[John Mason]

Been rather busy of late: I hope this series makes useful reading/reference

http://www.skeptical...-science-1.html

http://www.skeptical...-science-2.html

http://www.skeptical...-science-3.html

Cheers - John

[ldavidcooke]

John Mason, on 11 May 2012 - 07:56, said:

Been rather busy of late: I hope this series makes useful reading/reference

http://www.skeptical...-science-1.html

http://www.skeptical...-science-2.html

http://www.skeptical...-science-3.html

Cheers - John

Hey John,

Well, you have certainly restated clearly what we know of ground radiation of IR back through the air column into space. Hence, a reduction of nearly 1/3 of radiated energy now reaches the equatorial Mesosphere with only a 1/3 increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

The problem, most of that "interference" of ground radiation is due to additional water vapor. Also, it is not clear that the additional water vapor is due to either surface heating or a dramatic change in synoptic patterns. Matter of fact, the change in synoptic patterns appears to be multifold. Certainly CO2 plays a part; however, so do natural surface factors, ie: biologic changes, aerosols and UV/Ozone.

However, the biggest issue is a case of misinformation. Ground radiation is not the only means of heat transportation in our atmosphere. We also have the additional pathway of advection. It is a case in which vertical emission of radiational energy is delayed resulting in the horizontal migration of equatorial heat towards the Poles. This delayed heat follows a circulous route or spiral drawing large meanders in both the ITCZ and hemispheric Jet Streams along with it.

This advection is likely responsible for the greatest share of the synoptic changes; which also, BTW, explains why heating and cooling patterns in the historical glacierial and warm periods, have regional rather then hemispherical characteristics. Tied in with this is the combination of changes in the atmospheric components, we have changes in the high energy solar insolation related to an increase in UV energy caused by a loss of 1/2 -2/3 of Stratospheric Ozone.

The heating potential of UV energy is inversally proportional to its wave length, in short, for every 1 phase of 15um of IR energy we have @28peaks of 365nm energy, resulting at the ToA a nearly 5 times greater input and roughly a 2/3 greater warming potential then IR at an equivalent peak to peak. The difference is UV is nearly 20 times more potent, as ionizing energy, below 200nm, were it not for oxygen and ozone. Hence, for 30 watts/m^2 of contribution of CO2 to the warming of the Earths surface, 20 watts are the result of UV at a mix of 420 Dobson Units of Stratospheric Ozone protection and 250ppm of CO2. Drop the Stratospheric Ozone to 130 Dobson Units and increase CO2 to 375ppm and you get a change in both TSI and radiational IR retention in the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia....ar_Spectrum.png

This additional UV energy does two things, harms surface organisms in the ocean (generating increased levels of methane and air/ocean sulfides) and boosts the surface heating, (though limited to the first fathom overall), resulting in greater sublimation of surface ice and an increase in evaporation. The CO2 boost increases the atmosphers water vapor capacity.

Hence, Global Climate Change! Add in synoptic changes due to advection and we have our current observed, (not modeled), climatic changes. Is it AGW, yes; but, not how scienctific explanations have been portrayed in the press. Matter of fact, many science organizations on the web seem to not be able to explain it very well either... Why?

[John Mason]

ldavidcooke, on 11 May 2012 - 12:12, said:

Hey John,
Is it AGW, yes; but, not how scienctific explanations have been portrayed in the press. Matter of fact, many science organizations on the web seem to not be able to explain it very well either... Why?

You'll need to wait until 2025 for part 4!! Interesting points about ozone though. I'll make a few enquiries.

Cheers - John

[ldavidcooke]

Hey John,

You might also do a few inquiries wrt advection to the Poles as well. Reaction to my RC post nearly 1 ya wrt advection as a potent heat transport, got me Bore-Holed. 6 months later they are embracing the concept. It certainly resolves the sensitivity issue.

Its kind of like Andy's bucket/tub, pull partially up on the stopper lever and outflow drops. Causing the tub to fill a bit more till it hits the "over flow" drain. The real question is the size of the "overflow" drain, at some point it may be overcome. I guess it depends on how fast surface Ozone gets transported to the Stratosphere. Go to 650 DU and its likely the CO2 increase is a mute point, at least till marine volcanoes emit high levels of Chlorine (HCl) gas...

(Curious, look at the K-T dinos and their bone re-calcification structures. Not sure; but, I suspect the silicosis or calcium carbonate "cottage cheese" redistribution which we accepted as air pollution (dust)/drought may be a marker of a different process... (Now wouldn't that be special...) Also, handles the decline in life on land before the 6km bomb... Hmmm, if chlorine (HCl) was the issue, the best survivors would be ocean going, tree and swamp dwellers... I wonder how much chlorine was released in association with the formation of the Atlantic... :-Ί)

(Sometimes this gets so boring, not an original thinker in the bunch, or so it seems. Those who would be original thinkers waste their time with fringe non-effects... Maybe the application of Occums razor is too fine a slice... (Certainly the design of the TV was a bit more complicated. As is the concept of Relativity... ;-))

[John Mason]

I don't really have the time to read RC, Dave, but surely asking "has advection been taken into account in the GCMs?" instead of asserting that it has not (my question to you being "how do you know advection has not been taken into account in GCMs?) would not result in censure? Last time I looked down the bore-hole I didn't spot your posts but lots of stuff by well-known serial trolls - mind you there are a lot of posts in there!

On advection again, it is not a new process but with specific respect to the position of the jet we are admittedly data-poor: much of what we know about its meanderings are from the age of modern observations. Maybe this does make factoring it in extremely difficult?

Cheers - John

[ldavidcooke]

Hey John,

What got me sent down was my reaction to a RC posters dislike of the concept, not the concept itself. (In truth the model makers had not considered it before and when confronted decided to attack rather then admit possible error.)

As to the concept of advection, concur; however, if you track cutoff lows and blocking highs they have a trendline proportional to the GAT trendline. Primarily you can track any stagnant Barometric anomalie in the record. Here in the US that goes back over 100 years at Weather Offices, Ports and Old Life Saving/Coastal Watch Stations. (Remember that Temperate zone anomalies are likely related to cross zonal flow. Hence, via historic records it is relatively easy to track a proxy for advection. (Especially as the Degrees of Freedom are so low.))

PS: BTW have you or any other of the non-skeptics tried trendlining RH or Specific Humidity values or Satellite Ozone values? (Note: Climate Audit got it wrong as usual, at >8km the warmer rising air from below has the same WV; but, twice the capacity, via IR warming, hence, lower relative humidity. A portion of the additional WV does migrate above 8km; however, most is moving @ an avg. of 60km/hr for the Jet Stream.)

[ldavidcooke]

Hey John,

BTW, as a heads-up wrt the changes in air pressure trends, you have a nearby expert. Dr. Nathan Gillett formerly at UEA, a member of the CRU, (currently Enviroment Canada, the equivalent to the US EPA/Dept. of Interior (maybe)) did a bit in 2005. I'm sure if asked nicely wrt trend analysis of both extremes and differential tracking he can easily demonstrate both the changes and the mechanism. (Since I have a skeptic bend it would be an unwelcome query coming from me.) The point will remain, I believe, that the changes in convection may be accounted for; however, the changes in advection and heat flow remain poorly addressed in the models.

When we look at the changes in clouds over the last 50 years, it is clear that a warmer atmosphere at around 4km up has reduced most cloud density as they form at a lower adiabatic pressure. Add in the warming influence at that height then we can increase the inversion cap and increase low altitude advection. This should have a influence on both the convection required to overcome the inversion layer and the average storm intensity. The issue starts to become one of where is the heating really coming from in both the atmosphere over 4km and the atmosphere below 950mb...

(John, maybe you are right that they have considered advection, here is an article ponting to a 2008 paper: http://www.canada.co...36-07119c3b45e2 On the other hand they really do not descrbe the mechanism or the model engine here: http://www.nature.co...ll/ngeo338.html .)

Here is a paper contrasting the Climate Audit upper atmosphere analysis: http://journals.amet.../2008JCLI2274.1
At the same time here is a link to a different set, pay particular attention to the last line in the abstract: http://onlinelibrary...42D1229F.d01t02
Here is a good example of the Ozone effect I had mentioned earlier: http://www.agu.org/p...7GL031238.shtml

[Conrad]

Hallo John

This is an incredibly good and informative 3 part series. Environment Canada reported that last winter was 3.6C warmer than average over most parts of the country. The Inuit who live in the Belcher Islands on the eastern edge of Hudson Bay report that whereas up there the sky used to usually be a deep blue, now it is more often cloudy.

By the way, Canada is now governed by a government of global warming deniers. One way they do this is to fire the scientists employed in doing this type of climate monitoring. They have also fired the scientists involved in monitoring atmospheric ozone for example. Basically Canadian climate and environment science has been gutted. Climate and environmental scientists still employed by the government are now forbidden to speak openly and whatever they have to say is filtered through public relations people who are basically employed to support the government line.The people of Canada are extremely sensitive to foreign opinion so it would be extremely helpful if climate scientists in the rest of the world would pay very close attention to what is presently happening in Canada and it would be very helpful if people from outside Canada would start speaking out with respect to what is happening over here.

[John Mason]

Conrad,

Thanks! WRT Canada, the message to their government is that much of the rest of the world is looking on open-mouthed with astonishment at their wilful ignorance/denial/whatever0-you-call-it.

Cheers - John