Random notes on climate change from the perspective of one who trusts the scientific consensus.
I get the notices by email and will keep my eye out. I
think our discussions here and on the Briffa post are converging on the
reliability of the surface and satellite measurements. Perhaps we should
continue here exclusively?
I was interested in your response to the following exchange earlier:
The switch from ERSST v3b to v4 was … (drumroll) … net cooling:
From 1850 something that may be the case. However, Christy showed
that since 1995, that change biased NOAA trends upwards relative to
Hadcrut4 and UAH sea surface measurements.
The changes to ERSST, whether justified or not, do constitute a warming trend since 1995.
Now concerning the Monckton issue,
I did, and attempted to respond to his assertion masquerading as a
question: “Why is the ocean warming not from above but below?”
But it wasn’t an assertion.
It was a question that deserves an answer.
I would answer that there is insufficient evidence to know where the warming comes from.
The errors in measurement are too large to say with
confidence that warming comes from increasing CO2, or excess solar
insolation, or from ocean warming originating from who knows how long
ago. Solar insolation is greatly affected by clouds and I’m not aware of
any definitive data indicating how much SW radiation is actually
absorbed by the surface.
Had the intent been an assertion, I surmise that it would
have been something like “global warming can’t be caused by fossil fuel
emissions, because the troposphere hasn’t warmed as it would have had
to according to AGW theory. His substantiation was that you would have
to deny satellite data to claim that the troposphere is warming the
Vertical convection in the ocean is not favored, because the temperatures are lower and density greater with depth.
Turbulence at the surface and thermohaline circulation are other phenomena.
If the circulation is causing the warming, what does that have to do with fossil fuel emissions?
If that were obvious there wouldn’t be such a debate about it, as you and I are having.
So what mechanisms and magnitudes do you attribute to the sources that are heating the surface(s) of the Earth?
sea water (290 K) 4.006 kJ/kg K
air (300 K) 1.005 kJ/kg K
mass of oceans 1.35E21 kg
mass of atmosphere 5.15E18 kg
energy to change ocean temps by 1 K = 1 K * 4.006 kJ/kg K * 1.35E21 kg = 5.41E+21 kJ
energy to change atmos temps by 1 K = 1 K * 1.005 kJ/kg K * 5.15E18 kg = 5.18E+18 kJ
4.006 kJ/kg K * 1,000 J/kJ * 0.0019 K/yr / 5.47E21 J/yr = 1.39E-21 1/kg = 7.19E+20 kg
7.19E+20 kg / 1.35E21 kg = 0.53
5.47E21 J/yr / 3.16E07 s/yr = 1.73E14 J/s (W)
1.73E14 W / 5.10E14 m^2 = 0.34 W/m^2
0.0130 K/yr * 5.18E+18 kJ/K * 1,000 J/kJ = 6.72E19 J/yr
6.72E19 J/yr / 3.16E07 s/yr = 2.13E12 J/s (W)
2.13E12 W / 5.10E14 m^2 = 0.004 W/m^2
0.01 latent heat (surface evaporation/ice melt)
0.6 W/m^2 * 0.93 = 0.56 W/m^2 - 0.34 W/m^2 = 0.22 W/m^2
0.34 W/m^2 / 59 yr = 5.76E-03 W/m^2 yr (upper 2km oceans)
2.13E-03 W/m^2 yr / 5.76E-03 W/m^2 yr = 2.7
ΔCO2 = 1.5 ppmv/yr
Δln(C/C0) = 4.21E-03 1/yr
4.21E-03 1/yr * 5.35 W/m^2 = 2.25E-02 W/m^2/yr
ln(400 ppmv/315 ppmv) * 5.35 W/m^2 = 1.28 W/m^2
ln(400 ppmv/290 ppmv) * 5.35 W/m^2 = 1.71 W/m^2 :CO2
9.06E-03 W/m^2/yr * 135/yr = 1.21 W/m^2 :TSI
1.21 W/m^2 * (1-0.06) / 4 = 0.29 W/m^2 :TSI accounting for albedo and geometry
1.28 W/m^2 / 0.29 W/m^2 = 4.4 (CO2:1958-2015 / Solar:1882-2015)
1.71 W/m^2 / 0.29 W/m^2 = 5.9 (CO2:1882-2015 / Solar:1882-2015)
I already referred to evidence from Stephens et al.
(2013) reporting that incoming SW radiation (gross minus reflected) is
240 +/- 2 W/m2. They also report outgoing as 240 +/- 3.3 W/m2. Trenberth
et al. (2009) report incoming and outgoing from various sources ranging
from 225 to 245 W/m2 for incoming SW and 236 to 254 W/m2 for outgoing
LW. By your own calculations, the increase in ocean heat content is
approximately 0.34 W/m2 which constitutes to over 90% of the increase in
global heat content. Therefore we can account for less than 0.5 W/m2 of
the energy imbalance whatever it may actually be. Since the
imbalance from solar is possibly several times greater than that, I
conclude that all of the increase in heat content could be due to the
amount of solar SW insolation absorbed by the planet.