Solar Minumums vs. Solar Maximums

[BethesdaWX]

This idea of "fizzling" is totally non-scientific. Where does the heat go if not to the atmosphere? And regardless of the heat exchange there is CO2 exchange and equlibrium that will keep the GHG warming going for many thousands of years, unless again we find a specific mechanism to dispose of the CO2.

Meaning Recycled. Where do you think all the energy went 40 million years ago?

Again, don't use the term "WILL" create warming for 1000's of years... that is more hypothesis, and should be written as "could", or "has the potential to"....etc. I understand it may be hard to follow the scientific method in AGW science (for obvious reasons), but follow the rules please. Thankyou

[WeatherRusty]

Yes, it accelerated when the Maunder Minimum came to and end...... As for oceans storing the missing heat, it can remain for 5000 years or more, but there is no evidence in surface mixing... through thousands of years, its just as likely to fizzle. Again, hypothesis from both sides, we don'tuse hypothesis as evidence.

What do you mean by "fizzle". That makes no sense. It can't just disappear. What happens to the energy?

[BethesdaWX]

Another aspect of this that bugs me... the underlying data used & the actual code at hand is always concealed! Why won't they release the computer codes that our taxmoney is paying for?

[BethesdaWX]

The acceleration though occurred even more as the industrial revolution reved up.

The oceans are increasing in CO2 observationally - one example of evidence. CO2 and heat fluxes are being measured observationally - more evidence. Sea level is rising - more evidence of heat exchange between the atmosphere and oceans. This is more an observation of reality - rather than a hypothesis.

So did the modern Max!

Who cares if more CO2 is present in the oceans? My argument was never that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere.. its the effect, & has been for the entire time.

[salbers]

Another aspect of this that bugs me... the underlying data used & the actual code at hand is always concealed! Why won't they release the computer codes that our taxmoney is paying for?

I think CO2 and heat measurements of the ocean probably are public - who is hiding them?

[salbers]

Meaning Recycled. Where do you think all the energy went 40 million years ago?

Again, don't use the term "WILL" create warming for 1000's of years... that is more hypothesis, and should be written as "could", or "has the potential to"....etc. I understand it may be hard to follow the scientific method in AGW science (for obvious reasons), but follow the rules please. Thankyou

Over 40 million years there is indeed geological sequestration that removes the CO2 from the atmosphere & oceans on million year time scales.

Please reread my post - I did follow the scientific method and listed a caveat that you so far seem incapable of latching onto with a counter argument.

[WeatherRusty]

Meaning Recycled. Where do you think all the energy went 40 million years ago?

Again, don't use the term "WILL" create warming for 1000's of years... that is more hypothesis, and should be written as "could", or "has the potential to"....etc. I understand it may be hard to follow the scientific method in AGW science (for obvious reasons), but follow the rules please. Thankyou

The energy is about 40 million light years from Earth right now.

[BethesdaWX]

Read my post - I did follow the scientific method and listed a caveat that you seem incapable of latching onto with a counter argument.

As the Industrial revolution reved up... So did the modern Max!

DUDE! How many times have a stated... the effect of the CO2 is what is in question! I've never argued that Co2 increase wasn't happening!

FYI.. poor wording choice on my part in using the word "fizzle".. meaning "recycled".

[BethesdaWX]

The energy is about 40 million light years from Earth right now.

What are you talking about? I'm speaking of the warm earth 40 million years ago.

[BethesdaWX]

PS... Steve, why do you keep adding to your posts after the fact? It makes it alot harder for me to properly address you.

[salbers]

So did the modern Max!

Who cares if more CO2 is present in the oceans? My argument was never that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere.. its the effect, & has been for the entire time.

It matters, since the oceans will act as a CO2 reservoir that keeps the atmospheric levels elevated. There's mixing and a chemical equilibrium going on between the atmosphere and ocean.

If the effect of increased CO2 on temperatures is somewhat suppressed by oceanic heat fluxes this will diminish in time and the full warming will eventually show up in the atmosphere. The oceans matter here in greatly prolonging this effect once it does set in fully. This is all simple physics and chemistry really.

My only "skeptical" reaction to the Archer and Solomon papers on this topic are what the role of land sequestration will be. If you want to be intelligently skeptical that's a suggestion to consider. Even that however may take a long time to get rid of the CO2.

[BethesdaWX]

It matters, since the oceans will act as a CO2 reservoir that keeps the atmospheric levels elevated. There's mixing and a chemical equilibrium going on between the atmosphere and ocean.

Once again... my argument is none of such... its always been the skeptical hypothesis that the effect of CO2 on global temperatures is Minimal at this point. There is plentiful "evidence" (if thats that you wanna call it) on both sides of the debate.

The Fact that more CO2 is being observed in the oceans doesn't disprove anything I've said about the effects of CO2....my whole argument in the first place! If there is a supposed lag in global temps.. that hypothesis will have to wait to be tested, but that is by no means evidence to base an argument off of.

[BethesdaWX]

Steve, why do you keep adding to your posts after the fact? I cannot properly address you when you do this. Thankyou

[salbers]

I like to fine tune things as I reflect further on them. It helps me to minimize the number of posts and make them more clear. Feel free to also edit your responses (or even the quotes of me within), or please simply wait a bit longer before replying.

[salbers]

Once again... my argument is none of such... its always been the skeptical hypothesis that the effect of CO2 on global temperatures is Minimal at this point. There is plentiful "evidence" (if thats that you wanna call it) on both sides of the debate.

The Fact that more CO2 is being observed in the oceans doesn't disprove anything I've said about the effects of CO2....my whole argument in the first place! If there is a supposed lag in global temps.. that hypothesis will have to wait to be tested, but that is by no means evidence to base an argument off of.

The lag effect of oceans is well supported by the simple observation that ocean temps are rising slower than the land. We can see this over the century, and of course on short time scales in everyday weather.

I think the lag is very important in two respects. It help explain why the global average temps haven't yet risen to equlibrium with the radiative forcing, and it provides a cautionary tale about how long the AGW effects of more CO2 and heat will last.

[tacoman25]

That's all fine and dandy, except that if the surface does not warm then it can not radiate away energy sufficient to close the imbalance and the thermal energy contained within the total ocean will continue to increase never coming to equilibrium. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ensures us that the heat building up in the oceans must mix throughout the water column eventually. The 1st. Law ensures that the heat will not just disappear without manifesting itself. Physics thus demands that the heat will move and that none of it will be lost without being felt at the surface...the only way out is to space through the atmosphere which will absorb it before releasing it.

If the climate system were that simple, then ice ages never would have happened. Think about it.

There are many more feedbacks and how exactly they work is not something we are able to accurately model at this time.

[BethesdaWX]

The lag effect of oceans is well supported by the simple observation that ocean temps are rising slower than the land. We can see this over the century, and of course on short time scales in everyday weather.

I think the lag is very important in two respects. It help explain why the global average temps haven't yet risen to equlibrium with the radiative forcing, and it provides a cautionary tale about how long the AGW effects of more CO2 and heat will last.

Again, that means nothing if CO2 has minimal impact. My argument, for the 456th time, is not whether Co2 has increased, its the eventual effect. So, citing examples that Co2 is increasing should only help to prove the skeptical Hypothesis as the cooling since 2002 continues, after the El Nino interruption.

[salbers]

I might take your cooling argument more seriously when the temperature returns to preindustrial levels

There isn't any reason I can spell out to think why the radiative forcing won't have an eventual effect - even as it is already (given the 2000s being the warmest decade in a century).

If it has cooled slightly (and I question that - given things like sea level rise, glacier and polar ice melt) over the past 8 years that means nothing at all about the long term climate changes. I agree there are short term oceanic cycles and they are also irrelevant to the long term changes because they even out in the long run. I've probably said that 457 times

[BethesdaWX]

I might take your cooling argument more seriously when the temperature returns to preindustrial levels

There isn't any reason I can spell out to think why the radiative forcing won't have an eventual effect - even as it is already (given the 2000s being the warmest decade in a century).

If it has cooled slightly (and I question that - given things like sea level rise, glacier and polar ice melt) over the past 8 years that means nothing at all about the long term climate changes. I agree there are short term oceanic cycles and they are also irrelevant to the long term changes because they even out in the long run. I've probably said that 457 times

Uhh, Pre-Industrial definitely exceeds my expectaions for cooling, at least for the next 15-20 years........and that would be pretty bad for the Human Race FYI. I'm thinking we cool about 0.1C this coming decade barring either another high solar cycle, or a deeper solar Min... in which case I'd either Keep the flatlining trend, or go with a 0.3C drop.. I really don't pay attention to what the adjusted data for back pre-sattelite shows... not at all

Clearly the warm AMO that developed is what boosted the 2000's.... but notice, it was a single step, then a flat-line, not an upwards trend. Thing is, all the drivers aligned & peaked warm during the satellite era, & we've still managed to cool.

Notice how starting 2006-2007, the La Nina Began to Increase in frequency. The +AMO effect is still clearly with us, at its record levels, The solar cooling on the order of centuries is nor the same as used in the 11yr cycle. The cooling begins in the upward trend,so, we haven't really started yet.

[salbers]

If you aren't paying attention to pre-satellite data - then how do you even KNOW what pre-industrial temperatures were? The longer term history is important to try and learn about.

I'm still waiting to hear a better explained reason why the radiative forcing won't eventually be a big deal and have a long lasting effect. In fact we've already warmed a good deal since pre-industrial times.This is consistent with the radiative forcing once again. The simplest explanation such as this usually is the most likely to be correct if you follow the history of science.

[BethesdaWX]

If you aren't paying attention to pre-satellite data - then how do you even KNOW what pre-industrial temperatures were? The longer term history is important to try and learn about.

I have unadjusted data saved on my old hard drive that I go by my memory, the basic idea is more important than every aspect. My old CPU doesn't work though anymore, but I assume the data can be retrieved somehow.

[WeatherRusty]

If the climate system were that simple, then ice ages never would have happened. Think about it.

There are many more feedbacks and how exactly they work is not something we are able to accurately model at this time.

You know I disagree. Why would ice ages not have happened if the distribution of radiation bathing Earth were distributed differently, such as what happens when the angle of the rotational axis shifts relative to the ecliptic? Why would ice ages not occur when the eccentricity of the elliptical orbit results in less energy reaching Earth during northern hemisphere summer particularly when in proper phasing with the other Milankovitch cycles?

These are cases of natural radiative forcing which happen to be weaker than the 3.7W/m^2 given by a doubling of CO2. Then you add the positive feedback from water vapor, albedo and redistribution of vegetation and you get periods of glaciation.

[aslkahuna]

If the Sun was putting out 30% less energy at Earth's average orbital distance then as opposed to today it was producing 956W/m^2 versus 1366W. That's a 410W difference. The solar diameter would have been smaller back then as well thus presenting a smaller surface area to Earth and a corresponding reduction in radiative energy received at Earth's distance.

I really doubt solar faculae could raise total averaged solar output anywhere near 410W never mind the smaller Sun. Yet Earth's temperature has remained within the bounds necessary to support liquid water, pre-biotic, early and present day organisms. We know that the present day atmosphere accounts for the viability of widespread life today and there is no reason to suppose the cituation was ever much different. Only the relative importance of the factors would have changed.

If you read the S&T article then you will realize why I brought it up. The 30% less luminosity back then is not really subject to question because we have enough data on Solar type stars and their evolution to know that is what occurred. If you are assuming that the Earth's atmosphere then was comparable to what we have now then your assumption is totally wrong as the article makes abundately clear.

Steve

[WeatherRusty]

If you read the S&T article then you will realize why I brought it up. The 30% less luminosity back then is not really subject to question because we have enough data on Solar type stars and their evolution to know that is what occurred. If you are assuming that the Earth's atmosphere then was comparable to what we have now then your assumption is totally wrong as the article makes abundately clear.

Steve

I fully understand, and have for a long time, that the Sun as it evolves is growing larger in radius and that it's photosphere emits some 30% greater EM than was the case over 4 billion years ago. I have also understood for a long time that the composition of Earth's atmosphere has been modified greatly over eons.

My point is that the atmospheric greenhouse effect has managed to keep apace with the increasing solar output to maintain Earth's surface temperature within livable bounds for most of life's existence. This may be just dumb luck. There have been times when this was very nearly not the case, such as snowball Earth, the end Permian event and to a lesser degree even the PETM of 55 million ya.

[beneficii]

I fully understand, and have for a long time, that the Sun as it evolves is growing larger in radius and that it's photosphere emits some 30% greater EM than was the case over 4 billion years ago. I have also understood for a long time that the composition of Earth's atmosphere has been modified greatly over eons.

My point is that the atmospheric greenhouse effect has managed to keep apace with the increasing solar output to maintain Earth's surface temperature within livable bounds for most of life's existence. This may be just dumb luck. There have been times when this was very nearly not the case, such as snowball Earth, the end Permian event and to a lesser degree even the PETM of 55 million ya.

In my understanding, the long run trend is for the sun to become brighter and hotter and to expand in volume, and this has been the trend. By about 1 billion years from now, Earth is likely to be rendered uninhabitable by the very hot sun. Within a few billion years, Earth is likely to have been engulfed by the sun. All of this assumes that we have not adjusted earth's orbit by then. But this is over very long timescales, and there will still be short-term variations in the level of solar output.

And that connects with the rest of what you say regarding the history of earth's temperature, regarding volcanism and the greenhouse effect. My understanding is that the arrangement of the continents also played a role.

[BethesdaWX]

I'm still waiting to hear a better explained reason why the radiative forcing won't eventually be a big deal and have a long lasting effect. In fact we've already warmed a good deal since pre-industrial times.This is consistent with the radiative forcing once again. The simplest explanation such as this usually is the most likely to be correct if you follow the history of science.

I've explained this to you many times in past posts...programmed computer model results of Co2's eventual impact are a crapshoot, & a simple hypothesis... it is NOT proof/evidence that Co2 will warm the earth......... we've warmed a good deal since the LIA... the warming then flatlined during the Dalton minimum (global temps were already low previous, so there was no logical way they could Drop again with a weaker minimum), & began rising Very Quickly again around 1850 which happened to coincide with the Intustrial Revolution... in pefect sync with the modern max & pre-adjusted station data.

If you'll notice, Submarines surfaced in the North Pole during the 1950's....In March! No way we can even come close to that at this point.

Again, the properties of the molecule are not what I'm arguing.....I'm not debating the fact that Co2 is increasing rapidly. That has never been my argument. You seem to be asking me to refute the predictions given by Models....& refute the radiative forcing emitted by Co2......both are unrelated to my argument, its almosat off topic.

[aslkahuna]

The dumb luck comes about because we are on a planet that evolved as it did from a nearly Carbon Monoxide atmosphere to the one we have now. The S&T article describes the various episodes in this evolution. As far as the Sun is concerned, as it loses mass the Earth's orbit will adjust but at some point the shift in orbits of the Planets will change the perturbations and could possibly lead to the Earth spiraling in and being consumed by the Sun. We're fairly sure that Mercury and Venus are toast but that Mars will make it but Earth is on the edge.

Steve

[BethesdaWX]

The dumb luck comes about because we are on a planet that evolved as it did from a nearly Carbon Monoxide atmosphere to the one we have now. The S&T article describes the various episodes in this evolution. As far as the Sun is concerned, as it loses mass the Earth's orbit will adjust but at some point the shift in orbits of the Planets will change the perturbations and could possibly lead to the Earth spiraling in and being consumed by the Sun. We're fairly sure that Mercury and Venus are toast but that Mars will make it but Earth is on the edge.

Steve

Exactly....this is why there cannot be comparisons made.....expecially using Co2 as the reason for the warm planet.....

Alot of people don't understand how the Sun-Earth relationship actually works.

[WeatherRusty]

The dumb luck comes about because we are on a planet that evolved as it did from a nearly Carbon Monoxide atmosphere to the one we have now. The S&T article describes the various episodes in this evolution. As far as the Sun is concerned, as it loses mass the Earth's orbit will adjust but at some point the shift in orbits of the Planets will change the perturbations and could possibly lead to the Earth spiraling in and being consumed by the Sun. We're fairly sure that Mercury and Venus are toast but that Mars will make it but Earth is on the edge.

Steve

Orbital mechanics dictate that if the Sun looses mass the Earth would move outward from the Sun due to it's orbital momentum not inward. The orbit could decay if perturbed gravitationally by other planets or in the red giant phase due to friction with the outer solar atmosphere. I could not find the S&T article so I am not aware of what context this discussion has to the Earth's greenhouse effect in compensating for a gradually more luminous Sun.

[aslkahuna]

Orbital mechanics dictate that if the Sun looses mass the Earth would move outward from the Sun due to it's orbital momentum not inward. The orbit could decay if perturbed gravitationally by other planets or in the red giant phase due to friction with the outer solar atmosphere. I could not find the S&T article so I am not aware of what context this discussion has to the Earth's greenhouse effect in compensating for a gradually more luminous Sun.

It's the Cover article of the August 2010 issue of S&T which discusses the evolution of Earth's atmosphere at various Epochs. I did mention that orbital decay would occur as a result of Planetary Perturbations and that'2[/sub] content is lower now than it was in the past.

Steve