Rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is blamed for every weather emergency, but as a weather maker, water is far more important.
Without water, Earth’s weather would be dramatically different. We would have no clouds, no rain or snow, no hail storms or hurricanes, no seas, rivers, lakes or ice sheets – just cold, cloudless nights and hot, clear days with dry winds and fierce dust storms; a dead planet like Mars.
Water has many weather effects. It cools Earth’s surface by evaporation and transfers that heat to the upper atmosphere as it condenses into drops of rain, hail or snow. Water forms the wispy high cirrus and stratus clouds, the fluffy fair-weather cumulus and the ominous nimbus thunderheads that can produce rain, hail and storms as well as cyclones, hurricanes and tornadoes. Some high clouds help to retain surface heat while lower clouds shade and cool the surface as they intercept and reflect incoming solar radiation.
Where there is no water in the atmosphere we get hot deserts like Sahara or frigid deserts like Antarctica. And when solar energy wanes, as in ice ages, it is water, not carbon dioxide, that creates a real climate emergency with life-killing sheets of ice.
CO2 greenhouse warming still unknown
Carbon dioxide exists in the atmosphere and the oceans as a trace amount of invisible, non-toxic, non-flammable gas – quite a boring unspectacular gas really. But it gets the gold medal for feeding the biosphere – it is the gas of life and increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the recent measurable greening of the planet.
In theory, carbon dioxide can warm the climate by retaining surface heat. However, its so-called “greenhouse effect” has never been quantified in climate records despite being given a key role in IPCC climate models. There is no evidence that carbon dioxide is creating dangerous global warming. Water vapour has a far bigger “greenhouse effect” over more radiation bands, and there is far more of it – Earth’s atmosphere has about 8,500 times more water than carbon dioxide. Earth’s water cycle also has a large moderating effect on any greenhouse warming from carbon dioxide. A climate tax on water makes as much sense as a carbon tax.
In our great climate machine, the sun is the combustion chamber, the oceans are the stabilising flywheel and carbon dioxide is merely the temperature gauge – its concentration in the atmosphere rises as the oceans get warm and expel some of their dissolved CO2.
Enough real problems already
The sun rules Earth’s long term climate with solar energy driving winds and water to create the complexities of the weather. Carbon dioxide is a climate pygmy and hugely irrelevant in creating the daily weather.
We have enough real environmental problems on Earth without inventing climate crises supposedly caused by the relatively trivial quantities of carbon dioxide recycled by man’s industries and machines.
Water vapour and carbon dioxide are the gases of life – the biosphere needs more of both. We should stop all foolish attempts to capture and bury carbon dioxide and devote those resources to capturing and storing fresh water.
Viv Forbes,
Rosewood Qld Australia
forbes@carbon-sense.com
Visits: 71
Excellent article Viv. I have often contemplated the amount of energy being transported from sea level to the clouds through the latent heats of evaporation and condensation, and how that might compare with the so called carbon dioxide part of the greenhouse effect. But I have not had a serious attempt at quantifying it. Have you done any quantifying of how much energy is transported up through evaporation, compared to CO2’s greenhouse effect?
I am not up to that calculation but see that according to the following 577,000 cubic km of water are evaporated annually
http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c07/e2-02-03-02.pdf
Thanks HemiMcK,
There are some useful numbers in that document. Good finding!
‘Greenhouse Effect: Does Water Vapor Increase or Decrease the Lapse Rate?’
by Carl Brehmer
[…] When one digs deeper into the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis one finds that it is not actually increasing CO2 levels that are causing concern in the minds of some people but rather it is the expected increase in humidity that atmospheric warming from any source is likely to cause. Via what is called “positive water vapor feedback” this extra humidity is said to amplify any lower atmospheric warming from any source up to 300%
[…] Is it any wonder then that the young people who are currently graduating from major universities are confused about the effect of “greenhouse gases” on the atmosphere’s temperature? Within one class at these universities students are being taught that water vapor increases the lapse rate via a “greenhouse effect”, which warms the “surface and the lower atmosphere”, while in another class across the hall they are being taught the truth—water vapor actually lowers the lapse rate, which results in a cooling of “the surface and lower atmosphere”. They are thus ill prepared to deal with the current tsunami of media propaganda that asserts that anthropogenic global warming (which in reality is hypothetically due primarily to positive water vapor feedback) will devastate the planet by the end of the 21st Century “without serious policy changes.”
More (much more)>>>>>
http://www.principia-scientific.org/greenhouse-effect-does-water-vapor-increase-or-decrease-the-lapse-rate.html
>”Via what is called “positive water vapor feedback” this extra humidity is said to amplify any lower atmospheric warming from any source up to 300%”
Hence climate sensitivity:
‘Climate Sensitivity and Feedback’
Barry A. Klinger, George Mason University, CLIM 690 Scientific Basis of Climate Change
What is relationship between changes in radiative forcing and changes in temperature?
What are feedbacks and how do they influence these changes?
http://mason.gmu.edu/~bklinger/CLIM690/lec7_sensitiv.pdf
Excerpt:
Direct effect of GHG [simple model, no feedbacks]: For T0=288 K, ΔF=4 W/m2, F0=238 W/m2 [Climate Sensitivity for doubled CO2 (2xCO2)] = 1.2 K
Climate Sensitivity in CMIP3 Models [including feedbacks]
avg = 3.2C
range 2.1C – 4.4C
+ + +
Feedbacks are the big amplifier (or not if negative – feedbacks are contentious to say the least) in the climate sensitivity paradigm. But the critical element is really the actual heating effect of ΔF=4 W/m2 for 2xCO2 (TOA, “based on radiative transfer codes using detailed knowledge of GHG absorption as a function of wavelength”) i.e. is the heating effect of that downwelling long-wave radiative flux (DLR) real or is DLR not the heating agent it is assumed to be e.g. is 1 W/m2 DLR heating effect equal to 1 W/m2 SW heating effect?
It isn’t. DLR occurs in the IR-C range of the electromagnetic spectrum, SW in IR-A/B (and Visible and UV):
Electromagnetic spectrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
Infrared http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
From Electromagnetic spectrum:
NIR Near Infrared 300 THz 1 μm 1.24 eV ……[IR-A/B (SW)]
MIR Mid infrared 30 THz 10 μm 124 meV…….[IR-C (DLR)]
From Infrared:
Near-Infrared NIR 0.78–3 µm
IR-A: 700 nm – 1400 nm (0.7 µm – 1.4 µm, 215 THz – 430 THz) …..[SW]
IR-B: 1400 nm – 3000 nm (1.4 µm – 3 µm, 100 THz – 215 THz) …..[SW]
Mid-Infrared MIR 3–50 µm
IR-C: 3000 nm – 1 mm (3 µm – 1000 µm, 300 GHz – 100 THz) …..[DLR]
So although power is apparently equal (1 W/m2 DLR = 1 W/m2 SW) the heating effect on any material (e.g. water) is occurring at different wavelengths (less than 3 µm vs greater than 3 µm) and different energy-per-photon levels (1.24 eV vs 124 meV) i.e. the heating effect is not equal.
This is the reason solar is harnessed by a water medium in solar water heating systems but no-one in their right mind bothers with DLR e.g. 400 W/m2 day/night DLR Darwin. And, apart from the feedback solar and ocean oscillation issues, probably the reason most climate models are wildly overshooting temperature.
‘The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature’
Guest essay by Ed Hoskins, August 10, 2014
[…see figure, GHG effect allocated to water vapour and clouds….] Some of the IPCC data sets shows very large proportions of the temperature effect attributable solely to extra CO2. The concomitant effect of those higher levels of warming from atmospheric CO2 is that the proportion of the total ~33°C then attributable the water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere is displaced so as to be unrealistically low at 72% or 54%.
It has to be questioned whether it is plausible that CO2, a minor trace gas in the atmosphere, currently at the level of ~400ppmv, 0.04% up to 0.10% achieves such radical control of Global temperature, when compared to the substantial and powerful Greenhouse Effect of water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere?
More>>>>>>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/
‘Solar activity drives CO2 levels’
The Hockey Schtick, August 10, 2014
Hypothesis: Increasing accumulated solar activity [sunspot time-integral] since the Maunder Minimum 1645-1715 AD has warmed the oceans and land, warming of the oceans has increased ocean outgassing of CO2 [Henry’s Law] and has been the primary cause of increased atmospheric CO2 levels. Ocean temperatures driven by solar activity control atmospheric CO2 levels on short, intermediate, and long-term timescales.
More>>>>>>
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/08/solar-activity-drives-co2-levels.html
In the above linked article, follow the hotlink “deep penetration of high-energy solar UV of up to 100 meter depth” to here:
‘RealClimate admits doubling CO2 could only heat the oceans 0.002ºC at most’
[The Peter Minnett conjecture]
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html?showComment=1407637452391#c2866223122447263672
The paper linked in the comment is:
‘Penetration of UV-visible solar radiation in the global oceans: Insights from ocean color remote sensing’
Zhongping Lee,1 Chuanmin Hu,2 Shaoling Shang,3 Keping Du,4 Marlon Lewis,5
Robert Arnone,6 and Robert Brewin7
Received 15 March 2013; revised 5 July 2013; accepted 9 July 2013.
http://optics.marine.usf.edu/references/Lee_UV_penetration_JGR2013.pdf
Also in comments:
MS May 30, 2013 at 8:26 AM
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/05/anthropogenic-ocean-heating-part-1/
documents comment deletion at Skeptical Science on this topic
+ + +
The internet works!
From Lee et al (2013):
1. Introduction
[3] Solar energy in the infrared is lost in the upper few
meters due to the strong absorption of water molecules.
http://optics.marine.usf.edu/references/Lee_UV_penetration_JGR2013.pdf
The effective penetration depth of 1000nm wavelength infrared solar energy (NIR) is about 1m (only about 10 microns for DLR). From Hale & Querry (1973):
http://omlc.org/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif
Then refer Lee et al, PENETRATION OF UV-VISIBLE SOLAR LIGHT page 11:
Figure 9. Penetration depth of solar irradiance (sun at zenith) at 360 nm [UVB] in the global oceans, as gauged by 10% of the surface light (Z(360)10%). Black: land or ice ; white: waters with Kd(412)>0.05
m1 and are masked out here.
UVB penetration depth 30m just out from Northland east coast and BOP. NZ. 80m NE of NI NZ.
Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet (UV) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than that of visible light but longer than X-rays, that is, in the range between approximately 400 nm and 10 nm, corresponding to photon energies from 3.1 eV to 124 eV [DLR 124 meV]
“….the electromagnetic energy E contained in each photon is inversely proportional to its wavelength λ, by the Planck-Einstein equation: E = hc / λ, where c is the speed of light”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet
+ + +
And yet AGW proponents are obsessed with the negligible heating effect of DLR.
From Climate Change Dispatch in response to Denica Bozhinova, co-author of Bozhinova et al (2014):
#12 Richard C NZ 2014-07-26 04:44
Denica #10
>”The anthropogenic flux to the atmosphere is much bigger than the net contribution from both ocean and biosphere.”
An apples-to-apples comparison is contributors to atmospheric CO2 i.e. initial anthropogenic emissions flux (AE) to atmosphere is apportioned to 3 reservoirs: atm, ocean, and land. So yes, the initial AE flux is large but there is take up by biosphere and ocean (i.e. becomes part of “net contribution from both ocean and biosphere”).
If you convert Mauna Loa (ML) ppm growth to GtC (using the IPCC’s 2.1 GtC/ppm conversion factor) from say 2005 to 2012 as I did and compare that to reported AE increase over the same period, ML atmospheric CO2 growth is roughly 17 times faster than AE growth.
This implies a significantly greater atm CO2 contributor other than AE as in the 1990s according to the 2004 US DOE EIA report of IPCC TAR figures (see #7 above) in Million Metric Tons of Gas:
770,000 – Natural
23,100 – Human-Made
Human-Made (AE) is only 2.9% of the much greater Natural in that decade. Your statement above contradicts both 21st C ML vs AE growth and the US DOE/IPCC TAR figures for 1990s.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/only-about-3-of-co2-in-atmosphere-due-to-burning-fossil-fuels.html#comment-44638
#13 Richard C NZ 2014-07-26 04:46
Denica #10 (following on from #12)
>”The anthropogenic flux to the atmosphere is much bigger than the net contribution from both ocean and biosphere.”
Your statement also appears contradictory to Lutjewad, Fig 4 in your paper (see #8 above) Bozhinova et al (2014):
Figure 4. 6 months of hourly results for Lutjewad at 60m height. Comparison between observed and modeled (a) CO2 concentrations, (b) CO2ff concentrations
CO2ff for Lutjewad at 60m from April – October 2008 (b) is predominately between 0 and 10ppm. CO2 concentration (a) is around 380 – 400ppm. 5/390 = 0.0128 (1.3% approx).
In other words, it is not AE emitted from sources that determines the atm constituency, it is subsequent take up and cycling e.g. respiration in the biosphere, so that only approx 1.3% of Lutjewad, Netherlands, near-sfc atm constituency is CO2ff according to Bozhinova et al (2014) Fig 4 even though initial AE flux may be relatively large in that vicinity (maybe it isn’t of course).
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/only-about-3-of-co2-in-atmosphere-due-to-burning-fossil-fuels.html#comment-44639
+ + +
No reply from Denica, unfortunately.
Posted at JoNova:
Joanne, re:
>”As I described it way back in 2011 [hotlink]”
That was the Salby post (“temperature controls CO2 levels”) where you included Tom Quirk’s work:
‘SOURCES AND SINKS OF CARBON DIOXIDE’
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TomQuirkSourcesandSinksofCO2_FINAL.pdf
This comment is in respect to his graph, viz,
Figure 1 A) Estimated emissions from worldwide fossil fuel use and the annual increase in atmospheric CO2, here:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/co2/co2-emissions-atmospheric-rise-quirk.gif
You may recall that I emailed you at length in a similar vein but rather than compare “annual increase” (a decrease in many years) in atm CO2 to anthro emissions (AE), I compared incremental growth in AE vs incremental growth of atm CO2 (Mauna Loa) thus (these are rough calcs BTW):
Using the conversion factor
2.12 Gt C = 1ppmv CO2 (IPCC) and data sources:
Carbon Budget report
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/
Historical CO2 data:
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
Incremental rises and incremental growth averages:
114.73 GtC – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005
3.5 GtC – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005
3.197 GtC per year – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005
0.097 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005
35.36 GtC – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
2.1 GtC – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013
3.93 GtC per year – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013
This corresponds to the 1970 to 2005 portion of Tom Quirk’s graph. So from 2005 to 2013, total atm carbon was rising just under 17 times faster than anthro emissions growth.
But the IPCC paints a different picture.
[IPCC AR4] – “The increases in global atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution are mainly due to CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, gas flaring and cement production.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html
There is no citation to support that statement.
Refer AR5 Figure 6.1:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg
Refer AR4 Figure 2.3:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure2-3-l.png
A glance at Fig 2.3 (a) and (b) leaves the impression that from 1970 to 2005, ALL of the MLO CO2 rise (Total CO2 in ppm) was due to fossil fuel emissions because the slope of (b) is the same as (a) thanks to scaling and different units (ppm vs GtC).
But the natural and anthropogenic components are missing from both (a) and (b) to allow comparison. In terms of GtC units and (b), the respective slopes are as above: 3.197 GtC/yr total vs 0.097 GtC/yr anthro 1970 to 2005, contrary to the IPCC impression.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/its-an-unsettling-climate-for-skeptical-scientists-like-murry-salby/#comment-1536116
‘Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card’
January 28, 2010
A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth’s surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.
Observations from satellites and balloons show that stratospheric water vapor has had its ups and downs lately, increasing in the 1980s and 1990s, and then dropping after 2000. The authors show that these changes occurred precisely in a narrow altitude region of the stratosphere where they would have the biggest effects on climate.
More>>>>>>>
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html
Now there is an interesting number
“Since 2011, Antarctica as a whole has been shrinking in volume by 125 cubic kilometers a year.”
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/22639/20140929/esa-satellite-focuses-on-links-between-antarctic-ice-and-gravity.htm
With ocean surface area of 510 million square kilometres to me that makes 0.25mm per annum or 2.5cm per century.
So where is the rest of the rise coming from?
>”So where is the rest of the rise coming from?”
Thermosteric rise, north of Australia in particular:
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Map_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
Accumulated solar energy (high TSI levels, low cloudiness), water warms and expands in the tropical region, moved around by transport (currents, wind, ocean cycles). Process will continue until energy deficit (lower solar levels) reverses the process.
Obvious from the chart, sea level rise is not a surface-wide phenomenon. Plenty of areas not rising and some exhibiting a fall.
“Obvious from the chart, sea level rise is not a surface-wide phenomenon. Plenty of areas not rising and some exhibiting a fall.”
That chart presumably just demonstrates the season effect of thermosteric changes possible also reinforced by the typhoon seasonal effect which lowers the pressure from May to October. The chart must be sensitive to choice of start and end date. Unless there is a gravity driven reason from something going on below I do no see how any region could be in continuous rise or fall for any length of time.
The point above was that Antarctic melt has for the last three years made a negligible contribution to any supposed average sea level rise.
‘how any region could be in continuous rise or fall for any length of time.’
Are you considering just the water budget, or also post-glacial rebound?
>”That chart presumably just demonstrates the season effect of thermosteric changes”
No, the chart graphs regional trends over 21.34 years. The chart caption is:
‘Regional MSL trends from Jan-1993 to May-2014 (mm/year)’
See: Coefficient of thermal expansion
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Coefficient_of_thermal_expansion.html
Addendum to RT’s question,
Eustatic Sea Level Change Mechanisms
Eustatic sea-level changes occur on an oceanic to worldwide scale. They result from either a change in the volume of seawater, or a change in the size of the ocean basin that contains it. Even in these large-scale cases, however, mean sea level can vary from place to place due to local tectonic and hydrographic effects. Several processes that can cause worldwide changes in sea level are listed below.
See table – http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/eustatic.htm
Top of the table down to subduction is non-thermal.
Bottom of the table is thermal:
Change in water temperature – approximately 2m change in sea level for one degree change in surface water temperature..
See AR4: 5.5.4.1 Steric Sea Level Changes
Like the sea level trends observed by satellite altimetry (see Section 5.5.2.3), the global distribution of thermosteric sea level trends is not spatially uniform. This is illustrated by Figure 5.15b and Figure 5.16b, which show the geographical distribution of thermosteric sea level trends over two different periods, 1993 to 2003 and 1955 to 2003 respectively (updated from Lombard et al., 2005). Some regions experienced sea level rise while others experienced a fall, often with rates that are several times the global mean. However, the patterns of thermosteric sea level rise over the approximately 50-year period are different from those seen in the 1990s. This occurs because the spatial patterns, like the global average, are also subject to decadal variability. In other words, variability on different time scales may have different characteristic patterns.
An EOF analysis of gridded thermosteric sea level time series since 1955 (updated from Lombard et al., 2005) displays a spatial pattern that is similar to the spatial distribution of thermosteric sea level trends over the same time span (compare Figure 5.20 with Figure 5.16b). In addition, the first principal component is negatively correlated with the Southern Oscillation Index. Thus, it appears that ENSO-related ocean variability accounts for the largest fraction of variance in spatial patterns of thermosteric sea level. Similarly, decadal thermosteric sea level in the North Pacific and North Atlantic appears strongly influenced by the PDO and NAO respectively.
See charts http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-4-1.html
>”The point above was that Antarctic melt has for the last three years made a negligible contribution to any supposed average sea level rise.”
Yes exactly. And the MSL rise is skewed by much larger but region specific non-melt water effects far far away from Antarctica.
With solar input declining it is axiomatic that thermally induced SL rise will slow in time and eventually fall. Given the greater thermosteric component in MSL, that will fall with it. Irrespective of any (erroneous) ideas that GHG forcing is to be attributed to thermal SLR or ocean heat.
I see now calls for the 2 C target to be abandoned and other metrics substituted, e.g. ocean heat possibly. Problematic because the IPCC has no mechanism for anthro ocean heating, just 25 years of speculation.
>”Given the greater thermosteric component in MSL”
From AR4 5.5.6 Total Budget of the Global Mean Sea Level Change
Table 5.3.
Sea Level Rise (mm yr–1)
Source 1961–2003 1993–2003
Thermal Expansion 0.42 ± 0.12 1.6 ± 0.5
Glaciers and Ice Caps 0.50 ± 0.18 0.77 ± 0.22
Greenland Ice Sheet 0.05 ± 0.12 0.21 ± 0.07
Antarctic Ice Sheet 0.14 ± 0.41 0.21 ± 0.35
Sum 1.1 ± 0.5 2.8 ± 0.7
Observed 1.8 ± 0.5 3.1 ± 0.7
Difference (Observed –Sum) 0.7 ± 0.7 0.3 ± 1.0
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-6.html
Difficult to reconcile with the regional AVISO chart above when there is areas of no change or fall.
Also from AR4: 5.5.4.1 Steric Sea Level Changes
For the recent years (1993–2003), the geographic distribution of observed sea level trends (Figure 5.15a) shows correlation with the spatial patterns of thermosteric sea level change (Figure 5.15b). This suggests that at least part of the non-uniform pattern of sea level rise observed in the altimeter data over the past decade can be attributed to changes in the ocean’s thermal structure, which is itself driven by surface heating effects and ocean circulation.
# # #
>”driven by surface heating effects”
The only surface heating effect is solar modulated by cloudiness, aerosols, and humidity but the IPCC’s wording provides sufficient vagueness to leave the door open for the notion of radiative GHG forcing. But that concept bypasses the physics of the AO interface i.e. a bogus notion. This was pointed out, but to no avail, by Dr Roy Clark in his EPA submission, see:
‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2’ http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf
Refer: The Air-Ocean Interface, pages 1 – 7
“The ‘clear sky’ upper limit for the CO2 induced increase in evaporation is below the
measurement uncertainty bounds. Long term averages of surface air temperatures are ~2 C
below the corresponding ocean surface temperatures.20 This means that there is usually no direct
heating of the ocean by the atmosphere, as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The latent heat of evaporation is not released until the water condenses, which is generally at an
altitude above 1 km. It is therefore impossible for an increase in downward atmospheric LWIR
flux of 1.7 W.m-2 to heat the ocean. The increase in flux is converted by the ocean surface into
an insignificant change in evaporation rate. This is buried in the noise of wind induced
fluctuations in evaporation and changes in LWIR flux caused by variations in aerosols, clouds
and near surface humidity.” (page 6)
Figure 3: Ocean layer solar heating model results (page 7) [The sun heats the ocean]
And page 12: Radiative Forcing
“Most of the large scale climate models used to predict global warming ignore the physics of
energy transfer at the Earth’s surface and use an approach known as radiative forcing.10, 23-26”
I would add that climate models introduce TOO MUCH heat into the ocean by the radiative forcing approach as graphed here:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/argo/argo-0-700m-v-models-sept-2013-update.png
>”the IPCC’s wording provides sufficient vagueness to leave the door open for the notion of radiative GHG forcing.”
And elsewhere their speculative “air-sea fluxes” also implies sensible heat transfer from air to sea along with radiative forcing although they don’t elaborate (either or both, who knows?). By elaborate I mean with physics, evidence, citations etc, there is none of that.
Theoretically possible in the right conditions where air is warmer than water and no wind (e.g. the tropics) but negligible in terms of the energy required to account for ocean heat accumulation compared to solar flux and hardly an ongoing, common, known phenomenon – it it even does actually occur.
>”I see now calls for the 2 C target to be abandoned and other metrics substituted, e.g. ocean heat possibly.”
A wit at WUWT suggested – “the number of yellow butterflies”.
Thanks Richard for the erudite explanation and the broader context.
I still suspect that a January start date and a May end date may amplify changes in the chart. However I take the point that tropical thermosteric impacts rather than polar impacts are the major component of any change. Not really surprising when considering the angle of incidence of the sun. Which would suggests that the rate of rise of sea level will revert to the long term trend over time.
>”I take the point that tropical thermosteric impacts rather than polar impacts are the major component of any change.”
>”Not really surprising when considering the angle of incidence of the sun”
No, not surprising to thinking folks Hemi. Except the IPCC downplays solar action in favour of GHG forcing – even for SLR and ocean heat. Much more on this in a follow on comment above re AR4: 5.5.4.1 Steric Sea Level Changes :
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/08/co2-is-climate-pygmy-water-rules-weather/#comment-1077879
Solar vs GHG radiative forcing of ocean. Solar wins, US EPA says “talk to the hand”, IPCC says “Umm, can’t be solar because that’s not our mandate. We think air-sea fluxes and GHG radiative forcing” contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Went way off-topic in a Rutherglen thread at JoNova, ended up on CO2, again:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/10/missing-heat-not-in-deep-oceans-but-found-in-missing-data-in-upper-ocean/#comment-1587078
Basically addressing the claim that aCO2 is the big player in atmospheric CO2 rise. Not necessarily:
From IPCC AR5 WGI Fig 6.1. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg
Outgassing from oceans, 78.4 GtC/yr. Respiration etc from land 118.7 GtC/yr. say 120.
Cumulative GtC change of Atm and inflows from base year 2010
Year, Atm, Anth, Ocean, Land
2011, 3.78, 9.47, 78.4, 120
2012, 8.42,19.17, 156.8, 240
2013,14.06,29.07, 235.2, 360
Significant 3 yr inflows to Atm (GtC):
360 Land => Atm
235.2 Ocean => Atm
595.2 L+O => Atm
29.07 Anth => Atm
624.27 L+O+A => Atm
The Atm residual was 14.06. Therefore the 3 yr flow out of the atmosphere was:
609.4 Atm => L+O
203 GtC/yr
Photosynthesis is about 123 GtC/yr. Ocean uptake 80 GtC.
203 GtC Atm => L+O
So in summary,
235 Ocean => Atm
360 Veg => Atm
595 Nature => Atm
29 Anth => Atm
624 Nat+Anth => Atm
L+O+A – (L+O + Atm) = 0
624 – (609 + 14) = 0
609 accounted for by photosynthesis and ocean uptake (369 + 240).
Anthro is 0.046 of the gross flow to the atmosphere (29/624) – a bit player.
>”Went way off-topic in a Rutherglen thread at JoNova, ended up on CO2″
No, actually in an ocean heat thread this time.