While there was a mild hoopla when I stated that the IPCC Down Welling Longwave Radiation Violates the Law, that died quickly because it wasn't the first time that claim had been made. Most, other than the IPCC of course, are more than aware that it is true. Many of the rejectionists, people believing that CO2 has no impact on climate, didn't find my results Earth shattering enough to be worthy of attention.
Matters of Scale are always worthy of attention. Instead of a doubling of CO2 causing 4.5 degrees warming, or 3 degrees warming or 2 degrees warming or even 1.2 degrees warming, it will be more like 0.8 to 1 degree of warming. Just for grins let's say 0.8 is the definitive value, though that is in no way certain.
Then, if solar average variation can produce a 0.1 degree change, 0.1/0.8=0.125 or 12.5% of climate variability may be due to solar all by itself. Natural vari8ability is considered to cause 10% of climate change by people believing CO2 double WILL cause 3 degrees of warming, 10% of 3 is 0.3, so natural variability now, assuming their estimate was in anyway based on sound math, 0.3/0.8=0.375 or 37.5 percent of climate variability is natural.
Solar should be considered natural, but the climate models include both solar and natural variability. Combined, 0.1 and 0.3 or 0.4 would be 50% of the climate variability.
Isn't it amazing how such a small change can make such a large difference?
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
A Little Climate Change Rant
I am just curious what is happening and why. I know there will never be a complete solution, but every little step in that direction is an improvement. That is why I get so frustrated when I allow myself to take the debate or myself too seriously. There are just too many misconceptions and flawed theoretical points to justify the confidence that most people have about how much and why climate is changing.
Misconception 1) DWLR warms the surface because of CO2. With the exception of minute amounts of energy tantamount to the did the tree make a noise when it fell in the woods relevance, DWLR does not directly warm the surface. A smaller difference in the net radiation outgoing versus incoming is a warming effect, i.e. the surface cools less quickly. CO2 emits in its spectrum which is for all intents and purposes blocked from a radiant impact by CO2 more than a few feet above the surface. DWLR in the atmospheric window from sources such as the water and ice in clouds have the most impact on the real net radiation at the surface. Winter clouds with light winds make the largest change in the net surface flux. Those same winter clouds in high winds have little impact, because of convection. Conduction and convection are more efficient thermal fluxes at surface temperatures and pressures.
Misconception 2) Man's activities have no effect on climate. Nonsense. The combination of land use changes, surface water changes, pollution including CO2 have impacts on climate. The question is the degree each have and in combination the total impact considering natural variability. In drought periods, the local impact is higher because the atmosphere cannot cleanse itself through precipitation. Was smog in large cities a figment of our imagination? Of course not. If we had not made changes our local environment and climate would not be the same. The question is still how much, for how long and will natural processes change the amounts.
Misconception 3) CO2 doubling will warm the Earth x degrees. Right genius, like you really know! How's that Antarctic prediction panning out for you? The climate system is too complex to know much of anything without significant uncertainty. Theory predicts, some happen, some don't, I look at what don't and wonder why it didn't. That seems to indicate that uncertainty and theory are diverging. Without CO2 the Earth would still have a climate and we would not necessarily be living on a snowball Earth. Grand predictions by some of the most famous scientists in the world have and will not pan out.
Misconception 4) CO2 is a well mixed gas. Like hell it is! CO2 concentrations change continuously with temperature, season, precipitation, cloud cover and emissions. 90% of the CO2 being added to the oceans from the atmosphere is due to tropical rainfall. The tropics have had and will continue to have little temperature change because they have their own climate controlled by the sun and the sea. Man's activity amount to squat in the tropics climate wise. The Northern hemisphere is where the impact is felt. That is where there is the greatest fluctuation of CO2 concentration and land use change to amplify its impact.
Misconception 5) CO2 is bad for the climate. Don't know about that one. More CO2 should warm the climate to a point which should stabilize the climate to a point. If there is a new ice age coming, CO2 might be nice. Then again, more CO2 may trigger that ice age. Instead of just saying it is bad, I would rather find out a little more. Adding stuff to our atmosphere is probably not a smart thing to do, but what is done has been done, we need to figure this out a little better before jumping to conclusions.
There! I feel all better, but I may have some ice cream to calm down, just in case.
Misconception 1) DWLR warms the surface because of CO2. With the exception of minute amounts of energy tantamount to the did the tree make a noise when it fell in the woods relevance, DWLR does not directly warm the surface. A smaller difference in the net radiation outgoing versus incoming is a warming effect, i.e. the surface cools less quickly. CO2 emits in its spectrum which is for all intents and purposes blocked from a radiant impact by CO2 more than a few feet above the surface. DWLR in the atmospheric window from sources such as the water and ice in clouds have the most impact on the real net radiation at the surface. Winter clouds with light winds make the largest change in the net surface flux. Those same winter clouds in high winds have little impact, because of convection. Conduction and convection are more efficient thermal fluxes at surface temperatures and pressures.
Misconception 2) Man's activities have no effect on climate. Nonsense. The combination of land use changes, surface water changes, pollution including CO2 have impacts on climate. The question is the degree each have and in combination the total impact considering natural variability. In drought periods, the local impact is higher because the atmosphere cannot cleanse itself through precipitation. Was smog in large cities a figment of our imagination? Of course not. If we had not made changes our local environment and climate would not be the same. The question is still how much, for how long and will natural processes change the amounts.
Misconception 3) CO2 doubling will warm the Earth x degrees. Right genius, like you really know! How's that Antarctic prediction panning out for you? The climate system is too complex to know much of anything without significant uncertainty. Theory predicts, some happen, some don't, I look at what don't and wonder why it didn't. That seems to indicate that uncertainty and theory are diverging. Without CO2 the Earth would still have a climate and we would not necessarily be living on a snowball Earth. Grand predictions by some of the most famous scientists in the world have and will not pan out.
Misconception 4) CO2 is a well mixed gas. Like hell it is! CO2 concentrations change continuously with temperature, season, precipitation, cloud cover and emissions. 90% of the CO2 being added to the oceans from the atmosphere is due to tropical rainfall. The tropics have had and will continue to have little temperature change because they have their own climate controlled by the sun and the sea. Man's activity amount to squat in the tropics climate wise. The Northern hemisphere is where the impact is felt. That is where there is the greatest fluctuation of CO2 concentration and land use change to amplify its impact.
Misconception 5) CO2 is bad for the climate. Don't know about that one. More CO2 should warm the climate to a point which should stabilize the climate to a point. If there is a new ice age coming, CO2 might be nice. Then again, more CO2 may trigger that ice age. Instead of just saying it is bad, I would rather find out a little more. Adding stuff to our atmosphere is probably not a smart thing to do, but what is done has been done, we need to figure this out a little better before jumping to conclusions.
There! I feel all better, but I may have some ice cream to calm down, just in case.
The Atmospheric R Values
The Atmospheric R Value
The surface of the Earth has an average temperature of 288K which would have a corresponding thermal energy flux of 390Wm-2, via Stefan-Boltzmann using perfect black body characteristics.
The Tropopause has a temperature on average of -55C or 218.15K which by the same S-B relationship would have a perfect black body equivalent thermal flux of 131.3Wm-2. The ratio of the change in temperature to the change in flux would be the R value of the atmosphere from the surface to the tropopause or (288-218.15)/(390-131.3)= 69.85/258.7=0.27K/Wm-2. The inverse of that value would be the thermal transmittance (U-value), 3.7Wm-2.k-1. Of the atmosphere from the surface to the tropopause, assuming the temperature of the tropopause, were somewhat stable.
The ratio of the effective thermal flux at the tropopause and at the surface, 131.3/390=0.337, a unitless value, is interesting. Why? It is the approximate conductivity or the value that determines the "Thermals" portion of the surface flux. The difference in effective flux ratio or an object emitting 390Wm-2 but receiving 131.3 Wm-2 from another object would have a net flux of 390-131.3 or 258.7 Wm-2. What is more interesting is that half of that 258.7Wm-2 or 129.3Wm-2 would be half of the change in flux. When combined with the 131.3 or minimum flux at the tropopause, we get a median flux of 260.65Wm-2 which would correspond to a temperature equivalent of 260.38K degrees. That is a rather convenient value for calculating change temperatures in the lower atmosphere. It is almost like there is a balance of forces.
If we were to consider the entire atmosphere, the R value would be (288-254.5)/(390-238)=0.22 which would equivalent to a transmittance of 4.53Wm-2.K-1.
So if our world only had radiant and conductive heat transfer, it would be very simple to use R-values and transmittance to determine changes in surface temperature and/or changes at the tropopause or TOA. We have water vapor and the latent heats of vaporization and fusion to contend with though.
If our surface is cooled by say, 79 Wm-2 of latent heat transfer, just to pull a number out of my hat, the effective flux from the surface would be reduced from 390Wm-2 to 311Wm-2, with a corresponding temperature of 272K degrees. Darn the bad luck! That would change our simple R values, now wouldn’t it?
Now the total energy transferred to the tropopause is from an effective temperature of 272K not 288K. (272-218)/(390-131.3)=0.209K/Wm-2 or in terms of transmittance, 4.77Wm-2.K-1. Because of that darn shift, the apparent net flux changed to 311Wm-2 – 131.3 = 179.7Wm-2 to the tropopause and 311-238=73Wm-2 to the TOA.
But what about the flux from the surface other than the latent? Good question! The surface flux minus the latent flux, 390-79=311 experiences a different R value, 69.85/(311-131.3)=0.39 with an equivalent transmittance of 2.57Wm-2.K-1.
So what does this all mean? Well, if we neglect latent heat, a 3.7Wm-2 increase at the surface or and improvement if atmospheric insulation that reduced flux by 3.7 Wm-2 at the tropopause would produce a 1K degree increase at the surface.
However, with latent removed from the surface considered, a 2.57Wm-2 increase at the surface or an improvement in atmospheric insulation that reduced flux at the tropopause by 2.57Wm-2 would produce a change of 1K degrees at the surface.
If we want to figure this out correctly, we consider the latent shift, then a 4.77Wm-2 increase in flux at the latent shift boundary or an improvement in the insulation of the atmosphere between this boundary and the tropopause would produce a 1K degree increase in temperature at the latent shift boundary.
From the surface to the latent shift boundary, 288K to 272K, there is a 390 to 311 change in flux or a 0.205 R value with equivalent transmittance or U value of 4.94 Wm-2.K-1.
So just for grins, if we improved the insulation of the atmosphere to retain 3.7Wm-2 at the tropopause, then 3.7/4.77=0.77K degrees increase would be felt at the latent boundary which would produce 4.77/4.94=0.743 degrees at the surface.
If you want to do it easy, 3.7Wm-2 at the tropopause using the surface R value corrected for latent shift, 2.57, 2.57/3.7=0.69 at the surface or 3.7/2.57=1.43 at the tropopause if the 1 K degree increase at the surface was caused due to other impacts.
Actually, the best way would be to consider the layers. From the surface to the latent shift, 311Wm-2 pass through 288K minus 272K differential temperature which would be an R value of 0.051 (U=19.4) seen by the combination of conductive/convective and radiant flux, before the shift latent heat is again added to the flow of energy.
So we have a surface layer, 288@390 to 272@311 R=0.054, U=19.4, Latent to Tropopause layer, 272K @311Wm-2 to 218.15K @ 131.3 R=0.209 U=4.77. R values are additive, add more insulation you improve the R value, so from the surface to the Tropopause the R value would be 0.054 + 0.209 = 0.263K/Wm-2 or an equivalent U of 3.80Wm-2.K-1.
So what happened to the 79Wm-2 of latent? Nothing. Its impact is spread over both the surface latent layer and the latent tropopause layer. The sensible portion of the latent, in this example ~24-21 or 3Wm-2 between the surface and latent boundary layers, has to be back calculated. Above the latent boundary, the sensible portion of latent would also have to be back calculated as varying air turbulence would change the sensible values with changing upper layer convection conditions.
Some may have noted that that neat 258 to 260 Wm-2 range calculated above is very close to what some consider to be the value of the Down Welling Longwave Radiation DWLR. That value is above the latent boundary layer. What would that value be at the surface? The apparent net flux above the latent boundary is 179Wm-2. The average apparent net flux would then be 218Wm-2, the effective DWLR, imagine that.
Those of you that have attempted to follow my calculations may have noticed that I am using the Tropopause here instead of the 249K 600mb reference level. Why? Because the tropopause changes, -55 C is an average, but it can drop to -90C like a rock! A better reference would be something a little more stable and more easily measurable.
I will clean this up and try to make a drawing to simplify communication, but the sensible portion of latent heat does not appear to be adequately considered in climate modeling. It is one of those confusing cloud feed back issues. Not very easy to directly measure it seems. They didn’t call it latent or hidden heat for nothing.
The surface of the Earth has an average temperature of 288K which would have a corresponding thermal energy flux of 390Wm-2, via Stefan-Boltzmann using perfect black body characteristics.
The Tropopause has a temperature on average of -55C or 218.15K which by the same S-B relationship would have a perfect black body equivalent thermal flux of 131.3Wm-2. The ratio of the change in temperature to the change in flux would be the R value of the atmosphere from the surface to the tropopause or (288-218.15)/(390-131.3)= 69.85/258.7=0.27K/Wm-2. The inverse of that value would be the thermal transmittance (U-value), 3.7Wm-2.k-1. Of the atmosphere from the surface to the tropopause, assuming the temperature of the tropopause, were somewhat stable.
The ratio of the effective thermal flux at the tropopause and at the surface, 131.3/390=0.337, a unitless value, is interesting. Why? It is the approximate conductivity or the value that determines the "Thermals" portion of the surface flux. The difference in effective flux ratio or an object emitting 390Wm-2 but receiving 131.3 Wm-2 from another object would have a net flux of 390-131.3 or 258.7 Wm-2. What is more interesting is that half of that 258.7Wm-2 or 129.3Wm-2 would be half of the change in flux. When combined with the 131.3 or minimum flux at the tropopause, we get a median flux of 260.65Wm-2 which would correspond to a temperature equivalent of 260.38K degrees. That is a rather convenient value for calculating change temperatures in the lower atmosphere. It is almost like there is a balance of forces.
If we were to consider the entire atmosphere, the R value would be (288-254.5)/(390-238)=0.22 which would equivalent to a transmittance of 4.53Wm-2.K-1.
So if our world only had radiant and conductive heat transfer, it would be very simple to use R-values and transmittance to determine changes in surface temperature and/or changes at the tropopause or TOA. We have water vapor and the latent heats of vaporization and fusion to contend with though.
If our surface is cooled by say, 79 Wm-2 of latent heat transfer, just to pull a number out of my hat, the effective flux from the surface would be reduced from 390Wm-2 to 311Wm-2, with a corresponding temperature of 272K degrees. Darn the bad luck! That would change our simple R values, now wouldn’t it?
Now the total energy transferred to the tropopause is from an effective temperature of 272K not 288K. (272-218)/(390-131.3)=0.209K/Wm-2 or in terms of transmittance, 4.77Wm-2.K-1. Because of that darn shift, the apparent net flux changed to 311Wm-2 – 131.3 = 179.7Wm-2 to the tropopause and 311-238=73Wm-2 to the TOA.
But what about the flux from the surface other than the latent? Good question! The surface flux minus the latent flux, 390-79=311 experiences a different R value, 69.85/(311-131.3)=0.39 with an equivalent transmittance of 2.57Wm-2.K-1.
So what does this all mean? Well, if we neglect latent heat, a 3.7Wm-2 increase at the surface or and improvement if atmospheric insulation that reduced flux by 3.7 Wm-2 at the tropopause would produce a 1K degree increase at the surface.
However, with latent removed from the surface considered, a 2.57Wm-2 increase at the surface or an improvement in atmospheric insulation that reduced flux at the tropopause by 2.57Wm-2 would produce a change of 1K degrees at the surface.
If we want to figure this out correctly, we consider the latent shift, then a 4.77Wm-2 increase in flux at the latent shift boundary or an improvement in the insulation of the atmosphere between this boundary and the tropopause would produce a 1K degree increase in temperature at the latent shift boundary.
From the surface to the latent shift boundary, 288K to 272K, there is a 390 to 311 change in flux or a 0.205 R value with equivalent transmittance or U value of 4.94 Wm-2.K-1.
So just for grins, if we improved the insulation of the atmosphere to retain 3.7Wm-2 at the tropopause, then 3.7/4.77=0.77K degrees increase would be felt at the latent boundary which would produce 4.77/4.94=0.743 degrees at the surface.
If you want to do it easy, 3.7Wm-2 at the tropopause using the surface R value corrected for latent shift, 2.57, 2.57/3.7=0.69 at the surface or 3.7/2.57=1.43 at the tropopause if the 1 K degree increase at the surface was caused due to other impacts.
Actually, the best way would be to consider the layers. From the surface to the latent shift, 311Wm-2 pass through 288K minus 272K differential temperature which would be an R value of 0.051 (U=19.4) seen by the combination of conductive/convective and radiant flux, before the shift latent heat is again added to the flow of energy.
So we have a surface layer, 288@390 to 272@311 R=0.054, U=19.4, Latent to Tropopause layer, 272K @311Wm-2 to 218.15K @ 131.3 R=0.209 U=4.77. R values are additive, add more insulation you improve the R value, so from the surface to the Tropopause the R value would be 0.054 + 0.209 = 0.263K/Wm-2 or an equivalent U of 3.80Wm-2.K-1.
So what happened to the 79Wm-2 of latent? Nothing. Its impact is spread over both the surface latent layer and the latent tropopause layer. The sensible portion of the latent, in this example ~24-21 or 3Wm-2 between the surface and latent boundary layers, has to be back calculated. Above the latent boundary, the sensible portion of latent would also have to be back calculated as varying air turbulence would change the sensible values with changing upper layer convection conditions.
Some may have noted that that neat 258 to 260 Wm-2 range calculated above is very close to what some consider to be the value of the Down Welling Longwave Radiation DWLR. That value is above the latent boundary layer. What would that value be at the surface? The apparent net flux above the latent boundary is 179Wm-2. The average apparent net flux would then be 218Wm-2, the effective DWLR, imagine that.
Those of you that have attempted to follow my calculations may have noticed that I am using the Tropopause here instead of the 249K 600mb reference level. Why? Because the tropopause changes, -55 C is an average, but it can drop to -90C like a rock! A better reference would be something a little more stable and more easily measurable.
I will clean this up and try to make a drawing to simplify communication, but the sensible portion of latent heat does not appear to be adequately considered in climate modeling. It is one of those confusing cloud feed back issues. Not very easy to directly measure it seems. They didn’t call it latent or hidden heat for nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)