Today I want to talk some more about the land and ocean chart data that has been discussed in recent letters. Please go back to CL #1273 and reopen the links that were provided for the charts.
MENTAL STATUS – stress, depression, anxiety, low self esteem, depression and stress and most of the times the inability of the man to perform well, when it comes to intercourse. 5mg cialis online Medical Conditions There are numerous medical devensec.com viagra cialis online conditions which have been found playing the culprits of erectile dysfunction. It was pitch dark and look at this now buy levitra wholesale cold as we scrambled up Mount Batur at 4.30am. Yes, products with nicotine may cause poor blood flow, aggravate prostate edema, cause urination disorder, sildenafil india or even induce acute urinary retention.
.
When you look at the land temperature chart some questions should come to mind:
Why have temperatures risen all the way past 1.6C?
More specifically, where did all the heat come from to produce those temperatures?
What accounts for the fast pace of those increases?
Does that pace tell us anything we should be interested in knowing more about?
What should we make of the much slower pace and lower results over the ocean surfaces?
.
I can think of only one way to explain these things. It has to do with making a proper estimate for climate sensitivity and with putting Earth’s energy imbalance into the right perspective, which is needed in order to resolve some of the misunderstanding that surrounds the various ways to describe what is meant by sensitivity.
.
The only way I can think of to explain the rising heat over the continents is through the greenhouse gas effect, complemented to some extent by albedo changes that come along as part of a normal package. That exact same total package also adds energy to ocean surfaces everywhere, with about the same average amount of incoming radiation of the longwave type, but with a distinctly different outcome during any period when that type of radiation is growing, which we know is happening at present. Oceans clearly are processing this increasing amount of energy in a different way from land. One way to describe that difference is to say that maybe land surfaces are more sensitive to increased energy inputs than ocean surfaces, so what does that mean?
.
It means that when land surfaces warm up they quickly re-radiate most of the acquired energy back into the atmosphere, where it can eventually move on and out to space. Some of the energy can get tucked away in the soil, or by melting ice, but essentially the system stays nearly in balance. With oceans that is now how it works. Much more of the energy increase gets tucked away, because it can be quickly grabbed and shuttled into the depths below. That leaves less energy to be re-radiated to the atmosphere and from there to space, causing an imbalance that is further marked by a true warming up of an “inside” part of the Earth, namely the deep oceans.
.
The warming up of the oceans at depth will continue on its own pace, and so will the surface, which is likely to slowly increase that pace until eventually it can re-radiate as much energy that moves all the way out to space as the amount that it collects coming in, plus re-emitting whatever amount is determined by the greenhouse gas effect that exists at that time. That slow reaction, which could take a hundred years to complete, constitutes much of the “inertia” factor that scientists talk about, and is further expressed in the concept of “equilibrium” sensitivity, which is not realized until all of the incoming radiation from space is re-radiated from the outer atmosphere instead of being partially trapped somewhere. The deep oceans, and ice too, have a special ability to trap heat, upon being activated in the manner now observed, that supplements the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat heat by adding greenhouse gases, and does so on a remarkably large scale, which is simply not available to energy captured on land surfaces.
.
If land surfaces and the air directly above them are warming up in a manner almost completely sensitive to greenhouse gas effects, putting them largely in a state of equilibrium right now, what does that tell us about the proper measure of Earth’s temperature to a doubling of the CO2 level? From the looks of the readings on the land temperature chart, if the Earth were nothing but land and expressed these same readings it could not possibly be anything less than 3.5C for a full double, starting at 280 ppm. The presence of oceans should not change that number, but can keep it from being realized for a lengthy period of time, maybe an extra century, as the lower parts of oceans (which right now are very cold) find a way to interfere.
.
If the true sensitivity reading is 3.5C, that means every time the CO2 level rises 10.4%, from any starting point, the stage is set for another one-half degree of average warming once the oceans reach equilibrium. That being the case, the one sure way to limit the current path of increase to less than 1.5C is to reduce the CO2 level to 376, the marker for the third 10.4% increase starting from 280. The next marker, assigned to a 2.0C increase, is 415, more manageable but still difficult.
Carl (As you can see, I am still trying to find just the right words for expressing these ideas!)