Leaking Siberian Methane

[salbers]

There is no physical evidence as to why it would be either, thats the point, all this can be debunked through OBS.

Actually there is physical evidence of radiative forcing from CO2:

http://www.agu.org/p...id=11296750277

http://agwobserver.w...changes-in-dlr/

And we've heard earlier about similar observations from satellites of the radiative disequlibrium.

[BethesdaWX]

Actually there is physical evidence of radiative forcing from CO2:

http://www.agu.org/p...id=11296750277

http://agwobserver.w...changes-in-dlr/

And we've heard earlier about similar observations from satellites of the radiative disequlibrium.

What the heck?

What does radiative forcing have to do with my above post? Nothing... my argument is that the radiative forcing from Co2 has nothing do do with our observed warming...... not that there is no radiative forcing from Co2

We estimate the scale of final impact through modeling...OBS taken already disprove alot of this.

[skierinvermont]

What the heck?

What does radiative forcing have to do with my above post? Nothing... my argument is that the radiative forcing has nothing do do with our warming...... not that there is no radiative forcing from Co2

That's because you don't really understand what radiative forcing is.

[salbers]

OK, now that we agree that there is radiative forcing in the real world from CO2 (I was doubting Bethesda's conviction on this earlier), then we can talk about what this radiant energy is doing. I say it's warming the atmosphere, lithosphere, and oceans. What do you all say?

My first link above also mentioned increased radiation due to increased water vapor - a feedback.

[skierinvermont]

OK, now that we agree that there is radiative forcing in the real world from CO2 (I was doubting your conviction on this earlier), then we can talk about what this radiant energy is doing. I say it's warming the atmosphere, lithosphere, and oceans. What do you all say?

The energy magically disappears.

[BethesdaWX]

OK, now that we agree that there is radiative forcing in the real world from CO2 (I was doubting Bethesda's conviction on this earlier), then we can talk about what this radiant energy is doing. I say it's warming the atmosphere, lithosphere, and oceans. What do you all say?

My first link above also mentioned increased radiation due to increased water vapor - a feedback.

What on earth are you talking about? I'm not sure why you continue to insist that model results based off the Co2 molecule prove that Co2 is the cause of the warming.

What Co2 does at 0.038% of the atmosphere has no bearing on the global temperature, is my point, regardless of its properties. We cannot estimate accurately what the end result is, modeling is a dart in the dark. Millions of forcings & inter-relations that we do not know about are only a small part of this. We estimate through models that Co2 is repsonsible for it, but that is simple hypothesis.

[salbers]

Not really a model. Just a back of the envelope calculation of what the 3.7 W/m**2 would do to temperature - a la Stefan Boltzmann. Remember sigma T**4? Again, where does this energy go - it seems like part of it indeed goes to the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia....93Boltzmann_law

Over the long term (barring temporary effects and cycles) the "millions of forcings" will average out to have a minority of the impact. However the water vapor and albedo (ice melt) effects appear to have a long term positive feedback. Potential methane release also is a positive feedback.

[BethesdaWX]

Not really a model. Just a back of the envelope calculation of what the 3.7 W/m**2 would do to temperature - a la Stefan Boltzmann. Remember sigma T**4? Again, where does this energy go - it seems like part of it indeed goes to the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia....93Boltzmann_law

In the end (barring temporary cycles) the "millions of other forcings" will average out to have a minority of the impact.

You did it again. I can't believe it, a full circle after a weeks worth of debate, now we're back to square 1.

[WeatherRusty]

What would happen to Earth's temperature if it's orbit were moved 1 million miles closer to the Sun? It would warm right? Why.? Because the surface would be receiving stronger energy per unit area than is currently the case.

Increasing Earth's atmospheric greenhouse effect does the same thing, except the extra energy comes from the infrared portion of the EM spectrum rather than from the visible. The extra energy comes from the atmosphere rather than the Sun. Increasing greenhouse gases such as CO2 prolongs the delay in the loss of the extra energy to space which translates to warming.

In either case, that is what is meant my radiative forcing. In the end these are the only sources of energy which warm the Earth and they are both vitally important to establishing the surface temperature.

[salbers]

Let's try another simple question. Does Bethesda understand that the application of the Stefan Boltzmann law to covert the agreed 3.7 W/m**2 radiative forcing to temperature is consistent with the observed warming, and perhaps the only realistic way to bring the present radiative imbalance to closure? How can he endeavour to hide or run away from basic laws of physics. They apply both in the laboratory and in the real world.

Perhaps other factors can explain a minority of the warming so far, however they will have a lesser and lesser role to play as time moves on, since the radiative forcing is growing.

That's another good question (inspired by WxRusty) for Bethesda Wx, why are planets generally warmer when they are closer to the sun? And isn't it interesting that the major deviations from this (e.g. Venus) are related to the greenhouse effect.

[BethesdaWX]

What would happen to Earth's temperature if it's orbit were moved 1 million miles closer to the Sun? It would warm right? Why.? Because the surface would be receiving stronger energy per unit area than is currently the case.

Increasing Earth's atmospheric greenhouse effect does the same thing, except the extra energy comes from the infrared portion of the EM spectrum rather than from the visible. The extra energy comes from the atmosphere rather than the Sun. Increasing greenhouse gases such as CO2 prolongs the delay in the loss of the extra energy to space which translates to warming.

In either case, that is what is meant my radiative forcing. In the end these are the only sources of energy which warm the Earth and they are both vitally important to establishing the surface temperature.

Have I ever said that Co2 doesn't trap heat? That has not been my point.

My point, regardless of its properties, Co2 being a trace gas in the atmosphere at 0.038%, is not sufficient enough to cause the global warming we've seen. Models are hypothesis, & 2/3 of their warmings are based upon incorrect forcing equations.

[salbers]

That's right, there is more warming observed than we can expect from CO2 alone. Water vapor feedback helps fill the gap.

[BethesdaWX]

Let's try another simple question. Does Bethesda understand that the application of the Stefan Boltzmann law to covert the agreed 3.7 W/m**2 radiative forcing to temperature is consistent with the observed warming, and perhaps the only realistic way to bring the present radiative imbalance to closure? How can he endeavour to hide or run away from basic laws of physics. They apply both in the laboratory and in the real world.

Perhaps other factors can explain a minority of the warming so far, however they will have a lesser and lesser role to play as time moves on, since the radiative forcing is growing.

That's another good question (inspired by WxRusty) for Bethesda Wx, why are planets generally warmer when they are closer to the sun? And isn't it interesting that the major deviations from this (e.g. Venus) are related to the greenhouse effect.

So what if Co2 is consistant with warming? Solar is an even better Match, because it goes hand in hand with the MWP, RWP, & LIA, as the MWP & RWP both had smaller glaciers, higher global treelines, & were in a solar max.

The warming also began after the LIA, not the industrial revolution, which matches solar yet again. Warming flattened for the beginning of the indistrial revolution during the Dalton, then skyrocketed with the modern max, more solar.

Its the Sun, if you haven't already noticed. Add in Global Cloud Cover (which may nor may not have anything to do with GCR), and that is enough to produce even more warming than we've seen.

[salbers]

Well I think the warming now is greater than that from the MWP, just as the CO2 forcing now is more than the solar forcing has been now or then.

The global cloud cover changes can actually increase warming when the clouds are high. My understand is that clouds are a net small amount. Aersols are negative, offsetting the positive methane and other trace gases. This leaves CO2 and water vapor left over having the major net positive effect.

Again since the CO2 is consistent with the warming, we have to accept it as a cause unless we can find a mechanism to "hide" the energy.

[BethesdaWX]

That's right, there is more warming observed than we can expect from CO2 alone. Water vapor feedback helps fill the gap.

All of the warming we've seen can be explained through natural variances in Solar, GCC, & Ocean Cycles, we don't need any Co2 warming at this point.

If the warming continues while these drivers support cooling, then we can say that Co2 is the predominate cause.

[BethesdaWX]

Well I think the warming now is greater than that from the MWP, just as the CO2 forcing now is more than the solar forcing has been now or then.

Then why were global treelines higher in the MWP, why were the glaciers smaller at both poles? And, why did it match up with a solar max?

[BethesdaWX]

The global cloud cover changes can actually increase warming when the clouds are high. My understand is that clouds are a net small amount. Aersols are negative, offsetting the positive methane and other trace gases. This leaves CO2 and water vapor left over having the major net positive effect.

Again since the CO2 is consistent with the warming, we have to accept it as a cause unless we can find a mechanism to "hide" the energy.

The sun is more consistant than Co2. MWP had higher global treelines & smaller glaciers on both poles.. in a Solar Max. LIA, solar Min. Then, the warming begins after the LIA, flatlines during the industrial revolution as the dalton hits, the skyrockets during the modern max.

Remember submarines surfaced in the North Pole during March in the 1950's... no way thats happening anytime soon lol.

Cloud Cover drop of 3% has not only reflected Less energy back into space, but it is a huge impact. It is also completely unrelated to Co2... but... it is consistant with GCR. However, that idea is premature.

[salbers]

Actually I think if the high cloud cover were to drop it would cause a cooling, since less IR is emitted from the clouds at night.

Overall the forcings are discussed in figure 1.20 here. Seems reasonable to me.

http://www.oup.com/u.../section1_6.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

Actually I think if the high cloud cover were to drop it would cause a cooling, since less IR is emitted from the clouds at night.

Dude, did you see my maps that I posted earlier?

Nope, thats now how it works, the cloud cover that has dropped is low level, which = less precip.....Earth absorbs less IR when there is more cloud cover.

See?

[salbers]

I see, though let's figure out why the IPCC figure I mentioned shows the cloud forcing as negative?

[BethesdaWX]

I see, though let's figure out why the IPCC figure I mentioned shows the cloud forcing as negative?

Thats the problem, OBS has debunked alot of this nonsense. 75% of the warming we "expect" based on modeling is reliant on forcings that are incorrect, as demonstrated in my post on the previous page.

It has taken every single natural driver to be as warm as possible to barely scrape the bottom of the "IPCC confidence"..... this assuming that GCR has no impact, which looks like its about to be overturned in the coming decade. We don't need any Co2 warming to reach our current temperature anomaly that has been reached by natural cycles.

[salbers]

Actually there are a lot of studies that support negative cloud forcing, so it does make sense:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...igure-2-14.html

Here again are the overall forcings:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1-figure-2.html

[WeatherRusty]

Have I ever said that Co2 doesn't trap heat? That has not been my point.

My point, regardless of its properties, Co2 being a trace gas in the atmosphere at 0.038%, is not sufficient enough to cause the global warming we've seen. Models are hypothesis, & 2/3 of their warmings are based upon incorrect forcing equations.

In other words you deny the science commissioned by the US Air Force to determine the radiative properties of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere? You deny that a doubling (0.038% is totally irrelevant) produces a forcing within Earth's atmosphere of 3.7W/m^2, and that forcing gives 1.2C of temperature variance according to the Planck response at 0.3C/Watt?

If we add up all the individual contributing factors to the radiative forcing we get 1.6W/m^2 as the net forcing since the 19th century. The positives equal 2.6W/m^2 while the negatives equal 1W/m^2. Solar is a positive contributor at 0.12W/m^2. CO2 is a positive at 1.6W/m^2.

So applying the Planck response to 1.6W/m^2 we should have experienced a bit more than 0.5C of warming due to radiative forcing alone if the system were at equilibrium (which it isn't). That we have warmed 0.8C is indicative of positive feedback.

[salbers]

Dude, did you see my maps that I posted earlier?

Nope, thats now how it works, the cloud cover that has dropped is low level, which = less precip.....Earth absorbs less IR when there is more cloud cover.

See?

I still would submit that the cloud's radiative impact depends on the altitude. More low clouds hide the sun causing a negative forcing. More high clouds emit more downward IR (as a net effect) causing a positive forcing.

http://www.wisteme.c...tionTab&id=8371

[salbers]

Then why were global treelines higher in the MWP, why were the glaciers smaller at both poles? And, why did it match up with a solar max?

Perhaps regional changes. Globally it was cooler during the MWP as supported here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

[BethesdaWX]

Perhaps regional changes. Globally it was cooler during the MWP as supported here:

http://en.wikipedia....val_Warm_Period

No. Both Poles had Smaller glaciers, I posted evidence on this last week several times over. I also posted evidence showing higher treelines in the US rockies, Alps, the Himis, basically, the global mountains.

http://www.co2scienc...pantarctica.php

http://www.co2scienc...ies/rwpasia.php

Solar looks a bit like a hockeystick, eh? I bet you, global temps followed this line exactly.

[BethesdaWX]

Actually there are a lot of studies that support negative cloud forcing, so it does make sense:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...igure-2-14.html

Here again are the overall forcings:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...1-figure-2.html

Again, what OBS has showed us... its not true. Low level clouds are by far the most dominant, because they often precipitate, & reflect more IR. Again, the decrease in low level clouds has been responsible for almost all the warming we've seen in the topical regions.

[salbers]

No. Both Poles had Smaller glaciers, I posted evidence on this last week several times over. I also posted evidence showing higher treelines in the US rockies, Alps, the Himis, basically, the global mountains.

http://www.co2scienc...pantarctica.php

http://www.co2scienc...ies/rwpasia.php

Solar looks a bit like a hockeystick, eh? I bet you, global temps followed this line exactly.

The second link works for me, though not the first.

Yes, solar may have been involved over the millenium. However we are starting to exceed these trends with CO2. Interesting we're about tied for the warmest year with a historically low solar minimum.

[BethesdaWX]

The second link works for me, though not the first.

Yes, solar may have been involved over the millenium. However we are starting to exceed these trends with CO2. Interesting we're about tied for the warmest year with a historically low solar minimum.

1) We're not "exceeding" anything in the MWP, & Certainly not the RWP, the globe was warmer in both the MWP, & The RWP... the RWP being twice as warm as the MWP. Again, look at global treelines & Smaller Glaciers on both poles. Solar is a much match than Co2

2) Uh dude, you know how a solar min works right? This isn't the 11yr cycle, multi-century changes are not the same, and would cool the Earth over a source of several low solar cycles. Even so, the 11yr cycle doesn't see the cooling take place until 2-8 years after the min, or, in other words, the uprising of the solar activity. We have no reason to expect cooling yet.

Not sure why the link isn't working for you, perhaps it will self correct.

[salbers]

As I've mentioned over on Eastern Wx, I think of the response to a solar min kind of like a seasonal change. The minimum temperature occurs just a slight amount after the minimum radiative forcing. This would be about 30-60 degrees of phase of a sinusoidal oscillation corresponding to about 1-2 years for an 11 year solar cycle. More details on one assessment is here:

http://www.drroyspen...lar-irradiance/

As for the longer term changes, solar activity has been high though basically level for the past 50 years. Yet the temperatures have been rising more during this period. Seems like a lack of correlation - except when you add in the CO2.

With the treelines and glaciers I haven't yet look edat all the data, though I have looked a bit. Perhaps it's warming fast enough now, so the glaciers and treelines haven't had a chance to reach equlibrium levels. There is certainly accelerating melting of the glaciers now, so if they aren't yet at record low ice volumes, they will probably be soon.

Also, if things were all that warm in the past, we should have seen higher sea level then, which I haven't seen.