Guest essay by Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Main Points
1. The difference in ocean heat content at two different time periods provides the global average radiative imbalance over that time [within the uncertainty of the ocean heat measurements]
2. This global average radiative imbalance is equal to the sum of the global average radiative forcings and the global average radiative feedbacks.
3. The global average radiative forcing change since 1750 is presented in the 2013 IPCC WG1 Figure SPM.5 as 2.29 [1.13 -3.33] Watts per meter squared.
4. The global average radiative imbalance is given in the 2013 IPCC report as 0.59 Watts per meter squared for 1971-2010 while for 1993-2010 it is 0.71 Watts per meter squared.
5. Thus, assuming that a large fraction of the global average radiative forcing change since 1750 is still occurring, the global average radiative feedbacks are significantly less than the global average forcings; i.e. a negative feedback.
6. Such a negative feedback is expected (since the surface temperature, and thus the loss of long wave radiation to space would increase).
7. However, the water vapor and cloud radiative feedback must also be part of the feedback. This water vapor feedback is a key claim in terms of amplifying warming due to the addition of CO2 and other human inputs of greenhouse gases. The IPCC claims that the net cloud radiative feedback is also positive.
8. The IPCC failed to report on the global average radiative feedbacks of water vapor and clouds in terms in Watts per meter squared, and how they fit into the magnitude of the diagnosed global average radiative imbalance.
9. The reason is likely that they would to avoid discussing that in recent years; at least, there has been no significant addition of water vapor into the atmosphere. Indeed, this water vapor feedback, along with any other feedbacks must be ALL accommodated within the magnitude of the global average radiative imbalance that is diagnosed from the ocean heating data!
It certainly appears that, even using the 2013 IPCC WG1 assessment estimates, that the vapor amplification of global warming is not, as least yet, occurring.
I explain and elaborate on these issues below.
Introduction
As I wrote above, the 2013 WG1 IPCC assessment of the magnitude of the radiative forcings on the climate system persists in missing discussing a key fundamental issue, namely the estimated magnitudes of
· the global annual average radiative imbalance,
· the global annual average radiative forcing
· the global annual average radiative feedbacks
and how these quantities are related to each other.
Section 1 The Fundamental Budget Equation
The relationship between the annual global average radiative forcings, radiative feedbacks and radiative imbalance can be expressed by this budget equation
Radiative Imbalance = Radiative Forcing + Radiative Feedbacks
where the units are in Joules per time period [and can be expressed as Watts per area].
The fundamental difference with this approach and that presented in papers such as Stephens et al (2012) – see http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/05-figure-1-from-stephens-et-al-2013.png
is that instead of computing the radiative imbalance as a residual as a result of large positive and negative values in the radiative flux budget with its large uncertainty as shown by Stephens et al, this metric is a robust constraint on the analysis of the radiative fluxes.
As Bob Tisdale reports, the Stephens et al value of the global average radiative imbalance [which Stephens et al calls the “surface imbalance”] is 0.70 Watts per meter squared, but with the large uncertainty of 17 Watts per meter squared!
The Stephens et al paper is
Stephens et al, 2012: An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations. Nature Geoscience 5, 691–696 (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo158 http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/abs/ngeo1580.html [as an aside, that paper, unfortunately, makes the typical IPCC type mistake in stating that the
“Climate change is governed by changes to the global energy balance.”
Changes in the climate system on any time scale is much more than just any changes in the global energy budget as we discuss, for example, in
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/r-354.pdf
Section 2 The Radiative Imbalance
With respect to the Radiative Imbalance, as I proposed in my paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331- 335.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-247.pdf
the radiative imbalance can be estimated based on the changes in the ocean heat content. As written in
Levitus, S., et al. (2012), World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000), 1955-2010, Geophys. Res. Lett.,doi:10.1029/2012GL051106
“The world ocean accounts for approximately 90% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955”
Jim Hansen had provided his value of the heating rate in a communication to me in 2005 http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/1116592hansen.pdf]
as
The Willis et al. measured heat storage of 0.62 W/m2 refers to the decadal mean for the upper 750 m of the ocean. Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean. The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2 , includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.”
More recent information, with respect to the Radiative Imbalance is reported in
Levitus, S., et al. (2012), World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000), 1955-2010, Geophys. Res. Lett.,doi:10.1029/2012GL051106
“The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-2000 m layer increased by 24.0×1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.39 Wm-2 (per unit area of the world ocean)…. This warming rate corresponds to a rate of 0.27 Wm-2 per unit area of earth’s surface.”
The IPCC WG1 Chapter 3 [http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf]
writes
“It is virtually certain that Earth has gained substantial energy from 1971–2010 — the estimated increase in energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 is 274 [196 to 351] ZJ (1 ZJ = 1021 J), with a rate of 213 TW from a linear fit to the annual values over that time period (Box 3.1, Figure 1). Ocean warming dominates the total energy change inventory, accounting for roughly 93% on average from 1971–2010. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets, and glaciers) accounts for 3% of the total, and warming of the continents 3%. Warming of the atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%. The 1971–2010 estimated rate of oceanic energy gain is 199 TW from a linear fit to data over that time period, implying a mean heat flux of 0.55 W m–2 across the global ocean surface area. Earth’s net estimated energy increase from 1993–2010 is 163 [127 to 201] ZJ with a trend estimate of 275 TW. The ocean portion of the trend for 1993–2010 is 257 TW, equivalent to a mean heat flux into the ocean of 0.71 W m–2.”
Using the 93% dominance of the ocean in this heating, then from the 2013 IPCC report
· 1971-2010 the total earth surface heating rate is 0.59 Watts per meter squared
· 1993-2010 it is 0.71 Watts per meter squared.
Of course, there is the question as to whether the Levitus et al 2012 calculation below 700 meters before 2005 is even robust. The 2013 IPCC WG1 Chapter 3 report writes [highlight added] – http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf
“Below 700 m data coverage is too sparse to produce annual global ocean heat content estimates prior to about 2005, but from 2005–2010 and 0–1500 m the global ocean is warming (von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011). Five-year running mean estimates yield a 700–2000 m global ocean heat content trend from 1957 to 2009 (Figure 3.2b) that is about 30% of that for 0–2000 m over the length of the record (Levitus et al., 2012). Ocean heat uptake from 700–2000 m continues unabated since 2003 (Figure 3.2b); as a result, ocean heat content from 0–2000 m shows less slowing after 2003 than does 0–700 m heat content (Levitus et al., 2012). “
Remarkably, the IPCC report persists in making claims regarding deeper ocean heating before 2005. But that is a subject for another time.
Section 3 The Radiative Forcing
Using even the largest value [the 0.85 W/me value for the Radiative Imbalance from Jim Hansen], however, it is still significantly less than the total anthropogenic change in radiative forcing since 1750 reported by the IPCC.
In Figure SPM.5 in the 2013 IPCC WG, they report that the total anthropogenic change in radiative forcing since 1750 is
2.29 [1.13 -3.33] Watts per meter squared.
They write that
“The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.”
and
“The total anthropogenic RF for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5), and it has increased more rapidly since 1970 than during prior decades.”
Unfortunately, the IPCC did not provide an estimate of the CURRENT “total anthropogenic RF”.
Some of this forcing would have been accommodated with warming of the climate system since 1750. When I served on the NRC (2005) assessment [http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/], one of my colleagues on the Committee (V. Ramanthan), when I asked him this question, he said that perhaps 20% of the CO2 radiative forcing was already equilibrated to. In any case, the CURRENT forcing must be somewhat less, but not probably by more than 20% or so.
Regardless, unless the IPCC estimates of the Radiative Forcing are too positive, this means that the
Radiative Imbalance < Radiative Forcing.
4. Radiative Feedbacks
However, while the warming of the climate system is a negative radiative feedback, and thus we should expect this part to be a negative feedback [since a surface temperature results in an increase of the outgoing long wave radiation to space], added water vapor, if it is there, would be a positive radiative feedback.
In my book
Cotton, W.R. and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2007: Human impacts on weather and climate, Cambridge University Press, 330 pp
in Section 8.2.8 we reported on an analysis of the water vapor feedback by Norm Woods using column assessments for three selected vertical soundings. Norm showed that the positive significant radiative forcing from even modest (e.g. 5% increase is atmospheric water vapor) is significant. [See also http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2006/05/05/co2h2o/].
Norm Woods’s further analysis can be read on this posts
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/further-analysis-of-radiatve-forcing-by-norm-woods/
Among the conclusions for the representative soundings Norm used are
“with the tropical sounding ….adding 5% more water vapor, results in a 3.88 Watts per meter squared increase in the downwelling longwave flux. In contrast, due to the much lower atmospheric concentrations of water vapor in the subarctic winter sounding, the change from a zero concentration to its current value results in an increase of 116.46 Watts per meter squared, while adding 5% to the current value results in a 0.70 Watts per meter squared increase.”
and
“The effect of even small increases in water vapor content of the atmosphere in the tropics has a much larger effect on the downwelling fluxes, than does a significant increase of the CO2 concentrations.”
However, there appears to be no long trend in atmospheric water vapor! This can be seen in the latest analysis we have;
Vonder Haar, T. H., J. L. Bytheway, and J. M. Forsythe (2012), Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L15802, doi:10.1029/2012GL052094. [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052094/abstract]
Although they write in the paper
“at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.”
just the difficulty in showing a positive trend suggests a very muted water vapor feedback at most.
The figure from their paper with respect to this analysis is shown below
The 2013 IPCC WG1 SPM report states with respect to the radiative feedbacks that
“The net feedback from the combined effect of changes in water vapour, and differences between atmospheric and surface warming is extremely likely positive and therefore amplifies changes in climate. The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types combined is likely positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds.” [http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf]
They also write, in contrast to what is seen in the Vonderhaar et al 2012 paper,
“Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence)”
This report also write that
“The rate and magnitude of global climate change is determined by radiative forcing, climate feedbacks and the storage of energy by the climate system.”
Of course the report also fails to distinguish “global climate change” [which is much more than just the global average radiative forcings and feedbacks; a mistake also made in Stephens et al 2012].
The IPCC WG1 report discuss the reduced heating and Radiative Forcing in recent years as follows
“The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols)…”
Nowhere in this discussion, except implicitly in the mention of internal variability, is the role of the radiative feedbacks including the role of water vapor and clouds presented.
5. The IPCC Failure
The IPCC report has failed to report on the implications of the real world radiative imbalance being significantly smaller than the radiative forcing. This means not only that the net radiative feedbacks must be negative, but they failed to document the magnitude in Watts per meter squared of the contributions to positive feedbacks from surface warming, and from atmospheric water vapor and clouds.
These must be smaller than what the IPCC models are producing.
One clear conclusion from their failure is that the climate system has larger variations in the Radiative Imbalance, Forcing and Feedbacks than is predicted by the model and accepted in the 2013 IPCC assessment report. Judy Curry David Douglass, Roy Spencer, Bob Tisdale, Anastasios Tsonis, Marcia Wyatt and others have been pioneers in advocating this perspective, and the failure in the SPM of the 2013 IPCC WG1 report to discuss this issue is a major failing of the assessment.
My patience with Ocean Warming Heat content arguments is at an end. Levitus is <a href=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/24/reactions-to-the-pause-grasping-at-strawmen-in-hidey-holes/#comment-1370380grasping at straws, using inconsistent year ranges, and drawing conclusions from under-sampled data little better than guesses, using gigantic heat numbers of the order of 3*10 ^22 Joules (30 ZetaJoules) that amount to miniscule 0.01 deg C that is questionably in the level of precision.
From quote from Chapter 3, just above “Section 3”
A: “Below 700 m data coverage is too sparse to produce annual global ocean heat content estimates prior to about 2005
I fully agree. See: July 24, 2013, OHC and History of Measurement Systems But it is a fact that they ignore the rest of the paragraph.
B: but from 2005–2010 and 0–1500 m the global ocean is warming (von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011).
Yes, but warming how much? In KJ? In deg C? Lack of specificity is a big red flag!
See Chart from 2005 to 2013 We are talking about a mean warming of less than 0.002 deg C per year with an uncertainty at least 0.003 deg C per year. 0.02 deg C over the entire 2005-2013 time frame is more than enough to hide all the heat. Can that be measured with the needed accuracy?
C: Five-year running mean estimates yield a 700–2000 m global ocean heat content trend from 1957 to 2009 (Figure 3.2b) that is about 30% of that for 0–2000 m over the length of the record (Levitus et al., 2012).
The entire [C] is junk, invalidated by observation [A]. 30% of an unknown, too sparsely sampled dataset for any reliable estimate, is also an unknown number.
D: Ocean heat uptake from 700–2000 m continues unabated since 2003 (Figure 3.2b);
Logically invalidated by [A]. Sloppy if not deliberately deceptive Why go back to 2003 if estimated cannot be trusted prior to 2005? Watch the pea under the thimble. If you measure from 2005, you cannot prove the slope in temperatures is positive.
E: as a result, ocean heat content from 0–2000 m shows less slowing after 2003 than does 0–700 m heat content (Levitus et al., 2012). “
Certainly not within uncertainty of measurement. A comparison of the second derivative of Temperature over 7 years? When we can’t even be sure the 1st derivative (warming rate) is positive?
Drops in mid/upper level tropospheric Specific humidity have been observed since 2007 PDO flip and are especially prominent in the tropics. This is opposite the IPCC idea and also may be playing a key role in the collapse of the ACE in recent years.
If Vonderhaar et al 2012 results are correct, then water vapor cannot be a “simple” feedback to CO2 forcing. Even more interesting – cloud cover behaves in a similar fashion.
H2O compared to CO2
AlecM says:
October 21, 2013 at 11:08 am
Not sure if you were addressing me or Roger but here goes anyway 🙂
I do not agree with Hansen that Rspecific causes the greenhouse effect. I consider that it prevents the greenhouse gases from adding to the mass and gravity induced greenhouse effect by causing an increase in volume.
As far as I recall AGW theory ignores expansion and proposes instead an increase in the effective radiating height to a colder location whilst leaving volume unchanged. That colder location is supposed to allow less energy out to space and allow a rise in temperature beneath it.
I have often asked (and not been answered) whether the truth is that the whole atmosphere expands so that the effective radiating height keeps the same temperature as before but being higher up becomes more effective at radiating out.
I don’t see how he could do as he did because it would unbalance the Gas Law equation whereby
PV = mRspecificT
if he only changes Rspecific and nothing else.
Allowing volume to rise in tandem with a rise in the energy used to lift the atmosphere against the force of gravity (Rspecific) does keep the equation balanced and avoids the need for a rise in T.
Did Hansen fail to realise that wherever Rspecific is different to R (the universal constant) then one must also change V to keep the equation in balance ?
The analysis of Levitus et al and others is a little misleading. Within the limitations of their data, one can say what the rate of heating must have been on average to have produced the cumulative increase of stored heat, but it is a mistake to think of that as an imbalance at the surface. The upper few tens of meters of oceans will respond to heating on a time scale of a year or two. To have a continuing buildup of heat content and surface temperatures requires a continuously increasing radiative heating of the surface. That was not occurring between about 1950 and 1965, but ocean surface temperature and ocean heat content 0-700 m increased after that. In Fig. 1 of
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/the-sun-does-it-now-go-figure-out-how/ I showed that both could be produced by net ocean surface radiative heating increasing at about 0.31 watt/m^2/decade. That is a little closer to what might be produced by CO2 (3.7 watt/m^2 / 14decades = 0.26 watt/m^2/decade), but if CO2 had been responsible, neither trend would have stopped in the last decade. Further, I the variations of surface temperatures shown over solar cycles shows a much larger solar effect than the IPCC takes into account.
0.31 watt/m^2/decade, continued for 40 years after 1965 would produce about 1.24 watt/m^2 excess heating rate, for an average of 0.62 watt/m^2, which is in reasonable agreement with the IPCC’s 0.59 watt/m^2 for 1970-2010. But at no time was there ever this amount of imbalance at the ocean surface, nor is there any reason to suppose that CO2 was the cause.
AlecM.
Perhaps I should mention that the increase in volume converts any ‘excess’ kinetic energy to potential energy and that is why T can remain unaffected.
– – – – – – – –
Roger A. Pielke Sr.,
Thank you for the clear guidance through the AR5 report’s radiance budget maze.
You describe the IPCC report’s radiation budget issues as failures, when they equally can be viewed also as intentional avoidance of anything in the radiation budget that is significantly contrary to the thesis of significant AGW from burning fossil fuel.
I think both descriptions of what the IPCC report has done can serve in communication to the public.
John
Dr. Pielke,
Thank you for yet another accessible, reasonable and thoughtful essay.
This is probably a well addressed question, so please feel free to chuckle:
If Pressure stays the same as temperature increases, does this not mean, according to the ideal gas law that the volume must increase? If this is so, how much volume has the atmosphere to increase to accomodate the added warming, or is there a trend in atmospheric pressure that has been addressed elsewhere?
lurker, passing through laughing – Excellent question; thanks!
Unless there was removal of air from the atmosphere, the global average surface pressure must be invariant over time (ignoring the exceedingly small affect of added gases). Thus, as you correctly noted the atmosphere will increase its volume by expanding aloft. This concept of “thickness” is actually a basic concept in meteorology. Roger Sr,.
A layman’s observation:
If the (seemingly knowledgeable) people commenting here can be so at variance with each other, how can the IPCC be 95% confident in their conclusions regarding AGW?
And a nit-pick – when was Anthony raised to such illustrious levels that ‘watts per meter squared’ became ‘Watts per meter squared’ (although this is deserved, in my opinion)?
As an operational meteorologist of 32 years, my education and understanding of this field continues to grow thanks to work/discussions like this.
Much appreciated Roger and to Anthony for attracting serious scientists with comprehensive understanding and willingness to share it here.
Dr. Pielke,
Thank you for your clear answer.
It does raise a question:
If the atmosphere/climate system is not behaving as predicted regarding temperature, could one of the factors be expansion of the atmosphere? This certainly seems as reasonable a candidate for a ‘fast’ response to additional energy as ocean expansion. In other words, if oceans expand ‘dangerously’ due to the energy imbalances being discussed, why would not the atmosphere also expand? If the ideal gas law is a relevant guide, then atmospheric expansion would act to ‘offset’ additional heating/energization, as well as increase the radiating surface area of the atmosphere…..or would it?
Nir Shaviv finds 6X-8X solar amplification by using The oceans as a calorimeter
Sciencebits.com 2009-04-12 21:48
Nir J. Shaviv (2008); Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989. Local Copy.
Michael Moon: “This is falsified!”
Canonical response: The models that work in this manner are not falsified. They are statistical metrics that are, by definition, only loose approximations of things. So they can neither be true or false.
— This is, strictly, true by the way. There are any numerous variants in this topic, but it’s a presentation of the Pinnochio problem: “It may or may not be the case that this one thing did or did not occur in a way that could or could not be measured.” There are two attendant issues. To falisfy a claim, a claim must be made. When dabbling with real world things, that requires that a claim be made about the real world. The both of which are stating that a testable claim must be in existence.
The problem here is that the metaphysical postulate is put forth as: “Human exhalation will cause the climate to be warmer than if humans held their breath.” And this is retained as a metaphysical postulate by testing the different: “If clouds or not clouds or ocean heat traps or not ocean heat traps or sun variance or not sun variance or sea volume changes or not sea volume changes, then the climate will be warmer than if humans held their breath.”
Of course, humans will always exhale, so that’s tautological in its own right. And as ‘warmer’ is a relative metric, then we cannot test double-blind or in alternate possible worlds we don’t have. It’s simply not laboratory testable. As a logical construct, it is impossible for it to be wrong for those reasons only. That the condition is tautological and entails everything anyways is meaningless.
The idea here is Sophist Whack-a-mole. To tie up and exhaust the insufficiently gullible by having them attack every meaningless construct that pops up. But the central claim metaphysical claim is not touched, and can not be. Not only is everything a vacuous tautology from top to bottom, the tautology tested is never the tautology stated. So if you like Falsificationism, there’s nothing to falsify as there’s nothing tested. And if you like Positivism you can take your pick. Either there’s no affirmation or support, as nothing is testable. Or there’s nothing that isn’t affirmation and support; which is how these things are sold, piece meal, to the public.
Granted, Logic is threshholded and Sophists will trot out and state: “But we use differential equations, man. But only the rational numbers, we’re not, like, ::Dorito chewing noises:: dumb. We don’t do irrational numbers or anything else.” Which hardly matters at all as you can trivially put threshholds on R^2 conditions, statistical hypothesis testing, where a mark lies on a rule, etc.
So when you say ‘falsified’ you’re stuck whacking, and appropriately whacking, the particular parameterizations of a particular polynomial equation, with an absurdly large degree, that are used in the one specific model. Every other model, with a different polynomial, is different.
Not on you generally here. This simply seems to be a vastly overlooked problem that’s more easily stated as: Don’t go after last of a long chain of sophistries; go after the first thing the Sophist introduced.
It’s not wrong to go after the models and end points directly. But it’s a lot easier to ask the Runecasters and Numerologists to produce, by themselves, a claim that would undeniably show the accuracy of their fortune telling. For if they can, then they also permit falsification. And if they cannot, then they’re writing a horoscope column; having failed to produce anything valid as a scientific theory under either Falsificationism or Positivism.
Many thanks for an excellent summary introduction to this topic. I did find a few minor typos/omissions:
I think you wanted to say “… they would want to avoid …” or perhaps “… they would prefer to avoid …”.
The unit specifier “watts per square meter” appeared sometimes as a phrase, sometimes as “W/m2”, sometimes as “W/m-2” and I believe just once as “W/me”. I assume these last two are typos. I don’t know if it is common usage in the literature, but I also found the phrase “watts per meter squared” less comfortable than “watts per square meter”.
To John in OZ:
Snorted coffee out my nose when reading that. Just as in the case of other units
named after famous scientists (e.g., Joule, Henry, Fermi, Oersted, and many others),
the use of capitalization is inconsistent between different posters. Anthony is blessed
with a last name that is not only closely related to James Watt, but allows the pun
in the name of this blog to work as well!
Stephen Wilde, “The increase in average heights then reduces average atmospheric density and allows more energy out to space faster to negate their thermal effects. ”
Actually, the increase in average height (volume) is from the kinetic energy doing work (expanding the atmosphere) and hence causes lower temperatures. Just look at the temperature (and height) of a hurricane. The expanded gas radiates less IR than the condensed gas because it is colder. Also moist air contains more energy than an equivalent volume and temperature of dry air.
The direct human-made forcing is 2.3 W/m2 in IPCC AR5. On top of that, we should have seen feedbacks of another 1.7 W/m2 according to the theory for a total of 4.0 W/m2.
But only 0.56 W/m2 is showing up.
I’ve been showing it in this manner lately.
http://s17.postimg.org/4ts1blb4v/2013_Missing_Energy.png
In this case “Missing” is a combination of:
– the increased radiative transfer to space as it has warmed up as pointed out by Roger Pielke Sr. (but none of the satellites have found this trend, if anything it is mostly flat);
– less feedbacks occurring than was predicted (but the actual water vapor data and maybe some cloud data shows there should actually be between 25% to 50% of these feedbacks showing up); and then,
– a huge amount of it must truly be “Missing” since the previous two explanations do not account for the 3.44 W/m2 which is not there. If anything, the previous two explanations still leave about 2.8 W/m2 “Missing”.
The theory is wrong or it is missing something very important.
Genghis says:
October 21, 2013 at 5:07 pm
Stephen Wilde, “The increase in average heights then reduces average atmospheric density and allows more energy out to space faster to negate their thermal effects. ”
“Actually, the increase in average height (volume) is from the kinetic energy doing work (expanding the atmosphere) and hence causes lower temperatures. Just look at the temperature (and height) of a hurricane. The expanded gas radiates less IR than the condensed gas because it is colder. Also moist air contains more energy than an equivalent volume and temperature of dry air.”
Sounds to me like you are both saying the same thing in a different way. The gas expansion would be exothermic as it cools and the heat energy has to go somewhere.
Jim G, “Sounds to me like you are both saying the same thing in a different way. The gas expansion would be exothermic as it cools and the heat energy has to go somewhere.”
No, the gas expansion is endothermic. The top of a hurricane (or cloud or thunderstorm) is very cold. The energy (heat) goes into expanding the atmosphere, not radiating away. At the bottom of the highest point of a hurricane is the lowest pressure. This is basic meteorology 101 : )
I think I said that badly. The temperature goes down, but the total energy stays the same in the air parcel as it expands. The only time heat gets released is when the water vapor condenses, which further contributes to the expansion of the air parcel.
The lapse rate of moist saturated air is 5˚C/km and the lapse rate of air with no water vapor ( just GHG’s) is 9.8˚C/km. Hence with lapse rates above 5˚C/km water vapor is a negative feedback.
@ur momisugly Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Thank you for a very informative post. It has lead to much interesting discussion. I have read through the post and comments twice to grasp all that is offered.
—————-
@ur momisugly Stephen Wilde
I am following you discussion with regards to the expansion of the atmosphere with great interest. Can you offer a site/forum/discussion where you lay it all out so that it can easily be fully understood by one like myself with a good basic understanding of physics and gas laws. Perhaps even a guest post where it can be vetted here on WUWT. I feel I have the concept fairly well but the discussion in the comments usually hammers things home.
—–
Anyway, thanks to all.
@ur momisugly lurker, passing through laughing:
The immediate effect of an expanded atmosphere you will find buried in lost science from the 1500’s or 1600’s known well by sailors and the effect of an increase in radiation lost to space has to do with height. Google “dip of the horizon” for many sites that will give the still valid equations to calculate this purely geometric factor. When they speak of star-light incoming, just turn it around and think of IR outgoing, the same effect applies both ways.
Sadly, you will never hear of this negative effect in climate “science” ever mentioned. Too simple.
@ur momisugly lurker, passing through laughing:
Oh, get out a ancient trig book, haversines and exsecants involved if I remember correct off the top of my head.
eyesonu says:
October 21, 2013 at 7:14 pm
Here you go:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/how-the-gas-laws-as-applied-to-non-ideal-gases-prevent-the-radiative-capabilities-of-gases-from-contributing-to-the-greenhouse-effect/