 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » THE FLAW IN ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING THEORY... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Last Post... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
THE FLAW IN ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING THEORY
By Stephen Wilde
My article on "Greenhouse Confusion" drew vigorous comments from those
who believe firmly that anthropogenic global warming (or rather
climate change) is a real and immediate threat.
www.rightsidenews.com/200808061642/energy-and-environment/the-flaw-in-anthropogenic-global-warming-theory-agw.html
It seems that additional infrared or long wave radiation is supposed
to have some property that makes it a threat. Thus we hear so much
about 'down welling' re- radiation from the atmosphere warming up the
planet dangerously because humanity is releasing a certain amount of
CO2 that would not otherwise be in the atmosphere.
1) The proposed process:
It seems that those who fear AGW (or at least some of them) do admit
that it is not realistic to expect a planetary atmosphere such as ours
to warm up oceans of water over the timescale required by AGW theory
because of the huge volume and density of that water and thus the heat
storage differentials. Water will cool air very effectively but the
heat energy drawn from the air makes virtually no difference to the
temperature of the water.
When I say heat storage I am aware that the heat energy is not
‘trapped’ in either atmosphere or ocean, merely that varying amounts
of solar heat energy are delayed in the process of transmission
through the ocean/atmosphere system. I explained that more fully in my
“Greenhouse Confusion Resolved” article.
I have previously explained how it is the oceans via "The Hot Water
Bottle Effect" that control the temperature of the atmosphere and not
the greenhouse effect so that if we are to get a warmer atmosphere we
have to first negate the cooling power of the oceans (and vice versa).
My contention is that warming up enough of the entire body of the
oceans would take millennia if it were possible at all and not just a
couple of decades as feared by some. Some idea of the relative scales
of "The Hot Water Bottle Effect" and "The Greenhouse Effect" is given
in the pictures at the head of this article but even there the larger
scale of THWBE is massively reduced.
To deal with the problem of getting the oceans to warm up a mechanism
has been proposed by Realclimate on this link:
Why Greenhouse Gases Heat The Ocean
They start by linking the increasing heat content in the oceans to the
observed increases in GHG’s, especially CO2, in the atmosphere.
However they leave out the fact that solar activity has been very high
for the past 50 years in relation to the past 400 years. They also
fail to mention that sunlight can travel tens of METRES into the water
and is thus a powerful warming agent compared to the single MILLIMETRE
penetration of down welling infrared radiation from the atmosphere.
They also fail to mention that although the incoming solar radiation
only varies by a couple of Watts per square metre over a solar cycle
the apparent smallness of the variation is a result of the small area
subdivision and not any indication of a small total energy variation
when one takes into account the number of square metres on the Earth’s
surface. They also fail to appreciate that because solar radiation was
at a historic high during the period in question it likely follows
that there was a net solar warming of the oceans throughout the period
even though the rate of solar radiation was on average stable during
that period.
However for present purposes I will ignore all that and take at face
value the assertion that increased CO2 caused the oceanic warming.
They have to explain how infrared radiation reflected back downwards
from extra greenhouse gases would, over time, add a significant amount
of extra heat to the oceans. The definition of ‘significant’ is
important. If it takes a thousand years or more then there is no
current threat. By the time we get an impact from anthropogenic
climate change then humanity’s problems will have been solved or our
civilisation will have been destroyed by other problems such as
pollution, resource depletion or overpopulation.
If the AGW threat is to be taken seriously it has to warm up much of
the entire body of all the world’s oceans in two or three decades.
The idea seems to be that the extra returning infrared radiation has
to work it’s evil through the top millimetre of ocean surface. That is
not a misprint. Infrared radiation can only affect the top millimetre.
In contrast solar energy penetrates up to 100 metres so one can see
which is going to be the major influence on oceanic temperatures as
far as input is concerned.
It is proposed by Realclimate that the extra down welling infrared
radiation warms up that top single millimetre layer (they call it the
ocean ‘skin’) a tiny bit and apparently that is enough to disrupt the
worldwide flow of heat energy from ocean to air to space with the
result that the oceans release incoming solar energy more slowly so
that heat builds up in the oceans.
Where is the evidence that that it is true in the real world?
2)Problems for the Realclimate theory (and it is only a theory).
i) It is well known that the oceans have warmed since 1960 and that
since then the sun has been at a historic high in activity. It is also
accepted that warmer oceans hold less CO2. Those three facts suggest
that most if not all of the observed increase in CO2 is natural unless
it can be shown that for some reason warming oceans can nevertheless
act as a carbon sink rather than a carbon source. I know that attempts
have been carried out to do that and anyone interested will no doubt
find such attempts elsewhere on the Realclimate site. I am not
convinced. Warmer oceans overall hold less CO2 overall and no
mechanism has been found to falsify that proposition. Thus we really
do not know what proportion of the CO2 increase is caused by human
activity. I have seen suggestions that it was all of it, one third of
it and one tenth of it. None of those speculations are capable of
proof at present.
Furthermore the entire biosphere is energised by extra warmth and the
whole carbon cycle speeds up with extra warmth from sun or oceans
without any need to invoke human involvement at all. Such increased
biosphere activity mops up any increase in CO2 and might well be
enough, over time, to absorb much if not all of our production of
extra CO2.
All I have seen from the AGW lobby on this issue is a denial that the
sun had any effect during the past 50 years because it's output was
'stable'. I pointed out in my article entitled 'The Death Blow to AGW'
that stability is no indication of an absence of accumulating solar
energy in the Earth's system if the sun was at a historically high
level of activity as it then was. There is therefore substantial
evidence that the CO2 increase observed has been mostly natural. That
is supported by a very recent observation that the rate of rise in CO2
seems to have been affected by the recent cooling of the Pacific. It
is too early to be sure but that needs watching because it may reveal
a stronger than expected correlation with oceanic temperatures rather
than human output of CO2.
ii) Can the top millimetre of a vast ocean really have any effect on
the overall net movement of heat energy from ocean to air to space?
Realclimate theorises that it could affect the temperature gradient
from the body of the ocean to the surface 'skin' and thereby slow down
heat loss from the oceans to build up more heat in the entire system
but do we know that the effect is significant in the real world or is
it just a desperate guess intended to try and prop up the AGW theory?
The oceans are not motionless. They are in constant and often violent
movement. Surely it is much more likely that any effect on the surface
'skin' will be broken up by all that movement?
Much more likely that the surface 'skin' will be almost immediately
incorporated into the main body of water and the ocean to atmosphere
flow continues as if nothing had happened. The use of the word ‘skin’
is misleading because that implies some sort of physical barrier
whereas oceanic movement and mixing will ensure that there is none
iii) So, what if all that extra re-radiation warms up the surface
‘skin’ of the ocean without immediate mixing but only to a depth of
one millimetre. What really happens next? It seems obvious to me that
one has also increased the temperature differential between ocean
surface and the atmosphere. Such a change will accelerate the flow of
heat energy from the ocean surface to the atmosphere and offset any
warming of the ‘skin’ from any extra CO2 caused by humans.
Effectively, the water surface is sufficiently impermeable to infra
red radiation to simply bounce or reflect it back up into the
atmosphere again without any significant effect on the temperature of
the water or the net natural flow of energy from ocean to air to space
(and it is always in that one way direction only). Realclimate only
mentions half the equation. They ignore the increased ocean/atmosphere
differential.
iv) The downward infrared flux from the atmosphere to land surface or
ocean is primarily natural so that the near surface temperature
already accommodates that natural component. The size of any extra
human component is entirely speculative because we currently have no
way of knowing what proportion of the CO2 increase is human as against
natural. The figures you will hear depend entirely on the prejudice of
the person supplying them. Furthermore natural global temperature
swings alter the natural background greenhouse effect constantly as
water vapour held in the atmosphere increases and decreases naturally
with changing global temperatures. Those water vapour swings have
changed the power of the greenhouse effect many times over the
millennia, far more than CO2 is expected to, yet no tipping point has
ever been crossed.
v) The scale of natural variation. The recent La Nina episode combined
with a quiet sun has almost wiped out the warming observed over the
past 20 years in a period of less than 2 years. Admittedly we may
bounce back but at this moment it is not looking likely. For myself I
would like to see a cessation of the current cooling because cooling
is so much more dangerous than warming. Various predictions have been
made by AGW supporters that we will bounce back to warming in 2010,
2015 or 2020. The Hadley Centre predicted 2010 not long ago and I
wonder if they would now like to adjust that suggestion given that
they have less than 18 months to go.
For all the above reasons the Realclimate theory is simply not
sufficiently plausible and I see no credible means as to how AGW can
warm up the oceans fast enough to be a threat in the foreseeable
future. Given that human emissions of CO2 were not very substantial
until after WW2 I cannot see how human GHGs could have contributed
quickly enough or significantly enough to the observed warming of the
early and late 20th Century.
3) The more likely truth.
Evaporation and Condensation as a global heat energy removal system
combined with planetary weather systems that involve convection,
winds, clouds and precipitation. Those combined processes constitute
the hole in the heart of all climate theory because thus far it has
not been possible to collate the actual real world numbers for all
those processes in order to make meaningful use of all of them in any
models.
Those processes must be critical but are not mentioned by Realclimate
at all. The conversion of a water molecule to a water vapour molecule
involves a huge energy transfer from water to air so evaporation alone
is a substantial factor.
Evaporation cools the water substantially (yes it cools it- so much
for the water getting warmer!) due to the Latent Heat of Evaporation
but does not significantly warm the air because the heat energy is
held by the water vapour (hence 'latent'). The air with it's water
vapour is quickly taken away by winds and convection and rises to
higher levels in the atmosphere. When it reaches a level high enough
to cool it to it's 'dew point' the water vapour condenses out in the
form of clouds and rainfall and the Latent Heat of Condensation is
released into the upper part of the atmosphere to accelerate the
escape of radiant energy to space.
The process of such evaporation and then condensation together with
those other weather processes is an express route to get heat energy
from ocean to surface to atmosphere to space and the bigger the
temperature differential between ocean surface, atmosphere and space
the faster they must all work to move the atmosphere back towards a
temperature equilibrium. So even if increased infrared radiation
caused by man does try to warm the surface of the oceans those
processes will increase immediately and neutralise at least the
majority of any extra warming from additional down welling
anthropogenic infrared radiation. We have the benefit of a variable
natural atmospheric heat pump. A negative feedback process of
considerable power not mentioned or quantified at all in AGW theory.
Indeed enhanced evaporation of water vapour into the atmosphere is
conventionally regarded as an aggravating factor because water vapour
is itself a greenhouse gas (see below about that).
If extra human CO2 does warm the top millimetre of the ocean a little
before the extra down welling infrared radiation is bounced back up by
the almost impermeable ocean surface then the air immediately above
the ocean surface will promptly warm up. Warmer air holds more water
vapour so that warmer air will extract more vapour from the ocean
surface thereby cooling the ocean surface.. The Realclimate theory
thus fails and the temperature gradient from the body of the ocean to
the top millimetre and then the atmosphere is maintained at or near to
the natural level with the extra warmth being ejected from the system
by the enhanced evaporation/condensation and weather processes.
Any evaporation removes from the ocean much more heat energy than one
would expect because of the large energy value of the Latent Heat of
Evaporation. That property of water could be enough to enable the
weather processes overall to stabilise the whole process and is one of
the reasons why oceanic temperature is, always has been and always
will be the primary atmospheric temperature driver and will always
reduce or possibly neutralise any effect of an enhanced greenhouse
effect in the absence of really huge changes caused by astronomic or
geological processes.
I do know that water vapour itself being a greenhouse gas additional
evaporation is often said to ADD to the warming effect and not reduce
it as I have suggested. However that ignores the condensation part of
the cycle and all the aspects of weather. In reality the initial
evaporation removes heat energy from the ocean. A short while later,
maybe a week or so, the subsequent condensation working with weather
processes injects the extra heat energy into a higher level of the
atmosphere (often very much higher) from where it can be more rapidly
radiated to space.
All the descriptions of the evaporative process that I have seen so
far concern themselves just with the evaporative and precipitation
aspects as part of the hydrological cycle and ignore the condensation
part in so far as it releases heat energy higher in the atmosphere for
faster radiation to space. For present purposes we should be
considering the entire weather system as a global heat energy
transport and disposal system. The faster it works the more heat
energy is removed. Unfortunately science has not yet got an adequate
grip on the relevant mechanisms, their quantities or the extent of the
influence of weather on the whole process and it seems to me that
until that part of the climate system is far better understood and
quantified we should not be making speculations as to how other
changes such as more CO2 will affect the climate system overall.
If it is correct, as I have read, that water vapour taken into the
atmosphere takes about a week to return as precipitation then that
implies that on average the entire atmosphere turns over 25 times in
every year. The process amounts to a heat pump with a frequency cycle
of 25 full cycles per annum producing a continuous flow of outgoing
heat energy. Now that is a mechanism one cannot overlook. Even a small
change in such a mechanism would dwarf by far any changes from most
other sources and it appears that more warmth just accelerates it
because of the increased temperature differential between surface and
space. AGW would self cancel by accelerating the heat disposal
mechanism virtually instantly.
We need to look at the evaporative/condensation process combined with
ALL aspects of global weather as an ever changing global heat energy
removal system and not just as a part of the hydrological cycle as
usually set out in models and schematic diagrams. Furthermore I often
see the evaporative process set out on it’s own as an averaged figure
for the whole planetary surface whereas the land and ocean surfaces
would have very different characteristics. Additionally the oceanic
warming and cooling cycles introduce constant, rapid and substantial
changes not yet reflected in any models and which invalidate any
averaged global estimates of the planetary heat budget. The behaviour
and influence of weather as part of the global heat energy
redistribution system is ignored or reduced to meaningless averages
because we have so little numerical information about it and I believe
that is where our current theories and projections fail.
That could explain the resolute failure of real world observations to
match model expectations and the failure to appear of the anticipated
tropospheric 'hot spot' that was expected as a marker for AGW.
Global weather processes involving evaporation and condensation and
the heat transfers involved in those processes could be sufficient to
redistribute and eject from the system the relatively small amount of
extra warmth from an enhanced greenhouse effect as fast as it forms.
In contrast those systems cannot adjust quickly enough to cope with
the truly huge changes involved in solar and oceanic variations so it
is those which will control the overall system whatever humanity does
or does not do. However it does seem that over enough time even those
larger variations do get neutralised by the system much of the time
otherwise Earth would not be as stable as it seems to be between major
ice age scale climate shifts.
The truth is that our influence is as nothing compared to natural
forces and if Realclimate and others wish to be believed and trusted
then they have much work to do and should not expect to be able to
spread panic and dismay worldwide on the basis of the inadequate
evidence currently available.
Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the
Royal Meteorological Society since 1968.
Copyright © 2008 Stephen Wilde |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Last Post... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
LINK REPAIRED
On Nov 5, 12:27 pm, Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
[quote]THE FLAW IN ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING THEORY
By Stephen Wilde
My article on "Greenhouse Confusion" drew vigorous comments from those
who believe firmly that anthropogenic global warming (or rather
climate change) is a real and immediate threat.
www.rightsidenews.com/200808061642/energy-and-environment/the-flaw-in-anthropogenic-global-warming-theory-agw.html
It seems that additional infrared or long wave radiation is supposed
to have some property that makes it a threat. Thus we hear so much
about 'down welling' re- radiation from the atmosphere warming up the
planet dangerously because humanity is releasing a certain amount of
CO2 that would not otherwise be in the atmosphere.
1) The proposed process:
It seems that those who fear AGW (or at least some of them) do admit
that it is not realistic to expect a planetary atmosphere such as ours
to warm up oceans of water over the timescale required by AGW theory
because of the huge volume and density of that water and thus the heat
storage differentials. Water will cool air very effectively but the
heat energy drawn from the air makes virtually no difference to the
temperature of the water.
When I say heat storage I am aware that the heat energy is not
‘trapped’ in either atmosphere or ocean, merely that varying amounts
of solar heat energy are delayed in the process of transmission
through the ocean/atmosphere system. I explained that more fully in my
“Greenhouse Confusion Resolved” article.
I have previously explained how it is the oceans via "The Hot Water
Bottle Effect" that control the temperature of the atmosphere and not
the greenhouse effect so that if we are to get a warmer atmosphere we
have to first negate the cooling power of the oceans (and vice versa).
My contention is that warming up enough of the entire body of the
oceans would take millennia if it were possible at all and not just a
couple of decades as feared by some. Some idea of the relative scales
of "The Hot Water Bottle Effect" and "The Greenhouse Effect" is given
in the pictures at the head of this article but even there the larger
scale of THWBE is massively reduced.
To deal with the problem of getting the oceans to warm up a mechanism
has been proposed by Realclimate on this link:
Why Greenhouse Gases Heat The Ocean
They start by linking the increasing heat content in the oceans to the
observed increases in GHG’s, especially CO2, in the atmosphere.
However they leave out the fact that solar activity has been very high
for the past 50 years in relation to the past 400 years. They also
fail to mention that sunlight can travel tens of METRES into the water
and is thus a powerful warming agent compared to the single MILLIMETRE
penetration of down welling infrared radiation from the atmosphere.
They also fail to mention that although the incoming solar radiation
only varies by a couple of Watts per square metre over a solar cycle
the apparent smallness of the variation is a result of the small area
subdivision and not any indication of a small total energy variation
when one takes into account the number of square metres on the Earth’s
surface. They also fail to appreciate that because solar radiation was
at a historic high during the period in question it likely follows
that there was a net solar warming of the oceans throughout the period
even though the rate of solar radiation was on average stable during
that period.
However for present purposes I will ignore all that and take at face
value the assertion that increased CO2 caused the oceanic warming.
They have to explain how infrared radiation reflected back downwards
from extra greenhouse gases would, over time, add a significant amount
of extra heat to the oceans. The definition of ‘significant’ is
important. If it takes a thousand years or more then there is no
current threat. By the time we get an impact from anthropogenic
climate change then humanity’s problems will have been solved or our
civilisation will have been destroyed by other problems such as
pollution, resource depletion or overpopulation.
If the AGW threat is to be taken seriously it has to warm up much of
the entire body of all the world’s oceans in two or three decades.
The idea seems to be that the extra returning infrared radiation has
to work it’s evil through the top millimetre of ocean surface. That is
not a misprint. Infrared radiation can only affect the top millimetre.
In contrast solar energy penetrates up to 100 metres so one can see
which is going to be the major influence on oceanic temperatures as
far as input is concerned.
It is proposed by Realclimate that the extra down welling infrared
radiation warms up that top single millimetre layer (they call it the
ocean ‘skin’) a tiny bit and apparently that is enough to disrupt the
worldwide flow of heat energy from ocean to air to space with the
result that the oceans release incoming solar energy more slowly so
that heat builds up in the oceans.
Where is the evidence that that it is true in the real world?
2)Problems for the Realclimate theory (and it is only a theory).
i) It is well known that the oceans have warmed since 1960 and that
since then the sun has been at a historic high in activity. It is also
accepted that warmer oceans hold less CO2. Those three facts suggest
that most if not all of the observed increase in CO2 is natural unless
it can be shown that for some reason warming oceans can nevertheless
act as a carbon sink rather than a carbon source. I know that attempts
have been carried out to do that and anyone interested will no doubt
find such attempts elsewhere on the Realclimate site. I am not
convinced. Warmer oceans overall hold less CO2 overall and no
mechanism has been found to falsify that proposition. Thus we really
do not know what proportion of the CO2 increase is caused by human
activity. I have seen suggestions that it was all of it, one third of
it and one tenth of it. None of those speculations are capable of
proof at present.
Furthermore the entire biosphere is energised by extra warmth and the
whole carbon cycle speeds up with extra warmth from sun or oceans
without any need to invoke human involvement at all. Such increased
biosphere activity mops up any increase in CO2 and might well be
enough, over time, to absorb much if not all of our production of
extra CO2.
All I have seen from the AGW lobby on this issue is a denial that the
sun had any effect during the past 50 years because it's output was
'stable'. I pointed out in my article entitled 'The Death Blow to AGW'
that stability is no indication of an absence of accumulating solar
energy in the Earth's system if the sun was at a historically high
level of activity as it then was. There is therefore substantial
evidence that the CO2 increase observed has been mostly natural. That
is supported by a very recent observation that the rate of rise in CO2
seems to have been affected by the recent cooling of the Pacific. It
is too early to be sure but that needs watching because it may reveal
a stronger than expected correlation with oceanic temperatures rather
than human output of CO2.
ii) Can the top millimetre of a vast ocean really have any effect on
the overall net movement of heat energy from ocean to air to space?
Realclimate theorises that it could affect the temperature gradient
from the body of the ocean to the surface 'skin' and thereby slow down
heat loss from the oceans to build up more heat in the entire system
but do we know that the effect is significant in the real world or is
it just a desperate guess intended to try and prop up the AGW theory?
The oceans are not motionless. They are in constant and often violent
movement. Surely it is much more likely that any effect on the surface
'skin' will be broken up by all that movement?
Much more likely that the surface 'skin' will be almost immediately
incorporated into the main body of water and the ocean to atmosphere
flow continues as if nothing had happened. The use of the word ‘skin’
is misleading because that implies some sort of physical barrier
whereas oceanic movement and mixing will ensure that there is none
iii) So, what if all that extra re-radiation warms up the surface
‘skin’ of the ocean without immediate mixing but only to a depth of
one millimetre. What really happens next? It seems obvious to me that
one has also increased the temperature differential between ocean
surface and the atmosphere. Such a change will accelerate the flow of
heat energy from the ocean surface to the atmosphere and offset any
warming of the ‘skin’ from any extra CO2 caused by humans.
Effectively, the water surface is sufficiently impermeable to infra
red radiation to simply bounce or reflect it back up into the
atmosphere again without any significant effect on the temperature of
the water or the net natural flow of energy from ocean to air to space
(and it is always in that one way direction only). Realclimate only
mentions half the equation. They ignore the increased ocean/atmosphere
differential.
iv) The downward infrared flux from the atmosphere to land surface or
ocean is primarily natural so that the near surface temperature
already accommodates that natural component. The size of any extra
human component is entirely speculative because we currently have no
way of knowing what proportion of the CO2 increase is human as against
natural. The figures you will hear depend entirely on the prejudice of
the person supplying them. Furthermore natural global temperature
swings alter the natural background greenhouse effect constantly as
water vapour held in the atmosphere increases and decreases naturally
with changing global temperatures. Those water vapour swings have
changed the power of the greenhouse effect many times over the
millennia, far more than CO2 is expected to, yet no tipping point has
ever been crossed.
v) The scale of natural variation. The recent La Nina episode combined
with a quiet sun has almost wiped out the warming observed over the
past 20 years in a period of less than 2 years. Admittedly we may
bounce back but at this moment it is not looking likely. For myself I
would like to see a cessation of the current cooling because cooling
is so much more dangerous than warming. Various predictions have been
made by AGW supporters that we will bounce back to warming in 2010,
2015 or 2020. The Hadley Centre predicted 2010 not long ago and I
wonder if they would now like to adjust that suggestion given that
they have less than 18 months to go.
For all the above reasons the Realclimate theory is simply not
sufficiently plausible and I see no credible means as to how AGW can
warm up the oceans fast enough to be a threat in the foreseeable
future. Given that human emissions of CO2 were not very substantial
until after WW2 I cannot see how human GHGs could have contributed
quickly enough or significantly enough to the observed warming of the
early and late 20th Century.
3) The more likely truth.
Evaporation and Condensation as a global heat energy removal system
combined with planetary weather systems that involve convection,
winds, clouds and precipitation. Those combined processes constitute
the hole in the heart of all climate theory because thus far it has
not been possible to collate the actual real world numbers for all
those processes in order to make meaningful use of all of them in any
models.
Those processes must be critical but are not mentioned by Realclimate
at all. The conversion of a water molecule to a water vapour molecule
involves a huge energy transfer from water to air so evaporation alone
is a substantial factor.
Evaporation cools the water substantially (yes it cools it- so much
for the water getting warmer!) due to the Latent Heat of Evaporation
but does not significantly warm the air because the heat energy is
held by the water vapour (hence 'latent'). The air with it's water
vapour is quickly taken away by winds and convection and rises to
higher levels in the atmosphere. When it reaches a level high enough
to cool it to it's 'dew point' the water vapour condenses out in the
form of clouds and rainfall and the Latent Heat of Condensation is
released into the upper part of the atmosphere to accelerate the
escape of radiant energy to space.
The process of such evaporation and then condensation together with
those other weather processes is an express route to get heat energy
from ocean to surface to atmosphere to space and the bigger the
temperature differential between ocean surface, atmosphere and space
the faster they must all work to move the atmosphere back towards a
temperature equilibrium. So even if increased infrared radiation
caused by man does try to warm the surface of the oceans those
processes will increase immediately and neutralise at least the
majority of any extra warming from additional down welling
anthropogenic infrared radiation. We have the benefit of a variable
natural atmospheric heat pump. A negative feedback process of
considerable power not mentioned or quantified at all in AGW theory.
Indeed enhanced evaporation of water vapour into the atmosphere is
conventionally regarded as an aggravating factor because water vapour
is itself a greenhouse gas (see below about that).
If extra human CO2 does warm the top millimetre of the ocean a little
before the extra down welling infrared radiation is bounced back up by
the almost impermeable ocean surface then the air immediately above
the ocean surface will promptly warm up. Warmer air holds more water
vapour so that warmer air will extract more vapour from the ocean
surface thereby cooling the ocean surface.. The Realclimate theory
thus fails and the temperature gradient from the body of the ocean to
the top millimetre and then the atmosphere is maintained at or near to
the natural level with the extra warmth being ejected from the system
by the enhanced evaporation/condensation and weather processes.
Any evaporation removes from the ocean much more heat energy than one
would expect because of the large energy value of the Latent Heat of
Evaporation. That property of water could be enough to enable the
weather processes overall to stabilise the whole process and is one of
the reasons why oceanic temperature is, always has been and always
will be the primary atmospheric temperature driver and will always
reduce or possibly neutralise any effect of an enhanced greenhouse
effect in the absence of really huge changes caused by astronomic or
geological processes.
I do know that water vapour itself being a greenhouse gas additional
evaporation is often said to ADD to the warming effect and not reduce
it as I have suggested. However that ignores the condensation part of
the cycle and all the aspects of weather. In reality the initial
evaporation removes heat energy from the ocean. A short while later,
maybe a week or so, the subsequent condensation working with weather
processes injects the extra heat energy into a higher level of the
atmosphere (often very much higher) from where it can be more rapidly
radiated to space.
All the descriptions of the evaporative process that I have seen so
far concern themselves just with the evaporative and precipitation
aspects as part of the hydrological cycle and ignore the condensation
part in so far as it releases heat energy higher in the atmosphere for
faster radiation to space. For present purposes we should be
considering the entire weather system as a global heat energy
transport and disposal system. The faster it works the more heat
energy is removed. Unfortunately science has not yet got an adequate
grip on the relevant mechanisms, their quantities or the extent of the
influence of weather on the whole process and it seems to me that
until that part of the climate system is far better understood and
quantified we should not be making speculations as to how other
changes such as more CO2 will affect the climate system overall.
If it is correct, as I have read, that water vapour taken into the
atmosphere takes about a week to return as precipitation then that
implies that on average the entire atmosphere turns over 25 times in
every year. The process amounts to a heat pump with a frequency cycle
of 25 full cycles per annum producing a continuous flow of outgoing
heat energy. Now that is a mechanism one cannot overlook. Even a small
change in such a mechanism would dwarf by far any changes from most
other sources and it appears that more warmth just accelerates it
because of the increased temperature differential between surface and
space. AGW would self cancel by accelerating the heat disposal
mechanism virtually instantly.
We need to look at the evaporative/condensation process combined with
ALL aspects of global weather as an ever changing global heat energy
removal system and not just as a part of the hydrological cycle as
usually set out in models and schematic diagrams. Furthermore I often
see the evaporative process set out on it’s own as an averaged figure
for the whole planetary surface whereas the land and ocean surfaces
would have very different characteristics. Additionally the oceanic
warming and cooling cycles introduce constant, rapid and substantial
changes not yet reflected in any models and which invalidate any
averaged global estimates of the planetary heat budget. The behaviour
and influence of weather as part of the global heat energy
redistribution system is ignored or reduced to meaningless averages
because we have so little numerical information about it and I believe
that is where our current theories and projections fail.
That could explain the resolute failure of real world observations to
match model expectations and the failure to appear of the anticipated
tropospheric 'hot spot' that was expected as a marker for AGW.
Global weather processes involving evaporation and condensation and
the heat transfers involved in those processes could be sufficient to
redistribute and eject from the system the relatively small amount of
extra warmth from an enhanced greenhouse effect as fast as it forms.
In contrast those systems cannot adjust quickly enough to cope with
the truly huge changes involved in solar and oceanic variations so it
is those which will control the overall system whatever humanity does
or does not do. However it does seem that over enough time even those
larger variations do get neutralised by the system much of the time
otherwise Earth would not be as stable as it seems to be between major
ice age scale climate shifts.
The truth is that our influence is as nothing compared to natural
forces and if Realclimate and others wish to be believed and trusted
then they have much work to do and should not expect to be able to
spread panic and dismay worldwide on the basis of the inadequate
evidence currently available.
Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the
Royal Meteorological Society since 1968.
Copyright © 2008 Stephen Wilde[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:42 am
|
|