Guest post by Bob Irvine
ABSTRACT
The Earth’s feedback response to warming is independent of the nature of the forcing that caused that warming. The question I intend to examine is whether the nature of the forcing will have a significant impact on the initial warming or the response time of the earth’s system. I looked at changes in three different types of forcing and their effect on the earth’s temperature response.
1. Changes in solar forcing caused by variation in solar output at the sun’s surface that may cause changes in Cosmic Ray flux or other solar multiplier effects.
2. Changes in solar forcing caused by changes in the earth’s milankovitch cycles (Last Glacial Maxima, LGM) and volcanic activity that do not affect cosmic ray flux.
3. Changes in Anthropogenic Green House Gas (AGHG) concentrations.
The IPCC and others assume that climate sensitivity derived from #2 (Last Glacial Maxima, or Milankovitch cycles and volcanic activity) also applies to #1 and #3. This paper attempts to show that this is unlikely to be the case when the best available data is compared.
For #1 we found the climate sensitivity to be between 1.0°C and 1.8°C per Watt per Square meter of forcing. For #2 we found climate sensitivity to be approximately between 0.4°C and 1.2°C per W/M2 and for #3 we found climate sensitivity to be between 0.1°C and 0.36°C per W/M2.
INTRODUCTION
Climate sensitivity is the temperature increase at equilibrium for each Watt per square meter of forcing or “X” in the following equation. X°C/WM-2 .
Generally as the planet warms it activates various feedbacks. A negative feedback will decrease the earth’s system response time at the top of the atmosphere and a positive feedback will increase this response time. For example, a decrease in sea ice will slow the return of energy to space and can, therefore, be considered a positive feedback to warming.
Not all feedback’s, however, are a response to warming. For example, if the cosmic ray effect is real then it can be considered a positive feedback to increased solar activity that is not related to warming. Similarly different types of forcing can have different response times at the top of the atmosphere. I intend to show in this paper that changes in long wave GHG forcing have a considerably shorter response time than changes in short wave solar forcing and, therefore, can be expected to have a lower climate sensitivity.
I, therefore, intend to show that the IPCC’s climate sensitivity based on #2 above should not be applied to AGHGs.
I have used the IPCC’s climate sensitivity derived from #2 above to calculate the current equilibrium temperature due to AGHG’s already in the system and compared this with the NOAA actual temperature since 1880 in Fig. 1. The calculations done to produce the graph below are set out in Appendix “1”.
Basically the IPCC’s agreed CO2 concentrations were used to calculate expected equilibrium temperature which was adjusted using the IPCC’s 3rd and 4th assessment reports figures to include all AGHG’s (i.e. NO2, CH4, Halogens etc.). All calculations used to produce this graph (fig. 1) are generally agreed and accepted and used by the IPCC.
The inconsistency of the IPCC central prediction and upper limit with the actual data (blue line) is immediately apparent. It is possible that the lower IPCC limit might be compatible but even this becomes untenable when climate sensitivity to changes in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) which include any solar multiplier effects, #1, is taken into account. This sensitivity, #1, will be estimated in section “A” below. Section “B” will show how the IPCC derived their climate sensitivity for #2 above.
The IPCC’s position is that industrial aerosols have artificially cooled the planet masking the warming effects of the AGHGs and that equilibrium temperature is approximately 1.5 times transient or current temperature. Section “C” will show that even these are not enough to avoid the conclusion that climate sensitivity due to changes in AGHGs, #3, is considerably smaller than both #1 and #2.
Fig. 1 AGHG Forced equilibrium temperature using the IPCC’s sensitivity based on #2 (LGM and volcanic) and compared to actual temperature as measured by the NOAA since 1880. The upper IPCC limit assumes a climate sensitivity of “X” = 1.2, the IPCC central prediction assumes “X” = 0.8, and the lower IPCC limit assumes “X” = 0.4.
#1. SECTION A We used two methods to match TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) changes as Watts/Square meter at the earth’s surface with the best temperature data available. These TSI changes will affect the cosmic ray flux and possibly have other solar multiplier effects as they are caused by changes in solar activity at the sun’s surface.
If these changes in TSI lead to greater temperature changes per unit forcing than solar changes that do not result in changes in the cosmic ray flux, such as Milankovitch cycles or volcanic activity, then this would lend some credence to theories suggesting that cosmic rays have a significant effect on the earth’s surface temperature.
The two methods we will use are a) compare solar irradiance changes over the last millennium with temperature records, and b) compare temperature and forcing for the 11 year sun cycle.
a) The TSI variations are taken from Swingedouw et al (2011) who used the Bard et al (2000) reconstruction and are the same as those used by Crowley (2000). The scaling used is from Lean et al (1995). Lean et al (2002) and Foukal et al (2004) suggest that long term irradiance changes could be considerably less which would imply a higher temperature sensitivity to a given forcing.
Fig. 2, W/M2 at the earth’s surface due to changes in Solar activity for the last millennium.
Fig. 3, Solar activity for the last 1100 years.
I have used the temperature reconstructions of Mann 2008 EIV, Moberg 2005, Loehle 2008 and Ljungqvist 2010 to represent temperature change over the last millennium. They are, I believe, the best available series at the time of writing. These temperature reconstructions are reproduced in Appendix “2”. An approximation of the range of temperature over this period is then compared with the range in solar forcing at the earth’s surface.
With considerable uncertainties, this comparison will give us an approximation of the climate’s sensitivity to changes in solar forcing at the earth’s surface that include any cosmic ray effect and/or other solar multiplier effects .
Fig. 4, Maximum and minimum temperatures for 4 different temperature reconstructions over the last 1500 years. The warmest three decades and the coolest three decades from each reconstruction are shown.
From fig 2 and fig 3 the range in solar forcing at the earth’s surface over the last 1000 years excluding the 20th century is approximately 0.6 w/m2.
From fig 4 the range in temperature in each of the four reconstructions can be seen. It is then possible to calculate “X” where X is the change in the earth’s surface temperature in degrees Celsius that results from a one w/m2 change in forcing.
From Fig 4 the range in temperature for Mann 2008 EIV is approximately 0.75°C, for Moberg 2005 is approximately 0.9°C, for Loehle 2008 is approximately 1.1°C and for Ljungqvist 2010 is approximately 0.9°C.
Climate sensitivity is described by the equation X°Celcius / wm-2. .
The value of “X” will change, with time from equilibrium, and with any other changes in the earth’s feedback systems etc. For the purposes of this paper, however, “X” will be considered to be linear for a given forcing. This paper is considering the possibility that “X” will change considerably depending on the nature of the forcing that drives any change.
The value of “X” is then derived for each of the four different temperature reconstructions.
For Mann 2008 “X” equals 1.25 (0.75/0.6)
For Moberg 2005 “X” equals 1.5 (0.9/0.6)
For Loehle 2008 “X” equals 1.8 (1.1/0.6)
For Ljungqvist 2010 “X” equals 1.5 (0.9/0.6)
These values of “X” should approximate the equilibrium response since the data is taken over a millennium or more. There are considerable uncertainties in these estimates of climate sensitivity that derive from the max/min method used and the error margins of the various temperature reconstructions used.
It is worth noting that if the max/min method used overstates the temperature response then it is also likely that max/min method also overstates the solar forcing at the earth’s surface causing some of the possible error to be cancelled.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to estimate these uncertainties other than to say that the climate sensitivity, as calculated from current knowledge by this method, probably lies in the range 1.25°C/wm-2 and 1.8°C/wm-2.
b) The 11 year solar cycle will also include changes in cosmic ray flux as it too results from changes in solar output at the sun’s surface.
Camp and Tung (2008) use the 11 year sun cycle to derive transient sensitivity of between 0.69 and 0.97°C/wm-2. They also estimate equilibrium temperature as being 1.5 times higher than this which is consistent with the IPCC’s position in their 4AR.
This gives an “X” value for climate sensitivity calculated by this method of between 1.04°C/wm-2 and 1.46°C/wm-2
Combining a) and b) we get the likelihood that climate sensitivity for TSI changes that include changes in cosmic ray flux and/or any other solar multiplier effect will probably lie between 1.0°C/wm-2 and 1.8°C/wm-2.
#2. SECTION B The second type of forcing is one that causes changes in solar energy reaching the earth without effecting cosmic ray flux. These include the Milankovitch cycles and volcanic activity that occur at the earth’s surface and, therefore, are not due to changes in TSI at the sun’s surface.
Annan and Hargreaves (2006) looks at climate sensitivity derived from observation of volcanic activity and the Last Glacial Maxima (LGM).
They studied the literature and concluded that volcanic activity indicates that climate sensitivity would be between 1.5°C and 6°C for a forcing of 3.7w/m2 at equilibrium with the upper limit constrained to 4.5°C after the 20th century temperature record and evidence from the Maunder minimum are considered.
Volcanic activity, therefore, gives a climate sensitivity of between 0.4(1.5/3.7)°C/wm-2 and 1.2(4.5/3.7)°C/wm-2 to 95% confidence.
A & H (2006), after studying the literature, concluded that LGM measurements support a climate sensitivity between 1.3°C and 4.5°C for a 3.7w/m2 forcing to 95% confidence. The upper limit was constrained for the reasons outlined above.
This gives a value for “X” between 0.4 and 1.2 derived from evidence taken from both volcanic activity and the LGM. This agrees closely with the IPCC’s position outlined in all of their assessment reports.
Fig. 5, IPCCs Forcing’s bar graph from their 2007 4AR. Note the large aerosol cooling effect they expect for 2005. Minimum -0.4w/m2, Likely -1.2w/m2, Maximum -2.4w/m2. Note also the large AGHG Forcing of approximately 2.7 w/m2 which at their central sensitivity of “X” = 0.8 should give an equilibrium temperature increase in 2005 of 2.16°C. This is not consistent with actual temperature rise as seen in Fig. 1.
That Milankovich Cycles are overwhelmingly the main drivers of the ice ages, and more particularly the LGM used by A & H (2006) to estimate their climate sensitivity, is shown convincingly by Roe (2006) “In Defence of Milankovich”.
#3. SECTION C Since 1880 an extremely active sun has added directly, approximately 0.5w/m2 at the earth’s surface (Fig. 2). According to our best historical temperature series as seen in section A and after an adjustment to give transient temperature, this active sun should have increased the earth’s temperature by a minimum of approximately 0.33°C to a maximum of 0.6°C since 1880.
According to the NOAA in Fig. 1 the earth’s temperature has risen by about 0.7°C since 1880.
This leaves between 0.1 and 0.37°C plus any industrial aerosol cooling effect to be explained by increasing AGHGs.
This can be summarised by the following equation;
Equation 1; “Y” plus (0.1 to 0.37) = “Z” Where “Y” is the net aerosol cooling in 2010 and “Z” is the total transient warming due to AGHGs in 2010.
At this point we introduce another check on aerosols to get a second simultaneous equation. According to Stern (2006) industrial aerosol production has fallen by over 30% since 1990, Fig. 6. Mishchenko confirms this with satellite measurements showing a drop in sun blocking aerosols since 1990, Fig. 7. Basically, If an increase in industrial aerosols gives a significant cooling as postulated by the IPCC then a drop in aerosols, as has happened since 1990, should cause a significant warming. Here is a supporting quote from the IPCC’s 4AR. “Global sulphur emissions (and thus sulphate aerosol forcing) appear to have decreased after 1980 (Stern 2005)…”
This drop in industrial aerosols can be explained by cleaner combustion techniques forced on people by acid rain and other undesirable environmental effects.
There are other contributors to the earth’s temperature other than Industrial aerosols, AGHGs, and solar, but they are negligible in the context of this paper.
To form a second simultaneous equation we need an estimate of AGHG forcing and an estimate of temperature change since 1990.
Fig. 6 Estimated global SO2 production. Stern 2006
Fig. 7.
The temperature series, Fig. 8, below gives a temperature rise between 1990 and 2010 of approximately 0.2°C. It is uncertain whether natural forcing’s would have increased or decreased this figure so we have approximated this figure to a rise of between 0.1°C and 0.3°C which is an estimate of the anthropogenic temperature change since 1990. The effect of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 has also been removed.
Fig. 8 Earth’s temperature 1990 to 2010 according four main temperature series.
AGHGs added 0.82 w/m2 from 1990 to 2010, based on their increase in concentration, which is 28% of the total forcing, attributed to AGHGs in 2010 by the IPCC.
We can now create a second simultaneous equation;
Equation 2; 0.3 x “Y” Plus 0.28 X “Z” = 0.1 to 0.3
Solving for the simultaneous equations 1 and 2 gives total aerosol cooling of between 0.12°C and 0.34°C in 2010 (“Y”). This implies total AGHG forced transient warming in 2010 (“Z”) of between 0.22°C and 0.69°C.
If we assume equilibrium temperature is approximately 1.5 times transient temperature and use the IPCC’s total forcing of 2.9 w/m2 we arrive at an AGHG climate sensitivity of;
“X” = 0.11°C/wm-2 to “X” = 0.36°C/wm-2.
CONCLUSION
To my mind the IPCC’s upper limit and central prediction are not consistent with the NOAA actual temperatures in Fig. 1. If our best temperature series over the last 1000 years are to be believed then the IPCC lower limit in Fig. 1 can also not be reconciled with the actual measured temperatures as has been demonstrated in section A, B and C above.
The IPCC would put 4 possible arguments to explain the discrepancies apparent in Fig. 1.
1. That equilibrium temperature is considerably more than 1.5 times transient temperature which would overturn nearly all the literature on the subject and be inconsistent with all the IPCC’s model assumptions.
2. That industrial aerosols have a massive cooling affect which would be inconsistent with evidence since 1990 (see section C above). They would also need to explain the fact that industrial aerosols generally remain local and are overwhelmingly produced in the northern hemisphere. The northern hemisphere has experienced more warming over the last century than the southern hemisphere.
3. That AGHG sensitivity is not linear. It is initially lower and increases to their published sensitivity at doubling. It is therefore unlikely but possible that the IPCC’s lower limit of “X” = 0.4 could be consistent with the upper limit for AGHGs of “X” = 0.36. This would imply a much larger cosmic ray or other solar multiplier effect (minimum “X” = 1.0, see section A above) than is generally accepted.
4. That temperature measurements over the last millennium are so uncertain that no conclusions can be drawn from them. These are the best series (see appendix 2) that we have. The existence of the medieval warm period and the little ice age have been confirmed by many studies around the world and are not seriously challenged anymore. It can be safely stated that the IPCC’s estimated climate sensitivity range can be falsified by the best evidence that we have at the time of writing.
The IPCC’s position is that climate sensitivity measurements deduced from the LGM and volcanic activity that do not include any solar multiplier effect and are based on short wave solar radiation can be assumed to apply to Long Wave Radiation from AGHGs and changes in TSI at the sun’s surface that include possible solar multiplier effects.
This paper proposes that the IPCC’s position is not consistent with our best millennial temperature records nor is it consistent with Green House Gas Forcing and temperature rise in the 20th century (Fig. 1) without unrealistically large aerosol cooling. The IPCC’s position is particularly inconsistent when it is noted that aerosol levels have fallen over the last 20 years at a time when temperature rise has abated.
All the available data is neatly reconciled and consistent if we are prepared to accept that the earth’s climate sensitivity is different for long wave greenhouse gas forcing than it is for short wave solar forcing. It is, in fact, unlikely that these two would have the same sensitivity and there are good physical reasons why they wouldn’t.
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
1. The existence of a cosmic ray effect on temperature has been debated for some time now and would explain the different sensitivities described in section “A” and section “B”. This is discussed in Shaviv 2005, “On Climate Response to Change in Cosmic Ray Flux and Radiative Budget.” Certainly the existence of some form of solar multiplier is supported by the evidence of the last millennium (section “A”) when it is compared with the IPCC’s sensitivity (section “B”). The IPCC’s climate sensitivity is derived from LGM and volcanic measurements that don’t include any solar multiplier effects as they are caused by changes at the earth’s surface as opposed to changes at the sun’s surface.
2. The climate response time is the time it takes for the atmosphere to respond to a change in forcing and is dependent on sensitivity and the amount of ocean mixing. Hansen, Sato and Kharecha, “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications”, say “On a planet with no ocean or only a mixed layer ocean, the climate response time is proportional to climate sensitivity. ………..Hansen et al (1985) show analytically, with ocean mixing approximated as a diffusive process, that the response time increases as the square of climate sensitivity.”
If it can be shown that a change in the Long Wave Radiation from AGHGs has a shorter response time than a change in Short Wave Solar Radiation, then this would imply a lower climate sensitivity for changes in AGHGs than you would expect from changes in solar forcing.
It is well known and accepted physics that Long wave radiation from GHGs only penetrates the oceans to a depth of a fraction of a millimetre. Water is almost totally opaque to these wavelengths. Short wave solar radiation, on the other hand, penetrates water to a depth of 10 meters or more and is, therefore, readily involved in ocean heating.
There is clearly a significant difference in response times between Long wave radiation from AGHGs and the Short wave solar radiation used by the IPCC to calculate their sensitivity. Long wave radiation is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere while Short wave solar radiation is largely absorbed by the ocean and takes much longer to find its way back to the atmosphere on average.
It is entirely logical that shorter response times would equate to lower temperature sensitivities at equilibrium. There would quite obviously be less energy in the pipeline as the oceans are not warmed significantly by AGHG’s.
The IPCC and others argue that the warming of the top fraction of a millimetre by AGHGs prevents energy from escaping from the deeper ocean and, therefore, effectively has the same response time as solar radiation. This position is shown to be not correct by the simple experiment outlined in Appendix 3.
3. As you would expect the IPCC’s models and predictions are already starting to fail as a result of them using the wrong wavelength to estimate AGHG forced climate sensitivity. James Hansen’s catastrophic predictions to the USA congress in 1988 are compared with actual temperature in Fig. 9. They clearly don’t correlate.
Fig. 9 James Hansen’s 1988 predictions to the USA congress compared with actual temperature.
Here is a quote from the IPCC’s 2001 TAR, “..anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1°C to 0.2°C per decade over the next few decades”, and another from the IPCC’s 2007 4AR “For the next 2 decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected”. The earth’s temperature has remained level or fallen since both of these predictions were made.
APPENDIX 1
Fig. 1 AGHG Forced equilibrium temperature using the IPCC’s sensitivity based on #2 (LGM and volcanic) and compared to actual temperature as measured by the NOAA since 1880. The upper IPCC limit assumes a climate sensitivity of “X” = 1.2, the IPCC central prediction assumes “X” = 0.8, and the lower IPCC limit assumes “X” = 0.4.
The method used to plot this graph;
1. A preindustrial CO2 concentration of 280 ppm was assumed. CO2 concentrations since 1880 were taken from the IPCC pre 1960 and from Mauna Loa after 1960.
2. CO2 Forcing was calculated using the widely accepted formula ;
rF = 5.35 x ln(C/C0) wm-2
Where “C” is the current CO2 concentration and “Co” is the initial CO2 concentration. This formula is the basis for the IPCC’s position that a doubling of CO2 concentration will produce a Forcing of 3.71 wm-2. i.e. rF = 5.35 x ln (2) = 3.71 wm-2.
3. Based on the IPCC’s TAR and 4AR reports, the CO2 forcing was then multiplied by 1.66 to give the total forcing of all the AGHGs (NO2, CH4, Halogens etc.) See Fig. 5.
4. The IPCC’s equilibrium temperatures were then calculated using the IPCC’s sensitivity factors, 0.4 (lower), 0.8 (central), and 1.2 (upper). i.e. The IPCC’s central predicted equilibrium temperature for a doubling of CO2 is, therefore, 0.8 x 3.71 wm-2 or approximately 3.0°C.
5. All graphs were then zeroed at 1880, the time when relatively accurate thermometer temperature measurements commenced.
APPENDIX 2
The four main millennial temperature series summarised in Fig. 4.
Fig.10 Temperature series for the last 1000 years. Ljungqvist 2010 (Black Line), Loehle 2008 (Blue Line)
Fig 11. Moberg 2005 1000 year temperature record including more recent instrumental records.
Fig. 12 Mann 2008 EIV 1000 year temperature series.
APPENDIX 3
The simple experiment, attributed to Tallbloke, that proves that GHG increases do not significantly warm the oceans.
Konrad: Empirical test of ocean cooling and back radiation theory
Posted: August 25, 2011 by Tallbloke in atmosphere, climate, Energy, Ocean dynamics 68
Some background –
Willis Eschenbach had a guest posting over at WUWT in which he claimed that LWIR could heat Earth’s oceans. Myself and several others on the thread contended that this LWIR was likely to be stopped by the evaporative skin layer and would not slow the exit of heat from the oceans. Numerous requests for empirical evidence to support Willis’s claim only resulted in one inapplicable study used by the “Hockey Team” to support such claims. After several hundred comments without empirical evidence being offered, I gave up reading and designed and conducted an empirical experiment that shows that any effect of backscattered LWIR on the cooling rate of water would be negligible.
What follows is an edited version of the experiment design and results as posted on the WUWT thread. I would encourage others to conduct similar experiments to check my results. The equipment required is not overly expensive and the results can be observed in minutes. The results appear to show the measurable difference between reflecting LWIR back to warm water when it is free to evaporatively cool and when it can only cool through conduction and radiation.
What is required –
– Two identical probe type digital thermometers with 0.1 degree resolution
– Two identical insulated water containers. I used rectangular 200ml Tupperware style containers, insulated on their base and sides with foil and Styrofoam. I cut away the clip on rim from each lid to create a frame to clip down cling film for Test B of the experiment.
– One IR reflector. I used an A4 sheet of 10mm Styrofoam with aluminum foil attached with spray adhesive.
– One IR window. I built an A4 size “picture frame” of 10mm square balsa wood strips and stretched cling film over it.
– One 1 litre measuring jug
– Two small identical computer fans. I used Suron 50mm centrifugal blowers powered by a 6v gel cell battery
– Extra cling film
– Optional extras – kitchen timer, an A4 ”dark cool sky” panel of matt black aluminum with peltier cooling, glamorous lab assistant of choice.
What to do –
– Position probe thermometers in identical positions in both water containers. I placed the tips 10mm below the water line by drilling force fit holes in the sides of the containers.
– Position IR reflector and IR window 50mm above either water container. You may need to build two Styrofoam side walls, but air must be free to move over the surface of the water. (The use of the IR window is to ensure that air flow is similar over each water container.)
– Position the computer fans to blow across the water surface of each container, but do not turn on.
– Fill jug with warm water, stir, then fill each water container from the bucket. I used water around 40C as the ceiling was around 18C not a 3k sky.
– When and equal amount of water is in each container, turn on the computer fans.
– Observe the temperature change over time for each tank. Less than half an hour is required for such a small amount of water. You should observe that both tanks cool at the same rate (TEST A).
– Now the important bit – Repeat the experiment, but this time lay a small sheet of cling wrap on the surface of the water in each water tank. This allows cooling through radiation and conduction but prevents evaporation. You do not need the computer fans on in this test. You should be able to observe that while both containers cool slower than before, water under the IR reflector cools slowest (TEST B).
Interpretation –
In TEST A the water cools more quickly, however the two water containers temperatures remain very close to each other over time. This indicates that backscattered LWIR has a very limited effect on the rate of cooling for water when it is free to evaporatively cool.
In TEST B both water containers cool more slowly than Test A, but a divergence in temperature between the two water containers is readily detectable. The container under the foil sky cools more slowly than that under the cling wrap sky. This indicates that backscattered LWIR from a warm material can slow the rate at which that material cools, if radiation and conduction are the only methods for cooling.
Test A represents the evaporative cooling conditions in the real oceans. Test B represents how the climate scientists have modeled the oceans with regard to backscattered LWIR. From what I have observed, backscattered LWIR can slow the rate at which substances cool. However in the case of liquid water that is free to cool evaporatively this effect is dramatically reduced. It would appear that including the oceans in the percentage of Earth’s surface that could be affected by backscattered LWIR may be a serious error. Earth’s oceans cover 71% of the planet’s surface. If backscattered LWIR cannot measurably affect liquid water, then CO2 cannot cause dangerous or catastrophic global warming.
I have conducted further tests using a “cold sky” panel cooled with ice water over the top of the cling film IR window. While the temperature divergence in the evaporation restricted test B does not appear faster, it does appear to diverge for longer.
I would encourage others to conduct similar empirical experiments and share their observations. I would be interested in comments in further experimental design, or empirical evidence related to the LWIR question.
Typical TEST A
| Time | Cling Wrap Screen | Foil screen |
| 0 | 37.1 | 37.1 |
| 5 | 33.2 | 33.2 |
| 10 | 29.4 | 29.4 |
| 15 | 27 | 26.9 |
| 20 | 25.5 | 25.5 |
| 25 | 24.5 | 24.5 |
Typical TEST B
| Time | Cling Wrap Screen | Foil screen |
| 0 | 38.2 | 38.2 |
| 5 | 36.3 | 36.6 |
| 10 | 34.8 | 35.3 |
| 15 | 33.5 | 34.2 |
| 20 | 32.6 | 33.4 |
| 25 | 31.5 | 32.6 |
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What is the measured transmittance factor for the cling sheet in the LWIR spectrum?
Sorry unrelated but James Hanson leaves NASA…. One more brick out the wall…
REPLY: WUWT broke the story days ago, always check the front page first. – Anthony
Evaporation can be masked by galactic radiation causing increased cloud formation. As clouds increase due to ionization of the atmosphere the reduced solar heat reaching earths surface slows the evaporation process.
Interestingly Solar wind/output is the river in space that either collects and sweeps these ions away or allows them to pass into the earths atmosphere causing cloud formation.
It seems that your three items are intertwined in such a manner that it would lower their potential forcing sensitivity substantially. And the Sun is the primary driver… Now who would of thunk that?
The notion that [there] is a “climate sensitivity” is scientifically nonsensical as this sensitivity is defined in terms of an equilibrium temperature but this temperature is not an observable.
Decreasing sea ice exposes more of the warmer sea to space and the atmosphere – both conditions will permit greater loss of energy from the ocean by radiation, convection, and conduction. Capping it with ice hinders that. Melting ice does nothing, by comparison – the energy in the sea simply moves from the sea to the ice, melting it which sends every joule of it back to the sea.
Bottom line is energy in the sea has to pass through the atmosphere to get back to space where it came from and any lid you put on it, ice, clouds, CO2, is going to inhibit that.
Given that the globe has been cooling for thousands and thousands of years, I’m about to hope for a higher sensitivity.
=============
I had just posted the following list of experiments on the Freeman Dyson thread before I noted Bob Irvine had posted details of one of my first experiments with LWIR and liquid water. I am reposting the list of five experiments here as Experiment 1 described below is an improvement on the version Bob has shown. The old version simply reflected the outgoing IR from cooling water back to its surface, so Incident IR dropped as the samples cooled. The later improved version uses a constant external LWIR source. Some readers at the Talkshop will be familiar with many of these experiments and this list is a cut and paste from an essay for the Talkshop that I will eventually finish. Experiments 2 to 4 cover energy flux to and from moving fluids in a gravity field, something missing from “basic physics” of the “settled science”.
Experiment 1. Effect of incident LWIR on liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
Incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of materials. Climate scientists claim that DWLWIR has the same effect over oceans as it does over land, and this is shown in many Trenberthian energy budget cartoons. Does the ocean respond to DWLWIR the same way as land?
– Build two water proof EPS foam cubes 150mm on a side and open at the top.
– Position a 100mm square aluminium water block as LWIR source 25mm above each cube.
– Position two small computer fans to blow a very light breeze between the foam cube and the water blocks.
– Insert a probe thermometer with 0.1C resolution through the side of each cube 25mm below the top.
– Continuously run 80C water through one water block and 1C water through the other.
– Fill both EPS foam cubes to the top with 40C water an allow to cool for 30 min while recording temperatures.
– Repeat the experiment with a thin LDPE film on the surface of the water in each cube to prevent evaporative cooling.
Here is an early variant of this experiment in which IR from cooling water samples was reflected back to the water surface – http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg
Experiment 2. Radiative cooling properties of CO2
CO2 can both absorb and radiate IR. Some of the energy CO2 is radiating to space is from intercepted outgoing IR from the Earths surface. Most of the net energy CO2 radiates to space is acquired from latent heat from condensing water vapour and conductive contact with the Earths surface. Could the radiation of energy from the atmosphere to space acquired by surface conduction or release of latent heat balance the energy intercepted from surface IR?
– Build two EPS foam boxes 250 x 250mm and 100mm deep, open at the top.
– Make a small 5mm hole in the bottom corner of each box to ensure constant pressure
– Place an identically sized matt black 200 x 200 x 2mm aluminium target plate in the base of each box.
– At one side of the interior of each box position a IR and SW shielded tube 200mm long containing a small circulation fan to cycle all the gas in the box through the tube.
– Position a thermometer probe with 0.1C resolution in each tube.
– Seal the top of each box with a frame double glazed with thin LDPE film.
– At equal distances above each box position a 50w halogen light source with sealed glass face.
– Use small computer fans to cool the glass face of each halogen globe to minimise LWIR emission.
– Fill one box with air and the other with CO2
– Wait for box temperatures to equalise then illuminate each target plate with the SW source.
– Record gas temperatures during 30min of heating for each box.
– Switch off the halogens and record gas temperatures during cooling.
Here is image of equipment for experiment 2. Bike tyre inflater cartridges are an easy source of dry CO2 – http://i49.tinypic.com/34hcoqd.jpg
Experiment 3. The role of energy loss in convective circulation.
In describing convective circulation in the atmosphere the role of heating low in the atmosphere is often emphasised. Does cooling at altitude have an equally important role in convective circulation?
– Get a large glass container of hot water and mix a ¼ teaspoon of finely ground cinnamon into it.
– Wait until Brownian motion slows till the suspended particles are barely moving.
– Now suspend a beer can full of ice water in the top 50mm of the hot water to one side of the clear container.
– Observe any circulation patterns developing in the hot water.
Experiment 4. Convective circulation and average temperature in a gas column.
Most AGW calculations are for linear fluxes into and out of a static atmosphere. However the gases in our atmosphere move. Should these linear flux equations have been run iteratively on models with discrete moving air masses? The height of energy gain and loss in a gas column effects convective circulation. Does this effect the average temperature of a gas column?
– Build two sealed EPS foam boxes, 1000mm wide, 200mm deep and 1000mm high.
– Penetrate each box with a number of thin aluminium water heating and cooling tubes
– In box 1 position heating tubes on the lower right hand side and cooling tubes on the upper left hand side. Keep the heating tubes as close to the lower interior surface as possible.
– In box 2 position heating tubes on the lower right hand side and cooling tubes on the lower left hand side. Keep the heating and cooling tubes as close to the lower interior surface as possible.
– Make small thermometer probe holes in the face of each box in a number of different horizontal and vertical positions.
– Position 0.1C resolution thermometer probes in identical positions in each box.
– Start 1C water running through the cooling tubes in each box and 80C water running through the heating tubes in each box at around 1 litre a min. Record temperatures over 30 min.
– Cut water flow and equalise the temperature in each box. Reposition the thermometer probes and re run the experiment until a circulation pattern and average temperature can be obtained for each box.
Here is a diagram of the initial experiment – http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg and an image of a later small variant in which the strength of cooling can be altered at the top and bottom of the gas column – http://tinypic.com/r/15n0xuf/6
Experiment 5. Surface to gas conductive flux in a gravity field.
Climate scientists have claimed that under an atmosphere without radiative gases the radiative cooling of the surface will be greater (see also experiment 1). Does this mean the conductive cooling of the atmosphere in contact will be significantly higher? Is it correct to model the conductive flux between the atmosphere and the surface with the atmosphere modelled as a single body without moving gases?
– build two small EPS foam tubes with internal volume 75 x 75mm by 200mm high open at one end.
– For tube 1 cover the open top with LDPE film
– For tube 2 cover the open base with LDPE film
– on each tube attach a battery pack and a small 5V computer fan blowing across the outside of the cling film.
– On tube 1 add small legs on one side to tilt it to around 5 degrees off vertical.
– On tube 2 attach 50mm legs to allow its fan to move air freely across the cling wrap base
– Make multiple thermometer probe entry points along each tube for K-type probes from a dual probe thermometer.
– Place the thermometer probe position equal distance from the cling film for each tube.
– Equalise the internal temperature of each tube to room temperature by turning each tube cling film down and running the fans for 15 minutes.
– Now orientate the tubes so tube 1 has cling film at the top and tube 2 has cling film at the base.
– Place them on a shelf in a refrigerator with the fans running and close the door with the thermometer units outside.
– Use the probe differential button on the thermometer to observe the temperature differential between the tubes develop as they cool from room temperature over about 2 min.
– Remove the tubes from the refrigerator and allow them to equalise to room temperature again, move the thermometers to new positions and repeat the cooling run. Do this a number of times to build up a picture of the temperature differential at various distances from the cling wrap in each tube at the 2 minute mark.
Build the tubes small enough to fit within your refrigerator. If you have wire shelves, place a plate under each tube – http://oi49.tinypic.com/akcv0g.jpg
Those that take the time to build an run these experiments as I have done will be able to answer the questions “Will adding radiative gases to the atmosphere reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability?”, “what is the role of radiative gases in convective circulation below the tropopause?” and “would our atmosphere be hotter or colder without radiative gases?”
Milankovich Cycles cause an amplifying albedo change in ice sheet extent, with glaciers on land expanding (or contracting) over timeframes of millennia (or hundreds of years) in manners they don’t so substantially on much shorter timeframes.
On much shorter timeframes, when TSI at Earth fluctuates predominately from variation in the sun internally rather than Milankovich orbital cycles, when accordingly the solar magnetic field and GCR flux vary mostly in step with TSI, the primary amplifying albedo effect is instead cloud variation. Dr. Shaviv estimated up to around 4 times more impact of all solar effects (including indirect GCR influence) than TSI variation alone (in http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/%7Eshaviv/articles/2004JA010866.pdf discussed at http://sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity ). If I recall correctly, another paper gave a figure of about 3 for the ratio, but it may depend a bit on the timeframe analyzed.
Anyway, this interesting article by Bob Irvine seems on the right tracks.
Such as the blatant correlation of GCR variation with variation in specific humidity illustrated in http://s7.postimg.org/69qd0llcr/intermediate.gif leaves no doubt that solar/GCR variation has a major impact.
When [if] Mikey Mann reads this he won’t know what the post is talking about because he hasn’t done an experiment since college as an undergrad.
I was looking at the experiment more closely when noticing something:
“- One IR reflector. I used an A4 sheet of 10mm Styrofoam with aluminum foil attached with spray adhesive.
– One IR window. I built an A4 size “picture frame” of 10mm square balsa wood strips and stretched cling film over it.”
Unfortunately that part is not optimal. From the text description and the picture, the “IR reflector” is 10mm thick over the bulk of its area and more what I would call “a thick panel of low thermal-conductivity insulator,” while the “IR window” is a thin sheet in contrast.
Forget radiative heat transfer (IR) for a moment: they aren’t remotely similar with regard to thermal conductivity. That may not matter much in test A when heat escapes predominately by other means but may in test B.
What the experiment should have done is have the IR reflector use a picture frame like the thin-film IR window but with simply stretched thin aluminum foil over it, without any backing to the aluminum foil. (Aluminum foil isn’t too fragile).
As a side note, though I haven’t spent any time to try doing actual math myself, the quantitative magnitude of how much radiation versus conduction & convection would matter in test B might be approximately estimated by an engineer with a heat transfer background. People might be very surprised at the results, especially at this small scale and these temperatures.
I do see the comment by Konrad, which includes a number of different experiments. I’ll refrain on commenting on those until reviewing more.
Untill you add to your calculation all of the wireless com’s ,radars and remote sensing wattage that is propagated through the atmosphere you will never be close to answering the forcing problems The ERP for Americian TV station out put is 100,000 watts and there is about 4 million mobilephone towers and 4 billion subscribers At about 100 watts per tower and 2-4 watts per hand set all use microwave frequencies and here’s what a 1000 watts at 2.4 gig can do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7RFyh5ABcQ Most people say it’s the extra heat created by the match that creates the plasma. So what creates it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i2lhO3bSjQ
And how would you figure out the positive or negative forcing created by this process and when and where it’s being done? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZNj9jtl9Us
One thing you might know is how much power is used to create these pathways http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/5/2/3 ?
One day sooner or later, the climate science will have to look further than CO2 and TSI. Neither of two (I assume) can affect tectonic activity in the N. Atlantic or the Arctic, and yet there is an ‘uncanny’ correlation with the solar cycles.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-NV.htm
The correlation extends to the hemisphere’s temperature variability including the AMO and the CET.
The Earth’s feedback response to warming is independent of the nature of the forcing that caused that warming.
That is the basic rule of what the IPCC says: 1 W/m2 change in GHG effect has the same effect on earth’s temperature as 1 W/m2 change in solar insolation. That is implemented in all GCM’s with a maximum of +/- 10%, compared to CO2 (except +40% for CH4 because of water vapour formed near the stratosphere). But that can’t be true: 1 W/m2 change in solar has most effect in the lower stratosphere (UV – ozone formation) and penetrates the ocean surface down to several hundred meters. IR from GHG’s affects only the upper fraction of a mm of the sea surface. Quite different processes at work.
Even the HadCM3 model shows that solar changes may be underestimated with at least a factor 2. compared to CO2 forcing changes, within the constraints of the model (like a fixed response to human aerosols). See:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
But as far as I know, they never included these results in the Hadley center model…
stan stendera says: April 6, 2013 at 12:48 am
“When [if] Mikey Mann reads this he won’t know what the post is talking about because he hasn’t done an experiment since college as an undergrad.”
The problem is to do experiments that tell you about the atmosphere or ocean. If you do an experiment on a little pot of water, it tells you about a little pot of water. If you want to relate that to the ocean/atmosphere, you need some theory.
That’s where this one breaks down. The sea is constantly in motion. It has waves. These induce a turbulence structure which is the main mode of transmitting heat in the top layers. That is totally lacking here. Blowing a fan at it doesn’t cut it.
But there’s another major lack. It’s actually true that IR does not generally produce a downward heat flux in the water. That’s because the water is heated by sunlight. That heat is conveyed over time to the surface (by that turbulent transport, mostly) and emitted (day and night) mostly as IR, with some evaporation. That’s easy to quantify – it’s measured by satellites.
But downward IR is still vital. The surface is at a temperature generally from 0 to 30 °C (if not freezing). The surface temperature is maintained by heat from below and downward IR. The heat from sunlight alone is not enough to sustain the IR emission from a surface at say 10°C in midlatitude. It would freeze without IR.
None of that is covered by this experiment.
Bob Irvine,
Your point that climate sensitivity cannot be assumed to the same for different forcings that couple to the climate system differently, is inherent in its nonlinear dynamic nature. This is pretty much admitted by Knutti and Heggerl. I’m surprised you didn’t also discuss solar variation in the UV range and its coupling to the stratosphere, and chemically through generation of the greenhouse gas ozone Here is the Knutti reference:
Knutti and Heggerl state in their 2008 review article in Nature Geoscience:
“The concept of radiative forcing is of rather limited use for forcings with strongly varying vertical or spatial distributions.”
or this:
“There is a difference in the sensitivity to radiative forcing for different forcing mechanisms, which has been phrased as their ‘efficacy’”
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
Bob: great post, thanks. The relative forcings you arrived at are consistent with the simple model I constructed to replicate SSTs since 1875 which was featured in a post by Norman Page here at WUWT a few months ago. Because the equilibrium time for solar forcing of ocean heat content is long as you point out, sunspot number needs to be integrated to represent the response properly. Once it is, it can be seen that the Sun increased OHC all the way from 1934 to 2003.
Konrad: looking forward to publishing your essay now the busy season is drawing to a close in Oz.
Konrad says: “Experiment 1 described below is an improvement on the version Bob has shown. ”
These experiments are very interesting. #1 especially so. Absorption of photons is a molecule by molecule process, as is evaporation. Clearly a surface molecule that has just absorbed a photon will be more likely to evaporate than one that has not.
Since LW penetrates so little most of this energy is precisely affecting molecules likely to evaporate.
Your experiment may be more indicative of tropics due to the water temperature.
Do you have results for the modified version posted anywhere?
Kinda on topic? The media walk back continues. Will it soon be a flood?
“Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9974397/Global-warming-time-to-rein-back-on-doom-and-gloom.html
One only has to look at fig 2 @3 to see that all past events of warm and cool periods are related to the vagarities of the sun.
The sun seems to have many cycles and not just the 11 year ones, that after a period of strenuous exercise it is resting, does not auger well for the global warming cause, nor for those that do not like cold winters.
From the paper I read “The IPCC’s position is that climate sensitivity measurements” Assuming this is referring to the climate sensitivity of CO2, please note that, res ipsa loquitur, the climate sensitivity of CO2, however defined, has NEVER been measured, so this statement is nonsense. There are NO climate sensitivity of CO2 measurements; none whatsoever. Warmists will not admit that the CS of CO2 has never been measured, and as a result, the important implications of thsi fact cannot be properly discussed.
Nick Stokes is talking nonsense. The point at issue is whether DWIR can heat the bulk of the ocean, not whether the surface briefly absorbs and re-emits it. Konrad’s experiment shows the way forward. The reason CSIRO won’t do it under conditions better simulating the open ocean is they know it’ll blow their pet theory out of the water.
The money quote: “It is well known and accepted physics that Long wave radiation from GHGs only penetrates the oceans to a depth of a fraction of a millimetre. Water is almost totally opaque to these wavelengths. Short wave solar radiation, on the other hand, penetrates water to a depth of 10 meters or more and is, therefore, readily involved in ocean heat”…
To my layman mind, the lack of any evidence of the IPCC GCM predicted “Tropospheric Warm Zone” coupled with this interesting fact, (the above quote) Shows CO2 warms neither the atmosphere nor the oceans to any significant degree.
It’s amazing that a revelation of good news disappoints so many warmistas.
This chagrin at good tidings shows the warmistas true misanthropic desires.
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
A post on WUWT which I expect to generate some interesting comment. Konrad’s experimental work published at the talkshop is featured.
By the way my last comment was written by no other than Geoffrey Lean. That’s right Geoffrey Lean. He mentions now looks into climate sensitivity.
I have used the temperature reconstructions of Mann 2008 EIV, Moberg 2005, Loehle 2008 and Ljungqvist 2010 to represent temperature change over the last millennium.
Mr. Irvine
The Loehle’s temperature reconstruction
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LLa.htm
has good correlation with the Arctic’s geomagnetic field variability, which is about two orders of magnitude greater than the heliospheric magnetic field at the Earth’s orbit.
In the Antarctic too, geomagnetic field directly correlates to the heliospheric magnetic field, but again is about two orders of magnitude greater than the heliospheric.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm