orbit around the centre of mass of the solar system can be sudden, and the correlations with solar activity do indicate sudden changes to the amplitudes of the sunspot cycles.
For example, the usual variation of the angle between the COM and the solar equator is around 5 degrees, but when the COM passed very close to the centre of the sun in 1811, the angle suddenly jumped to 17 degrees and back over a couple of months. There followed the lowest sunspot cycle in a few hundred years. On the next occasion the COM passed this close to the solar centre in 1950 it had the opposite effect, the next cycle was the highest recorded.
The effects of these lurches in the sun – COM relationship seem to last several cycles. Not enough to precipitate ice ages, but analogous to processes which do perhaps.
“”George E. Smith (17:25:30) :
“”” cba (17:08:00) :
“”Dave vs Hal (08:29:53) :
cba (06:16:14)
“THat difference is even more interesting considering that the surface albedo of ocean is about 1/3 to 1/5th that of land surface . What is happening is the ocean water is involved in a water vapor cycle creating clouds that reduce the albedo – something that can’t happen easily when there is little to no additional water available” “””
I wouldn’t be hollering about the “surface albedo” of the oceans. Given that the Fresnel reflection for water at normal incidence is about 2% for a refractive index of 1.33, and that reflection coefficient remains reasonably constant out to the Brewster angle which is about 53 degrees incidence angle, the net surface reflection is perhaps 3% for the complete hemisphere sans clouds; which would give the greatest albedo effect from the oceans; that makes the deep oceans a reasonably black body absorber with an emissivity of about 0.97 for the solar spectrum range of wavelengths (albedo applies only to solar spectrum reflections).
…….
And on a further note; the albedo component due to clouds exceeds that of any earth surface terrain. so nyet on clouds reducing earth’s albedo by covering up ocean.
The polar regions ice cover is not much of an albedo component, even though it is most often cited. There’s a reason all that ice and snow is there at the poles; there’s very little solar radiation there to Albedize, in the first place.
George
“”
Uh George – I don’t think you were reading what I wrote. I never said the oceans had a large albedo – in fact I stated it was about 1/3 to 1/5 of land surface values. Land albedo average, I think, tends to be around 0.15 to 0.17 which puts ocean surface at around 0.03 which is not too far from your guess based upon the N. Actual accepted estimates for this is really more like 0.035 to 0.04 which is still extremely low. Surface albedo total contributes about 0.09 out of the total 0.3 with clouds accounting for around 80%. It does have a tremendous effect on albedo not due to its reflecting but due to its high rate of absorption. Another problem some fail to grasp is that while at a given wavelength reflectivity, emissivity and absorption are related so high reflectivity precludes high emissivity. Incoming solar is mostly visible and near IR. Emission from a nominal 288K body is at far longer wavelengths so that even if something had high reflectivity at solar wavelengths, it can and often is pitch black at far IR wavelengths, making for almost a theoretical blackbody and approaching 1 for emissivity.
My comments on the cloud albedo are that a reduction in cloud cover reduces the albedo and an increase in cloud cover increases the albedo, reducing the incoming power. Only fresh snow has a similar reflectivity and unless one is in glaciation, the snow cover isn’t at low enough latitudes to be reflecting much power.
Joel Shore (19:01:10) :
Nasif Nahle says:
4 W/m^2 (a guess)…
The 4 W/m^2 is not a guess. It is a value (to within ~10%) that even Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen seem to accept. And, the evidence from what we understand to be the difference in forcings between the Last Glacial Maximum and now is that the change in temperature that this would cause would be more like 3 C, although no serious scientist claims to know this value exactly. You must be the most brilliant climate scientist alive to KNOW that this will cause a change of temperature of 0.7 C.
No matter who accept it or who use that value; science is not dogmatic. It’s a guess because you can find at least five different values for this forcing, starting with Arrhenius’ guess of 5.35 W/m^2.
C Colenaty (18:25:04) :
“Does anyone know of objective, factual information that suggests that the earth is approaching another glaciation?”
If you average the Greenland and Vostok ice cores, it implies that we’ve already started our descent into the next ice age starting roughly 3500yrs ago. The average is very flat until that point, but slowly decreasing from that point (the green line is the average). Ignore all of the higher frequency noise…of which we are mostly debating about.
http://s852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/etregembo/?action=view¤t=GISP2_VOSTOK_INTERGLACIAL.jpg
Nothing abnormal though about this interglacial IMO. It is very similar to the one 420kyrs ago, where similarly obliquity and eccentricity were in phase. When they are not, such as the 225kyr interglacial, you don’t get the nice stable longer interglacial that occurs for the last few 420k intervals (lower eccentricity peaks), you get the split peaks. I’m glad this last interglacial has been of the in phase variety. If they were all of the out of phase variety, we’d probably still be in Africa, and the Neanderthals would still have Europe.
http://s852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/etregembo/?action=view¤t=Milankovitch_Variations.png
http://s852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/etregembo/?action=view¤t=Vostok.jpg
Ed
Nasif Nahle (21:38:08) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
Joel Shore (19:01:10):
You must be the most brilliant climate scientist alive to KNOW that this will cause a change of temperature of 0.7 C.
Indeed. Nevertheless, I must be honest and declare that I have used a formula developed by other brilliant scientists:
ΔT = [α] ln [(CO2) ∞ / (CO2) s] / 4 (σ) T^3.
Does anyone have formula to convert ice depth to ice age for CO2 in the GISP2 core?
GISP2 CO2 concentrations
REFERENCES:
Smith, H.J., M. Wahlen, and D. Mastroianni. 1997. The CO2 concentration of
air trapped in GISP2 ice from the Last Glacial Maximum-Holocene transition.
Geophysical Research Letters 24:1-4.
Smith, H.J., M. Wahlen, D. Mastroianni, K.C. Taylor, and P.A. Mayewski.
1997. The CO2 concentration of air trapped in Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2
ice formed during periods of rapid climate change. Journal of Geophysical
Research 102:26577-26582.
Wahlen, M., D. Allen, B. Deck, and A. Herchenroder. 1991. Initial
measurements of CO2 concentrations (1530-1940 AD) in air occluded in the
GISP2 ice core from central Greenland. Geophysical Research Letters 18:1457
1460
DATA DESCRIPTION:
These data are the average CO2 concentrations of air extracted from GISP2
ice from depths spanning two separate stadials (cold periods) centered at
approximately 46 kyBP and 63 kyBP. Each measurement was made on 6-8 cm^3
of carefully trimmed ice using a dry extraction method. Three samples
(typically) were analyzed for each point, the depths of which differed by
no more than 2 cm. Analytical details can be found in Wahlen et al.
(1991) and Smith et al. (JGR special GRIP/GISP2 issue).
Four columns of data are listed; the first is the uppermost depth (in
meters) of the samples used for each point, the second is the average CO2
concentration (in ppm) of the trapped gas, the third is the standard
deviation (in ppm) of the average CO2 concentration and the fourth is the
number of samples analyzed for each point.
DATA:
depth CO2 +/- # of samples
top (m) (ppmv) (ppmv)
1500 269.1
1583 269.1 17.2 2
1586.06 268 22 3
1586.09 270.2 7.1 3
1592.02 271 4.3 3
1595.05 258.5 16.6 3
1598.02 267.7 28.8 3
1601.125 293.1 7.2 3
1604.02 236.4 27.6 3
Phil. (08:35:27) :
Your response explains to me why climatologists do not have a clue about physics.
Note that I did not refer to mechanisms, just to effects, in my post above. Here are the simple physical mechanisms
1) infrared heats the first millimeters of the ocean and land, and both radiate it back heating the air, more during the day than at night. It is the harder radiation that heats deep oceans.
2) Water vapor depends on the saturation of the air above plus the surface temperature, and this will be happening more during the sunlight hours : the heated by direct sunlight few millimeters and the evaporation into the drier from heat air.
these happen on hourly basis and day night rythms, I call that immediate release of H2O vapor, the main green house gas.
3) certainly all absorption and emission plots show the dominant role of H20 as a greenhouse gas. It dominates in volume and in spectral range.
4) ice core data show CO2 lagging by 800 to 2000 years, consistent with time needed for the slow release of CO2 due to the slow heating of the deeps.
replyng “wrong” does not a wrong make.
Nasif Nahle (13:45:35) :
You are referring to thermal energy, not to heat; however don’t worry, it is a common confusion.
Rather than nit-pick about the meaning of heat in strict thermodynamic sense, it is more useful to adopt the more practical point of view as expressed here: http://www.powermasters.com/heat_energy.html
For example, the following makes sense and is the way this is usually expressed:
“More heat energy is required to increase the temperature of a substance with high specific heat capacity than one with low specific heat capacity”. In the last two uses of ‘heat’ the reference is to heat retained.