By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
I am often amused by claims that we understand Earth’s climate system, are able to accurately measure its behavior, eliminate all potential variables except CO2 as the primary driver of Earth’s temperature and make predictions of Earth’s temperature decades into the future, all with a high degree of confidence. I have been studying Earth’s climate system for several years and have found it to be a ridiculously complex, continually evolving and sometimes chaotic beast. Furthermore, our understanding of Earth’s climate system is currently rudimentary at best, our measurement capabilities are limited and our historical record is laughably brief. To help demonstrate the complexity of Earth’s climate system I have been compiling a list of all of the variables potentially involved in Earth’s climate system. This is a work in progress so additions, recommendations, corrections, questions etc. are most welcome. Once I develop this further and polish it up a bit I plan to convert it into a new WUWT Reference Page.
UPDATED: This list has undergone significant revisions and improvements based upon crowdsourcing the input of an array of very intelligent and knowledgeable contributors below. Additionally, this list was posted in comments in WUWT a few times previously, receiving input from a number of other very intelligent and knowledgeable contributors. This thread, along with links to the precursor threads below, will thus serve as the bibliography for the forthcoming WUWT Potential Climatic Variables reference page (unless someone can up with a better name for it…:)
1. Earth’s Rotational Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html
results in day and night;
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_rotation_cause_day_and_night
causes the Coriolis Effect;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect
imparts Planetary Vorticity on the oceans;
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter12/chapter12_01.htm
and manifests as Ocean Gyres;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_gyre
the Antarctic Circumpolar Current;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conveyor_belt.svg
Arctic Ocean Circulation;
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=47170&ct=61&article=20727
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/flows.jpg
can result in the formation of Polynya;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya
and causes the Equatorial Bulge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge
Earth’s Rotational Energy influences Atmospheric Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation
including the Jet Stream;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream
Westerlies;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westerlies
Tradewinds;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_wind
Geostrophic Wind;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostrophic_wind
Surface Currents;
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/ocean_currents.html h
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_current
through Ekman Transport;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_transport
http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/ocean-in-motion.htm
Tropical Cyclones;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
Tornadoes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado
and Polar Vortices;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
which “are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”
http://www.universetoday.com/973/what-venus-and-saturn-have-in-common/
Here’s an animation of the Arctic Polar Vortex in Winter 2008 – 09:
When a Polar Vortex breaks down it causes a Sudden Stratospheric Warming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_stratospheric_warming
Earth’s Rotational Energy influences Plate Tectonics;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
“By analyzing the minute changes in travel times and wave shapes for each doublet, the researchers concluded that the Earth’s inner core is rotating faster than its surface by about 0.3-0.5 degrees per year.
That may not seem like much, but it’s very fast compared to the movement of the Earth’s crust, which generally slips around only a few centimeters per year compared to the mantle below, said Xiaodong Song, a geologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an author on the study.
http://www.livescience.com/9313-earth-core-rotates-faster-surface-study-confirms.html
The surface movement is called plate tectonics. It involves the shifting of about a dozen major plates and is what causes most earthquakes”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake
Volcanoes;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
and Mountain Formation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_formation
which can influence the creation of Atmospheric Waves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_wave
Lastly, Rotational Energy is the primary driver of Earth’s Dynamo;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
which generates Earth’s Magnetic Field;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
and is primarily responsible for the Earthy behaviors of the Magnetosphere;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere
with certain secular variations in Earth’s magnetic field originating from ocean flow/circulation;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090622-earths-core-dynamo.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/6/063015/fulltext
though Leif Svalgaard notes that these are minor variations, as the magnetic field originating from ocean flow/circulation “is 1000 times smaller than the main field generated in the core.”
Also of note, “Over millions of years, [Earth’s] rotation is significantly slowed by gravitational interactions with the Moon: see tidal acceleration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
“The presence of the moon (which has about 1/81 the mass of the Earth), is slowing Earth’s rotation and lengthening the day by about 2 ms every one hundred years.”
“However some large scale events, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, have caused the rotation to speed up by around 3 microseconds.[21] Post-glacial rebound, ongoing since the last Ice age, is changing the distribution of the Earth’s mass thus affecting the Moment of Inertia of the Earth and, by the Conservation of Angular Momentum, the Earth’s rotation period.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation
2. Orbital Energy, Orbital Period, Elliptical Orbits (Eccentricity), Tilt (Obliquity) and Wobble (Axial precession):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_orbital_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synodic
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html
creates Earth’s seasons;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
which drives annual changes in Arctic Sea Ice;
and Antarctic Sea Ice;
the freezing and melting of which helps to drive the Thermohaline Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
and can result in the formation of Polynyas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya
Earth’s orbit around the Sun, Earth’s tilt, Earth’s wobble and the Moon’s orbit around Earth, Earth’s Rotation, and the gravity of the Moon, Sun and Earth, act in concert to determine the constantly evolving Tidal Force on Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
This Tidal Force is influenced by variations in Lunar Orbit;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
as seen in the Lunar Phases;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase
Lunar Precession;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_precession
Lunar Node;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_node
Saros cycles;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_cycle
and Inex cycles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inex
The combined cycles of the Saros and Inex Cycles can be visualized here:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/SEpanoramaGvdB-big.JPG
Over longer time frames changes to Earth’s orbit, tilt and wobble called Milankovitch cycles;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
may be responsible for the periods of Glaciation (Ice Ages);
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm
that Earth has experienced for the last several million years of its climatic record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
Also of note, over very long time frames, “the Moon is spiraling away from Earth at an average rate of 3.8 cm per year”;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28astronomy%29
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124
3. Gravitation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
The gravity of the Moon, Sun and Earth, Earth’s rotation, Earth’s orbit around the Sun, Earth’s tilt, Earth’s wobble and the Moon’s orbit around Earth act in concert to determine the constantly evolving Tidal Force on Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
This tidal force results in that result in Earth’s Ocean Tide;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
http://www.themcdonalds.net/richard/astro/papers/602-tides-web.pdf
Atmospheric Tide;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide
and Magma Tide:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7005r0273703250/
Earth’s Gravity;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Gravitational_or_buoyant_convection
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=205
in concert with Tidal Forces, influence Earth’s Ocean Circulation;
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ocean_circulation
which influences Oceanic Oscillations including El Niño/La Niña;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Decadal_Oscillation
the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation
the Indian_Ocean_Dipole (IOD)/Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO) and;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole
can result in the formation of Polynyas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya
Gravity Waves;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave
which may be partially responsible for the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-biennial_oscillation
“on an air–sea interface are called surface gravity waves or Surface Waves”;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_wave
“while internal gravity waves are called Inertial Waves”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_waves
“Rosby Waves;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossby_waves
Geostrophic Currents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostrophic
and Geostrophic Wind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostrophic_wind
are examples of inertial waves. Inertial waves are also likely to exist in the core of the Earth”
Earth’s gravity is the primary driver of Plate Tectonics;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
“The Slab Pull;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_pull
force is a tectonic plate force due to subduction. Plate motion is partly driven by the weight of cold, dense plates sinking into the mantle at trenches. This force and the slab suction force account for most of the overall force acting on plate tectonics, and the Ridge Push;
force accounts for 5 to 10% of the overall force.”
Plate Tectonics drive “cycles of ocean basin growth and destruction, known as Wilson cycles;
http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/fichter/Wilson/Wilson.html
involving continental rifting;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rift
seafloor-spreading;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading
subduction;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction
and collision.”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_collision
“Climate change on ultra-long time scales (tens of millions of years) are more than likely connected to plate tectonics.”
“Through the course of a Wilson cycle continents collide and split apart, mountains are uplifted and eroded, and ocean basins open and close. The re-distribution and changing size and elevation of continental land masses may have caused climate change on long time scales”;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
a process called the Supercontinent Cycle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle
Earth’s gravity is responsible for Katabatic Wind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind
4. Solar Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
results is Solar Radiation/Sunlight;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
which varies based upon 11 and 22 year cycles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI);
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarirrad.html
appears to fluctuate “by approximately 0.1% or about 1.3 Watts per square meter (W/m2) peak-to-trough during the 11-year sunspot cycle”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
Solar Energy also drives the Hydrological/Water Cycle;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrological_cycle
within the Hydrosphere;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrosphere
as Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) causes evaporation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation
that drives cloud formation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud
results in precipitation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_%28meteorology%29
that results in the Water Distribution on Earth;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_distribution_on_Earth
creates surface runoff;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runoff_%28water%29
which result in rivers;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River
and drives erosion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion
Solar energy is also “The driving force behind atmospheric circulation is solar energy, which heats the atmosphere with different intensities at the equator, the middle latitudes, and the poles.”
http://www.scienceclarified.com/As-Bi/Atmospheric-Circulation.html
Atmospheric Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation
includes Hadley Cells;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
Ferrel Cells;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation#Ferrel_cell
Polar Cells;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_cells
and Polar Vortexes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_cells
all of which help to create Wind;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind
that influence Surface Currents;
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/ocean_currents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_current
through Ekman Transport;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_transport
http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/ocean-in-motion.htm
and also cause Langmuir circulations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langmuir_circulation
Solar energy is also a driver of the Brewer-Dobson Circulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewer-Dobson_circulation
Atmospheric Waves;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_wave
including Atmospheric Tides
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide
as well as evaporation and condensation may help to drive changes in Atmospheric Pressure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/24015/2010/acpd-10-24015-2010.pdf
Solar Ultraviolet (UV) radiation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet
appears to vary by approximately 10% during the solar cycle;
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html
has been hypothesized to influence Earth’s climate;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/
however Leif Svalgaard argues that,
This is well-trodden ground. Nothing new to add, just the same old, tired arguments. Perhaps a note on EUV: as you can see here (slide 13)
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/S1_03_Kopp.pdf the energy in the EUV band [and other UV bands] is very tiny; many orders of magnitude less than what shines down on our heads each day. So a larger solar cycle variation of EUV does not make any significant difference in the energy budget.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/#comment-636477
Additionally variations in Ultraviolet (UV) radiation may influence the break down of Methane;
(Source TBD)
Infrared Radiation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
Solar – Wind;
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/
Solar – Coronal Holes;
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/chole.html
Solar – Solar Energetic Particles (SEP);
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/sep.html
Solar – Coronal Mass Ejection;
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMF75BNJTF_index_0.html
http://www.ratedesi.com/video/v/8AuCE_NNEaM/Sun-Erupts-to-Life-Unleashes-a-Huge-CME-on-13-April-2010
Solar Magnetosphere Breach;
Solar Polar Field Reversal;
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast15feb_1/
Solar Sector Boundary;
http://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/focus-areas/magnetosphere-ionosphere/
Grand Minimum;
Leif Svalgaard says: February 6, 2011 at 8:26 pm
If L&P are correct and sunspots become effectively] invisible [not gone] it might mean another Grand Minimum lasting perhaps 50 years. During this time the solar cycle is still operating, cosmic rays are still modulated, and the solar wind is still buffeting the Earth.”
“It will lead to a cooling of a couple of tenths of a degree.”
Solar Influences on Climate:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009RG000282.pdf
Statistical issues about solar–climate relations
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Yiou-565-2010.pdf
5. Geothermal Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
influences Earth’s climate especially when released by Volcanoes;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
“which are generally found where tectonic plates are diverging;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_boundary
or converging”;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_boundary
however, “intraplate volcanism has also been postulated to be caused by mantle plumes”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_plume
“These so-called “hotspots”;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotspot_%28geology%29
for example Hawaii, are postulated to arise from upwelling diapirs;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapir
from the core-mantle boundary, 3,000 km deep in the Earth.”
Volcanoes have been shown to influence Earth’s climate;
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
including in the infamous Year Without a Summer;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
which was partially caused by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora
and is called a Volcanic Winter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
“Volcanic Ash;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_ash
particles have a maximum residence time in the troposphere of a few weeks.
The finest Tephera;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tephra
remain in the stratosphere for only a few months, they have only minor climatic effects, and they can be spread around the world by high-altitude winds. This suspended material contributes to spectacular sunsets.
“The greatest volcanic impact upon the earth’s short term weather patterns is caused by sulfur dioxide gas;”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide
“In the cold lower atmosphere, it is converted to Sulfuric Acid;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid
sulfuric acid by the sun’s rays reacting with stratospheric water vapor to form sulfuric acid aerosol layers. The aerosol remains in suspension long after solid ash particles have fallen to earth and forms a layer of sulfuric acid droplets between 15 to 25 kilometers up. Fine ash particles from an eruption column fall out too quickly to significantly cool the atmosphere over an extended period of time, no matter how large the eruption.
Sulfur aerosols last many years, and several historic eruptions show a good correlation of sulfur dioxide layers in the atmosphere with a decrease in average temperature decrease of subsequent years. The close correlation was first established after the 1963 eruption of Agung volcano in Indonesia when it was found that sulfur dioxide reached the stratosphere and stayed as a sulfuric acid aerosol.
Without replenishment, the sulfuric acid aerosol layer around the earth is gradually depleted, but it is renewed by each eruption rich in sulfur dioxide. This was confirmed by data collected after the eruptions of El Chichon, Mexico (1982) and Pinatubo, Philippines (1991), both of which were high-sulfur compound carriers like Agung, Indonesia.”
http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm
There is also some evidence that if “volcanic activity was high enough, then a water vapor anomaly would be introduced into the lower stratosphere before the anomaly due to the previous eruption had disappeared. The result would be threefold in the long term: stratospheric cooling, stratospheric humidification, and surface warming due to the positive radiative forcing associated with the water vapor.”
See: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C3525%3AAGSOVE%3E2.0.CO%3B2#h1
Geothermic Energy can also warm the atmosphere through Hot Springs;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_springs
Or warm the ocean through Hydrothermal Vents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent
Which can be a factor in Hydrothermal Circulations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_circulation
6. Outer Space/Cosmic/Galactic Influences;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
including Asteroids;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid
Meteorites;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite
and Comets;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet
can all significantly impact Earth’s climate upon impact.
It has been hypothesized that Galactic Cosmic Rays;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_cosmic_ray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
modulated by Solar Wind, may influence cloud formation on Earth:
Galactic Magnetic Fields also result in the;
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields
Galactic Tide;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_tide
which may influence the hypothesized Oort cloud;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_Cloud
“Besides the galactic tide, the main trigger for sending comets into the inner Solar System is believed to be interaction between the Sun’s Oort cloud and the gravitational fields of near-by stars or giant molecular clouds.”
7. Magnetic Forces;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
Earth Core Changes:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42580
“appears to be generated in the Earth’s core by a dynamo process, associated with the circulation of liquid metal in the core, driven by internal heat sources”
impact the Magnetosphere;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere
including movement of the Geomagnetic Poles:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/GeomagneticPoles.shtml
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091224-north-pole-magnetic-russia-earth-core.html
8. Atmospheric Composition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
Nitrogen (N2) represents approximately 780,840 ppmv or 78.084% of Earth’s Atmosphere;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen
Oxygen (O2) represents approximately 209,460 ppmv or 20.946%;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen
Argon (Ar) represents approximately 9,340 ppmv or 0.9340%;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) represents approximately 390 ppmv or 0.039%;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
contributes to the Greenhouse Effect;
?
and
influences the rate of Plant Growth;
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm
Neon (Ne) represents approximately18.18 ppmv or 0.001818%;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon
Helium (He) represents approximately 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium
Krypton (Kr) represents approximately 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypton
Methane (CH4) represents approximately 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
contributes to the Greenhouse Effect;
?
Hydrogen (H2) represents approximately 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) represents approximately 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide
contributes to the Greenhouse Effect;
?
Ozone (O3) represents approximately 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) represents approximately 0.02 ppmv (2×10−6%) (0.000002%);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide
Iodine (I2) represents approximately 0.01 ppmv (1×10−6%) (0.000001%) and;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine
Ammonia (NH3) represents a trace amount of Earth’s Atmosphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia
Additional atmosphere components includes Water vapor (H2O) that represents approximately 0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor;
Aerosols;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol
that “act as cloud condensation nuclei, they alter albedo (both directly and indirectly via clouds) and hence Earth’s radiation budget, and they serve as catalysts of or sites for atmospheric chemistry reactions.”
“Aerosols play a critical role in the formation of clouds;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds
Clouds form as parcels of air cool and the water vapor in them condenses, forming small liquid droplets of water. However, under normal circumstances, these droplets form only where there is some “disturbance” in the otherwise “pure” air. In general, aerosol particles provide this “disturbance”. The particles around which cloud droplets coalesce are called cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) or sometimes “cloud seeds”. Amazingly, in the absence of CCN, air containing water vapor needs to be “supersaturated” to a humidity of about 400% before droplets spontaneously form! So, in almost all circumstances, aerosols play a vital role in the formation of clouds.”
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/aerosol_cloud_nucleation_dimming.html
Particulates;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates
including Soot/Black Carbon;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon
Sand;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand
Dust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust
“Volcanic Ash;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_ash
particles have a maximum residence time in the troposphere of a few weeks.
The finest Tephera;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tephra
remain in the stratosphere for only a few months, they have only minor climatic effects, and they can be spread around the world by high-altitude winds. This suspended material contributes to spectacular sunsets.
The major climate influence from volcanic eruptions is caused by gaseous sulfur compounds, chiefly Sulfur Dioxide;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide
which reacts with OH and water in the stratosphere to create sulfate aerosols with a residence time of about 2–3 years.”
“Emission rates of [Sulfur Dioxide] SO2 from an active volcano range from 10 million tonnes/day according to the style of volcanic activity and type and volume of magma involved. For example, the large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991 expelled 3-5 km3 of dacite magma and injected about 20 million metric tons of SO2 into the stratosphere. The sulfur aerosols resulted in a 0.5-0.6°C cooling of the Earth’s surface in the Northern Hemisphere.”
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
“The 1815 eruption [of Mount Tambora] is rated 7 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index, the only such eruption since the Lake Taupo eruption in about 180 AD. With an estimated ejecta volume of 160 cubic kilometers, Tambora’s 1815 outburst was the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history.”
“The eruption created global climate anomalies that included the phenomenon known as “volcanic winter”;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
1816 became known as the “Year Without a Summer”;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
because of the effect on North American and European weather. Agricultural crops failed and livestock died in much of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in the worst famine of the 19th century.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora
“In the spring and summer of 1816, a persistent “dry fog” was observed in the northeastern US. The fog reddened and dimmed the sunlight, such that sunspots were visible to the naked eye. Neither wind nor rainfall dispersed the “fog”. It has been characterized as a stratospheric sulfate aerosol veil.”
“The greatest volcanic impact upon the earth’s short term weather patterns is caused by sulfur dioxide gas;”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide
“In the cold lower atmosphere, it is converted to Sulfuric Acid;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid
sulfuric acid by the sun’s rays reacting with stratospheric water vapor to form sulfuric acid aerosol layers. The aerosol remains in suspension long after solid ash particles have fallen to earth and forms a layer of sulfuric acid droplets between 15 to 25 kilometers up. Fine ash particles from an eruption column fall out too quickly to significantly cool the atmosphere over an extended period of time, no matter how large the eruption.
Sulfur aerosols last many years, and several historic eruptions show a good correlation of sulfur dioxide layers in the atmosphere with a decrease in average temperature decrease of subsequent years. The close correlation was first established after the 1963 eruption of Agung volcano in Indonesia when it was found that sulfur dioxide reached the stratosphere and stayed as a sulfuric acid aerosol.
Without replenishment, the sulfuric acid aerosol layer around the earth is gradually depleted, but it is renewed by each eruption rich in sulfur dioxide. This was confirmed by data collected after the eruptions of El Chichon, Mexico (1982) and Pinatubo, Philippines (1991), both of which were high-sulfur compound carriers like Agung, Indonesia.”
http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm
There is also some evidence that if “volcanic activity was high enough, then a water vapor anomaly would be introduced into the lower stratosphere before the anomaly due to the previous eruption had disappeared. The result would be threefold in the long term: stratospheric cooling, stratospheric humidification, and surface warming due to the positive radiative forcing associated with the water vapor.”
See: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C3525%3AAGSOVE%3E2.0.CO%3B2#h1
9. Albedo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
“or reflection coefficient, is the diffuse reflectivity or reflecting power of a surface. It is defined as the ratio of reflected radiation from the surface to incident radiation upon it. Being a dimensionless fraction, it may also be expressed as a percentage, and is measured on a scale from zero for no reflecting power of a perfectly black surface, to 1 for perfect reflection of a white surface.”
Clouds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds
Aerosols
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol
“act as cloud condensation nuclei, they alter albedo (both directly and indirectly via clouds) and hence Earth’s radiation budget, and they serve as catalysts of or sites for atmospheric chemistry reactions.”
“Aerosols play a critical role in the formation of clouds. Clouds form as parcels of air cool and the water vapor in them condenses, forming small liquid droplets of water. However, under normal circumstances, these droplets form only where there is some “disturbance” in the otherwise “pure” air. In general, aerosol particles provide this “disturbance”. The particles around which cloud droplets coalesce are called cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) or sometimes “cloud seeds”. Amazingly, in the absence of CCN, air containing water vapor needs to be “supersaturated” to a humidity of about 400% before droplets spontaneously form! So, in almost all circumstances, aerosols play a vital role in the formation of clouds.”
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/aerosol_cloud_nucleation_dimming.html
Snow
Ice
Water
Particulates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates
Soot/Black Carbon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon
Algae (Ocean Surface)
10. Biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology
“Phototrophs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoautotroph
are the organisms (usually plants) that carry out photosynthesis;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
to acquire energy. They use the energy from sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into organic materials to be utilized in cellular functions such as biosynthesis and respiration.” “In plants, algae, and cyanobacteria, photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product.”
Chemoautotrophs;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotroph
are “organisms that obtain carbon through Chemosynthesis;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis
are phylogenetically diverse, but groups that include conspicuous or biogeochemically-important taxa include the sulfur-oxidizing gamma and epsilon proteobacteria, the Aquificaeles, the Methanogenic archaea and the neutrophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria.”
Bacteria – TBD
Fungi – TBD
Protozoa – TBD
Chromista – TBD
Animal – Anthropogenic including:
Carbon Dioxide;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
contributes to the Greenhouse Effect;
?
and
influences the rate of plant growth ;
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm
Methane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
Nitrous Oxide
Ozone
Particulates, especially Black Carbon/Soot
Aerosols
Icebreakers/Arctic Shipping/Fishing/Cruise-Line Transits
Contrails
Nuclear Power Generation – Including Ships
Land Use Changes – Including De and Re-Forestation
Urban Heat Islands
Run Off From Asphalt/Urban Heat Islands
Fossil Fuel Energy Generation Waste Heat –
Renewables – Wind Farms, Solar Arrays, Dams and Ethanol
Sewage/Wastewater Treatment Discharge
etc.
Animal – Non-Anthropogenic including
Plankton
Beaver (Genus Castor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver
etc.
11. Chemical
Fossil Fuels:
Coal
Oil shale
Petrochemicals
– Petroleum
– Mineral Oil
Asphalt
Tar Pits/Sands
Methane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
etc.
“Photosynthesis;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
is a chemical process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.”
“Chemosynthesis;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis
is the biological conversion of one or more carbon molecules (usually carbon dioxide or methane) and nutrients into organic matter using the oxidation of inorganic molecules (e.g. hydrogen gas, hydrogen sulfide) or methane as a source of energy, rather than sunlight, as in photosynthesis.”
Reactions:
Combustion
– Forest Fires
– Fossil Fuels
– – Methane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
etc.
Conversion of Methane, CO2, etc.
12. Physics – Other
Temperature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature
Pressure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure
States of Matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter
Heat Conduction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_conduction
Convection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection
Thermal Radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
Thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
-Entropy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
General summaries of the potential variables involved in Earth’s climate system;
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatfactors.pdf
Nice summary, just one suggestion for additional info regarding the non-linear properties of the materials involved in the climate system;
http://profmaster.blogspot.com/2009/01/thermal-conductivity-of-air-vs.html (sorry I’m not able to post this as a link so you will need to copy and paste)
Where we find this (empirically derived) model for the thermal conductivity of air;
k = 1.5207 x 10^(-11) x T^3 – 4.8574 x 10^(-8) x T^2 + 1.0184 x 10^(-4) x T – 0.00039333
Where k is in W/m/K
and T is in K
The range of use is T = 100 to 1600 K
Does anybody think that non-linear thermal properties of the materials in the climatic system MIGHT make it just a TINY LITTLE BIT COMPLEX ? Oh, and they vary with pressure as well.
So there are probably a few hundred to a thousand inputs to any “computer model” of the climate, think if one or two are off by a tad the outcome might disagree with the empirical evidence ?
In aerospace engineering FEM (Finite Element Modeling) has been used to predict the strength of airframes (airplane bodies and wings) with great success. The number of inputs;
1 – the stress/strain response of the materials (mostly aluminum and carbon composites)
2 – the force applied
3 – the number of “mesh” points, this is the number of discrete points on the computer model where the calculations are performed (usually hundreds of thousands or millions)
A Factor of Safety (FOS = predicted strength/required strength) of 1.5 to 2.0 is used for things live people will ride in.
That means that the computer models we rely on for everyday engineering feats are ASSUMED TO BE WRONG BY 50 to 100%.
In the engineering field we have a saying; “If your hardware does not perform as your model predicted, you must improve your MODEL!!!”
And the climate models can tell us the temperature in 2100 within a few tenth’s of a degree, sure they can……
Cheers, Kevin
The whole point is to counter AGW as sound bite: “It’s the CO2.” “No, it’s far more complicated, and we don’t know as yet the proper weighting of the many factors which produce climate — check this out.”
Very useful list, clearly demonstrating the unbelievable arrogance and ignorance of IPCC.
Just two comments:
1) I didn’t notice mentioned a crucial “CO2 increase = vegetation growth” feedback mechanism (increase of CO2 absorption by the plants due to the increase of plants’ growth due to the increase of CO2 content in the atmosphere), which negates any alleged increase of temperature due to the increase of CO2. May be it was included in some already listed category, I don’t know.
2) Special references to Dr. Svalgaard’s opinions are unnecessary; they don’t deserve any special consideration or exposure.
This is a good post in that it records a lot of influences which have, without doubt, complicated cross-influences that altogether bring about the final result. It is, however, more of an argument for a warmist, specialist or elitist superiority in understanding or opinion, similar to one some of our post-war parents might have said to us as teenagers: what do you know? they (the government, the scientists, adults) know more than you do.
It is a fallacy that very complicated systems require very long study and detailed investigation to understand their probable output. As a discussion in Science News magazine (June 4/2011, Simple Heresy pp 26 – 29), simple rules of thumb can often be better predictors of outcome than complex mathematical models – a lesson the AAAS might well apply to the IPCC and their climate models (but which they, in their thrall of the IPCC/Mann, don’t apply).
In a previous WWUT post someone (I apologize in not knowing who) pointed out that the IPCC climate models, is considered as a “black box” in which much data goes in one side and a result comes out the other, can be back-engineered or back-modelled into several very, very simple mathematical relationships that connect global temperatures to CO2 levels. Not that we agree with this, but the point is well made: in even very complex models or proceses, only a few factors may be critical. Some, if not most, of climatic systems on the Earth appear to be either buffered by other systems or cancel each other out to the largest extent. This is not an unusual situation at all: think of your car’s engine running. Out of all the possible things that can go wrong and stop you in the middle of zombie-country at midnight, if you attend to the air, spark and fuel, you’ve probably attended to what is the problem. A split manifold or short-circuited motherboard may be the problem, as meteorite impacts or Washington-State level volcanic eruptions may be the reason the world went cold/warm, but those three things probably are what you should pay attention to.
The Earth’s climate is fundamentally the result of energy coming to the planet, energy reflected away from the planet, energy reaching theatmosphere/surface, and the in-place systems of moving the energy around the planet. These are the biggies. To believe that the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a fundamental component is to believe that the system is inherently unstable. Our geological history shows that the system, though with episodes of high warmth and high cooling, is not inherently unstable. Things change, and stay changed for a long time. The rapid movement from glacial to interglacial states and back again do not display unstable tipping points but stable shifts. It is not the minutest of parameters that change and induce a major shift; it if were there would be many, many shifts and the movement from one to another would show the back-and-forth nature of a controlling parameter not-yet stable in its new configuration.
So, to come back to the point of this post, that the climate of Earth has many factors of which we are truly ignorant in their details and there interconnections, there is complete truth in this point. Those – like Mann, Trenberth, Gore, Suzuki, who claim to Know how things work on the planet, and how things will turn out, are, in fact, in egomanical self-idolatrous delusion, or simply using their doctorates and jargon to bafflegab and awe the rest of us. But as to the necessity of knowing a great deal about each factor and its influence on the others before a reasonable conclusion can be made, I suggest that the post is somewhat off.
The science blogs such as WUWT depend on the acceptance of what has been in legal circles called the Reasonable Man Hypothesis. The RMH suggests that, with a reasonable amount of knowledge, analytical ability and life-world experience, a non-expert can get the sense of what is going on and make a sound judgement of what action should be pursued on that basis. The gentleman-scholar of the 19th century understood this particularly well, for our benefit, for that is what the Darwins of the age were about: looking, thinking and judging carefully with the brain and thinking ability that God, they would have said, gave them. It is what we all do when we look at the GISTemp graph and wonder why it has such time and location sensitive warming biasis in it, and why the sea-level data took a sudden spike at the onset of satellite (TOPEX) observation, and then leveled off relative to the pre-satellite (pre-2002) times. We don’t know how satellites work, exactly, but we can see things that look suspiciously like data manipulations we have seen previously, understand the concept of perfectly, and wish answers for outside of what wavelength was being used at what specific height about the sea.
Complexity does not devolve into simplicity, but simplicity evolves, it appears, from complexity in the real-world. Chaos theory is great in theory but butterflies flapping in China do not actually cause hurricanes off of east Africa. The world survives because stability, rather than instability, dominates in the universe (catastrophic events notwithstanding). We have evolved, and the planet – including the crust – has become what it is because systems tend towards continuity, not disconuity. Perhaps Einstein would say his comment that “God does not play dice” applies to the way the climate system functions as well as how quantum physics governs the cosmos, despite how it works on an individual basis.
Ignorance of detail can be a killer, if, for example, you don’t know how long the fuse is you just lit. Knowledge of detail can also be a killer if, for example, you are busy calculating the length of fuse and speed of fuse-burning without considering that the fuse is coiled and will go straight to the explosive once lit. The climate argument of the IPCC is that detail is king, and only they, the experts, have a handle on all those fine points. The climate argument of the skeptics, on the other hand, is that few components count, and that you can determine within reasonable limits the power of those components from basic principles IN CONJUNTION WITH the understanding that the climate, as the world and universe, tends towards stability, not instability.
Whatever the outcome of this CAGW debate (I’d say foolishness, but that shows my position), a huge number of people are becoming accustomed to thinking for themselves. And educating themselves to the extent that they need. We all know the adage about not needing to be a weatherman to know the way the wind is blowing. The climate debate is teaching an entire thinking world that they can, with some effort, determine the reasonableness of what is going on without having to own a closetful of white coats.
All of this thinking and discussing and disagreeing is a very good thing. The power structures do not now like it. It messes us the AlGore sainthood processes, if not their bank accounts. Complex affairs are amenable to review by the non-illuminati. The illuminati are right in that the subject is worthy of many volumes of research, but the rest of us are right in that the pudding is tested in its abstract rather than its body.
“however Leif argues that,
This is well-trodden ground. Nothing new to add, just the same old, tired arguments. Perhaps a note on EUV: as you can see here (slide 13)
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/S1_03_Kopp.pdf the energy in the EUV band [and other UV bands] is very tiny; many orders of magnitude less than what shines down on our heads each day. So a larger solar cycle variation of EUV does not make any significant difference in the energy budget.
Leif Svalgaard says: April 5, 2011 at 7:54 pm”
Thanyou I am now trying to understand slide 13 compared to this:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/506268main_sorce4b.jpg
and this:
http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-methane-mystery.html
Also The heat from radioactive decay does not seem to be counted in any of the radiative balance charts. is it about 0.8 W/M^2?
I have always wondered why scientists had to go to grad school! Now we know! Now it is clear why people with little training are so easily confused.
Hello Just the Facts,
Your statement in the first paragraph, “I have been studying Earth’s climate system for several years and have found it to be a ridiculously complex, continually evolving and sometimes chaotic beast,” is incorrect. The closing phrase should read, “and always chaotic beast.”
The form of the partial differential equations that need to be solved in order to understand the aerodynamics of the atmosphere ALWAYS result in chaotic behavior. Small deviations in initial conditions, choice of grid construction and time steps will result in markedly different model predictions.
This is just the beginning of the climatological mathematical problems. We have to consider atmospheric H2O distributions, phase changes and associated thermodynamic implications. There is particulate distribution tracking and its implications in providing nucleation sources for H2O condensation. There are also chemical processes at work in the atmosphere, such as methane (CH4) conversion to CO2 in the presence of O2 and sunlight. [I could continue to go on for pages, but will stop here.]
As an aerospace engineer with years of computational fluid dynamics modeling experience, I have to laugh every time I hear about another weather or climate model. Aerodynamics modeling to this day still has problems predicting measures as basic as aircraft drag. How can they believe that the movement of the atmosphere can be predicted/solved with any confidence?
Thanks for the article,
wermet
[Note for full disclosure: while I am still a practicing aerospace engineer, I have not been personally involved in computational aerodynamic modeling for about a decade. However, I am still track of the capabilities of the state of the arts in this field.]
oh come on! the science is settled…
absolutely fascinating just how complete this is…
no one makes these claims. Anyone who works in the field understands that observation systems both historical and current need improvement. If you would attend, say AGU conferences, you would see that the people working in the area are constantly asking for more measurement programs. And No one suggests that C02 is the primary driver, Mike Hulme, of CRU fame recently gave a talk about C02 contributing less than 50% of the human induced forcing, AR4 even has charts showing all the know factors. And nobody suggests the predictions ( actually projections) have a high degree of accuracy.
Strawman.
To Wermet,
Exactly correct, these folks don’t even have a clue about how much they do not know….
I would much rather calculate how many angel’s would fit on the tip of a pin than attempt to predict the temperature in one hundred years………
I have been humbled many times when what I built did not perform as my model said it should, and I was just working with electronic circuits and optics, stuff that we supposedly totally understand.
In my field the proof (aka “in the pudding”) is what the real hardware does, not what the computer says “SHOULD” happen. Funny that planes even manage to fly when I’m sure there is a computer model someplace that shows it is NOT POSSIBLE.
Cheers, Kevin
Just a fyi, I frequently go to the Smithsonian Large Holocene Eruptions page and then follow up by looking at the Find Eruptions By Date page and it is always telling. Then I try to look up what the corresponding solar cycle was doing at the time. Your imagination has to kinda take it from there because the eruption altitudes are missing. Like nowadays we are almost to 1930’s levels of eruptions and the weather is as wild as described in the early 1930’s. But the weather was wild entering the LIA as well. We could see something resembling first one then the other depending on the altitudes. Nabro continues to blow.
Watching the continuing Nabro eruption from space | Eruptions | Big Think
http://bigthink.com/ideas/39052
You could, as well, consider the computational complexity of the computer algorithm that accurately models climate change using all known and unknown inputs.
We already know that local weather prediction algorithms frequently fail 24 hours out into the future. They can fail 30 minutes out. Billions have been spent on the algorithms since the first one failed miserably. The climate modelers claim to have algorithms that accurately predict the entire global climate 1, 5, 50, and 100 years into the future.
The complexity of the algorithm that supports all of the known inputs above very likely exceeds all the computing power of all computers for all time combined, and would probably take millions of years just to move from one climate model moment to the next.
In computer science, complexity is measured using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation.
The algorithm (at the bottom of the page) used by weather.gov is an amazing O(1):
http://www.weather.gov/om/educ/activit/coffee.htm
Lorenz was right. Meanwhile I’m like a dog in a forest -too many knowledge trees to chose from.
Even spending 4 hrs a day on this post, it’ll take me a year to chase it all down. Thanks, justthefacts, for this labour of love, which will go down as the Thinking Person’s Guide to Climatology.
In the 19th century, Victorian age scientists were as convinced as modern mainstream climate scientists that they knew all there was to know. That all they had to do was tweak a few details and all would be revealed.
In the century since that time there have been more scientific discoveries made that in all off human history to that point combined. What we have come to understand is the the unknown unknowns, the things that we do not even realize we do not know, that there is an infinity of these discoveries before us. That the more we learn, the more questions there are.
Instead, climate science has bogged down on the idea that all we need to do is stop CO2 and all problems will be solved, that earth will be transformed into a paradise. This is a result of false logic. Most of the current problems stem from poverty and CO2 does nothing to fix this. It is a make believe solution to problems 100 years in the future, as an excuse for not dealing with today’s problems today.
Fix the todays problems today and the future will take care of itself.
steven mosher says:
June 30, 2011 at 9:21 pm
C’mon, Mosh. We know it isn’t the working scientist like yourself who makes these claims. It is the know-nothing bureaucrats at IPCC, at the NGOs, and the environmentalist wackos who don’t understand what’s going on who make these claims. Why else would they be saying “the science is settled?”
No strawman.
Earth’s Climate System Is Ridiculously Complex – With Draft Link Tutorial
Derek Sorensen says:
June 30, 2011 at 4:05 pm
The point is, you need to keep it short. Attention spans these days are vanishingly small – if that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t be in the fix we are today. Although I must say that even in the era I grew up in (60?s/70?s), your post would still have been TLDR.
QED
Which of the many factors you mention causes the big changes in climate between summer and winter in the higher latitudes?
Oops, correction, Nabro is now taking a break.
African Volcanic Eruption Ceases – Irish Weather Online
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/earthquakesvolcanos/african-volcanic-eruption-ceases/22224.html
But the one in Chile is still producing ash clouds.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/index.cfm?wvarweek=20110622#puyehue
Crops look a little better with the usda report. I’ve seen late plantings like this do alright.
Corn Plunges Most Since November, Wheat Falls as U.S. Reports Acreage Gain -Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/wheat-plunges-to-11-month-low-corn-drops-after-u-s-reports-acreage-gains.html
steven mosher says:
“If you would attend, say AGU conferences, you would see that the people working in the area are constantly asking for more measurement programs. And No one suggests that C02 is the primary driver…”
Oy way.
If you want to be taken seriously, Steven, you need to think before posting things that make people laugh at you.
“appears to be generated in the Earth’s core by a dynamo process, associated with the circulation of liquid metal in the core, driven by internal heat sources”
or could be generated by the movement of sea water:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090622-earths-core-dynamo.html
Justthefacts, this is wonderful work, thank you.
If you don’t mind I will send a hard copy to the UK government Chief Scientific Advisor. It’ll reduce him to tears.
My recent pet theory is that the whole idea of cooling from volcanoes may be wrong – their net effect may even be warming! What got me interested, is that the stratosphere showed a very clear stepwise cooling as an aftereffect of the stratospheric warming the El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions: http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/graphics/tls/plots/sc_Rss_compare_TS_channel_tls_v03_3.png
I was wondering if this was due to destruction of ozone as the atmosphere “cleaned itself” after the eruptions, but yesterday I found a paper that may offer an explanation: One longer-time effect of the volcano eruptions was increased stratospheric water vapor.
” If the frequency of volcanic activity was high enough, then a water vapor anomaly would be introduced into the lower stratosphere before the anomaly due to the previous eruption had disappeared. The result would be threefold in the long term: stratospheric cooling, stratospheric humidification, and surface warming due to the positive radiative forcing associated with the water vapor.”
See: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C3525%3AAGSOVE%3E2.0.CO%3B2#h1
So could part of the warming in the 80s and 90s actually be caused by – and only briefly counteracted by! – the El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions? I think so (but in the meantime AGW proponents are using volcano cooling for what it’s worth and even ignore the step change and talk about a downward “trend” in stratosphere temperatures as a “proof of AGW theory).
Just wanted to throw in yet another effect that may add to the complexity 😉
Thanks Justthefacts.
This will be a good addition to the WUWT reference pages.
Regards, Ágúst
With regard to the earth´s rotation causing plate tectonics, there are additional issues such as lithospheric convection and heat loss. Heat loss is achieved by so-called hot-spot volcanoes. Hawaii is an example on earth, whereas Mons Olympus is an example on Venus. On earth, in addition, the planet loses heat via plate tectonics, via lines of volcanoes at mid ocean ridges and at subduction zones (upwelling and downwelling limbs of convection respectively).
“endothermic photosynthesis (CO2 causing global cooling).”
Plus Chemosynthesis is also an endothermic.