Recent Variations In Upper Ocean Heat Content – Information From Phil Klotzbach
By Dr. Roger Pielke Senior
Phil Klotzbach has graciously permitted me to post an update on upper ocean heat content in the equatorial upper ocean. He writes
“The Climate Prediction Center recently released its equatorial upper ocean heat content for April 2010. One of the primary areas that they focus on is the equatorial heat content averaged over the area from 180-100W. The decrease in upper ocean heat content from March to April was 1C, which is the largest decrease in equatorial upper ocean heat content in this area since the CPC began keeping records of this in 1979. The upwelling phase of a Kelvin wave was likely somewhat responsible for this significant cooling. It seems like just about every statistical and dynamical model is calling for ENSO to dissipate over the next month or two as well, so it’s probable that we will see a transition to neutral conditions shortly. I have attached a spreadsheet showing upper ocean heat content data from CPC since 1979. In case you’re interested, the correlation between April upper ocean heat content from 180-100W and August-October Nino 3.4 is an impressive 0.75 over the years from 1979-2009.
He has plotted the data below. An interesting question is to where this heat has gone.
It could have moved north and south in the upper ocean, however, to the extent the sea surface temperature anomalies map to the upper ocean heat content, there is no evidence of large heat transfers except, perhaps, in the tropical Atlantic [see].
The heat could have been transferred deeper into the ocean. However, if this is true, this heat would have been seen moving to lower levels, but, so far, there is no evidence of such a large vertical heat transfer.
The heat could, of course, be lost to space. This appears to be the most likely explanation.
Henry@ur momisugly Stephen
I don’t have a problem with what you are thinking & saying, indeed I think you are right – I have also always thought that clouds and cloud-formation is what greatly determines earth albedo. Namely, here in Africa on a cloudy day 1) it is considerable darker & 2) considerable cooler. So where did the missing radiation go? Some inside the clouds (as warmth), but a lot also is deflected outside to space, I am sure. Point is: I was made to understand somewhere (I dont remember where) that this graph
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
is from a cloudless day. Or do you think that the difference of the given range there i.e. 30-25=5% is what is caused by clouds and cloud formations?
If you donot know, then it would indeed be interesting for us to find out what the difference is in the radiation curve from the top of the atmosphere to below at sea level a) when it is cloudless and b) when it is overcast. Any ideas on that??
PS to Stephen
Be careful with that 2007 albedo graph, I think there was an update on that in 2008 that looked different. I was hoping to see the more recent data as well.
Ken Lamber;
You need a convincing explanation for these issues.>>
Why? Those are all things that they have predicted as a consequence of the warming they have calculated would happen from CO2 increases. Their average calc says 3 degrees for doubling which translates to 2.1 by now, which didn’t happen, 0.6 did, most of which is natural. Ice loss didnt happen. Hurricanes didnt happen. Mexican lizards? Mexican lizards? Are you kidding me? The LEAST amount of temperature variation has been in the tropics, the most in the arctic zones. So… temps have changed almost not at all in the tropics, less than 1/3 of what they predicted over all, and they want to point at dead lizards and say “see, that proves CO2 doubling = 3 degrees”?
CO2 is logarithmic. What ever actual change we are going to see from the last century of CO2 increases, it will take SEVERAL centuries of production at the same rate to get that much change again. Since it was tiny… I’m more concerned with rogue asteroids and suicide bombers as they are both more likely to be significant.
davidmhoffer (May14)
Don’t get your point about 2.1 degrees ‘by now’. The measured increase in surface temps since pre-industrial times is about 0.75 degC (0.6 degC since 1860) or thereabouts. The concentration of CO2 has steadily risen from 280 in pre-industrial times to about 388 ppmv (now). The IPCC Eqan; F.CO2 = 5.35 ln(CO2a/CO2b) gives the theorised Forcing in W/sq.m for the difference in concentrations at Time (a )and Time (b).
I note the following from your “Knowledge Drift Site”:
“What is often quoted is that CO2 doubling causes an increase in radiance to earth’s surface of 3.7 watts/meter squared, which in turn raises temperatures about 1 degree Celsius. ”
No – the 3.7W/sq.m is often quoted as raising the surface temperature 3 degC – ie from a doubling of CO2.
No David,
Mexliz is not a joke…..
See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/13/now-its-lizards-going-extinct-due-to-climate-change/
Ken Lambert says:
May 15, 2010 at 5:17 am
davidmhoffer (May14)
Don’t get your point about 2.1 degrees ‘by now’>>
278/556 = 3.7 watts
3.7 watts = 1 degree
feedback = 2 degrees
total = 3 degrees
278/385 = 1.74 watts
1.74 watts ~ 0.7 degrees
feedback ~1.4
total = 2.1
Lindzen goes deeper into the feedback issues and actually comes up with 80% instead of just under 70%, but didn’t put enough detail in his last article to see how he got there.
davidmhoffer (May15)
CO2GHG forcings (IPCC Eqan):
The 1900AD value would be 5.35 ln(290/280) = 0.188 W/sq.m
The 1950AD value would be 5.35 ln(310/280) = 0.545 W/sq.m
The 2005AD value would be 5.35 ln(380/280) = 1.634 W/sq.m
The 2010AD value would be 5.35 ln (387/280) = 1.731 W/sq.m
Rough and dirty averages: First 50years : 0.37W/sq.m, next 60 years: 1.14W/sq.m : Overall average: 0.87W/sq.m for the last 110 years.
The Solar imbalance is quoted by proxy at between 0.3 and 0.5 W/sq.m (much lower in recent IPCC AR4 down to 0.12W/sq.m. which is probably wrong)
Assuming 0.3W/sq.m for Solar and 0.87W/sq,m from CO2GHG forcing over the last 110 years has produced the 0.75 degC (or 0.6-0.7 degC depending on source) surface temperature rise and assuming other cooling forcings (clouds aerosols etc) stay constant:
Separating the feedback from the combination of Solar and CO2GHG forcing using your 1;2 ratio would presumably only apply to the CO2GHG portion of the temperature rise. ie. in proportion to the forcings :0.87/1.17 x 0.75 degC = 0.55degC.
Should not your sum look like this?
278/385 = 1.74 watts (only instant value for 2010): 0.87 W/sq.m for last 110 years
0.87 watts ~ 0.19 degrees (1 part)
feedback ~0.36 degrees (2 parts)
sub-total = 0.55 degrees
Solar = 0.2 degrees
Total = 0.75 degrees
Actually works out pretty good if you check S-B for 255 degK and OLR of 240W/sq.m, the temp increase for 0.87W/sq.m extra emitted is:
(240.87/240)^0.25 x 255degK = 255.23 degK or an increase of 0.23degK, which is not too far from the 0.19 degK by the rough and dirty proportioning above.
(assume you mean that Lindzen calcs that 80% of the total temp rise is due to feedbacks)
Ken Lambert;
(assume you mean that Lindzen calcs that 80% of the total temp rise is due to feedbacks)>>
No. I’m not trying to calculate how much of the current warming should be attributed to CO2. What I’m showing is that any additional CO2 over what we already have is so minor in terms of additional forcing that the whole idea of CAGW is a farce. Your assumption above is incorrect. Lindzen has been saying the same thing as what I’ve been showing you, which is that while CO2 is up only 38% over pre-industrial, most of what is ever going to happen because of CO2 increasing is already happening and even massive increases in the future won’t make much difference. There was an article where Lindzen went into some detail on this but I can’t locate it right now, but he refers to it here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/09/lindzen-earth-is-never-in-equilibrium/ and there’s an article by Eschenbach on this site as well that comes to similar conclusions.
davidmhoffer (may16)
Lindzen argues that feedback is negative when other (IPCC) scientists say that it is positive.
Assume your quotation of the below:
“278/556 = 3.7 watts
3.7 watts = 1 degree
feedback = 2 degrees
total = 3 degrees
278/385 = 1.74 watts
1.74 watts ~ 0.7 degrees
feedback ~1.4
total = 2.1”
is meant to show that both are wrong – right?
Enlighten us with your estimate of the surface temperature rise for a doubling of CO2.
Also please comment on the sea level rise issue.
Ken Lambert;
Lindzen argues that feedback is negative when other (IPCC) scientists say that it is positive.>>
The articles that I pointed you at show that CO2 is logarithmic and any additional CO2 at this point would have minor additional effects. I think I said this several times.
Ken Lambert;
is meant to show that both are wrong – right?>>
wrong. see above.
Ken Lambert;
Enlighten us with your estimate of the surface temperature rise for a doubling of CO2.>>
I’ve already said I don’t have one. The point is that any additionalk CO2 over what we already have… see above.
Ken Lambert;
Also please comment on the sea level rise issue.>>
My BS detector is back on, you’re just baiting me. We haven’t been discussing sea level, so why suddenly throw it into the mix? I’ve said several times that the point is that CO2 is logarithmic, you keep on asking for an estimate of actual temperature change or to be “enlightened” blah blah blah. Either you get it that additional CO2 versus what we already have is subject to the law of diminishing returns by now… or you don’t. No further explanation by me will help.
Henry@Ken
Sorry to butt in, but I just would like to know: where are the results of the tests of the experiments by which you got these answers? I think the values you & Lindzen and the IPCC have are really based on weigthing (comparing % of CO2 from 2005 with 1750, to global warming since 1750, this is what I got from the IPCC docs). But that is assuming that you know 100% for sure what the cause is of your problem (problem being: global warming). You can only do such a thing if you can eliminate or account for all other sources of global warming. This is where they failed terribly. This is the worst mistake any scientist can make: assume you know what is the cause of your problem (without having the direct proof) and then trying to work your way back to finding a solution…
I repeat what I said before:
here is the famous paper that confirms to me that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec
they measured this radiation as it bounced back to earth from the moon. Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um.
This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):
http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf
There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.
So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-15 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine), more noticable from the bottom, but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine, obviously more noticable from the top. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results? (I am afraid that simple heat retention testing might not work here, we have to use real sunshine and real earthshine to determine the effect in W/m3 [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours). I am also doubtful of the analysis of the spectral data, as some of the UV absorptions of CO2 have only been discovered recently. Also, for example, I think the actual heat caused by the sun’s IR at 4-5 maybe underestimated, e.g. the radiation of the sun between 4 and 5 maybe only 1% but how many watts does it cause? Here in Africa you can not stand in the sun for longer that 10 minutes, just because of the heat of the sun on your skin.
Anyway, with so much at stake, surely, you or someone actually has to come up with some empirical testing?
If this research has not been done, why don’t we just sue the oil companies to do this?? It is their product afterall.
I am going to state it here quite categorically again that if no one has got these results, then how do we know for sure that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Maybe the cooling properties are (more or less) equal to the warming properties.
We know that Svante Arrhenius’ formula has long been proven wrong. If it had been right earth should have been a lot warmer. So I am asking: what is the correct formula? If you (Ken) are convinced that CO2 causes warming, then surely you must ask yourself the same question as I have been asking??
I think it also very important that the experiments must be conducted in the relevant concentration range, i.e. 0.03% – 0.06%. You cannot use 100% CO2 in a test, and present that to me as a test result. Any good chemist knows that different concentration ranges in solutions may give different results in properties. In any case, those people who presented those 100% CO2 tests and results to their pupils used a simple globe lamp (representing the sun) and totally forgot about the cooling properties of CO2 (like I am claiming above here)
I am also looking for same results for another trace gas that has been increasing off late: ozone. My best guess is that the net result of the increase in ozone and CO2 cancels each other out (in the radiation budget). But, without someone going to do some real testing, we will probably never know.
davidmhoffer (May17) and prior posts:
David, you can turn off your BS meter – I am simple asking you to answer questions about errors you have made in your declarative posts.
You are talking to an engineer who is unconvinced by AGW theorists – as you must have gathered from my Q&A with ‘leading climate scientist’ and discusssion threads I posted on SS.
I ‘get’ your big point about logarithmic CO2 forcing and exponential S-B cooling – in fact I have put similar arguments to LCS and done the sums.
You seem to have a wide knowledge of the subject – so don’t get shirty when asked to explain what I think is an error in your claims. If you are a self proclaimed debunker of the AGW story you have got to get your own facts straight.
Repeating:
I note the following from your “Knowledge Drift Site”:
DMH: “What is often quoted is that CO2 doubling causes an increase in radiance to earth’s surface of 3.7 watts/meter squared, which in turn raises temperatures about 1 degree Celsius. ”
No – the 3.7W/sq.m is often quoted as raising the surface temperature 3 degC – ie from a doubling of CO2.
You did not explain the 2.1 ‘by now’ comment and offered no counter to my calculation.
DMH: “Their average calc says 3 degrees for doubling which translates to 2.1 by now, which didn’t happen, 0.6 did, most of which is natural. Ice loss didnt happen.”
Land Ice loss and sea level rise are supposed to have happened according to the Trenberth Aug09 paper and other sources. The GRACE satellites are supposed to have measured total ice mass loss in Antarctica which holds 90% of the planet’s land ice. The sea level question is not a ‘bait’ – it is oft used by AGW scientists – (our CSIRO being prominent amongst them) to support the AGW story.
So if you really know what you are talking about then you should be able to come up with a strong counter argument to the sea level and ice loss AGW stories.
Ken,
I am an amateur. When I explain something, I am not writing a PhD level paper for peer review. My base concepts are accurate, and so is my math. I sometimes generalize or estimate while making a point about the big picture. If you want my opinion, you already have it. If you want me to prove my numbers, then please understand that there are an enormous number of assumptions and calculations that must be documented in incredible detail to constitute “proven” numbers.
Consider just one small issue. Does the IPCC quote 3 degrees temperature increase per CO2 doubling? Or do they suggest (as I claim they do) that CO2 doubling is 3.7 watts/m2? Is there a meaningful difference between these two characterizations? To justify my numbers we have to go into many details and assumptions, and document each one. Let’s just do that one issue.
From IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 2 http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf the IPCC states the following:
“Radiative forcing can be related through a linear relationship to the global mean equilibrium temperature change at the surface (ΔTs): ΔTs = λRF, where λ is the climate sensitivity parameter (e.g., Ramaswamy et al., 2001).”
This is clearly not true. Since earth’s radiance increases with T^4 (T*T*T*T) which is exponential, it is not possible to have a linear relationship between radiative forcing and temperature. I don’t know how Ramaswamy et al came to this conclusion as I haven’t read the paper, it was behind a pay wall last I checked. Perhaps the quote is out of context, or there is some other explanation as to what they really mean by this. But the notion that Stefan-Boltzman’s laws of physics work for everything in the known universe except the temperature of earth seems like a stretch. Keeping that in mind, the report goes on to state:
“The simple formulae for RF of the LLGHG quoted in Ramaswamy et al. (2001) are still valid. These formulae are based on global RF calculations where clouds, stratospheric adjustment and solar absorption are included, and give an RF of +3.7 W m–2 for a doubling in the CO2 mixing ratio. (The formula used for the CO2 RF calculation in this chapter is the IPCC (1990) expression as revised in the TAR. Note that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio.)”
Note two things about this statement. The first is that it quotes 3.7 w m-2 for a doubling of CO2. I will come back to that statement when we discuss sensitivity. The other thing to note is the last sentence, which is that “for CO2, RF increases logarithmically”. Consider how misleading this statement is if you don’t know what logarithmically actually means. Actually, consider how misleading this statement is even if you DO know what it means. Actually, what the heck does this even mean? I liken it to a battlefield report in which the claim is made that our forces are advancing in a rearward fashion. Say what?
They go on in chapter 10 http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf to discuss sensitivity. They state that:
“… indicates that the equilibrium global mean SAT warming for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C.”
So let’s be clear about what they said. They said “A doubling” of CO2 from pre-industrial levels, not “PER doubling” of CO2. Read it carefully (or skim, its a few hundred pages) and you will see that their actual claim is that doubling from pre-industrial levels is 3.7 watts which results, based on the CURRENT temperature range, sensitivity of 3 degrees. Although they alluded to the logarithmic nature of CO2, they carefully avoided ANY discussion of the relationship being a non-linear curve, or that the sensitivity they propose diminishes rapidly with temperature increase as it requires an exponential increase in radiance. So, while they IMPLY the sensitivity is 3 degrees per CO2 doubling, their ACTUAL claim is 3.7 watts per CO2 doubling, they don’t mention the exponential increase in radiance AT ALL and they avoid ANY extrapolation of temperature change versus CO2 increase beyond 556 ppm. If they did, they would get a graph like mine.
So all that discussion, plus reading through several hundred pages of AR4 report is required JUST to establish what the IPCC claim actually is. If I was writing a PhD thesis, I would document all the assumptions and math that went into my graphs. Rough guestimate, about 20 pages and likely 40 to 60 hours. Since I’m not going to do that, I can’t “prove” my numbers. That said, IPCC AR4 estimates CO2 forcing at 379 ppm to be 1.66 watts per square meter. The spreadsheet from which my graph is derived says 1.658. They calculate 3.7 watts per square meter at 556 ppm and my spreadsheet shows 3.708. In terms of forcing for a given value of CO2, my math pretty much mirrors theirs.
All I have done is take THEIR numbers, apply the logarithmic function THEY allude to, and then adjust the sensitivity beyond the current temperature range they document for Stefan Boltzman. The result is the graph on my blog. My note about 2.1 degrees was interpolated from the graph (temp change at 385 ppm X 3). Since you challenge the number, I did the math. If I go back and do the actual calculation, I get 1.742 watts/m2 and a temperature increase from that, using 15 C as the starting point, of 0.47 degrees via direct forcing from C02 which translates to 1.41 degrees with feedbacks, not 2.1 degrees. Turns out the thickness of the lines was misleading and I was in a hurry. 2.1 degrees looked right and I got that same number from another calculation I did a long time ago and I guess that number was stuck in my head. Lindzen gets an even higher number, I think by adjusting for other GHG’s and recovery of the ozone layer. Actually now that I typed that I think that’s how I got to 2.1 a long time ago, unfortunately the computer those spreadsheets were on had a mishap involving beer. A bit embarrassing for me given that I design backup systems and didn’t have my own computer backed up.
Bottom line is that CO2 is logarithmic, cooling response is exponential, even using 1.41 degrees we’ve seen no where near that in actual measurements (more like 0.6 which natural variability easily accounts for) and the additional CO2 required to make a significant increase in temperature over where we are now is so massive that it would take centuries. Quibble with 2.1 versus 1.47 if you want, the graph as presented (thick lines and all) is derived from THEIR claims and THEIR math and only adjusted for S-B. I made one once without adjustment for S-B and it STILL looked ridiculous. Using THEIR numbers adjusted for S-B it takes 557 ppm to get to a 1.0 degree temperature increase, and 1,126 ppm to get to 2. At +1.9 ppm/ year (THEIR number, see AR4) that’s 390 YEARS from now!
On the question of ice and sea level, I would refer you to the many articles on WUWT.
Ooops. Just to be doubly clear, when I said I adjusted for S-B, that adjustment is across the entire graph, not just the part over 556 ppm. If I hadn’t applied S-B across the entire range I would have gotten different numbers for 379 ppm and 556 ppm from what they got. So… their numbers ALSO include adjustment for S-B, DESPITE their vague reference to a linear relationship, that’s NOT how they did the math. They did it the same way I did, and if they had the cojones to show the public what their math extrapolates to beyond 556 ppm…. a whole lot of people would be scratching their heads and wondering what the fuss is about.
CO2 is logarithmic.
Cooling response is exponential.
IPCC says so.
oops to my oops. Since all I was calculating at that point was the theoretical forcing, S-B wasn’t in the numbers at that point. scratch my last comment, re-wrap the tinfoil on my head and get some sleep.
davidmhoffer (May18)
David, appreciate your detailed response.
I am doing this 1 hour a day – running a business and employing people so my late nights are full of this stuff.
Will be out of town until Monday – so keep this thread alive so I can respond then.
You might see some of my arguments here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=107&&n=178.
If your main point about the ‘rathole’ of CO2 being a minor greenhouse player is correct then AGW is indeed debunked. I would like to study the spectral absorption stuff further.
What is needed is some definitive analysis about the highest temperature which could be reached for doubling of Co2 so that the hysteria can be removed from the debate.
Will talk more next Monday.
Cheers
Be careful with this so-called spectral analysis. That is not a real experiment. Those are calculations. For example: Am I supposed to believe that the sunshine at between 4 and 5 um is much less than the earthshine at between 14 and 15? (both 4-5 & 14-15 are big absorptions of CO2). Also, it seems nobody (but me) ever realised that CO2 also has UV absorptions and that this may affect the balance of radiation.
I am eager to see some real test results of some real experiments that would somehow show me the net result of the cooling and warming properties of both carbon dioxide and ozone. So far, I have not seen any. It looks to me that nobody could think of a test procedure. Amazing. But true.
Henry Pool;
The 4-5 micron absorption actually lies underneath the earth shine. There’s a bump in the 2 to 3 micron range, but overlaps with water vapour. there is a small bump just under the 2 micron range where it would catch a bit of the sunshine. Interesting, never notice it before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
David,
yes, you are right but there is also radiation from the sun at between 4 and 5, in fact according to my books 0,5% of the sun’s solar constant is associated with the radiation from the sun between 4 and 5. My question is this: would earth’s radiation at between 4 and 5 or even at between 14 and 15 be of the same sort of scale? (in terms of the amount of energy). I doubt it.
there is also overlap from water at 14-15. In fact if you look at it carefully then you would notice that only a very small corner of earth’s radiation is cut away by the presence of CO2. I think not much bigger then the bump in the sun’s radiation caused by the CO2 at around 2 um. (causing cooling). Again, if these graphs from the sun and earth are at the same sort of scale? I doubt it.
But what this graph definitly shows very clearly is the enormous effect of ozone. On its own it seems to cut away about 15 to 20% of sunshine, because this is where the sun’s intensity is the highest.
Assuming that the net effect of ozone is a bit more cooling rather than warming and that CO2 is slightly warming more than cooling , then my point is (and was): surely the increase in ozone over the past decade (10-14%) more than offsets the increase in CO2?
I don’t want to sound alarmist, but perhaps if anything, should we not be getting worried about ozone going too high, causing global cooling?
Henry Pool;
I don’t want to sound alarmist, but perhaps if anything, should we not be getting worried about ozone going too high, causing global cooling?>>
I’m not a spectroscopy guy, but I think the points you raise are pretty interesting. Will start watching for some articles. On ozone, I can put your mind to rest.
Some of the UV spectrum destroys Ozone. Some of the UV spectrum destroys oxygen and turns it into Ozone. But Ozone acts as a filter for UV, and the Oxygen layer is below the Ozone. So… at the top of the Ozone layer, Ozone is always being destroyed. At the bottom, Ozone is always being created. When the Ozone layer thickens, it filters out more UV and so the rate of production goes down, eventually thinning the Ozone layer again. If the Ozone layer thins, the amount of UV that gets through rises, and the rate of Ozone production goes up. End result is that the Ozone layer fluctuates in a very narrow self regulating range.
What about the holes? At a sharp inclination to the Sun over the poles, the system favours depletion. The UV has to come through the atmosphere at an angle, so the rate of destruction is a bit lower, but the rate of creation increased. As you increase in altitude, you eventually hit a spot where the UV rays pass through the ozone layer, but “over the top” of the Oxygen layer, so Ozone is being destroyed but none is being created. In summer, with the earth tilted toward the Sun, the angle changes and Ozone starts to recover. Since the earth’s orbit is eliptical, and we are farthest from the Sun during the Antarctic summer, the Antarctic has a weaker recovery and so a larger hole forms.
davidmhoffer :
May 21, 2010 at 8:49 am
A very helpful description of the ozone cycle there.
A short time ago Leif directed me to a link that proposed that positive polar oscillations increased ozone destruction. Can you fit that into your description ?
I think the the cooling stratosphere and falling ozone of the late 20th century might have occurred because the positive polar oscillations caused by the active sun swung the balance towards net ozone destruction which would get CFCs off the hook.
Stephen Wilde;
A short time ago Leif directed me to a link that proposed that positive polar oscillations increased ozone destruction. Can you fit that into your description ?>>
I would think that any polar oscillations would change inclination and hence impact rates of production and destruction. How much? No idea. The other factor would be fluctuations in UV from the Sun. Changes in intensity of either the production wavelengths or the destruction wavelengths would change the equilibrium thickness. Hmmmm… has anyone tried to relate sun spots to ozone levels?
davidmhoffer May18
I have not had time to check your calculations from IPCC sources you quote. Give me a bit of time to get to it. There are such a range of unknowns in the feedback arguments that I find it more understandable to look at the OHC discussions and the very simple proposition that for the first law to hold, energy must be conserved.
With atmosphere and land holding small amounts of heat compared with the oceans, the integral of any TOA energy flux imbalance (if it exists) should show up in the oceans via a change in OHC. I see today’s discussion in SS involving a new article by Dr Trenberth still has not found ‘the missing heat’ – and the last 6 years or so show a flat OHC or even slightly falling, based on the best Argo analyses.
Of course mechanisms to transfer heat into the oceans are problematic in the short run.
I have proposed that shifting the main global cloud bands a few hundred miles towards or away from the equator would make a sizeable difference to global albedo and thus the amount of energy entering the oceans.
That alone could explain the so called ‘missing heat’ because those cloud bands started shifting equatorward around 2000 and have since progressed quite some distance latitudinally.
That would be a neat explanation for the currently declining OHC and also for the increased OHC in the late 20th century when the cloud bands were much more poleward.
Henry@Stephen Fisher (& David)
Stephen, I like that proposal, I think it has to do with the angle of incoming light? If the clouds are more towards the middle (the equator) more light is deflected than if it were more towards the poles? But what process would drive the clouds more towards the equator??
I posed a question previously, don’t you think then it would e interesting for us to find out what the difference is in the radiation curve from the top of the atmosphere to below at sea level a) when it is cloudless and b) when it is overcast. Any ideas on that??
Has no one any results on that?