Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

It makes sense that the oceans would play a HUGE part in climate since they cover the most area on earth(~70%). But what makes things difficult is the fact that the oceans have the LEAST amount of data obs. So in summary, 70% of the earth's surface have the LEAST amount of obs. Now we know why it is impossible to prove man-made GW. Because you first have to prove Co2 induced GW. Then you have to break it up into "man-made" and "natural" constituents....Something entirely out of our abilities.....And when you have a MASSIVE part of the puzzle missing to start with, its almost impossible to prove the first point! And the number of data obs only decreases rapidly as we go up in the atmosphere too!

This is why the only conclusion I can come up with in regards to global warming is that AGW is not possible to prove, but that the sun and our oceans hold the ultimate key to what the climate has done in the past and what it will do in the future! The problem arises that our data records are so flawed that this "key" will never be found.

The top 6 feet of the ocean holds as much heat as the entire atmosphere.

But no, the oceans have no effect...

(sarcasam)

Don't you meam BTUs?

Tropic,

Easy answer: WE DONT KNOW! And we most likely will never know. The only Being that knows everything PERFECTLY is God.

I'm a scientist looking for scientific explanations of natural phenomenon. I reserve God for matters of the spirit not the flesh (or earth).

261. Sullivan, I agree about growing season length, but not ice-out data since it is based on an integrative phenomenon, which makes it a strong indicator since it evens out abrupt, temporary, ups and downs. Bloom dates are also an integrative phenomenon, as is season average snow depth and snow moisture content. The fact is there are multiple indicators of changing NE climate and finding fault with one doesn't change the overall conclusion.

I'm a scientist looking for scientific explanations of natural phenomenon. I reserve God for matters of the spirit not the flesh (or earth).

In other words Quasi, God has no place in nature, earth, or God forbid science, lol I wonder what Einstein would of thought of such sentiments.

303. streamtracker 9:23 PM GMT on February 19, 2008
Tropic,

Easy answer: WE DONT KNOW! And we most likely will never know. The only Being that knows everything PERFECTLY is God.

I'm a scientist looking for scientific explanations of natural phenomenon. I reserve God for matters of the spirit not the flesh (or earth).

GOD made both flesh and Earth. It is well explained in Genesis and Psalms.

Genesis 2: Thus the heavens were finised,and all the host of them.

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

There is more in the Bible explaining this if you want to hear more. Let me know.

tracker

you are not a scientist.

I still don't understand how God falls into these conversations.

I usually leave the God comments alone. Although, I must say, they have no place in a climate change discussion.

I agree

Albert Einstein

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.

Re #304: "Bloom dates are also an integrative phenomenon"

See, I would always tell them that but it hardly ever worked. After a while I had to resort to stuff like complimenting their choice of clothing.

Re #s 299/300/301: It is the vastly greater heat capacity of the oceans vs. the atmosphere that makes it possible for climate oscillations to affect global surface temperature over the short-term. I hope this wasn't news to anyone.

so what would happen if heat from a large pool start to be transferred to the small one?

Yes, but CO2 must start it otherwise it is not possible. (sarcasm)

It is the vastly greater heat capacity of the oceans vs. the atmosphere that makes it possible for climate oscillations to affect global surface temperature over the short-term.


So what you're basically saying is that increased TSI over the previous 70 years should have an effect namely in the oceans. The oceans are able to absorb a much greater percentage of insolation than the atmosphere.

If TSI, on average, is running 1-2 W/M2 higher now than it was from 1700-1900 (smoothed values) would not a fair percentage of this able to be absorbed by the oceans, hence, warming them, in turn, warming the atmosphere?

Sure GHG's are a part of it, but to dismiss the effect of TSI is foolish.

I do not think GHG is a part of it.

Cruc,

How not so??

GHG's (namely CO2) absorb outgoing infrared radiation and scatter it in all directions. Hence some of this radiation is reflected back towards the surface of the Earth. Of course it has an effect. It is how much of an effect. That's the big question.

313. crucilandia
so what would happen if heat from a large pool start to be transferred to the small one?

Yes, but CO2 must start it otherwise it is not possible. (sarcasm)


Same effect the "TUNNELS" give us.

Re #314: "If TSI, on average, is running 1-2 W/M2 higher now than it was from 1700-1900 (smoothed values) would not a fair percentage of this able to be absorbed by the oceans, hence, warming them, in turn, warming the atmosphere?"

It probably isn't running any higher for one thing, but for another GHGs and solar have different signatures. The most obvious difference is that GHG warming warms the troposphere while cooling the stratosphere, but solar warming would be more uniform.

An otherwise unremarkable fellow once said "if you set out to test a circumstance with preconceptions in tow, you will find them."

Hey, I just report it.

It probably isn't running any higher for one thing

I suggest the following paper

Lean, Judith 2000. "Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum." Geophysical Research Letters, 27, 2425-2428

Ready for my "TUNNELS" yet folks?

Oil Settles Above $100 a Barrel for First Time Ever

NEW YORK -- Oil futures shot higher Tuesday, closing above $100 for the first time as investors bet that crude prices will keep climbing despite evidence of plentiful supplies and falling demand. At the pump, gas prices rose further above $3 a gallon.

There was no single driver behind oil's sharp price jump; investors seized on an explosion at a 67,000 barrel per day refinery in Texas, the falling dollar, the possibility that OPEC may cut production next month, and continuing tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela.

Link

When I first worked at Florida Power and Light company back in the early 1980s. Light sweet crude oil was around 20 bucks a barrel.It was a little more for low sulfer oil. In just 25 years the price has gone up five times. Will the next 25 years bring us 500 dollar a barrel oil? Whos got who over the barrel?

Re #320: That one's history, Sull. I gave you a link a while back which had you followed it would have led to a description of a presentation by Lean from a big solar science conference a week or so ago. See here. While things are far from settled, the upshot is that there is probably much less long-term solar variability than Lean showed in 2000. Note that the relative certainty about post-1950 solar influence on climate (not much) vs. pre-1950 (maybe a bit more) is because direct measurements of TSI began around 1950. "Decadal" refers to the 11-year cycle.

Remember the difference in the solar cycle heating(BTUS)is only 1/10 of 1%. No big change there.

Bloom,


So I guess Lean's work is hogwash because it simply disagrees with your assertions.

Why don't you just admit that TSI has increased over the previous 70 years compared to the prior 3 centuries.

I seriously doubt the impact of a warmer atmosphere can explain the increased warmth in the oceans better than increased TSI can.

Re #325: Sull, *Lean* says it's out of date, although I doubt she would use the word hogwash.

Oh...it's out of date. I see...

I guess when you have a theory or data that goes against the mainstream global warming position the most likely result is you're put under enormous pressure to somehow retract your findings. I would imagine she has done this in order to win new grants that would otherwise be awarded to some other scientists that would rather further the GHG-only global warming theory.

I guess we'll find out if she was on target or off target if we enter a new prolonged solar minimum now that we have satellites to measure TSI, won't we?

Re #327: Sull, there's a history to the development of the science on this.

It was thought up until recently that the sun had a major long-term role in climate because a) cold periods were associated with the three solar minima of the last five hundred years and b) an early '90s paper established that the Sun was likely a variable star. This all seemed to fit.

Subsequently, it turned out that the variable star paper was wrong since it was based on a categorization of the Sun with the wrong type of star. More recently, it was noticed that all three of those cold periods had major vulcanism, and that volcanic dust affects the 10Be proxy that's used to track irrdiance variations and likely interfered with sunspot observations of those times. Finally (although this wasn't known until very recently), the first TSI historical reconstruction (Hoyt and Schatten from IIRC the early '90s) had a major error that vastly exaggerated the apparent variability.

As a result, Lean's views have changed along with those of the rest of the field. BTW, given the nature of Lean's employment she's not too vulnerable to the kind of pressure you describe.

Just to add that most climate science papers from 2000 or earlier are substantially out of date by now. There's nothing unusual about Lean (2000).

Models are a joke. They don't even make clouds.

Anyone with any background whatsoever in thermodynamics should then see that they're irrelevant when it comes to reality.

Plus, there has been no warming this century according to satellites, which are the only objective measure we have.

Quoting shemp:
Models are a joke. They don't even make clouds.

Anyone with any background whatsoever in thermodynamics should then see that they're irrelevant when it comes to reality.

Plus, there has been no warming this century according to satellites, which are the only objective measure we have.

I have a strong background in Thermodynamics,....and the model results seem completely resaonable to me. The physical mechanisms fit as well. CO2 is unique in that visible light passes through (at a higher frequency),...then the energy under goes a frequency shift when its 're-emmitted" in the infrared spectrum. CO2 "VIBRATES" like a tuning fork,..in this frequency range,...then,..at this higher energy state,...through collisions with the other gases in the atmosphere,...that additional energy is transferred to them,..raising their temperature.

Are you familiar with the "inverse square law' and its relation to radiation heat transfer? Please explain how Mercury which recieves 4 times the heat as Venus,..at 9,400 watts per square meter,..vs. 2600 for Venus,...and yet Venus is twice as hot,..thehottest planet in the solar system. It has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2. I think the "Thermodynamic case" for CO2 holding in the Sun's heat,..is closed. Mars has an atmosphere that is also 95% CO2,..but the effect is miniscule(sp?) because the atmosphere is nearly non-existant,...1/100th the thickness of earth,...earth's is 1/90th that of Venus. But clearly CO2,..does indeed hold in heat,....due to its 'resonant frequency' being in the infrared range,..(soft molecular bonds),..other gasses have stiffer bonds,..and resonate way outside this range,...and do not have this unique ability. Water vapor and CO2 both do this,..and are the main greenhouse gasses.

The

Quoting rocketboy105:


CO2 is unique in that visible light passes through (at a higher frequency),...then the energy under goes a frequency shift when its 're-emmitted" in the infrared spectrum.

Sorry, but that's not the way it works. If the energy passes through, how does it get re-emitted? Photons in the CO2 band are only produced at the surface and are used up within about 100 meters. Then, warm air rises. Convection. It's not in the models.

The reason the temperature at the surface of Venus is so high is because of the lapse rate and the fact the atmosphere is so thick.

It would seem when science can predict the weather accurately two days hence, might be the time predicting climate change might be in their grasp. Untill then......PLEASE!!!!

It appears that the models were created and tweaked to “match” the previously believed temperature data of the last 100 years provided by our vaunted measurement system. Now that we have the benefit of Watt’s study of the actual realities of that system, which shows that when the changes to the original equipment and sites over the years are factored into the data, we can see that there has been virtually no long term warming over the last 100 years. Therefore the “observed” and extrapolated trends are false.
It seems that the only “anthropogenic warming” has taken place at the sensors in the terrestrial measurement sites. (Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable? http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf)

Hello,

I know how it 's difficult to modelise climate. I'm sure that humanity influences climate. BUT I can't understand how easy it is for GIEC experts or others to conclude that human activity (CO2) is the only thing that can explain climate change !!!!
And how they can affirm (without alternative) that the temperature will increase 2 °C ????

What about the influence of :
oceans, earth's core, magnetics activities, sun, trees, H2O, CFC, moon... ???

Can we see the results of their modelisations in 500 years, is this still realist ?

So why hasn't the rate of global sea level rise increased during the past 50 years? (above the rate of increase of the past several hundred years, which has actually been a slower rate of rise than several thousand years ago)? Global sea level is the ultimate barometer of global warming, and it's not getting warmer any faster now, than it has been for the past 18,000 years. (that's why it's not talked about by the man-made global warming fraudsters)

Time for a new crisis.

cyclonebuster noted, "Remember the difference in the solar cycle heating(BTUS)is only 1/10 of 1%. No big change there."
AND...
sullivanweather noted, "TSI has increased over the previous 70 years."
AND...
SteveBloom noted, "Direct measurements of TSI began around 1950." [i.e., ~70 years ago.]
AND...
rocketboy105 correctly stated, Water vapor and CO2 ... are the main greenhouse gasses."
*****************
Let's combine these considerations with some other realities.
- The Earth's overall absolute temperature is ~300 Kelvin. The "no big change" in TSI of ~0.1% represents a delta of +0.3 degrees Centigrade. That's a pretty good chunk of the +0.5 degrees Centigrade that has everybody in a snit.
- Multiple studies have indicated that massive amounts of CO2 is in solution (dissolved) in the Earth's oceans. And guess what, the oceans are made of WATER!
- Higher temperatures of the oceans does what? ... It vaporizes WATER and also drives CO2 OUT of solution. Interrestingly, water vapor is a STRONGER greenhouse gas than CO2, so we have a DOUBLE-WHAMMY!

So what do we deduce from these amazingly simple realities? Consider the following rationale.

Earth core samples have been taken by 32 different countries from all over the world. They include undersea samples and mountaintop samples as well. These samples clearly demonstrate a consistent 206-year Sun Cycle of warming and cooling as a subset of cycles between Earth Ice Ages. What they also clearly show is that CO2 levels increase AFTER an Earth warming, NOT before, as AGW alarmists would have you believe.

WHY?
Because the CO2 dissolved in the oceans is forced OUT of solution by an increase in the water temperature. There have been many articles produced by the "alarmists" that warn of the release of CO2 from the warming oceans that will increase the rate of an Earth warming cycle (because it is a "greenhouse gas"). That reduction of dissolved CO2 will tend to REDUCE the acidity of the oceans in direct CONTRAST with the fears expressed by the alarmists. However, that release is a natural and inherent part of WHY we have these repetitive warming/cooling cycles on Earth.

WHY? (again)
Because this Earth provides a NATURAL control of the cycle limits. As the oceans warm, more water vapor is released. The water vapor ultimately increases the cloud cover over the earth. The clouds REFLECT the sunlight more efficiently than the oceans or the land masses of the continents, LIMITING further solar heating of the earth. Simultaneously, the increased CO2 in our atmosphere (released by the warming oceans) stimulates the growth of all vegetation which ABSORBS more CO2 out of the atmosphere. As the time lag necessary to increase/grow more vegetation passes, these factors of MORE sunlight reflection and MORE CO2 absorbtion combine to REVERSE the warming cycle and a cooling trend begins. In Engineering terms for control systems, this is called NEGATIVE FEEDBACK, which STABILIZES the system. GET IT???

AND TECHNICALLY...
Are you aware that the entire anthropogenic (man-made) energy expenditure trhrough the burning of fossil fuels for the last 150 years (the entire Industrial Revolution era) constitutes only 0.3% of the DAILY solar energy impingement on Mother Earth?

We are in the rising phase of the 206-year Sun Cycle, documented by over 100,000 years of Earth core samples from all over the World, so YES, there is some global warming,... but anthropogenic? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

Someone noted that we have only 200 years of data... not true because of the core samples which ALL support the 206 year Sun Cycle period. Further, just reported last summer, the study of the California redwood tree rings (which cover the most recent 2,000 Earth years) show the SAME 206-year cycle. Additionally, it clearly confirms the hot, drought years in the 800-1300 AD period which led to the dessimation of the Mayan culture, long a major puzzle for anthropologists.

Good points MikonCons!

To quasigeostropic:
Thanks for the comment. My comments were brief enough that most astute Scientists and Engineers would understand. And particularly that higher levels of CO2 FOLLOW the warming of the oceans, NOT precede it as Al GOre's "Chicken Little" story relates.

Perhaps you would be interested in the following which is a reference that EVERYONE should read because it offers energy solutons as well as historical data on multiple climate-connected phenomenon.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

NOTE: Be sure to check for and delete any inserted spaces when you copy the web address into your browser, or the link will fail.

ABSTRACT: A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced NO DELETERIOUS EFFECTS upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 DO NOT CONFORM to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.
---
You should check out the references cited.... they are valid studies and reports that are accurately summarized and displayed in the charts in the report I referenced. Data represent FACTS. FACTS support SCIENCE, which should be unbiased... but we all know it can be contaminated... Errrr... like in the global warming data scam of recent fame!!!!

I have participated in multiple "Think Tanks" in many fields of study, and the reports and their content surprised most, if not all, of the sponsors of the studies and analyses conducted. Yet invariably some major (generally political) faction opposed and declared the results "cooked" or "fabricated." This is the trap many apparently have fallen into.

FYI, the Oregon Institute (that wrote the summary report) has elite members with impeccable credentials and equally as impressive scientific accomplishments who produce "think tank" outputs perhaps once yearly... on subjects critical to humankind. They purposefully operate independently of outside influences to produce non-tainted results of their efforts. As independently wealthy men, they are NOT paid by institutions for their work of this nature, although they consult to other clients separately from the organization.

The report cited above contained 132 references to scientific studies conducted by over 30 different countries. The data from those studies was compiled and presented on the various subjects of the different studies. The scientifically collected and recorded data tells us the story. It has nothing to do with Al Gore, Barrack Obama, or others.... just the consolidation of multiple countries' studies in an easy to understand summary report. The factual results are displayed in graphs so the reader can easily grasp the significance of the data.

As to the veracity of the content of the summary report, I have spot checked approximately 23 of the references and found absolutely NO DEVIATIONS from the data reported within those reports. Therefore, I have confidence in the veracity of the entire summary report.

Good researching to you...