Klimaforskning

Diskusjonsforum => CO2 og menneskeskapte påvirkninger => Emne startet av: Okular på Desember 27, 2012, 22:05:12 pm

Tittel: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularDesember 27, 2012, 22:05:12 pm
Real-world climatic significance of ’the enhanced greenhouse effect’ – a straightforward test toward potential falsification.

A surface with a temperature above 0 K would have an incoming and an outgoing heat flux – it would gain its heat from somewhere (incoming heat flux) and at the same time give off heat to its surroundings according to its thermodynamic state. This outgoing heat flux would be the heat loss of that surface.

The surface of the Earth is such a surface:
(http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/surface_energy_balance.jpg)
(From http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page5.php.)

If the surface maintains thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings, the outgoing heat flux would balance the incoming exactly. And its temperature would remain constant.

To change the temperature of this surface, one thus has to do (at least) one of two things:
•   Increase the incoming heat flux – the heat gain, or
•   reduce the outgoing heat flux – the heat loss.

So, turning to Earth’s surface, a ’body’ holding a mean temperature of +15°C or 288K, and assuming it’s in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium (this will of course never really be the case 100%), this means the surface temperature remains constant and the heat flux OUT equals the heat flux IN (from the Sun) – according to the new Stephens et al. 2012 study, ~165 W/m2.

The total mean heat loss flux from the global surface of our planet is acquired by summing the shares from latent heat transfer (through evaporation), sensible heat transfer (through conduction/convection) and net thermal radiation (net IR UP).

What, then, can we do to raise the surface temperature from this state of equilibrium?

As already mentioned, there are two ways and two ways only:
1)   We can increase the incoming heat (the heat gain), or
2)   we can reduce the outgoing heat (the heat loss).

These two are distinctly different methods by which to accomplish surface warming.

With 1) the surface is warmed directly – by increasing a heat flux (the incoming one). Extra heat is supplied.

With 2) the surface is warmed INdirectly – by reducing a heat flux (the outgoing one). No extra heat is supplied.

(In both cases the opposite flux is assumed to remain constant.)


This distinction is crucial.


The two distinct ways to achieve surface warming can be called:
1)   The Solar Method, and
2)   The Atmospheric Method.

Why?

Simply because of what the 2nd law of thermodynamics dictates. It says that heat (the net energy flow) between two warm objects in thermal contact will always go from the warmer to the cooler object, because a system like this will always spontaneously move toward the highest possible state of entropy, which in this case would be thermodynamic equilibrium (even temperature). In nature this process is irreversible.

This process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat) described: ”When two systems come into thermal contact, they exchange energy through the microscopic interactions of their particles. When the systems are at different temperatures, the result is a spontaneous net flow of energy from higher to lower temperature, so that the higher temperature decreases [through heat loss] and the lower increases [through heat gain].”

The Sun is warmer than the Earth’s surface. Thus it CAN transfer heat to the surface. And it does. The NET FLOW OF ENERGY between the Sun and the Earth’s surface will spontaneously go from the former to the latter. Always.

The atmosphere, on the other hand, is cooler than the Earth’s surface. It can NOT transfer heat to the surface. And it doesn’t. It will of course always and continuously transfer thermal ENERGY to the surface, simply because it has a temperature above 0 K. But it can never, on a global scale, transfer HEAT. The NET FLOW OF ENERGY between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface will spontaneously go from the latter to the former. Always.

As one can see, there are two strictly separate thermodynamic mechanisms at hand to explain surface warming.

And hence we have a way to determine how the observed global warming of the recent three and a half decades came about.

Through which of these two mechanisms was the global surface temperature raised?

This is important:

- The Sun can ONLY change (raise/lower) the surface temperature directly, that is
   by changing the net energy INput – heat gain.

- The atmosphere can ONLY change the surface temperature INdirectly, that is by
   changing the net energy OUTput – heat loss.


So, who is the culprit? The Sun or the Atmosphere?


We have two possible scenarios:

a)
If the solar input increases, the Earth’s surface will warm directly. That means the surface temperature will rise first. And THEN, as a response, the total heat loss from the surface will start increasing. To catch up. It will potentially increase until the heat gap is closed (heat IN + <--> heat OUT) and balance is restored.

b)
If the atmospheric forcing is strenghtened, for instance by increasing the optical depth to surface IR radiation through a rising atmospheric content of GHGs, the Earth’s surface will warm INdirectly. That means the total surface heat loss will be suppressed (reduced) first. And THEN, as a response, the surface temperature will start rising. And it will potentially rise until the heat gap is closed (heat IN <--> heat OUT –) and balance is restored.

You see the opposite course of events here?

The size of the heat gap and the time it takes to close it in each case will depend on the size and the rate of the change – how large is the change/divergence accomplished over how much time?

If the change is sudden and large, the closing process will take time. The imbalance will sustain for a considerable period.

If the change is small and gradual/incremental, the imbalance will hardly be observable, because the response mechanisms will have no problem keeping up with the continuous effort to open up the heat gap.

(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/img044-1.jpg)
(From ’Earth's Climate Past and Future’ (W.F. Ruddiman, 2000).)

Anyway, at this point I think you understand what we need to look for to determine where the observed global warming came from.


Returning to points a) and b) above:

With direct surface heating (the Sun) the situation looks like this – heat IN + <--> heat OUT. Then the total surface heat loss will have to increase FROM its original level to be able to balance the increased input.

With INdirect surface heating (the atmosphere) the situation looks like this – heat IN <--> heat OUT –. Then the total surface heat loss will have to increase back up TO its original level to be able to mend the reduced output.

(In both cases, the surface temperature will rise in the meantime.)


This leads us to the following realization:

The total heat loss (the heat/net energy flux OUT) from the Earth’s surface during observed warming can, if:

The Sun is responsible for the warming, ONLY be observed to either remain constant/unchanged (if the increased forcing is very small and gradual) or to INCREASE.

And if:

The atmosphere is responsible for the warming, the total global surface heat loss can ONLY be observed to either remain constant/unchanged (if the increased forcing is very small and gradual) or to DECREASE.

Conversely, in the solar case, the total heat loss can NOT be observed to DECREASE during warming.

And, in the atmospheric case, the total heat loss can NOT be observed to INCREASE during warming.


So there you have it. The test.

Has the total global heat loss from the Earth’s surface (latent heat transfer + sensible heat transfer + net IR) increased or decreased during the global warming period we’ve seen since the mid 70s?

Is the Sun or the atmosphere responsible?

Did the warming start at the surface or in the atmosphere?
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularDesember 27, 2012, 22:14:08 pm
CLAUSIUS-CLAPEYRON

The Clausius-Clapeyron equation describes the relationship between the temperature of a liquid and its vapor pressure: The higher the temperature, the greater the vapor pressure.

(http://chemistry.umeche.maine.edu/~amar/spring2012/fig11_22.gif)

This could be restated in the following way: The higher the temperature of the liquid, the greater the evaporation from its surface. Water, for instance, has a vapor pressure at 373K of 1 atm. This means that at 100C, its vapor pressure exactly equals the atmospheric pressure at sea level and the water will start boiling – the upward pressure from the vapor being released from the water's surface at this point is as large as the constant downward pressure from (the weight of) the atmosphere above it. Water vapor will of course also be released from the water's surface long before it reaches this particular temperature. But the RATE of evaporation will always be related to the atmospheric pressure AND the temperature of the liquid – the rate of evaporation will be greater both if you increase the temperature AND if you lower the atmospheric pressure.

Clausius-Clapeyron also by extension says something about the amount of water vapor a certain parcel of air can hold at a specific temperature/pressure-configuration before it becomes saturated and the vapor starts condensing (dew).

Notice however, the operative word here is ’CAN’, not ’MUST’. It is NOT the case that a volume of humid air at say sea level HAS TO contain so and so much water vapor at a certain temperature. It has the POTENTIAL of containing so and so much water vapor. But other factors regulate how much water vapor it REALLY contains.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion here.

People seem to think that as the atmosphere grows warmer, it will automatically ’suck’ more water vapor out of the oceans, making this a positive feedback to the atmospheric warming. If this is NOT what they think, there really is no way to make head or tail of it all …

This approach of course turns the causal relationships all on their head. The Clausius-Clapeyron equation clearly states that it’s the LIQUID's temperature that matters. It is the LIQUID's temperature that decides how much vapor will be available.

In other words, it is the global sea surface temperatures that decide how much water vapor will be released into the troposphere, NOT the tropospheric temperature.

No, rather we have the following causal chain:

Rise in SST -> evaporation rate increases -> latent heat is transferred from the ocean to the troposphere, being released upon condensation -> rise in tropospheric temperature.

Evaporation from the ocean surface is a NEGATIVE feedback to ocean warming, not a POSITIVE feedback to tropospheric warming. In fact, the evaporation upon condensation is what CAUSES the warming of the troposphere in the first place – as a direct response to the original surface heating.

(http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/rain_ANN.png)
(http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter14/Images/Fig14-1.png)
(From http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/heatbudgets.htm (http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/heatbudgets.htm).)

No, as one recalls, the ONLY means by which the atmosphere can bring about warming of the Earth's surface is by reducing and then limiting its total heat loss. If that heat loss were to increase past its original level (the rate of heat loss before the forcing started working), then that would put a stop to the atmospheric forcing mechanism – it would no longer work. Crossing this line would mean the surface would no longer be able to accumulate the constant heat coming in from the Sun by means of reduced/limited heat loss. It would start cooling again.

It’s that easy. Plain and simple.

This means that ’an enhanced greenhouse effect’ would work rather by restraining the rate of evaporation than by accelerating it.

Otherwise it simply would not work.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularDesember 27, 2012, 22:18:48 pm
I had a look at the ERA Interim Reanalysis data (of the ECMWF) on the KNMI Climate Explorer regarding the four surface energy fluxes (net downward shortwave radiation (pos.), net outgoing longwave radiation (neg.), latent heat transfer (neg.) and sensible heat transfer (neg.)) from 1979 to 2012. And got some very interesting results. It turns out that of the three negative fluxes (regulating the rate and magnitude of heat loss from the surface) only the change in latent heat transfer really matters. Also, they’ve all grown more negative (more efficient in ridding the surface of heat, that is) globally during the modern warming. As one would expect.

The key seems to be in the latent heat transfer. Not (at all) in surface thermal radiation.

Here is net global surface solar radiation (SSR) from 1979 to 2012 (ERA Interim of the ECMWF – data downloaded from KNMI Climate Explorer):
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Solinnstrlinggl.jpg)

Here are the other net global surface energy fluxes – sensible heat (green), thermal radiation (STR) (red) and latent heat (blue):
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Varmetapsmekanismenegl.jpg)

Subtracting the sum of the three outgoing net fluxes from the incoming net solar flux gives this net surface energy balance curve for the Earth as a whole from 1979 to 2012:
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Nettoenergibalansegl.jpg)

Robustly positive all along, yet still trending unmistakably downward and now finally getting pretty close to perfect balance – maybe withing 3-5 years we’re there, crossing the line … The mean imbalance between incoming and outgoing (1979-2012) is +7,22 W/m^2 (which sounds like a lot).

This is still according to the ECMWF of course.

Just out of curiosity I made a running total on the data behind the plot above. It came out like this:
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Akkumulertenergigl.jpg)

So the funny thing is, even though all of Earth’s net surface heat loss fluxes have steadily increased in strength/efficiency (becoming more negative) since 1979 (sensible heat by ~0.8 W/m^2, STR by 0.8-1 W/m^2 and latent heat by ~6 W/m^2, to a total of 7.6 – 7.8 W/m^2) and with the mean net solar input upon the global surface today pretty much equal to what it was in 1979, Earth has been accumulating a LOT of energy/heat. The global solar input has simply been larger the last 34 years than the output from Earth’s surface, the heat loss processes working hard to catch up. And that’s the funny bit. According to AGW theory, what would cause the energy imbalance is a DEcreasing of the total net upward heat flux from the surface. For instance, in a theoretical steady state, with solar IN (considered static) exactly balanced by IR+latent+sensible OUT, more GHGs would indirectly lessen the total heat flux from the surface, making it less negative (more positive) which would then create the observed positive imbalance. But this theoretical course of events is quite the opposite of what apparently actually happens in the real world. Here the IR flux, the sensible heat flux and the latent heat flux are all increasing as a function of surface temperature. Or should we say, as a function of the increasing difference/divergence between the surface temperature and that of the air layer directly above it. If the standard AGW hypothesis were right, the lapse rate should lift the mean temperature level off the ground with increasing concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. That is to say, the incremental same-temperature levels would be situated gradually higher from the tropospheric mean emission height on down to the surface. This means that in the end, the layer of air just above the ground/sea would warm independently of the surface (a tiny bit) and would thereby in a snapshot reduce the temperature gradient between the air and the surface, reducing the total net heat flux from the ground/sea. For this to be the case, though, the temperature gap between the surface and the air layer adjacent to it must either be observed to DEcrease or to remain stable (they both warm in step). If this gap were rather observed to INcrease, this whole construct would crumble. Then the surface cannot be the follower. Then the surface is the driver. Which is what all common sense is telling us is the case. Look at these two graphs:
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/ICOADSluftmothavoverflate1.jpg)
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/ICOADSluftmothavoverflate2.jpg)

This is ICOADS SST vs. ICOADS Tair. The first graph covers a large chunk of the Pacific Ocean (30N-40S, 150E-100W). The second a significant part of the North Atlantic (62N-0, 60-15W). Watch how the SST trends are distinctively steeper than the Tair trends in both diagrams. How would an air layer colder than the surface and at the same time with a lower warming rate force the warming of the surface? It couldn’t. And it doesn’t. And it agrees with the ERA Interim Reanalysis data.

Finally, I did the same operation for the tropical Pacific fluxes as I did for the global ones. Here is the result, directly compared to the global (tropical Pacific (24N-24S, 120E-80W) (black), global (red)). From top to bottom – solar, sensible, IR and latent. Watch how much more positive the solar is in the Pacific and accordingly how much more negative the latent heat flux is. For the other two fluxes the difference seems inconsequential:
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/GlvstropSt.jpg)
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularDesember 27, 2012, 22:30:03 pm
I’ll refer to Dee et al. 2011, “The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system” (http://vega.unibe.ch/teams/simlen/private/Dee2011_ERAINTERIM.pdf) for a thorough discussion on the ERA Interim project. What comes plainly out when reading the document, is that the reanalysis model has overestimated the mean surface solar input:
Sitat
Due to a programming error in the calculation of incident solar radiation as a function of solar zenith angle, the global solar radiation in ERA-Interim is overestimated by about 2 W/m^2.

and
Sitat
For solar irradiance, ERA-Interim uses a constant value of 1370 W/m^2 throughout, i.e. no account is taken of the solar cycle. Variations due to the varying distance between the Earth and the Sun are incorporated as described in Paltridge and Platt (1976).

According to the newest satellite estimates, the mean solar irradiance is ~1361.7 W/m^2 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/14/total-solar-irradiation-tsi-value-lower-in-2008/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/14/total-solar-irradiation-tsi-value-lower-in-2008/)). The range in total irradiance between high and low within each cycle is ~1 W/m^2 with PMOD and ~1.5 (1-2) W/m^2 with ACRIM.
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/PMOD.jpg)
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/ACRIM.jpg)

Disregarding the solar cycle amplitudes won’t affect the long term average (over several cycles). It will, however, affect the decadal variation. That means the graphs I’ve presented (based on ERA Interim) show less variation than reality. The 8.3 W/m^2 (1370-1361.7) difference between model assumption and real-world measurements is significant. It will probably overestimate the average energy input from the Sun at Earth’s global surface by ~1 W/m^2 (1361.7/8,3 = 164 W/m^2).

Dee et al. continue:
Sitat
The energy balance at the top of the atmosphere in ERA Interim has improved, with an estimated energy loss of 1.2 W/m^2 (7.4 W/m^2 for ERA 40). However, the energy balance at the surface boundary is poor in ERA Interim, with a global value of 6.9 W/m^2 (3.8 W/m^2 for ERA 40). This degradation occurs primarily over oceans and is associated with an increase in net solar radiation there. Over land the surface energy balance actually improves in ERA Interim, to 0.5 W/m^2 (1.3 W/m^2 for ERA 40).

Källberg (2011) suggests that the model clouds are the major contributor to the imbalance in surface energy, based on a correspondence between spin-up/spin-down of cloudiness and of the net energy fluxes.

My own calculated mean value for the global energy balance (1979-2012) turned out to be +7.22 W/m^2. Dee et al. finds a +6.9 W/m^2 imbalance (1979-2010).

Based on the quotes above it seems justified adjusting the ERA Interim solar input down by 2+1= 3 W/m^2. This would reduce the global net energy imbalance 1979-2012 to 4,22 W/m^2 (second graph below), which actually sounds AND looks much more plausible than the original +7,22 (first graph below):
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Nettoenergibalansegl.jpg)
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Nettooverflatefluksgl2-1.jpg)

Note how in the lower graph (the ‘new and improved’ +4,22 one) we’re already very close to perfect balance and have been so for a few years, quite on the verge of crossing the line into negative territory.

Here are the running totals (accumulated energy) for the +7,22 and the +4,22 scenarios:
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Akkumulertenergigl.jpg)
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Akkumulertenergigl2-1.jpg)

We’re obviously at the summit plateau.

What’s very interesting to observe, is how the evolution in Earth’s energy balance seems to follow the same pattern as ENSO East (NINO3.4) does. One might imagine an oceanic equilibrium line, across which the Earth system fluctuates in giant cycles. Below the equilibrium line the ocean’s heat loss is on average greater than the input from the Sun. There is a net loss of energy content. Above the equilibrium line the situation is reversed. There is a net builup of energy content. The main regulating mechanism seems to be the rate of evaporation from the ocean surface.

From the 70s to the 80s this equilibrium line was somehow crossed. The Earth system shifted from a negative to a positive balance. And here’s the take-home message: After the shift is completed, the trend starts falling at once, on its way back towards the equilibrium line. The initial divergence is gradually and steadily reduced. But the positive energy imbalance is still there all along. Energy is accumulating in the system, only at a slowing rate until it finally reaches zero. We’re very close now to that point.

Compare this to the MEI curve. What do we see?
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/MEI-1.jpg)

A mighty upward shift in 1976/77. Before this, the curve is generally running below the zero line. After, the curve is generally above. But what about the trend? It starts falling directly from 1977 onwards. It’s basically negative all the way ’till today. Yet the world has become warmer and warmer during this same period. Since a few years back now the MEI/NINO3.4 curve fluctuates around the zero line, straddling the border between El Niño and La Niña dominance.

Coincidence?
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularDesember 27, 2012, 22:45:13 pm
E.M. Smith - Tropopause Rules (http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/)

I find it peculiar that everyone is so taken in by the whole notion of the so-called ’radiative greenhouse effect’ being such an ingrained necessity, such a self-evident, requisite part, as it were, of our atmosphere’s inner workings. The ’truth’ and the ’reality’ of the effect is completely taken for granted, a priori. And yet, the actual effect is still only a theoretical construct.

In fact, when looking at the real Earth system, it’s quite evident that this effect is not what’s setting the surface temperature of our planet.

The whole thing is actually pretty obvious.

The Earth, a rocky sphere at a distance from the Sun of ~149.6 million kilometers, where the Solar irradiance comes in at 1361.7 W/m2, with a mean global albedo, mostly from clouds, of 0.3 and with an atmosphere surrounding it containing a gaseous mass held in place by the planet’s gravity, producing a surface pressure of ~1013 mb, with an ocean of H2O covering 71% of its surface and with a rotation time around its own axis of ~24h, boasts an average global surface temperature of +15°C (288K).

Why this specific temperature? Because, with an atmosphere weighing down upon us with the particular pressure that ours exerts, this is the temperature level the surface has to reach and stay at for the global convectional engine to be able to pull enough heat away fast enough from it to be able to balance the particular averaged out energy input from the Sun that we experience.

It’s that simple.

The higher the net energy input at the surface, the higher the potential surface temperature and the more powerful the convection – the higher the tropopause is located (pushed). This is all intimately connected and readily observable – compare the tropics with the polar regions.

The convectional engine simply transports the heat generated by the Sun at the surface up into the atmosphere as far as gravity allows. From above this level the heat will then be freely radiated back out into space.

This level is the border between the troposphere and the stratosphere. In the first one, convection reigns supreme. In the second, above the convection top (set by the surface atmospheric pressure, gravity and net energy input/heat), radiation takes over. Radiation does of course work all the way from the surface to space. But in the troposphere it’s just there – a second order heat transport mechanism in the midst of all the latent and sensible heat transport lifting the surface heat up and away from the ground to maintain balance.

There simply is no way radiation can ever control what’s going on temperaturewise at the surface, nor at the tropopause or anywhere in between. This can only occur where there is no convection – above the tropopause.

The surface is directly convectively coupled to the atmosphere above it. The atmosphere is warmed mainly by surface processes, primarily through latent and sensible heat transfer (deep convection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_convection)). This is the ’blanket effect’ of the atmosphere. It insulates the surface simply by being warm. And by weighing down upon it, restricting evaporation and convection.

The dayside of the Earth receives vast amounts of solar energy, much more than it needs to reach ’actual’ daytime temperatures. The excess energy, mainly in the tropics, goes into driving the atmospheric circulation (through convection), bringing part of the heat north and south … and to the nightside. That’s why the Earth has much cooler days and much milder nights than the Moon – the constant spreading around of received heat. The atmosphere in this way simply evens out the temperature highs and lows and as a consequence raises the mean surface temperature of the Earth compared to that of the Moon.

The Sun manages perfectly well to heat the surface of the Earth to the +15°C that we experience.

The whole 255K (–18°C) warming from the Sun is a total illusion. This is the simple point that Joe Postma (http://climateofsophistry.com/) is making. I find it hard to grasp why people are so against his realistic model and so clinging on to the unnatural notion of the evened out solar input. There simply is no need or room for any ’extra’ atmospheric heating. That is, beyond the fact that it’s there, having a mass and a heat capacity, being warmed by and convectively (and hence, by temperature gradient) bound to the surface.


=== === ===


Ok. Examining the observational data from the real world, then, is there any specific AGW signal in the global (or regional) temperature record of the Earth during the modern warming era?

Or is something else, a naturally occurring phenomenon, pulling the strings ...?
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularDesember 27, 2012, 23:40:42 pm
The evolution of global SSTA since 1981/82

PART 1

Bob Tisdale's (http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/) version of the ENSO argument is pretty straightforward. It is NOT based on some foregone conclusion about the cause of global warming. It is a direct result of an inevitable conclusion arrived at AFTER looking at the real-world observational data at hand, an explanation derived from what we actually see happening in the Earth system as time passes, AND on what we know about the ENSO process and how it is observed to work, both in the Pacific and globally, rather than from a theoretical construct of assumed physical net effects on the complex planetary climate system as a whole.

The argument follows the scientific method thus: I (or Bob) start out by observing a curious and, quite frankly, striking similarity between the NINO3.4 and the global SSTA curves over the last 30+ years (well, even much further back than this, but Tisdale's argument was always mainly based on data from the satellite era). This is certainly no new discovery. I think we can all agree on that the primary global temperature swings up and down, the large short-term variations in global temperature, are driven by the ENSO's mighty oceanic fluctuations in the East Pacific (where the NINO3.4 resides) and their worldwide impact being propagated partly by ocean currents, partly by atmospheric teleconnections. The global temperature goes up when NINO3.4 goes up (El Niño). And the global temperature goes down when the NINO3.4 goes down (La Niña).

What happens then if we 'detrend' the global SSTA since 1981 and scale it against the NINO3.4? That is, we take away the obvious upward trend in the global to see how close the fit with NINO really is. This is only out of curiosity. Scientific curiosity. No one is yet suggesting or claiming anything. We just want to take a closer look at how the different data relates to one another.

Here is the result:
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/NINOvsglobalSSTA-1.png)

Quite an astounding fit. And it will surprise no one. We know why the fit is so good. You will notice the global imprints in 1982-83/84 of the El Chichón eruption and especially in the wake of the powerful Pinatubo eruption, ~1992-95. Other than that you will see some 'extra' global heat (extra, that is, relative to a 'normal' (proportional) global response to the NINO signal) piling up during the first directly following La Niña year after a few of the El Niño's along the composite plot. But this extra heat always seems to be dissipated again shortly after this first following La Niña - the global soon after back on level with NINO.

So far, so good. What's next? Yup, that significant global upward trend that I got rid of. It's there, after all. But where does it come from? How do we follow its progression? Where do we look? What do we look for?

I will let you in on a little secret. When I 'detrended' the global SSTA curve in the graph above, I didn't use a statistical tool to remove a general upward trend. All I did was pull it down at two (2) short sections: two datapoints in the last half of 1987 (July and November) and one datapoint in the beginning of 1999 (January). Why those two intervals specifically? This will become apparent as we move along (in Part 2). Bear this in mind ...

There is another way of showing the exact same thing, only WITHOUT removing the long term trend from the global SSTA:

(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Level1.png)
(The NINO3.4 is here alligned with the global curve between 1981 and 1987/88.)

(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Level2.png)
(The NINO3.4 is here alligned with the global curve between 1988 and 1997/98.)

(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Level3.png)
(The NINO3.4 is here alligned with the global curve between 1998 and 2012.)

Here is a more detailed look at the last 'level', the stretch since 1996, without volcanic impact, across the global upward shift occuring through 1998, and all the way down past the El Niño of 2009/10 and the following La Niña 2010/11:

(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/96-12.png)
(The two red squares mark the conspicuous piling up of extra heat globally during the transitions between the particular ENSO events of El Niño 1997/98 and La Niña 1998/99 and El Niño 2009/10 and La Niña 2010/11. The first is followed by a raised global level in mean SSTA relative to the NINO3.4 curve. The second one isn't. At least, not yet.)

What can we conclude from all this? Not much as of yet. Except this: Global SSTA follow and mimic the major up and down temperature swings (El Niños and La Niñas) of the East Tropical Pacific on interannual time scales. AND, they also seem to follow the TREND in NINO3.4 rather slavishly over the last 31 years, that is, barring two (2) specific instances of marked and sudden global upward shifts relative to NINO.

That is, along virtually the entire record there is no need for an explanation of the evolution of the global curve besides the well-known relationship between it and the East Tropical Pacific - the already mentioned short-term variations, the primary ups and downs. Here there simply is no extra global warming trend outside of this close relationship, no increasing divergence between the two.

But then there are the upward shifts. The only places where the global curve diverge permanently from the NINO curve. There are only (and by that I mean ONLY) two cases between 1981 and 2012 where the extra heat piled up globally after an El Niño and during the transition to the first following La Niña is never fully made up for before the ENSO pendulum turns and the heat comes in again, both in the NINO3.4 region and globally. This is during and after the second and final peak of the 1986/87/88 El Niño, on the NINO way down towards the bottom of the very deep La Niña of 1988/89, and during and especially after the peak of the 1997/98 El Niño, on the NINO way down towards the bottom of the deep La Niña of 1998/99.

This can be illustrated like this:
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/TRINN1.gif)
(Bear with me on the Norwegian labelling. 'Trinn' is simply 'Level'. 'Ekstra varme globalt' means 'Extra heat globally'. Notice that here the pink curve is NINO3.4 and the black one is the global.)

Just give this a moment's thought. All we're doing is looking at the data. I'm just stating what the data at hand is telling us. There simply IS no steadily increasing divergence between NINO3.4 and global SSTA between late 1981 and late summer/early autumn of 2012. The ENTIRE global rise above the NINO3.4 occurs at two specific instances. Not at any other time.

In my world, then these two 'specific instances' are the ones up for closer inspection. THEY need an explanation. Not the rest of the graph. We've found something interesting at specific points in the data record and we want to check them out a bit more closely.

We follow the scientific method and ask ourselves:

How do these sudden and marked global upward shifts come to be? Seeing how extremely influential the ENSO processes are on the regular global temperature amplitudes, it would be a strange scientific approach to all of a sudden exclude ENSO from any further involvement in the ensuing investigation, as a possible factor also in the distinct upward shifts. By all means, it hasn't yet been shown to be the case. But it would be wise to at least follow that lead. To see if something out of the ordinary might have occured in those two particular cases.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularDesember 27, 2012, 23:44:52 pm
The evolution of global SSTA since 1981/82

PART 2

We continue to explore the satellite-based SST data from Reynolds OI.v2 (Nov'81-Oct'12) and see what patterns it might reveal.

This graph, global SSTA:
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/GlobalSST.jpg)

is the area weighted sum of the two following subsets:

(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/DetoglobaleSST-subsett-1.jpg)
(left: The World Ocean Outside the East Pacific - 90N-90S, 80W-180E; 2/3rds of the global ocean
right: The East Pacific Ocean - 90N-90S, 180-80W; 1/3rd of the global ocean)

It was when looking at these two SSTA graphs, together producing the global graph above, that Tisdale had his eureka moment.

If we superimpose the two global subset graphs above on each other, we see quite clearly specifically where the discrepancy between the East Pacific and the global SSTA curve (recalling Part 1) primarily arises:
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/st-StillehavetvsRestenavverden.jpg)

The NINO3.4 region is located in the East Pacific Ocean. Its signal totally dominates the SSTA evolution of that basin. According to the graph above, there is no upward trend in SSTA in the East Pacific Ocean since at least 1981. That's 1/3rd of the global ocean. Look at this map (from GISTEMP):

(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/st-Stillehavet1982-2011GISS-kart.jpg)

It shows the global distribution of temperature change between 1982 and 2011. Please disregard the continental parts at this point. The oceanic change (its size and distribution) is calculated using Reynolds OI.v2. I've defined the East Pacific Ocean (65N-60S, 180-80W) and the NINO3.4 region (5N-5S, 170-120W), the latter making up ~5,7% (!) of the former.

There's a distinct pattern manifesting itself here. Peculiarly, the West Pacific is one of two sectors of the world ocean (the other being the North Atlantic) displaying a particularly large positive change over the period in question. It has experienced a pronounced warming. And this even while sitting just next to (and being intimately oceanically linked to) the one major region of the world ocean that hasn't warmed at all. In fact, barring those two sub- to extratropical warm tongues coming in from the West Pacific, the East Pacific Ocean (and specifically the equatorial NINO3.4 region) has actually cooled since 1982.

This striking contrast between two neighboring, tightly interconnected sectors of the same ocean basin alone should tell us something.

What is going on?

Let's get back to the SSTA graph for the world ocean outside the East Pacific:
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Verdenshavetutenforst-Stillehavet90-90-1.jpg)

A staircase if ever there was one. This is how the change in SSTs outside the East Pacific in the GISTEMP map above actually progressed through time. If we were to draw a straight trendline from 1981/82 to 2011/12, we would only see the total upward change. We would miss (obscure) all that which happened in between, what led to that total, how (and specifically at what times) the change in temperature took place.

Blessed with a natural scientific curiosity, we're of course interested in the how and when. We want to investigate the total change a bit closer.

There are two definite upward shifts to be found along the curve above - one in 1987-88 and one in 1998-99. Do these years sound familiar in any way? In addition, there's one, albeit much smaller, in 2010. Outside of these two (three) pretty eye-catching sudden thrusts, there is no traceable upward trend in the dataset. If anything, there's a hint of the opposite. The entire rise in SST for this vast region from 1981/82 to 2011/12 is to be found in these two (three) particular instances of abrupt elevation of the mean level of anomalies. Without these instances, no general warming. Note how the specific shift events (particularly the first two) put all other up and down fluctuations along the curve to shame. They shoot up like towering pinnacles at the front of each new step.

I've adapted the graph to visualize the steps:
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Restenavverden2.jpg)

The red squares down by the x axis denote the great El Niños that directly preceded the shifts: The double Niño of 1986/87/88, the Super-El Niño of 1997/98 and the globally influential Niño 2009/10 (I have also included the giant El Niño of 1982/83, almost as powerful as the 1997/98 event, but noticeably suppressed globally by the El Chichón eruption).

Ok. We've now looked at how the SSTA evolved in the world ocean outside the East Pacific through time. It basically all happened in two (three) sudden upward shifts, one in 1987-88 and one through 1998 (+ the minor (and still unresolved) one in 2010).

Now let's look at how it evolved spatially.

We split the world ocean into 7 sectors:
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Havsektorkart-Kopi.jpg)
(Sector 1: East Pacific Ocean (65N-60S, 180-80W); Sector 2: West Pacific/East Indian Ocean (65N-60S, 80-180E); Sector 3: North Atlantic Ocean (65N-0, 80W-20E); Sector 4: West Indian Ocean (65N-60S, 20-80E); Sector 5: South Atlantic Ocean (0-60S, 80W-20E); Sector 6: Arctic Ocean (90-65N); Sector 7: Southern Ocean (60-90S). The black rectangle in Sector 1 is the NINO3.4 region. The two black ellipses in Sector 2 mark different definitions of the West Pacific Warm Pool (WPWP). Nevermind those for now.)

If we area weight the SSTA data for each of these sectors against each other, we come out with something like this:

(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Sektorer1-7.jpg)

This shows the absolute influence each separate sector has on the final global SSTA graph shown at the top of this post.

It is quite revealing. The Pacific reigns supreme. Not really big news. But still.

There is something in particular one should note about these graphs. The (NINO) amplitudes of the East Pacific completely overwhelm the amplitudes of all other sectors of the world ocean. No wonder the global graph looks so similar to the East Pacific one, the main difference being the trend. The East Pacific (Sector 1) temperature swings also dwarf those of the West Pacific/East Indian Ocean (Sector 2). Only at two points along the Sector 2 curve above there's a rise that is (nearly) comparable to the amplitudes of Sector 1. These two instances occur in 1987-88 and in 1998-99. Those dates are getting familiar.

But why is the SSTA evolution of the East Pacific (Sector 1) and the West Pacific/East Indian (Sector 2) so different from one another?

To understand this, one has to understand how the ENSO process works. More on that in Part 3.

But first (and rounding off Part 2) let me show you something. What happens if we add the area weighted SSTA data from the other basins outside the East Pacific to the SSTA curve of the West Pacific/East Indian? That is, Sector 2 +3+4+5+6 and 7.

This is what happens:
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/TrinneneiRestenavverden-1.jpg)
(The lower graph, the blue one, is Sector 2 (West Pacific/East Indian Ocean). The middle graph, the orange one, is Sector 2+3 (The North Atlantic). The upper graph, the pale blue one, is the world ocean outside the East Pacific (65N-60S).)

Watch how the upward shifts and the steps are simply consolidated going from Sector 2 (West Pacific/East Indian) to global outside Sector 1 (East Pacific).
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularDesember 27, 2012, 23:51:03 pm
Most all of the data used and plotted here on this thread is acquired from the KNMI Climate Explorer (http://climexp.knmi.nl/) site.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: JostemikkDesember 31, 2012, 17:33:08 pm
Sabla bra saker, Okular. Ikke så rent lite arbeide dette. Skal se hva jeg får gjort angående å få presentert dette annet steds de neste dagene.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: ebyeDesember 31, 2012, 18:14:38 pm
Dette ser helt supert ut Okular. Jeg har riktignok bare diagonallest dette, men dette må være godis for mange. Og Jostemikk, Die kalte Sonne kan være et sted, NoTricksZone et annet. Postman Pat må skaffe seg større og kraftigere bil. Diesel, automat!     :)
Tittel: Sv: Tallbloke's Talkshop presenterer saken
Skrevet av: JostemikkDesember 31, 2012, 20:24:47 pm
Tim Channon la akkurat ut denne saken:

The Talkshop - Interesting thoughts at Klimaforskning (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/interesting-thoughts-at-klimaforskning/)

Talkshop contributor Jostemikk linked in Suggestions to Klimaforskning (a Simple Machines based Forum) where astute work is being done on climate problems.

Several of the recent threads there very properly look at the complex regime of climate data, cause and effect with their lead/lag, the way to sort out chicken or egg.

Real-world climatic significance of ’the enhanced greenhouse effect’ – a straightforward test toward potential falsification.

There is more there in a similar vein.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: seotoDesember 31, 2012, 20:52:28 pm
Så flott at Tallbloke tok det inn - og at du gjorde ham oppmerksom på det :)
Da blir det spennende å følge kommentarene. Jeg håper noen fatter virkelig interesse for det, og kan gi Okular tilbakemeldinger.
Tittel: Sv: Tallbloke's Talkshop presenterer saken
Skrevet av: OkularJanuar 02, 2013, 20:22:15 pm
Tim Channon la akkurat ut denne saken:

The Talkshop - Interesting thoughts at Klimaforskning (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/interesting-thoughts-at-klimaforskning/)

Talkshop contributor Jostemikk linked in Suggestions to Klimaforskning (a Simple Machines based Forum) where astute work is being done on climate problems.

Several of the recent threads there very properly look at the complex regime of climate data, cause and effect with their lead/lag, the way to sort out chicken or egg.

Real-world climatic significance of ’the enhanced greenhouse effect’ – a straightforward test toward potential falsification.

There is more there in a similar vein.

Jostemikk, du skal ha stor takk :D

Ja, har sett den. Skal prøve å få inn et par kommentarer der. For å få fram budskapet. Ser allerede at man flisespikker på detaljer, noe som fort avleder oppmerksomheten fra hva tråden jo egentlig handler om. Men Stephen Wilde har noen interessante tanker om viktigheten av densitet (hans idé om 'the adiabatic loop').

Har også sett at tråden her er linket til i en kommentar under Spencers siste post.

Sitter og samler sammen til en mail som skal sendes til han + et par, tre til i samme bransje. Så får man se om man får noen respons.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: JostemikkJanuar 02, 2013, 22:38:05 pm
Det er en som har linket til saken din hos Chiefio også. Alt i alt dundret det i vei med 500 nye sidevisninger på et blunk. Har aldri sett en tråd bli lest så mye så raskt her på forumet.

Flott du fikk tid til å svare hos Tallbloke. Har en sterk mistanke om at de fleste nok ikke er helt på det rene med hva de har lest. Unntakene er de som forsøker å spore av, samt de som sier takk og legger ut linker på andre blogger. Problemet med dette er at disse linkene og positive kommentarene ikke fører til den debatten som må til for å hause saken opp slik at den virkelig blir lagt merke til.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularJanuar 02, 2013, 23:04:18 pm
Det er en som har linket til saken din hos Chiefio også. Alt i alt dundret det i vei med 500 nye sidevisninger på et blunk. Har aldri sett en tråd bli lest så mye så raskt her på forumet.

Flott du fikk tid til å svare hos Tallbloke. Har en sterk mistanke om at de fleste nok ikke er helt på det rene med hva de har lest. Unntakene er de som forsøker å spore av, samt de som sier takk og legger ut linker på andre blogger. Problemet med dette er at disse linkene og positive kommentarene ikke fører til den debatten som må til for å hause saken opp slik at den virkelig blir lagt merke til.

Er enig i det du sier her, Jostemikk. Det beste hadde vært og fått et eget postinnlegg på en av disse bloggene, slik at argumentet hadde kunnet bli mer spisset enn det framstår nå. Og/eller at en av disse jeg tenker å maile til en av dagene nå bringer det fram i lyset.

Jeg har ellers prøvd å finne en tilsvarende 'Suggestions'-boks hos JoNova, men uten hell.

Noen idé? Vet jo at Frank Lansner har hatt poster der. Kan jo selvfølgelig bare sende henne en mail ...
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: seotoJanuar 17, 2013, 21:49:51 pm
Denne tråden har nå blitt lest 2249 ganger - på tide med en "bump"!
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularJanuar 25, 2013, 17:59:09 pm
Jeg utfordret nylig Science of Doom (http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/20/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-nine-reaching-equilibrium/), blogg-persona'en som bruker mesteparten av sin spalteplass på å promotere terrestrisk stråling som allstyrende i det jordiske klimasystemet (noe den jo åpenbart ikke er), til å sette seg inn i problemstillingen som fremkommer dersom testen i åpningsinnlegget på denne tråden viser at mer, ikke mindre, energi forlater jorda (overflate som TOA) under oppvarming.

Hva innebærer det for AGW-hypotesen?

Her er (den korte) utvekslingen (fra kommentarfeltet i linken over):

Sitat
Kristian

SoD, you say (referring to your Figure 4):

(http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/atmospheric-radiation-9d-surface-balance-timestep-1.png)
“Let’s consider the surface. On timestep 1 the surface is radiating 376 W/m² (note 1).”

I find this a somewhat misleading statement. Or at least a bit halfway. Since the Earth’s surface is not a BB in a vacuum, the real (net energy/heat transferring) IR flux from the surface (to the atmosphere) in your model would be 376-284=92 W/m^2, not 376 W/m^2. In Figure 4 one might be confused into thinking that you liken the IR 284 W/m^2 coming down from the atmosphere, mainly heated by the surface, with the incoming SW solar flux, as if originating from a second heat source for the surface. In reality, that flux is part of the net energy loss flux from the surface. All it does is keeping the surface heat loss through thermal radiation down. I know you know this, and I know it doesn’t really change your conclusion, but wouldn’t it be better to just state this? IR from the atmosphere does not constitute a direct forcing on the surface. It’s an INdirect forcing, limiting its heat (net energy) loss by thermal radiation. The global surface of the Earth is always losing, never gaining, heat by thermal radiation. It is simply a matter of how great or small that loss is. This could be more clearly pointed out.

Thanks.

Sitat
scienceofdoom

Kristian,

There’s nothing wrong with your way of thinking.

You can think of the 2-way radiative exchange as 1 net process or as 2 separate processes.

But regardless of the temperature of the atmosphere the surface radiates a given amount according to its temperature. Regardless of the temperature of the surface the atmosphere radiates a given amount according to its temperature. This is important to understand and many people (in the blog world) are confused about it.

... In Figure 4 one might be confused into thinking that you liken the IR 284 W/m^2 coming down from the atmosphere, mainly heated by the surface, with the incoming SW solar flux, as if originating from a second heat source for the surface. In reality, that flux is part of the net energy loss flux from the surface ...

Regardless of how you describe it in words, there is no actual difference. The only reason the earth is above the 3K microwave background temperature is because of the Sun heating it. So in this sense perhaps the arrow showing emission of thermal radiation from the earth is misleading, as people might think it is an independent heat source?

Understanding the individual fluxes and the net are both important.

Sitat
Kristian

SoD says: “Regardless of how you describe it in words, there is no actual difference. The only reason the earth is above the 3K microwave background temperature is because of the Sun heating it. So in this sense perhaps the arrow showing emission of thermal radiation from the earth is misleading, as people might think it is an independent heat source?”

That’s perfectly fine. I agree. BUT, if you want to determine HOW the positive imbalance (causing warming/net accumulation of energy) at TOA or Earth’s surface came to be, then you would have to sepa[ra]te between the two – heat gain from the Sun and heat loss from the Earth. Then the specific terminology you use does become important. Because of the specific thermodynamic mechanisms for warming those terms represent.

Is the observed imbalance a result of increased heat gain or of reduced heat loss? The atmosphere reduces the heat loss. It does not increase the heat gain. Only the Sun does. Being an actual source of heat.

So, what if we observe increased total heat loss from the Earth’s surface and/or TOA during long-term global warming? That means the cause of the imbalance producing the net accumulation of energy in the system cannot be a heat loss reduction, i.e. atmospheric forcing. It will have to be an increase in heat gain, i.e. solar forcing. Will it not?

Sitat
scienceofdoom

Kristian

...So, what if we observe increased total heat loss from the Earth’s surface and/or TOA during long-term global warming? That means the cause of the imbalance producing the net accumulation of energy in the system cannot be a heat loss reduction, i.e. atmospheric forcing. It will have to be an increase in heat gain, i.e. solar forcing. Will it not?...

Can you give an example?

Can you be specific on your terms because your statement is confusing (identify each term for surface balance and then which one or which combination you believe is the identifier).

If you observe heat loss from the Earth’s surface then there will be surface cooling. By definition. And the surface emission of thermal radiation at any time will only be due to the actual temperature (and emissivity) of the surface. So I can’t fathom your meaning.

If you want to separate out solar forcing there is an easy way – measure it via satellite.

Sitat
Kristian

SoD, you say: “Can you be specific on your terms because your statement is confusing (identify each term for surface balance and then which one or which combination you believe is the identifier).”

I’m not sure I see what’s so hard to understand.

I do realise that with a positive energy imbalance, there is only ONE real total heat flux and that is going down.

But what I’m getting at is the fact that this total heat flux CAN be split into a solar component and a terrestrial component, two net fluxes going in opposite directions.

The solar component is the warming one, the Sun being the heat source. The terrestrial component is the cooling one, the ventilation to avoid overheating.

So, Earth gains its heat from the net downward solar flux. At TOA or at the surface. At the same time it releases heat (from the surface to the atmosphere or from TOA to space). This is the net upward surface or TOA flux. At the surface this would constitute the sum of the global latent, sensible and net radiative energy fluxes, you know the ~165 W/m^2 [one] that ideally balances the net incoming flux from the Sun.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/surface_energy_balance.jpg (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/surface_energy_balance.jpg)

And at the TOA, it would be OLR going OUT and SWin-SWout=SWnet going IN, you know the ~239 W/m^2 ideally going both ways.

We (I, at least) want to know which one of these two component net energy fluxes, the solar one or the terrestrial one, that has been responsible for the observed total positive energy imbalance (solar IN – terrestial OUT).

This is the background for my asking: “What if we observe that the total terrestrial net energy flux from the Earth’s surface and/or TOA has indeed increased during long-term global warming (let’s say the last 30 years)? Doesn’t that mean that the supposed warming mechanism of ‘the enhanced GHE’, restricting the Earth’s cooling rate (surface or TOA), simply could not have done the warming?”

SoD har ennå ikke svart på dette siste innlegget. En viss Pekka Pirilä prøver seg imidlertid på en spansk en, en aldri så liten 'red herring' ispedd litt håndveiving, tilsynelatende for å avlede oppmerksomheten bort fra implikasjonene (for en viss hypotese) selve problemstillingen bærer i seg.

Piriläs respons:

Sitat
Pekka Pirilä

Kristian,

To me it seems that it’s so far impossible to answer empirically your question.

The easiest part is the intensity of solar radiation in space. It’s being measured continuously and the measurements are accurate enough for this purpose. You can easily find data on total solar irradiance (TSI) from many sources.

The Earth albedo is the other factor for the net solar SW at TOA. Its not known as accurately. Measuring it from the satellites is difficult as the whole Earth area should be covered with a limited number of satellites and as also the short term temporal variability should be determined.

Similarly it’s difficult to measure accurately the total OLR at TOA. Again the satellites cannot do it accurately enough, more and better equipped satellites would be needed for accurate measurements both for OLR and for albedo determination.

At the surface accurate measurements of solar radiation are possible at individual points but covering the whole surface well enough is not practical.

In absence of accurate enough direct measurements the best we have are the analyses of the type of Trenberth, Fasullo, and Kiehl (2009): Earth’s Global Energy Budget. They combine evidence from a wide variety of sources and apply theoretical constraints in building their estimates. The can provide an useful overall picture, but they cannot really answer your question. The inaccuracies of their approach have been highlighted by some recent studies that tell about significant potential errors in their numbers. In particular the values obtained at surface are greatly uncertain.

Dette er lite annet enn en form for bortforklarende ikke-svar, så jeg avventet en ordentlig respons fra SoD. Den har altså ikke kommet. I går kveld skrev jeg følgelig et tilsvar til Pirilä (men med like tydelig adresse SoD):

Sitat
Kristian

Pekka,
 
SoD, in a January 2011 comment to his own post 'Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part Two', stated:
 
"Imagine if all of the surface radiation was emitted unchanged at the top of atmosphere. (No “greenhouse” effect). Let’s say 450 W/m² emitted from the surface and, therefore, 450 W/m² emitted into space from TOA. Now we add a “greenhouse” gas and the radiation leaving from TOA = (e.g.) 440 W/m². The energy leaving the planet has reduced by 10 [->] 440 W/m². This means more heating of the planet, therefore, (by convention), a radiative forcing.
 
So it’s more about convention. If less energy leaves the planet, the planet must warm (at least in the short term). So a reduction in radiation leaving is an increase in radiative forcing."

 
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/01/23/understanding-atmospheric-radiation-and-the-%E2%80%9Cgreenhouse%E2%80%9D-effect-%E2%80%93-part-two/#comment-9154 (http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/01/23/understanding-atmospheric-radiation-and-the-%E2%80%9Cgreenhouse%E2%80%9D-effect-%E2%80%93-part-two/#comment-9154)

This, in place of a current answer on his part, like your response here (albeit tacitly and implicitly), seems to acknowledge the basic premise underlying my proposition.
 
Yes, if less energy leaves the planet (OLR at TOA - terrestrial component) and the amount of energy entering the Earth system (solar component) remains unchanged over time, the planet must warm. And such a reduction in radiation leaving Earth is 'by convention' an increase in radiative (atmospheric) forcing. If this forcing keeps on strengthening, the warming will endure.
 
But if we DON'T observe less energy leaving the planet over an extended period of global warming, but rather the opposite - if it is observed instead to increase more or less in step with the rising surface temperatures, then what?
 
Then we have global warming which couldn't possibly have been caused by less energy leaving the system - because more, not less, energy has been leaving the system during the warming. There is no way, then, that the atmosphere has been doing the work. The atmosphere has been doing its best to COOL the Earth, to keep the pace and to catch up with the imposed positive imbalance. How? By speeding up the global water cycle. Higher rates of evaporation and convection to spread the accumulated (mainly tropical) surface heat around the globe and to lift it ever more efficiently up and away from the surface towards TOA and space, warming the troposphere along the way.
 
So what would have caused the energy imbalance in this scenario? If not less energy OUT. There is only one alternative. More energy IN. From the Sun.
 
Pekka, I would like to see you build a case for OLR at TOA (as measured by satellites - e.g. ERBE-CERES, ISCCP FD, HIRS) not having increased as a function of general surface temperatures since at least the mid 80s, global evaporation/latent heat transfer from the surface of the Earth not having intensified significantly since the 70s and the temperature gradient between the global sea surface and the air layer directly above it not having become steeper since the end of the 70s.
 
If you can do all this, you would have shown that the Earth system has NOT managed to shed more of its incoming net energy (from the surface, through the TOA) as a result of/a response to higher surface temperatures. In line with the atmospheric warming mechanism - restricting heat loss to promote accumulation of heat.

Jeg prøvde å poste dette i kommentarfeltet ... ved to tilfeller. Ingenting skjedde noen av gangene. Innlegget kom aldri opp. Forsvant bare. Jeg leste under sidens info om kommentarer og innlegg at SoD ikke benytter seg av moderering, så alle innlegg skal komme rett opp, men at spamfilteret en sjelden gang innimellom kan gjøre noe utenom det vanlige og vrake en kommentar etter eget forgodtbefinnende. I disse tilfellene vil SoD selv bli gjort oppmerksom på det via mail, så det skal som regel ordne seg i løpet av ikke altfor lang tid.

Jeg sendte ham imidlertid en mail bare sånn for sikkerhets skyld og underrettet ham om hva som hadde skjedd, og inkluderte selve innlegget:

Sitat
Hi,
 
I tried to post a comment (twice) on your blog tonight, but it never showed up. It was meant as a reply to Pekka Pirilä's posting on January 23, 2013 at 7:30 am on the 'Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation - Part Nine - Reaching Equilibrium' thread.
 
Here is my comment in full:
 
[...] 
 
 
Just to let you know ...
 
Regards,


Fortsatt intet svar. Men dette er ikke engang et døgn siden, så jeg avventer selvsagt.

Men det skal bli interessant å skje hva som skjer. Om noe ...
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: JostemikkJanuar 25, 2013, 18:55:01 pm
Dette var flotte greier, Okular. Først, det er absolutt ikke noe galt i den logikken du legger til grunn. Ikke i forståelsen av de dataene du har brukt fram til nå for å tolke denne situasjonen. Datakvaliteten er det visse debatter om, men vi kan ikke gjøre annet enn å bruke de dataene som finnes, og de støtter deg.

Av denne årsak svarte SoD deg svært passivt, med en tøtsj halvskjult aggressivitet i bunnen. Jeg koser meg over at han ikke har svart deg, for alle som har satt seg inn i denne saken forstår hvorfor.

Pekka skal du ikke kaste bort tid på. Han er et lærd troll, men et troll er et troll. Jeg har kastet bort mange timer av livet mitt på å lese absolutt alle hans kommentarer i trådene til Postma. Han er verdensmester i å spore debatten bort fra topic slik at den ikke skal bli farlig for det dogmet han forsvarer så blindt. Disse trådene har nå har blitt slettet fra bloggen til Judith Curry, med begrunnelsen at to av debattantene kranglet (ikke Postma, Pekka eller de vanlige) så fælt at den ene truet den andre med søksmål. Hun kunne selvfølgelig bare slettet disse innleggene, og sperret disse to gjøkene, der den ene var et supertroll som kun forsøkte å spore av hele tråden.

Her er hva hun selv skriver om dette (http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/29/what-are-blogs-good-for-anyways/), og hos meg har hun stupt i aktelse:

Sitat
Is it possible that the blogospheric discussions on the greenhouse effect ( at Climate Etc, Science of Doom, etc)  have actually slain the skydragons?  And John O’Sullivan’s threats of legal action that resulted in my removing the skydragon threads from Climate Etc. — has this resulted in the burial of the skydragons and arguments that there is no warming of the earth and atmosphere from CO2?  If so, this is a major victory for the blogosphere.

Hun deltok kun sporadisk i disse trådene selv, og gjorde en ynkelig innsats. Jeg har gjort meg mine tanker om hvorfor trådene ble slettet.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: JostemikkJanuar 26, 2013, 10:47:16 am
SoD har lagt ut et nytt kapittel, har kommentert i flere av de gamle trådene, men holder seg unna Okulars siste innlegg som om det skulle vært rabiesbefengt. Resten av de vanlige suspekte holder seg også fullstendig borte, og er det noe akkurat disse er kjent for, er det å angripe samstemt hvis noen opponerer.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: Amatør1Januar 26, 2013, 12:06:35 pm
Patetisk at slike debatter nesten alltid ender opp i en eller annen form for sensur av rasjonelle og vel begrunnede synspunkter på strengt vitenskapelige temaer.

Det forteller endel om hva som er viktigst for de som driver de ulike stedene.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: JostemikkJanuar 27, 2013, 11:13:43 am
SoD nekter fortsatt å svare på spørsmålene, og de sedvanlig suspekte deltakerne på bloggen hans glimrer plutselig med sitt fravær.

Bare det at Okulars antydninger om at det er sola, ikke økt atmosfæreeffekt ("tilbakestråling") som har stått bak oppvarmingen skaper den fullstendige taushet, er sannelig et interessant studium i seg selv. At det hele kanskje skyldes variasjoner i skydekket, gjør også den skeptiske delen av klimabloggosfæren til noe lignende en slik (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Crassostrea_gigas_p1040848.jpg/300px-Crassostrea_gigas_p1040848.jpg).

Det er vel kun en som nikker, om ikke helt, så i det minste delvis samtykkende. Roy Spencer har lenge sagt at en ørliten variasjon i skydekket kan være hele eller delvis årsak til oppvarmingen vi så et par tiår. Men han vil tydeligvis heller ikke røre denne saken, for han har selv et par kjepphester han må fortsette sammen med på lange rideturer. Han mener at atmosfæren varmer opp havet, og så seg tidlig ut PDO som mulig årsak. Han har dog pekt på Tisdales glimrende dataanalyser i den senere tid.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: JostemikkJanuar 28, 2013, 00:21:05 am
Etter ha ha spurt SoD om hvorfor hans innlegg ikke kom gjennom, og SoD tok en "de blir tatt av spamfilteret", har Okular nå nye innlegg på plass. SoD nekter plent å svare på Okulars spørsmål.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/20/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-nine-reaching-equilibrium/

For de som vil ha spørsmål/svar om innlegg som ikke kom igjennom, står det om dette i den siste artikkelen til SoD:

http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/27/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-eleven-stratospheric-cooling/

Jeg anbefaler alle å lese det Okular har bidratt med der. For det første er det direkte imponerende, og for det andre er det første gang jeg har sett at SoD har brukt flere dager på ikke å svare på innlegg som i seg selv er nok til å knekke ryggen på hele GAGW-spøkelset, for ikke å si CO2-hypotesen.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularJanuar 28, 2013, 00:35:04 am
Etter ha ha spurt SoD om hvorfor hans innlegg ikke kom gjennom, og SoD tok en "de blir tatt av spamfilteret", har Okular nå nye innlegg på plass. SoD nekter plent å svare på Okulars spørsmål.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/20/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-nine-reaching-equilibrium/

For de som vil ha spørsmål/svar om innlegg som ikke kom igjennom, står det om dette i den siste artikkelen til SoD:

http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/27/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-eleven-stratospheric-cooling/

Jeg anbefaler alle å lese det Okular har bidratt med der. For det første er det direkte imponerende, og for det andre er det første gang jeg har sett at SoD har brukt flere dager på ikke å svare på innlegg som i seg selv er nok til å knekke ryggen på hele GAGW-spøkelset, for ikke å si CO2-hypotesen.

Ja, jeg så det nå også. Jeg orker ikke å bygge videre på noen konspiratoriske tanker og velger inntil videre å stole på at det han sier har skjedd faktisk er hva som er skjedd.

Men han svarer fortsatt ikke på spørsmålene eller problemstillingene, nei. Han synes mer opptatt av å 'tune' modellene sine.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: JostemikkJanuar 28, 2013, 00:57:01 am
Ja, jeg så det nå også. Jeg orker ikke å bygge videre på noen konspiratoriske tanker og velger inntil videre å stole på at det han sier har skjedd faktisk er hva som er skjedd.

Men han svarer fortsatt ikke på spørsmålene eller problemstillingene, nei. Han synes mer opptatt av å 'tune' modellene sine.

Jeg gjengir bare deres ordveksling, Okular, og det gjør jeg fordi jeg mener at dette er så viktig at jeg har valgt å oppdatere denne tråden med hva som skjer der. Jeg har fulgt den bloggen noen år, og dette er første gang jeg har sett at SoD har stukket av fra en debatt der det blir stilt så AGW-ødeleggende spørsmål.

Spamfiltrene de bruker på wordpress-bloggene får plutselig hikke i forbindelse med enkelte lenker som blir lagt inn i innleggene. Ellers får de stort sett ikke hikke.

Det blir spennende å se om han svarer deg snart, og ikke minst, hva han svarer.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: JostemikkJanuar 29, 2013, 21:19:15 pm
Da har det gått to nye døgn, og SoD holder seg langt unna. Det gjør forsåvidt alle andre også, og som jeg har vært inne på tidligere, det pleier stå et helt korps med såkalte debunkere klare til å hive seg over alle kjettere. Talende taushet.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: JostemikkJanuar 30, 2013, 11:35:24 am
Nå har SoD svart. (http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/20/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-nine-reaching-equilibrium/#comment-22865)
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularJanuar 30, 2013, 17:37:13 pm
Nå har SoD svart. (http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/20/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-nine-reaching-equilibrium/#comment-22865)

Ja, det har han. Interessant. Ser han prøver seg ...
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: Amateur2Januar 30, 2013, 20:09:58 pm
Vi venter på at du tar en omgang med ham på linje med den du kjører på VGD under denne tråden (http://vgd.no/samfunn/miljoe-og-klima/tema/1750094/tittel/minnett-og-oppvarming-av-havet). Stoffet du presenterer der burde gi mer enn nok ammunisjon også i forhold til SoD ....  8)
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularFebruar 02, 2013, 17:47:15 pm
SoD har tydeligvis begynt med moderering av kommentarer. På tråden Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation – Part Nine – Reaching Equilibrium (http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/20/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-nine-reaching-equilibrium/) har jeg følgende kommentar 'ventende i kø' (den første delen av svaret kom rett inn, men den andre delen, dette, må altså tydeligvis vurderes først):

Sitat
Kristian on February 2, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Which brings me to your CERES plots.

If you recall, I clearly stated that the OLR at TOA cannot be observed to increase DURING WARMING, if the atmosphere is to be responsible for that same warming.

Well, there has been no global warming during the lifetime of the CERES satellites (Terra and Aqua).

So why would we expect to see any trend resolving the issue in the CERES OLR data? We wouldn’t.

But CERES wasn’t the first satellite project to measure OLR. And I think you know this, even though you stated the following: “The observing systems in place can comment on TOA OLR for just over the last 10 years.” Well, I already mentioned several other projects in my last post (to Pekka Pirilä).

But before we go there, let’s just agree on one thing. Looking at the CERES (anomaly) data, there is no question what controls OLR at TOA: 1) surface temperatures, 2) atmospheric temperature and humidity and 3) clouds, with 1) leading (basically ruling) 2) and 3). The ENSO process is the best way to show this.

Loeb et al. 2012:
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/641/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10712-012-9175-1.pdf?auth66=1361044098_e3fc64c10772d7b5c0c6b5f58d0dd0b9&ext=.pdf (http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/641/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10712-012-9175-1.pdf?auth66=1361044098_e3fc64c10772d7b5c0c6b5f58d0dd0b9&ext=.pdf)

Susskind et al. 2012:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120012822_2012011737.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120012822_2012011737.pdf)

http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/CERES2000-2010trvsgl2-1.jpg (http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/CERES2000-2010trvsgl2-1.jpg)
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/GltempvsOLR_zpse04e4fe7.jpg (http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/GltempvsOLR_zpse04e4fe7.jpg)

With this is mind, let’s go back in time.

More later …
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: Ewer Gladblakk.Februar 02, 2013, 18:45:43 pm
Utrulig hvordan, stadig vekk, at sola må spille annenfiolin i et helt orkester med en helvill dirigent av usammenhengende usammenheter....det er nesten ikke helt til å tru!
Det er nesten slik at vi (menneskemølja) har frigitt oss fra den livgivende kilden vi stammer ifra! :-\
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: JostemikkFebruar 02, 2013, 20:11:30 pm
Dette var to feiende flotte svar, Okular. Du kan være trygg på at SoD har lest dem begge. Vi må også kunne anta at han sliter ørlite med å finne ut av hva han skal gjøre. Skjønte jo egentlig det allerede da han kom med standard"debunkingen" i sine forrige innlegg, for å forske å gli utenom den møtende traileren.

En annen viktig ting vel verdt å merke seg er hvordan dine innlegg har fått stå ubesvart i flere dager. Tenker da på de første i Del 9. Nye folk som prøver seg hos SoD med innlegg som tilsvarer å banne i kjerka (kritiske spørsmål til AGW-dogmet) blir som regel alltid satt raskt på plass hvis de ikke har noe å fare med. Det virker som om de vanligste bidragsyterne hos SoD lister seg rundt på tøfler og håper ikke å bli lagt merke til.

Jeg antar også at svært mange skeptikere er ørlite lunkne til det du presenterer, for du trenger jo ikke variasjon i selve solstyrken som forklaringsmodell. Folk er seg selv lik. AGWere eller ikke. Uten å være klar over det, har de fleste av oss allerede dannet oss en grunnleggende forklaringsmodell for det meste her i livet, og forsøker noen rokke ved den modellen, ja da kjenner vi først ørlite smerte og utrygghet. Røres det skikkelig om, da kan det føre til voldsomme pinsler og fullstendig panikk. Om dette dreier seg om AGW-teorien, eller at du får vite at foreldrene dine har et hemmelig liv som kannibaler går ut for det samme, det er bare reaksjonen som varierer utfra graden av sjokket. SoD har nå begynt å vri seg. Han føler at det prikker i huden.

For de som ikke helt fikk med seg Okulars spørsmål til SoD om "andre data", så vel, han henviser til noen forklaringer om skyer, ENSO og mer. Det finnes også noe som var NASAs nye stolthet den gangen prosjektet startet, for det skulle ta livet av all AGW-skeptitisme da de klinte til med ERBS. Earth Radiation Budget Satellite. Denne skulle gi de svarene og den dokumentasjonen de ønsket seg. Problemet var bare at den viste det motsatte av hva de ønsket. De dataene den etter hvert produserte støttet skeptikerne, ikke AGWerne.

16. juni 2011 i tråden om Det store klimaskiftet i '76, skrev jeg dette og la ut to ERBS-grafer som forlengst har forsvunnet fra NASA sine sider:

Andre naturlige påvirkninger av den globale temperaturen

Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), målte i perioden 1984 til slutten av 90-tallet en reduksjon i refleksjon av solinnstråling fra toppen av atmosfæren på ca 6W/m2. Derfra og fram til 2005 stabiliserte dette seg:

(http://bloggfiler.no/jostemikk.blogg.no/images/1172047-8-1305745239182.jpg)

I den perioden IPCC sier vi har hatt en global oppvarming grunnet en økning i infrarød/kortbølget (LW) varmestråling grunnet økningen av CO2, forteller ERBS-dataene oss at jordas 40 midtre breddegrader, et område svært viktig for varmedistribusjon for hele kloden, har opplevd en oppvarming i direkte solvarme (SW) på ca 3-4 W/m2. Dette gjør det jo interessant å se på hva ERBS-dataene har å fortelle oss om LW i den samme perioden:

(http://bloggfiler.no/jostemikk.blogg.no/images/1172047-8-1305745273551.jpg)

Stikk i strid med IPCC-hypotesen, ser det ut til at det har vært en nedkjøling i langbølget varmestråling i samme periode. Til tross for CO2-økningen, forteller dataene om en solid økning i infrarød varmestråling som forlater toppen av atsmosfæren.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...? Ny AR5-lekkasje!
Skrevet av: TelehivFebruar 03, 2013, 00:48:17 am
LEKKASJE FRA KOMMENDE A5-RAPPORT GRIPER TROLIG RETT INN I DENNE DEBATTEN:

Spennende tema men vanskelig for legfolk og publikum å kunne mene noe om - langt mindre å forstå at man er i ferd med å lures langt ut i vitenskapens skitneste åker.

Og lettere å tenke fornuftig blir det ikke av at IPCC - istedet for å krype til korset og innrømme at de er på ville veier med sin modell for global energibalanse - trolig kommer til å kjøre enda hardere på sin vranglære:

Lekkasjen sier at IPCC-redaksjonsbanden i den kommende AR5 igjen vil påstå at DLWR er i all hovedsak identisk med isolasjon, ved at de bare legger den hypotetiske IR-verdien (som de trekker ut av IR-radiometermålinger) til den faktisk målte kortbølgeenergi-fluksen fra sola (!)

På denne basis kommer AR5 draft chapter 8 til å hevde at:

“The instantaneous RF (radiative forcing) refers to an instantaneous change in net (down minus up) radiative flux (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) due to an imposed change.”
 
Slik klarer de å holde gående sin historie om at atmosfæren er egentlig jordoverflatens hovedvarmekilde (basert på misbruk av radiometerdata der den innstrålende langbølgete energifluksen fra atmosfæren registreres som det doble av solas!).

Her på huset (og hos en rekke fysikere som tenker klart) må vel dette oppleves som meningsløst? Vårt svar er vel null slik effekt? 
   
NB: MAN KAN LOGGE SEG RETT INN I LEKKASJETEKSTEN VED Å GÅ INN NEDERST PÅ DENNE ARTIKKELEN (som diskuterer IPCCs misbruk av infrarøde målinger):
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news.html
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: BebbenFebruar 03, 2013, 01:39:53 am
Hei tele, Claes Johnson har skrevet en god del om det samme i det siste.

Det ser ut til at disse måleinstrumentene egentlig måler temperaturforskjeller, og deretter beregner den teoretiske strålingen ved hjelp av det som Claes Johnson kaller den "falske" Stefan-Boltzmannloven. Det som egentlig måles, er altså temperatur... ifølge din artikkel beregnes det en "potensiell" utstråling til det tomme rom med temperatur 0 K (Stefan-Boltzmann, som bygger på Planck), men dette er jo ikke tilfelle - hverken "downwelling" stråling fra atmosfæren eller "uwelling" stråling fra Jordoverflaten stråler rett ut i det tomme rom (med unntak av gjennom det "atmosfæriske vinduet"). Så når de beregner den "potensielle" utstrålingen blir det som å måle vannmengden som strømmer i en elv dersom det hadde vært et loddrett fall...! ... men det er det jo ikke. 

Ikke så godt å si for en lekmann hvor mye denne kritikken har for seg og hvor store konsekvenser den har, men så langt jeg kan se er det uansett et viktig funn at disse forskjellige innretningene ikke måler stråling direkte, bare beregner den.

Og som jeg har sagt før, det teoretiske grunnlaget for drivhuseffekten virker dårlig fundert og spekulativt, og som både jeg og Okular/Kayell har pekt på, er det visst knapt nok noen som kan denne teorien - eller disse teoriene - i det hele tatt. Noe som ifølge Gerhard Kramm "er et dårlig tegn i seg selv".

Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: JostemikkFebruar 03, 2013, 09:51:44 am
SoD ble nå en smule personlig, og for første gang jeg har sett, også en smule utrivelig. Jeg linker igjen til den aktuelle tråden.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/20/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-nine-reaching-equilibrium/

Så vidt jeg kan forstå tviholder han på at Okular snakker om variasjon i solas styrke, og nå har han også blitt svært opptatt av potensielle unøyaktigheter i de dataene Okular henviser til. Det er egentlig greit nok, for i likhet med alt SoD selv henviser til av data, er det muligheter for unøyaktigheter. Problemet her er at SoD unngår å debattere videre, og forsøker spore av. Han liker ikke hvor dette bærer i vei.

SoDs og mainstreams påstand, og selve bærebjelken i CO2-hypotesen: Jorda har fått et ekstra sett klær som hindrer varmetap. Okulars påstand: De dataene vi har å forholde oss til viser at det har sluppet ut mer varme gjennom dette ekstra laget med klær, altså må hypotesen være gal, og oppvarmingen skyldes økt oppvarming av bakke/hav via økt solinnstråling. Denne økte oppvarmingen fra sola er årsaken til økt varmetap i langbølget, og er jordas måte å kvitte seg med overskuddsvarmen. Mainstream kan ikke få i både pose og sekk, men forsøker allikevel å multiplisere effekten av den antatte CO2-effekten.

For å styrke sin argumentasjon, har Okular linket til forskjellige data/publikasjoner, som så vidt jeg forstår alle støtter opp om en økning i OLW/TOA under årene med oppvarming.

SoD forsøkte seg med en ren henvisning til CERES-dataene, og påsto Se, det er ingen økning i utgående OLW/TOA!, hvorpå Okular kontret tørt med Ikke så rart, for jorda har ikke blitt varmere den korte perioden CERES-dataene dekker.

Har jeg misforstått noe her, er jeg sikker på at Okular vil korrigere, og attpåtil gjøre denne saken enda mer forståelig på folkelig vis for de som i likhet med meg sliter litt med å henge med i alle svingene.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: Amatør1Februar 03, 2013, 13:04:26 pm
SoDs og mainstreams påstand, og selve bærebjelken i CO2-hypotesen: Jorda har fått et ekstra sett klær som hindrer varmetap. Okulars påstand: De dataene vi har å forholde oss til viser at det har sluppet ut mer varme gjennom dette ekstra laget med klær, altså må hypotesen være gal, og oppvarmingen skyldes økt oppvarming av bakke/hav via økt solinnstråling. Denne økte oppvarmingen fra sola er årsaken til økt varmetap i langbølget, og er jordas måte å kvitte seg med overskuddsvarmen.

Dette framstår som et glimrende, kortfattet og popularisert resymé av Okulars poenger! Hvis Okular er enig i tolkningen, framstår denne formuleringen som en tydeliggjøring som til og med politikere burde kunne fatte, og derfor er det av stor betydning å framføre argumentasjonen slik Jostemikk her gjør, i de rette kanalene, i månedene framover.


Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularFebruar 03, 2013, 15:30:51 pm
Telehiv,

Takk for linken. Dette er noe jeg ikke har satt meg ordentlig inn i, så dette var svært interessant! Det virker helt åpenbart at IR-fluksverdiene er rene kalkulasjoner basert på en idé om toveis utveksling, ja. Måleren 'ser' imidlertid kun nettofluksen (varmefluksen). Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer) sier forøvrig akkurat det samme - en ren beregning.

Hvor mye kjekling (bl.a. på vgd) hadde jeg ikke sluppet om jeg bare kunne ha henvist til denne. Alle, særlig alarmistene, synes jo nemlig overbevist om at disse målerne (pyrgeometerne, radiometerne) leser av IR ned/IR opp direkte og at det er 'bevis' på at disse enkeltveisfluksene eksisterer. Ha! Jommen sa jeg smør.

Men det er en annen sak, mulig det er noen som vet noe om det her på forumet, men jeg har uansett sendt et lite spørsmål til Principia-gjengen om det.

Det dreier seg om de såkalte interferometrene, de som angivelig måler IR-spektra fra bakke (OPP) og fra himmel (NED). Hvor får de sin stråling fra om ikke fra atmosfæren? De trenger innkommende EM-stråler som kan splittes for å skape et interferogram slik at den såkalte Fourier-transformen kan 'frambringe' spekteret for den spesifikt gjeldende atmosfæriske tilstanden.

Det er vanskelig å peke på en ren kalkulasjon her. Som nevnt, jeg har satt meg lite inn i dette, så det er mulig det er noe enkelt og åpenbart jeg har oversett, men ...
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularFebruar 03, 2013, 15:34:44 pm
SoDs og mainstreams påstand, og selve bærebjelken i CO2-hypotesen: Jorda har fått et ekstra sett klær som hindrer varmetap. Okulars påstand: De dataene vi har å forholde oss til viser at det har sluppet ut mer varme gjennom dette ekstra laget med klær, altså må hypotesen være gal, og oppvarmingen skyldes økt oppvarming av bakke/hav via økt solinnstråling. Denne økte oppvarmingen fra sola er årsaken til økt varmetap i langbølget, og er jordas måte å kvitte seg med overskuddsvarmen.

Enig med Amatør1 her, en god og klar sammenfatning av problemstillingen, Jostemikk :D
Og noe som bør kunne brukes.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: JostemikkFebruar 03, 2013, 17:40:07 pm
Det gikk som jeg antydet. Full panikk etter den første prikkende, ubehagelige følelsen SoD følte over innleggene til Okular. Avsporing. Personfokus. Aggressivitet. At sammen på grunn av legitime spørsmål og problemstillinger skrevet både høflig og saklig.

Dette er meget interessant. Minner svært mye om debatten om det samme temaet med trollene på VGD.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: Amateur2Februar 03, 2013, 17:44:17 pm

SoDs og mainstreams påstand, og selve bærebjelken i CO2-hypotesen: Jorda har fått et ekstra sett klær som hindrer varmetap. Okulars påstand: De dataene vi har å forholde oss til viser at det har sluppet ut mer varme gjennom dette ekstra laget med klær, altså må hypotesen være gal, og oppvarmingen skyldes økt oppvarming av bakke/hav via økt solinnstråling. Denne økte oppvarmingen fra sola er årsaken til økt varmetap i langbølget, og er jordas måte å kvitte seg med overskuddsvarmen. Mainstream kan ikke få i både pose og sekk, men forsøker allikevel å multiplisere effekten av den antatte CO2-effekten.


Vi kan trygt hevde at Okular ettertrykkelig er i ferd med å demonstrere at det er Keiserens Nye Klær man snakker om.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: Amateur2Februar 03, 2013, 17:52:58 pm
Okular har nå stilt SoD opp mot veggen:

Les hos SoD (http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/20/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-nine-reaching-equilibrium/)

Sitat
Kristian
SoD,

What do you need equations for in this case? What equations?

This is really not a hard concept to grasp. And there’s absolutely no need for any maths to be able to do so. Or to agree on what the concept represents.

Frankly I don’t see how a clever guy like yourself can find this vague or hard to understand.

I’ve stated this now multiple times:

If OLR at TOA (terrestrial cooling) is observed to increase rather than decrease during long term global warming, then that means an ‘enhanced GHE’ (atmospheric forcing) cannot be responsible for the warming.

There really is no more to be said.


on February 3, 2013 at 1:34 pmKristian
Adding to that: You can disagree with me on two points, SoD.

1) The basic premise, or
2) What the data shows.

That’s it.

Dette er en nydelig klargjøring av hva det hele egentlig dreier seg om.
Okulars utredninger i forkant er glimrende. Jeg greier ikke å finne noen punktet hvor dette svikter hverken i forutsetninger eller logikk. Jeg gleder meg til å se SoD sitt svar ... Dette kan ikke være vidre greit for ham ... :)
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularFebruar 03, 2013, 20:53:39 pm
Jeg antar også at svært mange skeptikere er ørlite lunkne til det du presenterer, for du trenger jo ikke variasjon i selve solstyrken som forklaringsmodell. Folk er seg selv lik. AGWere eller ikke. Uten å være klar over det, har de fleste av oss allerede dannet oss en grunnleggende forklaringsmodell for det meste her i livet, og forsøker noen rokke ved den modellen, ja da kjenner vi først ørlite smerte og utrygghet. Røres det skikkelig om, da kan det føre til voldsomme pinsler og fullstendig panikk. Om dette dreier seg om AGW-teorien, eller at du får vite at foreldrene dine har et hemmelig liv som kannibaler går ut for det samme, det er bare reaksjonen som varierer utfra graden av sjokket.

Veldig sanne ord, Jostemikk. Det er nok litt problemet med 'oss skeptikere'. Vi er nok kanskje i litt for stor grad ensomme ulver der alarmistene er sammenflokkede sauer. Vi har ingen enkeltstående samlende hypotese. Selv nullhypotesen kan ta mange former. For hvilke naturlige årsaker er viktigst? Som du sier, mange satser sine penger helt og holdent på solas svingninger, og ser på alternative (eller helst supplerende) forklaringer med en smule rynket nese. Jeg har tidligere nevnt Tallbloke's Talkshop som et sted (som jeg i utgangspunktet liker veldig godt og synes bringer mange interessante tanker til torgs) hvor denne holdningen synes å være utbredt. Jeg tror ikke Tallbloke selv kommenterte engang på klimaforskning-tråden der (som kom opp takket være tipset ditt).

Men det er som du antyder ikke lett å gjøre noe med. Oppfatninger og meninger om hvordan ting er skrudd sammen her i verden sitter dypt og er vanskelige å rokke ved.

Mange har sitt spesialfelt og søker svarene der. Da blir det vanskelig å få et overblikk, se sammenhenger der de finnes. Selv er jeg en inngrodd generalist, jeg foretrekker å se og trekke de store linjene (det er nok litt derfor jeg ikke helt har tålmodigheten, som du f.eks. åpenbart har, til å dykke inn i materien med de enkelte stasjoners temperaturmåleserier rundt om i verden - jeg ønsker altfor fort å favne videre, føler trangen til å løfte blikket, nages kanskje at jeg går glipp av noe større, et større perspektiv), jeg hoppet av mastergradsstudier nettopp fordi jeg følte at studiene ble for snevre i nedslagsfeltet. Så jeg begynte å studere andre ting isteden. Så som filosofi, som jeg vel tidligere har nevnt.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: stjakobsFebruar 03, 2013, 22:16:51 pm
Det forlanges ofte av oss skeptikere at vi må komme med en (eller flere) verifiserbare forklaringsmodeller før alarmistene i det hele tatt vil forsøke å høre på oss. Problemstillingen er totalt snudd på hodet. Vi ser jo at målinger - d.v.s. naturen - viser at klimamodellene feiler - CO2 kan ikke virke så kraftig som modellene er innebygd med. Selve CO2-hypotesen er avkreftet - i alle fall hva gjelder det som kan måles med de metoder man har til rådighet i dag.  Men samtidig er det alarmistene som til nå har fått forskningsmillionene kastet etter seg.

Alle som tenker etter ser at det må være flere andre faktorer som virker for å gi oss variasjoner i klimaet, der sola og andre himmellegemer, havet og skydekke er helt sentrale faktorer. Jeg ønsker å tro at jeg personlig ikke har alt for fast-tømrete meninger om hva som virker inn mest, men er åpen for andre alternative forklaringsmodeller. Likevel er min mening pr. dags dato at Svensmarks hypotese er en god kandidat til å forklare den sterkeste påvirkningen.

Men sikker kan man ikke være.

Stå på Okular!
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: Amatør1Februar 03, 2013, 22:41:19 pm
Veldig sanne ord, Jostemikk. Det er nok litt problemet med 'oss skeptikere'. Vi er nok kanskje i litt for stor grad ensomme ulver der alarmistene er sammenflokkede sauer. Vi har ingen enkeltstående samlende hypotese. Selv nullhypotesen kan ta mange former. For hvilke naturlige årsaker er viktigst? Som du sier, mange satser sine penger helt og holdent på solas svingninger, og ser på alternative (eller helst supplerende) forklaringer med en smule rynket nese. Jeg har tidligere nevnt Tallbloke's Talkshop som et sted (som jeg i utgangspunktet liker veldig godt og synes bringer mange interessante tanker til torgs) hvor denne holdningen synes å være utbredt. Jeg tror ikke Tallbloke selv kommenterte engang på klimaforskning-tråden der (som kom opp takket være tipset ditt).

Jeg var borti miljøet rundt Tallbloke for noen år siden, og de var veldig fokuserte på sola som du sier, og enkelte av hypotesene var like tvilsomme som AGW (vet det, for jeg pushet noen av dem). Tallblokes avatar er et "trefoil" diagram som viser solas bane rundt solsystemets tyngdepunkt. Vet det også, for jeg tror den avataren er avledet av noe jeg lagde, som igjen var inspirert av dette paperet:
Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused by solar inertial motion? (http://www.ann-geophys.net/18/399/2000/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf)

Idag anser jeg det for pseudovitenskap.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: TelehivFebruar 03, 2013, 23:08:43 pm
Spennende saker dere diskuterer nå!

Jeg har tatt en ny titt på et av de helt nye paperne jeg linket til nylig: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2013/01/new-nasa-project-may-show-how-sun.html

Det er NASA som skal kjøre et prosjekt som kanskje vil avklare mer hvordan sola driver klimaet, nærmere bestemt "how changes in water vapor and ozone in the upper atmosphere result in "significant climate impacts" on the Earth surface."

Teknisk sett vil dette skje gjennom den såkalte Airborne Tropical Tropopause Experiment (ATTREX), "a multi-year airborne science campaign with a heavily instrumented Global Hawk aircraft" (ser ut som første flygning begynte 16 januar og tilsammen 6 flyvninger innen 15. mars vil bli foretatt), basert på antakelsen at:

"Water vapor and ozone in the stratosphere can have a large impact on Earth's climate. The processes that drive the rise and fall of these compounds, especially water vapor, are not well understood. This limits scientists' ability to predict how these changes will influence global climate in the future. ATTREX will study moisture and chemical composition in the upper regions of the troposphere, the lowest layer of Earth's atmosphere. The tropopause layer between the troposphere and stratosphere, 8 miles to 11 miles above Earth's surface, is the point where water vapor, ozone and other gases enter the stratosphere."

Timingen henger sammen med at dette er "first opportunity to sample the tropopause region during winter in the northern hemisphere when it is coldest and extremely dry air enters the stratosphere."

Vel, jeg forstår dette slik at man er ute etter å finne en såkalt "top down effekt", som disse tydeligvis vil oppnå ved å registrere en endring i tropopause-gradienten mellom ekvator og pol-strømningene.

Jeg er langtfra noen ekspert på dette, men allerede her reises vel en del metodiske betenkeligheter blant de som er mest oppe i dette: Er det dette som er beste måten å gjøre det på? Eller er dette taktisk sidestepping for å ikke å falsifisere resten av NASA-gjengen for mye, for tidlig? 

Uansett, finner de det som det er grunn til å håpe på her (eller kanskje rettere: hvis de tør finne det) er det bare å sette Rasmus et al på valium profylaktisk.

For en av kommentatorene (Stephen Wilde) sier det tørt slik:
"However I do think they are going to find that the stratosphere cools with an active sun and warms with an inactive sun which is currently the opposite of established climatology".

Herlig klar tale, hva?!

- Eller er det jeg som er for optimistisk her, om at det kan komme brukbare resultater fra dette?? Blir litt mistenksom når det er NASA som skal kjøre et prosjekt som i sin ytterste konsekvens kan sende deres kollega NASA-Hansen nærmest rett i en rettsprosess...  :o ;D


 
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularFebruar 03, 2013, 23:10:22 pm
Full skjærings nå på Science of Doom. Tror ikke jeg har så høy stjerne der akkurat. Og jeg føler i grunn jeg har fått sagt det jeg ville. Har også rukket å linke til denne tråden.

Så anser det som lite fruktbart å fortsette der sånn som det ser ut nå. Vel, vel ...
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularFebruar 03, 2013, 23:19:04 pm
- Eller er det jeg som er for optimistisk her, om at det kan komme brukbare resultater fra dette?? Blir litt mistenksom når det er NASA som skal kjøre et prosjekt som i sin ytterste konsekvens kan sende deres kollega NASA-Hansen nærmest rett i en rettsprosess...  :o ;D

Med tanke på at NASA tydeligvis ikke vil vedkjenne seg verken ISCCP FD eller ERBS/ERBE sine OLR data fra TOA (det er deres prestisjeprosjekter, men vi hører ikke stort mer om dem eller hva de fortalte), fordi de direkte imøtegår AGW-hypotesens spådommer, så tror jeg man skal holde på sin ... vel, sunne skeptiske sans også her.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: TelehivFebruar 03, 2013, 23:24:30 pm
- Eller er det jeg som er for optimistisk her, om at det kan komme brukbare resultater fra dette?? Blir litt mistenksom når det er NASA som skal kjøre et prosjekt som i sin ytterste konsekvens kan sende deres kollega NASA-Hansen nærmest rett i en rettsprosess...  :o ;D

Med tanke på at NASA tydeligvis ikke vil vedkjenne seg verken ISCCP FD eller ERBS/ERBE sine OLR data fra TOA (det er deres prestisjeprosjekter, men vi hører ikke stort mer om dem eller hva de fortalte), fordi de direkte imøtegår AGW-hypotesens spådommer, så tror jeg man skal holde på sin ... vel, sunne skeptiske sans også her.

Ja, det er noe sånt jeg innerst inne frykter. Men det kan jo kanskje tenkes/håpes at ikke alle NASA-miljøene er like uvillige til å gi opp sine kjepphester? Roy Spencer har vel ikke blitt direkte matforgiftet eller blitt påsatt hitman ennå? Nå er han riktignok litt mer lukewarmer enn jeg liker, men der er kanskje et lite håp om at man her vil vise LITT vilje til å rygge et steg til? De er vel ikke dummere i NASA enn at de kan lukte når når det kan være lurere å rygge (litt ihvertfall?, selv om de rykket raskt ut og nedtonet seg selv da de så hvor sterkt kritikerne var klare til å reagere på siste rygging på tempsnittet siden 1998) enn å fortsatt prøve å stoppe det møtende toget med en steindød AGW-religion?
 
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: JostemikkFebruar 04, 2013, 00:50:17 am
Full skjærings nå på Science of Doom. Tror ikke jeg har så høy stjerne der akkurat. Og jeg føler i grunn jeg har fått sagt det jeg ville. Har også rukket å linke til denne tråden.

Så anser det som lite fruktbart å fortsette der sånn som det ser ut nå. Vel, vel ...

Du gjorde en knalljobb, og ikke bry deg om at SoD ble personlig, usaklig og utrivelig. Du rystet hans slott, og ut falt skredderen til keiseren uten klær.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: BebbenFebruar 04, 2013, 01:05:17 am
SoDs og mainstreams påstand, og selve bærebjelken i CO2-hypotesen: Jorda har fått et ekstra sett klær som hindrer varmetap. Okulars påstand: De dataene vi har å forholde oss til viser at det har sluppet ut mer varme gjennom dette ekstra laget med klær, altså må hypotesen være gal, og oppvarmingen skyldes økt oppvarming av bakke/hav via økt solinnstråling. Denne økte oppvarmingen fra sola er årsaken til økt varmetap i langbølget, og er jordas måte å kvitte seg med overskuddsvarmen.

Dette framstår som et glimrende, kortfattet og popularisert resymé av Okulars poenger! Hvis Okular er enig i tolkningen, framstår denne formuleringen som en tydeliggjøring som til og med politikere burde kunne fatte, og derfor er det av stor betydning å framføre argumentasjonen slik Jostemikk her gjør, i de rette kanalene, i månedene framover.

Enig Amatør1. Joste har skrytt av meg mer enn 1 gang for å ha oppsummert ting enkelt - og her må han (skam)roses for det samme!
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: BebbenFebruar 04, 2013, 01:30:24 am
Det forlanges ofte av oss skeptikere at vi må komme med en (eller flere) verifiserbare forklaringsmodeller før alarmistene i det hele tatt vil forsøke å høre på oss. Problemstillingen er totalt snudd på hodet. Vi ser jo at målinger - d.v.s. naturen - viser at klimamodellene feiler - CO2 kan ikke virke så kraftig som modellene er innebygd med. Selve CO2-hypotesen er avkreftet - i alle fall hva gjelder det som kan måles med de metoder man har til rådighet i dag.  Men samtidig er det alarmistene som til nå har fått forskningsmillionene kastet etter seg.

Alle som tenker etter ser at det må være flere andre faktorer som virker for å gi oss variasjoner i klimaet, der sola og andre himmellegemer, havet og skydekke er helt sentrale faktorer. Jeg ønsker å tro at jeg personlig ikke har alt for fast-tømrete meninger om hva som virker inn mest, men er åpen for andre alternative forklaringsmodeller. Likevel er min mening pr. dags dato at Svensmarks hypotese er en god kandidat til å forklare den sterkeste påvirkningen.

Men sikker kan man ikke være.

Stå på Okular!

Slik jeg ser det/har oppfattet det, har Okular ikke grunnleggende sett lansert noen ny teori, men en test for å falsifisere hypotesen om "økt drivhuseffekt". Dette holder i lange bananer, jeg vil advare mot varmistenes kortreiste logikk vitenskapsforståelse om at skeptikerne må presentere en "alternativ teori". Rent vitenskapelig sett er dette selvfølgelig svært interessant - men totalt unødvendig i forhold til å "komme her og komme her" og ha noe vi skulle ha sagt. Kan det vises at klimahypen bygger på en falsifiserbar/allerede falsifisert hypotese, er hundre og ett ute for dagens paradigme om menneskeskapte klimaendringer. Hvis denne hypotesen må forkastes, er det ikke "vi" - skeptikerne - som må komme med noen ny hypotese, men tvert imot ala-/varmistene. Men det kan de jo egentlig ikke - fordi det djevelske i situasjonen er at deres eksistensgrunnlag er at klimaendringer er menneskeskapte.

Hvilket faktisk minner meg om Marx - det grunnleggende forhold til "produksjonsmidlene" forklarer "overbygningen", altså ideologien, altså hva "forskerne mener", som Prestrud så treffende uttrykte det på TV.  ;D

Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: TelehivFebruar 04, 2013, 09:35:22 am
Telehiv,

Takk for linken. Dette er noe jeg ikke har satt meg ordentlig inn i, så dette var svært interessant! Det virker helt åpenbart at IR-fluksverdiene er rene kalkulasjoner basert på en idé om toveis utveksling, ja. Måleren 'ser' imidlertid kun nettofluksen (varmefluksen). Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer) sier forøvrig akkurat det samme - en ren beregning.

Hvor mye kjekling (bl.a. på vgd) hadde jeg ikke sluppet om jeg bare kunne ha henvist til denne. Alle, særlig alarmistene, synes jo nemlig overbevist om at disse målerne (pyrgeometerne, radiometerne) leser av IR ned/IR opp direkte og at det er 'bevis' på at disse enkeltveisfluksene eksisterer. Ha! Jommen sa jeg smør.

Men det er en annen sak, mulig det er noen som vet noe om det her på forumet, men jeg har uansett sendt et lite spørsmål til Principia-gjengen om det.

Det dreier seg om de såkalte interferometrene, de som angivelig måler IR-spektra fra bakke (OPP) og fra himmel (NED). Hvor får de sin stråling fra om ikke fra atmosfæren? De trenger innkommende EM-stråler som kan splittes for å skape et interferogram slik at den såkalte Fourier-transformen kan 'frambringe' spekteret for den spesifikt gjeldende atmosfæriske tilstanden.

Det er vanskelig å peke på en ren kalkulasjon her. Som nevnt, jeg har satt meg lite inn i dette, så det er mulig det er noe enkelt og åpenbart jeg har oversett, men ...

okular,
hyggelig at du fant nytte i linken min!
Jeg håpet at dette stoffet kunne være interessant for deg ifm. de diskusjonene du har vært/er involvert i.
Jeg leste gjennom SoD-debatten din tidlig i morges, men klarer ikke helt å se hva SoD vil fram til - muligens fordi han ikke vet det helt selv?!  ???
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: OkularAugust 27, 2013, 14:15:50 pm
THE REAL ATMOSPHERIC WARMING EFFECT ON THE EARTH'S SURFACE

The atmospheric warming effect on Earth’s global surface (because there definitively is one) is not caused by impeding the escape of terrestrial thermal radiation to space. In net radiative terms, the presence of our atmosphere works to cool the surface. But that's a different story for a different post.

No, the effect is caused simply by the atmosphere weighing down on it. Gas laws apply.

Here's a run-through of the basic physical principles governing this effect:

About atmospheric pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure):

Sitat
Atmospheric pressure is the force per unit area exerted on a surface by the weight of air above that surface in the atmosphere of Earth (or that of another planet). (...) as elevation increases, there is less overlying atmospheric mass, so that atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing elevation.

The weight of the atmosphere on the surface is given by its mass (its total content of matter) (m) times Earth’s specific gravitational acceleration (g). This is equal to the classical Newtonian F = ma. In other words, the atmosphere’s weight is a force constantly pressing down on the surface from above, expressed by its pressure. The heavier the atmospheric weight, the greater the constant downward force and the greater the atmospheric pressure. The density of the air is given by its mass per volume: ρ = m/V.

About buoyancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy buoyancy):

Sitat
In science, buoyancy is an upward force exerted by a fluid, that opposes the weight of an immersed object.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Buoyancy.svg)

Sitat
This can occur only in a reference frame which either has a gravitational field or is accelerating due to a force other than gravity defining a "downward" direction (that is, a non-inertial reference frame).

Objects in water are buoyed up because the pressure acting up against the bottom of the object exceeds the pressure acting down against the top. Likewise, air pressure acting up against an object in air is greater than the pressure above pushing down. The buoyancy, in both cases, is equal to the weight of fluid displaced - Archimedes' principle holds for air just as it does for water.

Any object that has a mass that is less than the mass of an equal volume of air will rise in air - in other words, any object less dense than air will rise.

Unlike water, the atmosphere has no discernible surface (there is no "top"). Furthermore, unlike water, the atmosphere becomes less dense with altitude. Whereas a cork will float to the surface of water, a released helium-filled balloon does not rise to any atmosphere surface. With regards to how high a balloon will rise, a balloon will rise only so long as it displaces a weight of air greater than its own weight. Air becomes less dense with altitude, so, when the weight of displaced air equals the total weight of the balloon, upward acceleration ends.

A given volume of air at the surface of the Earth will rise as soon as its upward force (its buoyancy) exceeds the downward force exerted by the atmospheric weight on top of it. This occurs when our volume becomes less dense than the air above it. How is this accomplished? You heat it. When it warms, the gas molecules within the volume start moving faster (more kinetic energy), which means they spread out. The air expands --> its density and hence its pressure falls.

Well, here comes the crucial point: How fast will this volume of air be able to lift away from the surface?

This depends primarily on two things: 1) the atmospheric weight, and 2) the temperature (kinetic level) of the volume of air. To maintain a constant rate of upward acceleration from the surface, these two factors need to follow each other: If one changes, the other one needs to change too, in the same direction. This relates to the ideal gas law: T = PV/nR. If you increase the temperature of a gas, keeping the net substance flow constant, you will be able to maintain its volume (when under a higher external pressure) by increasing its outward pressure.

In other words, for a given volume of air to be able to rise as fast from the surface with a heavy atmosphere on top as a similar volume of air with a lighter atmosphere on top, the former needs to be … warmer than the latter. It needs to contain a higher level of kinetic energy.

As you can understand, under equal pressure conditions, a volume of air heated more will rise faster (its upward acceleration will be greater) and will thus be able to reach higher before it finally comes to a halt to eventually start its descent. This is the main reason why the tropopause (~ convection top) is so high in the tropics and so much lower toward the poles --> surface heating.

About natural convection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_convection):

Sitat
Natural convection is a mechanism, or type of heat transport, in which the fluid motion is not generated by any external source (like a pump, fan, suction device, etc.) but only by density differences in the fluid occurring due to temperature gradients. In natural convection, fluid surrounding a heat source receives heat, becomes less dense and rises. The surrounding, cooler fluid then moves [in] to replace it. This cooler fluid is then heated and the process continues, forming a convection current; this process transfers heat energy from the bottom of the convection cell to [the] top. The driving force for natural convection is buoyancy, a result of differences in fluid density. Because of this, the presence of a proper acceleration such as arises from resistance to gravity, or an equivalent force (arising from acceleration, centrifugal force or Coriolis effect), is essential for natural convection.


         ===  ===  ===


About vapour pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure):

Sitat
Vapor pressure or equilibrium vapor pressure is the pressure exerted by a vapor in thermodynamic equilibrium with its condensed phases (solid or liquid) at a given temperature in a closed system. The equilibrium vapor pressure is an indication of a liquid's evaporation rate. It relates to the tendency of particles to escape from the liquid (or a solid).

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Vapor_pressure.svg/339px-Vapor_pressure.svg.png)

The vapour exerts its (partial) pressure to all sides, upwards too, against the atmospheric pressure. In this sense, it works much like regular buoyancy. The warmer the water, the higher its vapour pressure (kinetic level) and the more water molecules (and hence energy/heat) will manage to escape the surface.

About evaporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation):

Sitat
The ability for a molecule of a liquid to evaporate is based largely on the amount of kinetic energy an individual particle may possess. Even at lower temperatures, individual molecules of a liquid can evaporate if they have more than the minimum amount of kinetic energy required for vaporization.

About the boiling point of water and atmospheric pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_pressure#Boiling_point_of_water):

Sitat
Clean fresh water boils at about 100 °C (212 °F) at standard atmospheric pressure. The boiling point is the temperature at which the vapor pressure is equal to the atmospheric pressure around the water. Because of this, the boiling point of water is lower at lower pressure and higher at higher pressure. This is why cooking at elevations more than 1,100 m (3,600 ft) above sea level requires adjustments to recipes.

So, if the atmospheric pressure (weight) is lower, a lower temperature is needed for water to boil. Conversely, if the atmospheric pressure is higher, the water needs to get hotter before it can boil. This is because the higher the pressure from above, the higher the vapour pressure pushing against it from below needs to be in order to overcome it. So the temperature (the kinetic level) needs to rise. This applies also to evaporation rates at lower temperatures. The higher the atmospheric pressure, the warmer the water needs to be to maintain the rate of evaporation. This relates to the saturation point of water vapour (dew point).

About water vapour pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water) (pressure/temp relationship), saturation, evaporation and condensation:

Sitat
The vapour pressure of water is the pressure at which water vapour is saturated. At higher pressures water would condense. The water vapour pressure is the partial pressure of water vapour in any gas mixture saturated with water. As for other substances, water vapour pressure is a function of temperature and can be determined with Clausius–Clapeyron relation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius-Clapeyron_relation).

(The Clausius-Clapeyron relation is described at the beginning of this thread.)

We have two water surfaces at equal temperatures and under equal atmospheric pressure, evaporating into the air above, meaning they’re both below the saturation pressure point and above the dew point temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point), where evaporation would stop. Then we increase the atmospheric pressure above one of the evaporating surfaces but maintain its surface temperature. What happens? The partial pressure of the water vapour increases with the total air pressure and thus gets closer to its saturation point, which means the dew point temperature is raised towards the real temperature. So the air above the high pressure surface now has a higher level of saturation than the low pressure surface, and evaporation rates slow down as a consequence (if the pressure increase is large enough, the saturation point is reached and the dew point temp matches the the real temp, which means evaporation ceases altogether).

Given equal temperatures, the air with the highest pressure will saturate first. So the surface feeding it with water vapour will have to warm to keep up its evaporation rate.

You can also state it more plainly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation):

Sitat
Factors influencing the rate of evaporation (…)

# Concentration of the substance evaporating in the air: If the air already has a high concentration of the substance evaporating, then the given substance will evaporate more slowly. (…)

# Pressure: Evaporation happens faster if there is less exertion on the surface keeping the molecules from launching themselves. (…)

# Temperature of the substance: If the substance is hotter, then its molecules have a higher average kinetic energy, and evaporation will be faster. (…)

With a higher atmospheric pressure on the surface, less heat would escape the surface through evaporation because the saturation point would be lower. This means that with a heavy atmosphere on top, the water surface (like the ocean) would have to be warmer to maintain a rate of heat loss by evaporation equal to that of an ocean with a lighter atmosphere on top. It needs to produce a higher vapour pressure. At equal atmospheric pressures (and equal wind stress, which after all is also an important factor), the warmer ocean surface would rid itself of more energy/heat per unit of time through evaporation than the cooler one.



This is how the atmosphere – by its sheer weight on the surface – forces the mean surface temperature to be higher than what our specific instantaneous heat input flux from the sun could ever manage to maintain by itself. Of course, it helps having an Earth system (the oceans mainly) with a massive heat capacity to store and build the absorbed energy to obtain the required temperature to stay dynamically balanced with the solar input: 165 J/s/m2 IN >> 165 J/s/m2 OUT.
Tittel: Sv: Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...?
Skrevet av: jan-oveNovember 27, 2013, 23:50:51 pm
Solen er den eneste kilden til energi som har stor nok styrke til å styre klimaet på jorda.
Solens stråling ut er som kjent ikke stabil over tid men varierer over tiår, hundreår og årtusener.
Solen utstrålte spekter er heller ikke stabilt over tid.
Total Solar Iradiation TSI varierer da selvsagt også i takt med solsyklusene.
Vi er nå inne i en periode da solsyklene har synkende TSI for hver 11år syklus, dette vil vedvare til utpå midten av dette århundret. I tillegg til minkende TSI energi inn så vil tapet av energi fra jorden bli større og forsterke nedkjølingen noe.

Her er hva astrofysiker Habibullo Abdussamatov forteller om hva solen holder på med og de innvirkninger det får for klimaet på jorden i dette århundret.
Link: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf

Til slutt en liten betraktning, noe jeg kom på da jeg leste noe om COP19....
IPCC og deres medløpere er stressa med å få vedtatt sine løsninger på den såkalte klimatrusselen før alle oppdager at det kommer til å bli kaldere. Og etterpå kommer de til å fortelle oss at løsningene deres fungerer som fy, se det har jo blitt kaldere allerede, så flinke vi er (IPCC).
Problemet er at samtidig med at det blir kaldere og vanskeligere å dyrke mat så har IPCC sine dogmer gjort mat, drivstoff, elektrisitet og andre nødvendige varer urimelig dyrt å kjøpe for den fattige delen av verdens befolkning, pga. alle avgifter og kostbare tiltak igangsatt av svimle politikere og byråkrater.