aslkahuna Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 From an article on Page 384, in EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union Volume 92 #43 dated 25 October 2011. Surface air temperature is only one component of the total heat content of the surface atmosphere-kinetic energy and latent heat also contribute. In the first study to use observational data to estimate global changes in total energy over time, Peterson, et al. found that global heat content and surface energy have increased since the 1970's event though kinetic energy declined slightly while in some regions latent heat did likewise even though temperatures increased. They concluded that surface air temperature provides a good estimate of total heat content changes and thus is a good tool to use in describing global warming trends. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 From an article on Page 384, in EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union Volume 92 #43 dated 25 October 2011. Surface air temperature is only one component of the total heat content of the surface atmosphere-kinetic energy and latent heat also contribute. In the first study to use observational data to estimate global changes in total energy over time, Peterson, et al. found that global heat content and surface energy have increased since the 1970's event though kinetic energy declined slightly while in some regions latent heat did likewise even though temperatures increased. They concluded that surface air temperature provides a good estimate of total heat content changes and thus is a good tool to use in describing global warming trends. Steve Here is a question. We obviously know in October 2011 that the arctic housed a lot of that extra surface heat that put the surface global temperatures quite a bit higher than the TLTs. If this is roughly localized like the arctic phenomenon, after all if the Sea ice was at 1980s levels this phenomenon would be non-Existent or at the level it was then. Also if this heat is going poof shortly after it is bounced around above the surface and only a small fraction is kept and then an even smaller extra fraction is kept because of GHGs...then how would this show "true" heat changes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Are they saying that without knowledge of temperature trends at all levels of the atmosphere and oceans, surface air temperature is a good gage of the total ocean, land and atmosphere heat content? If that is the case does this imply that because the surface air temp rate of warming has slowed over the past decade we can conclude that the heat gain of the entire climate system has also slowed? Would this also imply that "missing" heat is not being stored in the deep oceans? How do they know that from "observation" which this study is supposedly based on? Are they only speaking of the atmosphere and neglecting the oceans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 Are they saying that without knowledge of temperature trends at all levels of the atmosphere and oceans, surface air temperature is a good gage of the total ocean, land and atmosphere heat content? If that is the case does this imply that because the surface air temp rate of warming has slowed over the past decade we can conclude that the heat gain of the entire climate system has also slowed? Would this also imply that "missing" heat is not being stored in the deep oceans? How do they know that from "observation" which this study is supposedly based on? Are they only speaking of the atmosphere and neglecting the oceans? Good Questions-I'll reread the article though my impression is that they were speaking primarily about the atmosphere. Though certanly the article implied that the answer to your first question is yes. Unfortunately, the article doesn't give a title of the paper or a URL but there is a pub reference at the end. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I wish we had a better way of measuring kinetic energy, well, all "energy" across the globe. The waves in the ocean, winds, storms, jets, evaporation and rainfall...that is all kinetic energy (convection is the process of thermal energy being transferred to kinetic energy). Obviously a warmer atmosphere contains more thermal energy, but that should result in more kinetic energy, it has to in the long run. So warmists are right that there'd be stronger storms in a warmer world if the AGW theory turns out to be legitimate (we'll find out within the next decade). I think if we could measure all aspects of "energy" that'd be a better tool to use than just temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I wish we had a better way of measuring kinetic energy, well, all "energy" across the globe. The waves in the ocean, winds, storms, jets, evaporation and rainfall...that is all kinetic energy (convection is the process of thermal energy being transferred to kinetic energy). Obviously a warmer atmosphere contains more thermal energy, but that should result in more kinetic energy, it has to in the long run. So warmists are right that there'd be stronger storms in a warmer world if the AGW theory turns out to be legitimate (we'll find out within the next decade). I think if we could measure all aspects of "energy" that'd be a better tool to use than just temperature. Agreed - any ideas on how this could be done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.