Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
When I’m analyzing a system, I divide the variables into three categories—first-, second-, and third-order variables.
First-order variables are those variables that can change the system by more than 10%. Obviously, these must be included in any analysis of the system.
Second-order are those that can change the system by 1% to 10%. These are smaller, but still too large to overlook.
Finally, third-order variables are those than can change the system by less than 1%. These are small enough that they can be ignored in all but the most detailed analyses. To give you an idea of why we can neglect the third order variables, here’s how those three forcings would look on a graph, for an imaginary signal of say 500 W/m2.
Figure 1. Showing the relative sizes of first-, second-, and third-order variables.
Note that the series containing the third-order variable is almost invisibly different from the series where the third-order variable is left out, which is why third-order variables can be safely ignored except when you need extreme precision. So … what does this have to do with climate science?
Let’s do the same kind of analysis on the forcings of the climate system. At the TOA, the “top of atmosphere”, there is downwelling radiation from two sources: the sun, and the longwave “greenhouse” radiation from clouds and “greenhouse” gases (GHGs). The globally-averaged amount of downwelling solar radiation at the earth’s TOA (which is total incoming solar radiation less a small amount absorbed in the stratosphere) is on the order of 330 watts per square metre (W/m2). The amount of downwelling longwave radiation at the TOA, on the other hand, is about 150 W/m2.
Finally, if CO2 doubles it is supposed to change the downwelling radiation at the TOA by 3.7 W/m2 … here’s how that works out:
Figure 2. Sources of downwelling radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), defined as the tropopause by the IPCC.
By that measure, CO2 doubling is clearly a third order forcing, one that we could safely ignore while we figure out what actually makes the climate run.
Or we could look at it another way. How much of the earth’s temperature is due to the sun, and how much is due to the earth’s atmosphere?
If there were no atmosphere and the earth had its current albedo (about 30%), the surface temperature would be about 33°C cooler than it currently is (see here for the calculations). Obviously, downwelling longwave radiation from the greenhouse gases is responsible for some of that warming, with DLR from clouds responsible for the rest. Cloud DLR globally averages about 30 W/m2 (see here for a discussion). So the 150 W/m2 forcing from the GHGs is responsible for on the order of 80% of the 33° temperature rise, or about 25°C.
But if 150 W/m2 of GHG forcing only warms the surface by 25°C, then the so-called “climate sensitivity” is only about 25°C warming for 150 W/m2 of TOA forcing, or a maximum about six tenths of a degree per doubling of CO2, or about 0.2% of the earth’s temperature … again, it is a third order forcing.
Now, if someone wants to claim that a change in the forcings of less than 1% is going to cause catastrophes, I have to ask … why hasn’t it done so in the past? Surely no-one thinks that the forcings have been stable to within 1% in the past hundred years … so where are the catastrophes?
Finally, most of the measurements that we can make of the climate system are imprecise, with uncertainties of up to 10% being common. Given that … how successful are we likely to be at this point in history in looking for a third-order signal that is less than 1% of the total?
w.
PS – In any natural heat engine of this type, which is running as fast as the circumstances permit, losses rise faster than the temperature. So in fact, the analyses above underestimate how small the CO2 effect really is. This is because at equilibrium, losses eat up much of any increase in forcing. So the effect of the CO2 at general climate equilibrium is less than the effect it would have at colder planetary temperatures. In other words, climate sensitivity is an inverse function of temperature.
PPS – Please don’t point out that my numbers are approximations. I know that, and they may be off a bit … but they’re not off enough to turn CO2 into a second-order forcing, much less a first-order forcing.
PPPS – What is a first-order climate variable? Clouds, clouds, clouds …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gail Combs says:
“Jeff check out the pdfs at http://www.co2web.info/ it gives the other side of the CO2 story. A real eye opener”.
Gail – that is more than an eye opener – it jangles the eyeballs. Tell your mates to ease up on the contrasts and I might be able to go back there.
Matt says:
I agree with your basic point, although to some degree the initial changes that trigger the ice ages and interglacials are even smaller than you note. Really, the Milankovitch cycles hardly change the globally- and annually-averaged solar insolation at all. What they do is change the distribution geographically and seasonally and that is enough to trigger the growth or shrinkage of land ice and the increase or decrease in greenhouse gas concentrations that then do provide a few percent change in radiative forcing.
I think this is an excellent example of how a something that is a small percentage from a mathematical perspective can have such a big effect. Anyone here who absolutely does not understand the essential role that CO2 plays in maintenance of our pleasant greenhouse world, simply hasn’t studied the science enough. The effect of CO2 is far greater than can be simply measured from looking at a raw percentage of the atmosphere made up of this gas, but this essential science seems to be lost on many.
Especially important is the LW absorption of CO2 at around 15 microns. The fact that CO2 has this high absorption right at the peak where the bulk of the LW is coming from the ground and that CO2 is a non-condensing gas is key to our greenhouse world:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest911615663.png
Some of you would also be well served to read all 8 parts of the series on “CO2: An insignificant trace gas?” beginning here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
ferd berple says:
…except for the First Law of Thermodynamics, which says that the thermal energy of a system changes because of the absorption of exhaustion of heat OR work done on or by the system. You might try actually reading a physics textbook before spouting nonsense.
Willis:
First, aren’t you talking about surface temperatures, not TOA? There is no “downwelling radiation” at TOA, except for that from the Sun.
Whatever, the ACTUAL average SURFACE temperature for the Earth can be demonstrated, more or less, to be about 15 C.
The CALCULATED average temperature of the Earth, sans GHGs, (i.e., applying the SB equation to the solar radiation received by the surface, after correcting for albedo) is -18 C.
The DIFFERENCE, which is ASSUMED to be due to GHGs, is 33 C.
No arguments so far, I think. Now, what I still don’t understand is why ALL planetoids with atmospheres, no matter what gases are in those atmospheres, have surface temperatures that are much higher than the SB-derived calculated temperature. As the paper linked below concludes, “In every
case, as pressure mounts the air temperature exceeds the planet’s blackbody estimate.” There appears to be no “need” for a GHE to explain surface temperatures, regardless of what gases are in the atmosphere. It’s all heat storage.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf
People, people, stop and think for just one second…this is a very strange argument. Willis has successfully shown that doubling CO2 is not as important as removing our Sun?
His figures: Solar 68.2%, GHG 31% CO2 0.8%, although very rough (and arguable), give an approximation of what’s happening.
Without the sun, the earth would be -270 odd degree C. (285º difference)
Without the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, we would be at -18º C (33º difference)
With a doubling of CO2, temperature will rise say 3ºC (3º difference)
Guess what, 3º out of 285º is approximately 1%. Thanks Willis, for confirming that third order variables are important in modeling the climate.
Reference for 33º difference from GHG: http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/glossary/greenhd.htm
jae says:
“There appears to be no “need” for a GHE to explain surface temperatures, regardless of what gases are in the atmosphere. “
To a certain extent, I agree with your hypothesis. There will be a temperature gradient that drops off from the surface no matter what the atmosphere. Once you know the temperature at one altitude, you will have a pretty good idea what the temperature will be at any other altitude simply by applying a lapse rate argument (although the exact lapse rate will depend a bit on the atmospheric conditions).
The question then becomes, “what factor determines the temperature at some specific altitude”? That must be determined by radiation balance. (Actually there will be minor corrections from internal heat generation. For earth this is minimal, but for Jupiter it is quite significant). If the atmosphere doesn’t radiate, then the surface sets the temperature and the atmosphere will cool from there. If the atmosphere radiates well, then the “top of atmosphere” sets the temperature, and the surface is warmer than that. In reality, the actual conditions are typically somewhere in between.
The fact is that every planet with an atmosphere has GHG’s (CO2, H2O, CH4, NH3 … ) so the “top of atmosphere” will be at least PARTIALLY responsible for setting the temperature. So every planet will have SOME effect due to the thickness of the atmosphere. Adding more GHG’s will raise the “top of atmosphere”, resulting in a rise in the surface temperature.
So BOTH the GHG’s and the thickness of the atmosphere are important in determining the ultimate surface temperature.
Willis. Earlier you said:
“But changes in the other forcings? The sun has gradually gotten warmer over the last half billion years … but the Earth has not gotten gradually warmer over that time. This indicates that the setting of the planetary thermostat is not much affected by the minor forcings.”
I am far more used to climate skeptics loudly proclaiming that CO2 was higher in the past (100’s of millions of years) and that it doesn’t correlate with CO2 levels. But thet never mention the Sun being cooler in the past. Then you mention the Sun but don’t mention past CO2 levels. Interesting reverse cherry pick here.
Actually when you look at the combination of both CO2 and Sun you get quite a reasonable agreement – at least within the limits you would expect when also allowing for the movement of continents etc.
The deep paleo-climate record is actually good supporting evidence FOR the impact of CO2. CO2 has dropped in the long term as the Sun has warmed.If CO2 levels today matched levels 500 million years ago we would be baking. And if levels 500 million years ago matched today the Earth would be a snowball. The Earth does indeed have a CO2 thermostat. It is the reason that life on Earth is possible. Just don’t expect it to be something that regulates temperatures that closely on much shorter timescales.
“Even in the desert, where water vapor is not present in large amounts, the earth does not cool to the temperature of the moon. The atmosphere is what keeps the earth from re-radiating all of the heat captured during the day. This allows the earth itself to acted as a heat sink.”
The Moon also acts as heat sink.
If the Moon had slower rotation it would have less “greenhouse affect”- it would have
lower average temperature. The high temperatures wouldn’t increase but the low temperature
would get colder.
The Moon’s day is about 28 earth days. If it rotated faster- had 24 hour day, it would have a higher average temperature- somewhere around 5- 10 C warmer average temperature- the nites won’t get as cold.
In permanent dark craters in the Moon’s polar region it’s gets around 30 K,.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17810-moon-is-coldest-known-place-in-the-solar-system.html
at nite on the moon it’s gets as cold -153°C [120 K ]
http://www.universetoday.com/19623/temperature-of-the-moon/
So if given enough time the moon can drop from 120 K to 30 K.
Or the Moon stores about 90 C of heat- that a lot of energy if you count the entire surface.
“People, people, stop and think for just one second…this is a very strange argument. Willis has successfully shown that doubling CO2 is not as important as removing our Sun?
His figures: Solar 68.2%, GHG 31% CO2 0.8%, although very rough (and arguable), give an approximation of what’s happening.
Without the sun, the earth would be -270 odd degree C. (285º difference)
Without the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, we would be at -18º C (33º difference)
With a doubling of CO2, temperature will rise say 3ºC (3º difference)
Guess what, 3º out of 285º is approximately 1%. Thanks Willis, for confirming that third order variables are important in modeling the climate.”
“Without the sun, the earth would be -270 odd degree C. (285º difference).”
Absolute freezing is -273.15 C.
as I said above in places on the moon where there is no sunlight it’s about 30 K or -240 C
It’s not -270 C, the Moon’s internal heat is probably a factor in it not getting closer to absolute freezing. The Moon is not as geologically active as the Earth. Since the moon may add around
20-30 K, it’s likely the Earth internal heat would add more than this.
So it this third order source of heat [20-30 K] needed to also be considered?
jae says:
For those who don’t believe in (or don’t understand) the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e., energy conservation), then, yes, I suppose that there is no need for GHE’s to explain things. Alas, for the rest of us there are.
All right, Gates. Here is a challenge for you. You say there should be increasing wet and drought conditions. Blocking highs, in pressure strength and/or duration, should show a trend (blocking highs lead to droughts) commensurate with rising CO2. Do they? Low pressure systems (leading to storms) should be on the upswing in strength and/or duration commensurate with rising CO2. Are they?
Joel Shore says:
October 5, 2011 at 2:20 pm
…except for the First Law of Thermodynamics, which says that the thermal energy of a system changes because of the absorption of exhaustion of heat OR work done on or by the system.
Nonsense, The first law says AND, not OR.
The first law tells us that heat and work are interchangeable. If IR from the sun can do work AT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH and IR from GHG cannot, then it tells us that GHG cannot heat the surface. If IR from GHG can do work in space, then it can heat space, but to say it can heat the surface but cannot do work at the surface is utter fiction. It violates the first law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
The first explicit statement of the first law of thermodynamics, by Rudolf Clausius in 1850, referred to cyclic thermodynamic processes.
“In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced.”[1]
Clausius stated the law also in another form, this time referring to the existence of a function of state of the system called the internal energy, and expressing himself in terms of a differential equation for the increments of a thermodynamic process. This equation may be translated into words as follows:
In a thermodynamic process, the increment in the internal energy of a system is equal to the difference between the increment of heat accumulated by the system and the increment of work done by it.[2]
After all Gates, climate change MUST be reflected in changing weather drivers that lead to extreme events. That would mean pressure changes. As you know, CO2 alone cannot change weather. Not enough energy to do the work of changing weather directly. It must change weather pattern drivers. Does it? That would be easy to determine. Blocking highs must increase. Low pressure storm systems must increase.
Joel:
“For those who don’t believe in (or don’t understand) the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e., energy conservation), then, yes, I suppose that there is no need for GHE’s to explain things. Alas, for the rest of us there are.”
Er, nice rhetoric, NO science. A+ in propaganda, F- in Science. PLEASE show your work, sir!
Willis
The general thrust of your post is quite strange, sorry. There are holes in your logic big enough to drive a truck through!
Firstly – “The TOA as defined by the IPCC is the tropopause” This is a simplification. Don’t forget, much of what the IPCC includes in their reports is exactly that – reportage. In this case that is not the exact definition but a simplification. Rather the TOA is that altitude at which IR radiation is able to escape to space without being further absorbed by the atmosphere. And this varies with absorption frequency and the type of GH molecule involved in absorption at that frequency. If you look at the OLR spectrum for the planet as observed from satellites and superimpose Planck temperature curves over it, what you see is that in the water absorption frequencies the planck temperature is higher while fgor CO2 it is lower. This is because TOA for each molecule occure at quite different altitudes. The main driver of this is that water vapour levels as a % of the air drop of markedly with altitude while CO2 is well mixed all the way up. By the time you reach the stratosphere H2O is only 5-10ppm while CO2 is still 390 ppm. So what determines the TOA for H2O is its declining percentage of the atmosphere with altitude whereas as for CO2 it is the thinning of thenatmosphere at altitude that determines TOA.
Next, focussing on DLR at TOA and including incoming solar is quite misleading since solar is not Longwave-radiation, it is short wave, So the doubling of CO2 is increasing the true DLR by around 2.5% (0.8/31)
You are effectively leading your readers to infer that the proprtions you show in your pie chart are then the ratios that determine energy balance and hence temps here at the surface. Very misleading.
A far more reasonable approach is to look at the energy balance at the surface as a result of the 3.7 at TOA. A bit more complicated but far more informative
Working through the diagram in your comments from Trenberth and Co for the change in forcing. The 147 emitted upwards from TOA will reduce since the TOA altitude increases into colder air with more CO2. Also the 40 & 50 escaping to space will be smaller due to increased absorption by GH gases – the atmospheric window shrinks. This has to add up to 3.7 – I will round it to 4 for simplicity. Warming in the atmosphere and surface then has to generate enough extra radiation to overcome this change and restore thermal balance at TOA
Without detailed radiation calcs we can’t know what the split will be between the decrease in the 147 value and the decrease in the 40+50 (90) values. Lets assume 50/50. So now at TOA looking up we now have 145 and 88. This comes back down as the back radiation from Stratosphere to troposphere now at 147+4 = 151.
Now lets go to the surface. If this increased absorption results in the 40 figure dropping to 40/90 x 88 = 39.1 then this means that this increased absorption all down through the atmospheric column results in the 53 from the surface that makes it out to space will be restricted to 39.1/40 x 53 = 51.8, with the troposphere now absorbing 340.2. And the stratosphere is now absorbing 12.7. We have a surface imbalance of 1.2. This imbalance needs to be restored by warming at the surface.
If all this extra heat manifests as increased Sensible & Latent Heat (SLH) then balance is restored essentially through warming the troposphere. But this isn’t physically reasonable. Why would SLH increase without temperature increase that would also cause increase in the surface radiation component. Equally all of it manifesting as increased Surface radiation isn’t physical either since there must be some increase in SLH. So as a working assumption, lets assume that the ratio of SLH to SR remains constant as total heat up from the surface increases.
So, 98 (22 + 76) becomes 98.24. 392 becomes 392.96. Since our ratio of heat transiting through the atmospheric window to SR at our new CO2 concentration is now 51.8/392 = 0.1321. So the new value out through the window from the surface is now 392.96 * 0.1321 = 51.91. Then the stratosphere absorbs 12.7/51.8 * 51.91 = 12.73 so the final amount reaching space is 51.91-12.73=39.18 So we have restored 0.18 of the TOA imbalance of 4. 4.5% of the imbalance with just 95.5% to go. If we assume that heat percolating through from the troposphere then radiated up our previous 50 that has been reduced to 49.8 by the CO2 doubling will increase by a similar amount this takes us to restoring around 9% of the TOA imbalance.
And to achieve this we have increased surface radiation by 0.96.this gives us an increase in surface temp – assuming currently around 15C – of 0.176 C. And that is only to reverse 9% of the imbalance. will 100% of reversing our 4C imbalance raise surface temps by 1.96 C?
And this is just considering the TOA impact of CO2 doubling.
These are rough calcs since adding Water vapour would imply a surface temp change of 5-6 C. They key take home point is that restore themal balance some of the flows have to increase significantly in order to the smaller flows that make it out to space back in balance.
Imagine, I have a pump that is draining a tank to keep pace with a flow into the tank. But the outlet pipe leaks and 85% of what I pump flows back into the tank. If the leak gets worse so that 86% of the water leaks back, to keep pace my pump has to shift 7% more water just to keep up. Just a small increase in the leakage needs a many times greater resoinse from the pump.
So too the supposedly ‘small’ impact from CO2 is more than enough to have a significant impact.
Sorry Willis, but your analysis is a fail.
Here is a challenge to climate science. Thermodynamics tells us that if GHG is heating the earth, then it must be capable of performing work equivalent to the amount of heat consumed.
Please demonstrate an experiment in which GHG can be shown to have performed work. For example, use a glass reflector to shade one container of water and reflect the down-welling IR onto another container, and show that the two containers have different temperatures.
By placing the reflector equidistant between both containers it should be possible to ensure that both receive the same amount of IR from their local environment, so any change in temperature between the containers should be due to down-welling IR (assuming the containers are sealed to prevent evaporation.
As a control place a third container also equidistant to the glass, in such a fashion that it is neither shielded nor bathed in the reflected IR.
Now, it down-welling IR is capable of doing work, the shielded container should have the lowest temperature over time, and the reflected container the highers, and the control should be in the middle. Since we are dealing with 320 w/m2 of radiation the difference in temperature should be substantial, as we would see when comparing two sealed containers of water, one left in the sun and the other in the shade.
jae says:
October 5, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Joel:
Er, nice rhetoric, NO science. A+ in propaganda, F- in Science. PLEASE show your work, sir!
Indeed, the first law says work=heat AND heat=work. Well if GHG IR can heat the surface, then we should be able use it to power our cities. After all it is 320 w/m2 as compared to only 200w/m2 from the sun (using the chart Willis supplied above) and folks talk about using solar power for electricity all the time.
Since GHG IR is 7/24, and strongest when it is cloudy and/or at night, when solar is weakest, then GHG IR panels should be as widespread as solar panels. If not to generate electricity, certainly to heat houses. How about some black panels of water on the roof at night to collect all the down-welling IR and heat the house, just like the black panels that heat the swimming pool during the day?
Tim Folkerts:
“To a certain extent, I agree with your hypothesis. There will be a temperature gradient that drops off from the surface no matter what the atmosphere. Once you know the temperature at one altitude, you will have a pretty good idea what the temperature will be at any other altitude simply by applying a lapse rate argument (although the exact lapse rate will depend a bit on the atmospheric conditions).
The question then becomes, “what factor determines the temperature at some specific altitude”? That must be determined by radiation balance. (Actually there will be minor corrections from internal heat generation. For earth this is minimal, but for Jupiter it is quite significant). If the atmosphere doesn’t radiate, then the surface sets the temperature and the atmosphere will cool from there. If the atmosphere radiates well, then the “top of atmosphere” sets the temperature, and the surface is warmer than that. In reality, the actual conditions are typically somewhere in between.
The fact is that every planet with an atmosphere has GHG’s (CO2, H2O, CH4, NH3 … ) so the “top of atmosphere” will be at least PARTIALLY responsible for setting the temperature. So every planet will have SOME effect due to the thickness of the atmosphere. Adding more GHG’s will raise the “top of atmosphere”, resulting in a rise in the surface temperature.
So BOTH the GHG’s and the thickness of the atmosphere are important in determining the ultimate surface temperature.”
WOW, at least we are talking! Here is the $64 K question/comment:
“The question then becomes, “what factor determines the temperature at some specific altitude”? That must be determined by radiation balance. ”
My response, as always, is that this is not proven empirically, so it is not yet a very scientific position…. Sorry!
Jim Masterson wrote;
“I guess I’m confused. When I learned math terms many years ago, the highest power in a polynomial was its degree. Order was a term reserved for differential equations. You could have a third-order, second-degree differential equation which would probably be a doozie to solve. A third degree polynomial or cubic wouldn’t be nearly as difficult.”
Yes indeed the terms “order”, “power” and “degree” do indeed get a bit mixed up. In fact the terms are sometimes applied in different ways between different math text books. You say tomato I say tamato seems to apply.
My point was more to clarify that what Willis was referring to was the magnitude of the effect, not the mathematical “order” of the effect.
It remains that the climate “scientists” are completely missing the effect of the speed at which energy (visible light/thermal/infrared light) travels through a complex system. If you ignore that effect you can come to any conclusion you wish.
For the electrical engineers here; can you see the difference between the climate models as a “DC circuit” analysis and the actual behavior of the climate system which is much closer to an “AC circuit” analysis?
If you ignore the “response” / “lag” / “delay” times in any complex system you can easily reach an incorrect conclusion.
After 3 decades the climate ”scientists” are still unable to reconcile the differences between their “models” and their “observations” and sadly their default position is that the “observations are wrong”.
They even have to resort to RIDICULOUS EXPLANATIONS that the heat is MISSING and maybe it’s in the deep oceans………. Even after we built an extensive array of free roaming buoys to measure the heat in the Oceans of the world. This array was built in part after the urging of the climate “scientists” (like “Dr” Hansen) so we could accurately measure the “alleged” warming of the Earth. Somehow the heat SNEAKED past this expensive array and is still HIDING.
Maybe after 30 years somebody should really start to question if the hypothesis (a proposed explanation of observed facts) is WRONG………………….
As an engineer I would be ashamed if something I designed still did not work as I expected after 30 years…………….
Cheers, Kevin.
ferd berple says:
October 5, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Indeed, the first law says work=heat AND heat=work.
No the first law says dU = δQ – δW (following a common sign convention)
* work is (force) * (distance)
* heat is the net transfer of energy due to a temperature difference.
Heat and Work have similar affects on a system, but they are NOT the same.
Well if GHG IR can heat the surface, then we should be able use it to power our cities.
While GHGs could heat the surface, the most common situation is for the surface to heat the GHGs. The average energy from surface to GHG due to radiation is ~ 350 W/m^2. The average energy from GHG to surface due to radiation is ~ 325 W/m^2. In other words, the “heat” is ~ 25 W/m^s from surface to GHG.
Kevin
“They even have to resort to RIDICULOUS EXPLANATIONS that the heat is MISSING and maybe it’s in the deep oceans………. Even after we built an extensive array of free roaming buoys to measure the heat in the Oceans of the world. This array was built in part after the urging of the climate “scientists” (like “Dr” Hansen) so we could accurately measure the “alleged” warming of the Earth. Somehow the heat SNEAKED past this expensive array and is still HIDING.”
Nice line in vitriol there. Why the tone of outrage?
And if you knew what you were talking about well enough you would know that the ARGO system is only designed to operate down to 2000 metres. Average depth of the ocean is more like 3800 metres with maximum depths down to 10,000 metres. So we still don’t have technology to measure all the way down with good temporal or spatial coverage. Here is a design challenge for you. Design autonomous floats that can descend to the true abyssal depths, cope with those pressures and still have their sensors work reliably without human intervention for long periods of time. Then build 1000’s of these units at a price that is not exorbitant.
However we do have technology that can report temp changes down to the depths – tethered sensor platforms lowered from oceanographic research ships. They can measure right to the bottom. But its slow & very expensive. So spatial & temporal coverage is very poor. But they have detected warming right down to the seabed. Particularly around the Antarctic margins. We know it is warming down there. We just don’t have the technology to get enough samples to quantify it well enough.
Another technology that would be great is if we had satellites to measure aerosols in the atmosphere, their quantities, types, altitude etc. But wait, We did have that. It was a satellite called GLORY. And it could have been up there years ago measuring stuff, giving us some of the missing data we need to make things add up. We could have. If Dick Cheney hadn’t ordered the program suspended and the satellite stored in a warehouse in Maryland for years. Then when the go ahead to launch it was given by the Obama administration the launcher failed. We still don’t have all the data.
Tell me Kevin, as an alectrical engineer. what would one do if you had a complex circuit and you wanted to confirm that is operating as you expect? You would get out some probes and sample various points on the circuit with a meter or scope to see if it is doing what you expect. But what if some parts of the circuit are physically inaccessible? Inside a reactor core or something. If the rest of the circuit is performing much as you expect but with a few things wrong, wouldn’t your assumption be that what is missing is happening in the inaccessible parts of your circuit. Surely you would consider that the more likely explanation than saying the entire circuit design is all wrong?
Given that the heat accumulation in the Ocean to date, what we can observe of it, is 30 times greater than the heat accumulation in the atmosphere, if our budget doesn’t quite add up at present, surely its a quite reasonable thing to expect the missing parts to be in the 30 times larger component?
JAE,
I should probably have reversed the wording to make the point clearer
“The question then becomes, “what altitude will have the temperature needed to radiate sufficient energy.”? That must be determined by radiation balance. ”
Conservation of energy requires that (change in energy of a system) = (energy in) – (energy out)
As was posted some time earlier here (I believe by willis) the change in energy of the system is pretty shall compared to the energy in & energy out. Any global warming would require a small difference, but in the terminology here, this is a second or third order effect which can mostly be ignored.
So other than a possible small correction, the energy in (ie solar energy) must equal the energy out (reflected solar energy and thermal IR). There is simply no other way to transfer energy to/from the earth as a whole.
If the atmosphere is transparent to EM radiation, then the surface will have to do all the radiating to space & the surface would have to be ~ 255 K. The atmosphere would cool according to the lapse rate to even lower temperatures.
If there was a layer of clouds completely covering the earth, then the tops of the clouds would have to be ~ 255K and the surface would be warmer depending on the lapse rate and the altitude of the clouds.
In reality, the radiation comes partly from the surface and partly from the atmosphere. The “255 K layer” is some a combination of the surface radiation well above 255 K and he atmosphere radiating well below 255 K.
Adding more GHG will raise the radiating level for the atmosphere, meaning it would radiate at a colder temperature. This would throw off the balance until the surface (and the atmosphere) warmed a little to restore the balance.
Glenn Tamblyn wrote;
“Nice line in vitriol there. Why the tone of outrage?”
BECAUSE THE CLIMATE “SCIENTISTS” HAVE WASTED TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MY (AND OTHER’S TAX DOLLARS) ON WHAT IS IN FACT TOTAL NONSENSE……………………..
Was that clear enough????
Cheers, Kevin