Here is a list of links to good papers:
A paper on Ice-albedo feedback in the Northern Hemisphere
during the Last Glacial Maximum
http://kiwi.atmos.colostate.edu/pubs/Burt_Randall_Otto-Bliesner_submitted.pdf
A paper on climate sensitivity estimates
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/Schneider_etal_ClimDyn_2006.pdf
Link to Paper being studied:
http://www.schmanck.de/0707.1161v4.pdf
Friday, January 1, 2010
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Change in Heat Content
It is normal to think of Global Warming in terms of rising air temperatures. However, the earth is composed of many things that can absorb heat energy. Warming of the oceans and melting ice and permafrost are some other ways that the earth can warm. Interestingly, there is not as much coverage on all the other parts of the earth as they don’t have as much of an impact on our daily lives. The IPCC Technical Summary has some good technical information of where and how the globe is warming.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...ar4-wg1-ts.pdf
Figure TS.15 on page 47 list the changes of earths energy content (heating) in terms of 10^22 joules. By far the largest component of the earths energy system are the Oceans. Not just the surface of the oceans, but their entire depth. Ice (Glaciers, Greenland, Antarctica and Sea Ice), the Continents and the Atmosphere are the other main components. It is a simple matter to convert these values to percentages as shown the following:
Percent of Heating (1961-2003)
Oceans 93%
Ice 3%
Continents 2%
Atmosphere 2%
TOTAL 100%
Notice that while the atmosphere has warmed, both the oceans and ice have absorbed more heat. To put this into perspective, the rest of the earth has absorbed 50 times as much heat as the atmosphere!
Some skeptics like to suggest that global warming is due to changes in the earth’s oceans, implying that the atmosphere has warmed because less heat is being absorbed by the oceans. However, as can be seen from above, just the opposite is true. That is every major component of the earth is warming with the oceans absorbing the bulk of it.
It’s also interesting to consider how the oceans warm. Warm water is less dense and tends to float on the surface, while the deepest water is the coldest. This make it difficult to transport heat energy into the depths of the oceans and theoretically it would be possible for a stagnant condition to occur. That is the surface waters could warm significantly without heating the depths. Normally heat is transported to the depths from mixing thru wind and wave action along with the meridional overturning circulation. However, long term records of the relative strengths of these processes are sparse and computer models are all over the place with predictions. Of course, the science will gradually advance to better understand the coming changes, but there could be some surprises along the way.
Physics of Global Warming
The temperature of the earth is governed by physics, namely the Stefan-Boltzmann law which states that the amount of energy radiated is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.
ERad = SB * Temp^4.
Or Temp = (ERad/SB)^0.25
Where:
ERad is the amount of energy radiated to outer space in watts/meter^2
SB is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is 5.670 x 10-8 Watt/meter^2 Kelvin^2
Temp is the absolute temperature (kelvin) at which the radiation is emitted.
For Earth at equilibrium, the amount of energy radiated should equal the amount of energy received from the sun. However, the Earth is not at equilibrium and is actually receiving slightly more energy that it is emitting. This is why the earth is warming. If the earth were in equilibrium, then the amount of energy being radiated would equal the amount received from the sun. That is ERad would be a constant and a function of average Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and albedo (a).
ERad = TSI*(1- a)/4
Where:
TSI is 1365.5 Watts/meter^2
a is albedo which is 0.3 for Earth
So, ERad is approximately 237 Watts/meter^2.
Putting this altogether yields an Earth Temperature of 254°K (-18°C or -1°F). This temperature corresponds to the atmospheres temperature at about 5 kilometers above the surface (16,000ft). It is at this elevation where the earth's atmosphere can radiate to outer space approximately the same amount of energy it receives from the sun. Temperatures at lower elevations are generally much warmer due to the greenhouse effect, which makes it difficult for the atmosphere to radiate infrared energy at lower elevations.
Greenhouse gases inhibit radiation to such an extent, that convection of heat is the dominate mechanism for transporting energy from the surface to elevations where it can be effectively radiated to outer space. The earth radiates primarly in the infrared which is the predominate wavelength at 254°K and nfrared is invisible to humans.
If there were no greenhouse gases, then earths surface temperature would become so cold that the oceans would freeze. This in turn would raise the earths albedo and reflect more energy directly to outer space. In turn the Stefan-Boltzmann law would drive the temperature even colder and we would end up living on a giant snowball.However, the earths atmosphere does have greenhouse gases. In particular CO2, which warms the atmosphere enough so that water can exist as a vapor. Since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, together these greenhouse gases have warmed earths surface to about 287°K (14°C or 57°F).
While CO2 may comprise just a small fraction of the atmosphere, it behaves like a dye in that it absorbs infrared energy very well.Finally, the earths temperature is not in equilibrium. The earth is absorbing about 1.5 watt/meter^2 more energy than it is emitting. This in turn is warming the atmosphere, oceans, land, snow and ice. By far, most of the extra heat is going into the oceans. The oceans have a tremendous capacity for storing heat and it will take a long time before they reach equilibrium. When equilibrium is eventually reached, there will be more evaporation of water and the atmosphere will become thicker from increased amount of water vapor. This will result in warmer surface temperatures and a higher elevation at which the earth can radiate to outer space.
I’m not the first person to figure this all out. In fact, an intergovernmental panel of climate change scientist (IPCC) have been studying this subject intently for well over 20 years. The IPCC has carefully reviewed many scientific studies and have published their latest assessment here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...ar4-wg1-ts.pdf
What has been concluded (TS.4.5 on page 64) is that the earths temperature is sensitive to changes of CO2 concentration. In particular, equilibrium change is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C per doubling of CO2, with a best estimate value of about 3°C.
ERad = SB * Temp^4.
Or Temp = (ERad/SB)^0.25
Where:
ERad is the amount of energy radiated to outer space in watts/meter^2
SB is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is 5.670 x 10-8 Watt/meter^2 Kelvin^2
Temp is the absolute temperature (kelvin) at which the radiation is emitted.
For Earth at equilibrium, the amount of energy radiated should equal the amount of energy received from the sun. However, the Earth is not at equilibrium and is actually receiving slightly more energy that it is emitting. This is why the earth is warming. If the earth were in equilibrium, then the amount of energy being radiated would equal the amount received from the sun. That is ERad would be a constant and a function of average Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and albedo (a).
ERad = TSI*(1- a)/4
Where:
TSI is 1365.5 Watts/meter^2
a is albedo which is 0.3 for Earth
So, ERad is approximately 237 Watts/meter^2.
Putting this altogether yields an Earth Temperature of 254°K (-18°C or -1°F). This temperature corresponds to the atmospheres temperature at about 5 kilometers above the surface (16,000ft). It is at this elevation where the earth's atmosphere can radiate to outer space approximately the same amount of energy it receives from the sun. Temperatures at lower elevations are generally much warmer due to the greenhouse effect, which makes it difficult for the atmosphere to radiate infrared energy at lower elevations.
Greenhouse gases inhibit radiation to such an extent, that convection of heat is the dominate mechanism for transporting energy from the surface to elevations where it can be effectively radiated to outer space. The earth radiates primarly in the infrared which is the predominate wavelength at 254°K and nfrared is invisible to humans.
If there were no greenhouse gases, then earths surface temperature would become so cold that the oceans would freeze. This in turn would raise the earths albedo and reflect more energy directly to outer space. In turn the Stefan-Boltzmann law would drive the temperature even colder and we would end up living on a giant snowball.However, the earths atmosphere does have greenhouse gases. In particular CO2, which warms the atmosphere enough so that water can exist as a vapor. Since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, together these greenhouse gases have warmed earths surface to about 287°K (14°C or 57°F).
While CO2 may comprise just a small fraction of the atmosphere, it behaves like a dye in that it absorbs infrared energy very well.Finally, the earths temperature is not in equilibrium. The earth is absorbing about 1.5 watt/meter^2 more energy than it is emitting. This in turn is warming the atmosphere, oceans, land, snow and ice. By far, most of the extra heat is going into the oceans. The oceans have a tremendous capacity for storing heat and it will take a long time before they reach equilibrium. When equilibrium is eventually reached, there will be more evaporation of water and the atmosphere will become thicker from increased amount of water vapor. This will result in warmer surface temperatures and a higher elevation at which the earth can radiate to outer space.
I’m not the first person to figure this all out. In fact, an intergovernmental panel of climate change scientist (IPCC) have been studying this subject intently for well over 20 years. The IPCC has carefully reviewed many scientific studies and have published their latest assessment here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...ar4-wg1-ts.pdf
What has been concluded (TS.4.5 on page 64) is that the earths temperature is sensitive to changes of CO2 concentration. In particular, equilibrium change is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C per doubling of CO2, with a best estimate value of about 3°C.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Historic Solar Irradiance
The intensity of the sun varies over time. Two differant researches have developed a record from the year 843 to 1961; Yang and Bard. As can be seen, they agree fairly well, but diverge slightly during the oldest time period.
Since 1978, there are precision instruments on satellites that can measure the changes that occur over time. The 11 year sunspot cycle is evident by these measurements. A long term project of mine is to build a simplified climate model that includes solar variation, CO2, CH4, areosals levels and El Nino/Southern Oscillation to crudely model averge global tempertures.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Sugarcane and Climate Change
25 million years ago, a new type of plant evolved on earth. It started using a photosynthesis process called C4, which is distinct and more efficient than other plants. Examples of this type of plant include sugarcane (pictured above), maize, sorghum and switchgrass. These plants grow very quickly and are more efficient at using CO2 while being resistant to droughts and high temperatures. They are concentrated in the tropics (within latitudes of 45°). Many herbivores can not easily digest this new type of plant and it gradually spread throughout the earth. By about 5 million years ago, C4 plants became ecologically significant and started reducing CO2 levels.
Other things were happening at the same time. Ithmus of Panama formed and the Himilayian Mountians grew higher. Hard to say which was dominate, but the Earth gradually cooled and this ushered in a new epoch on earth with periodic ice ages. The ice ages have not been permanent as periodic variations of earths orbit around the sun have allowed the ice to melt and warm periods to return for brief (10K year) periods. At first, the ice ages occurred every 41K years. But as CO2 levels continued to fall, the ice ages lasted longer and the warm periods occurred less often.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Happy Perihelion
Not quite yet I know, but as everyone else is wishing happy New Years, it seems to be the season to wish good will.
On or around the 4th of January we (earth that is) will be closest to the sun. That the calendar year just started is only a coincidence. Due to orbital variations, our date of closest approach varies a little bit over time. That is the time/season of perihelion will gradually shift over thousands of years. Earth's axis is slowly but continuously changing, with a cycle of approximately 25,765 years.
Currently the distance between the earth and sun varies between 98.3– 101.7% of its average distance. At its average distance sunlight amounts to about 1365.5 watts/m^2. Being at perihelion, the sun’s intensity is greater of course. However, since intensity varies by the inverse square of the distance, its intensity is now about 1412.3 watts/m^2. That is a 6.7% increase over where it was just last summer!
Ever wonder how our climate would be if perihelion occurred in June instead of January? It won’t happen for another 12,000 years or so, but when it does Northern hemisphere summers would be warmer and winters colder. Just the opposite will happen in the southern hemisphere and there is another difference too. It not just that most of us live in the north, but there is much more land than the south.
The extra land of the north provides a big platform for seasonal snow, and snow feeds back into the climate through the change in albedo. That is the amount of sunlight that is absorbed. Less snow means more sunlight is absorbed and more warmth. More snow leads to less absorption and cooler temperatures.
On or around the 4th of January we (earth that is) will be closest to the sun. That the calendar year just started is only a coincidence. Due to orbital variations, our date of closest approach varies a little bit over time. That is the time/season of perihelion will gradually shift over thousands of years. Earth's axis is slowly but continuously changing, with a cycle of approximately 25,765 years.
Currently the distance between the earth and sun varies between 98.3– 101.7% of its average distance. At its average distance sunlight amounts to about 1365.5 watts/m^2. Being at perihelion, the sun’s intensity is greater of course. However, since intensity varies by the inverse square of the distance, its intensity is now about 1412.3 watts/m^2. That is a 6.7% increase over where it was just last summer!
Ever wonder how our climate would be if perihelion occurred in June instead of January? It won’t happen for another 12,000 years or so, but when it does Northern hemisphere summers would be warmer and winters colder. Just the opposite will happen in the southern hemisphere and there is another difference too. It not just that most of us live in the north, but there is much more land than the south.
The extra land of the north provides a big platform for seasonal snow, and snow feeds back into the climate through the change in albedo. That is the amount of sunlight that is absorbed. Less snow means more sunlight is absorbed and more warmth. More snow leads to less absorption and cooler temperatures.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Global Temperature Trends
This chart is from data supplied by the United States National Climate Data Center out of Asheville, North Carolina. It is composed from monthly data from land and ocean temperature measurements. The sharp spikes in the blue line correspond to El Nino (warm) and La Nino (cold) oscillations that periodically occur in the Pacific Ocean. El Nino/La Nina areas are just part of the Pacific Ocean, so it is rather surprising that they can shift global temperatures as much as they do. However, as can be seen on the chart, the most dramatic shifts last only a few months.
The red line is a rolling 12 month average to help smooth out the spikes. Notice, how even after averaging the data for 12 months there are still obvious oscillations that last about 4 years. This illustrates that besides the dramatic spikes, there are also longer term El Nino/La Nina trends that cycle about every 4 years.
To smooth out these longer term cycles, a 5 year running average is constructed in the green line. It smoothes out the El Nino/ La Nina oscillations fairly well. Coincidentally, the 5 year running average for 1979 was nearly equal to the average for the century.
In 1991, a large volcanic erruption occured at Mt Pinatubo. This cooled the earth for a few years and the cooling trend is almost noticeable, but complicated by the El Nino/ La Nina osciallaitons. Never the less, the long term warming trend over the last 30 years is clearly visible with only minor shifts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
