Back to those temperature charts. What are they telling us? The charts I recommend come from James Hansen’s website, where they are only found in the form of PDF. These two are well-matched because they both use the same base period, one whose numbers are reasonably close to matching the actual preindustrial era, and they are consistent in the sense that the global average figures are at all times weighted about 70% in favor of ocean air temperatures and 30% land, as explained in CL #1273.
The reason behind not being able to have firm erections http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/11/13/the-power-of-a-song/ viagra the pill in him. The insulin is your body hormone that allows your blood sugar levels and buy sildenafil viagra prevent the damage to your organ. The ED will be cured in cheap with the help of buy online viagra . This can happen with both men women. * High Cholesterol LevelsAlthough high cholesterol level is levitra fast delivery http://deeprootsmag.org/item8105.html not disease but if you have it you are more likely to land up into the hospital bed.
–Global average: go to http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/–click on “PDF” below the chart.
–Land /ocean: go to http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/ –scroll down just a bit, then click on “with 1880-1920 base period.”
.
Here is how I believe the graphics shown should be interpreted:
1. The data expressed from measurements taken before 1950 is less reliable than that which followed, with the latter steadily improving, but is still useful as a general guide. The anomaly trends that developed after the 1970s are very real, and they are unnatural. They occurred at a time when greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere were accelerating upward, not just CO2 but the whole package of gases and albedo changes. Some albedo changes show decreases, as in the Arctic, while others of the aerosol type show increases, with no real agreement on the full measure, but altogether they serve to supplement the whole CO2 forcing package. (We should always think of there being such a package of forcings, actually originating as feedbacks, which surround CO2 and enhance its effects in all circumstances, creating a total net forcing that is then amplified by about two times due to natural changes in the greenhouse effect of the water vapor feedback. The size of the full package is to some extent naturally consistent from era to era but is always subject to distortions, plenty of which have come about in the current era.)
.
2. The growing spread between air temperatures over land surfaces and those over the oceans demands a thorough explanation. I believe that explanation is located in the fact that ocean water temperatures at depth have been rising at a significant rate during this same forty-year period, as I have previously discussed. The Earth is otherwise known to be retaining heat somewhere simply because of a calculated radiation imbalance, at a rate which, if there were no such imbalance, should have allowed global average air temperatures to rise by another half degree or a bit more. I cannot say much about how that is all calculated, but there is plenty of literature on the subject from scientists like Hansen and Trenberth and many others.
.
3. The radiation imbalance will at some point surely be corrected, but I don’t see how that can happen in full until the total heat content of the oceans at depth stops increasing, because that is where the bulk of the imbalance, making up some 93% of global warming, is said to be going. That in turn seems unlikely to happen as long as ocean surfaces keep passing some of the heat energy downward that they collect as energy from above. When should that stop happening? One idea is that it won’t happen until the temperature gradients across the oceans become reconfigured or rebalanced in such a way that no additional inputs from the surface can be accepted without equal amounts being returned. This process in its entirety is where the concept of inertia comes from. Inertia is not easy to think about or to explain in detail, and even some scientists would rather not try, which leads me to the next point.
.
4. The concept of inertia is not well developed in the new IPCC report, or in the Paris Agreement, or much of the surrounding literature, but maybe it should be. I believe that until the inertia process, as described above, has ended the ocean surface temperatures are going to continue rising until they catch up with those on land, and those on land are going to keep rising as long as the CO2 package keeps going up. If we stop the CO2 forcing completely then land temperatures should quickly stop rising, but not oceans. When ocean surfaces finally stop sending energy into the depths (because the depths will no longer on balance accept it) they will by necessity be sending more of their collected energy into the atmosphere, and thence to space, subject still to the greenhouse impediment, and that will correct the overall radiation imbalance. (Remember that the numbers we see on the charts are anomalies, departures from the norm, and do not show the relationship between actual average land and sea surface temperatures, just the change in that relationship.)
.
5. On land, there is very little in the way of an inertia problem, thus the surface temperature stays nearly current with changes in the level of energy input. That makes the land chart a good indicator of climate sensitivity as related to the current CO2 forcing package, which, based on today’s increased CO2 level, must therefore be at least 3.5C for a full doubling. The ocean surface response is much slower, but there is a known pathway for it to catch up. (That pathway could in fact be temporarily disrupted if a huge flotilla of icebergs entered the seas, a distinct possibility not to be wished for.)
.
6. This reading of 3.5 for sensitivity purposely avoids making inferences into what may happen hundreds of years later on due to possible changes in the Earth system. I am only interested in getting the clearest possible picture of the current reality, and thus knowing the true magnitude of changes that would be required to fix it in a reasonably acceptable way. To reach a permanent 1.5C limit CO2 must be cut below 376 ppm.
Carl
.
4. The concept of inertia is not well developed in the new IPCC report, or in the Paris Agreement, or much of the surrounding literature, but maybe it should be. I believe that until the inertia process, as described above, has ended the ocean surface temperatures are going to continue rising until they catch up with those on land, and those on land are going to keep rising as long as the CO2 package keeps going up. If we stop the CO2 forcing completely then land temperatures should quickly stop rising, but not oceans. When ocean surfaces finally stop sending energy into the depths (because the depths will no longer on balance accept it) they will by necessity be sending more of their collected energy into the atmosphere, and thence to space, subject still to the greenhouse impediment, and that will correct the overall radiation imbalance. (Remember that the numbers we see on the charts are anomalies, departures from the norm, and do not show the relationship between actual average land and sea surface temperatures, just the change in that relationship.)
.
5. On land, there is very little in the way of an inertia problem, thus the surface temperature stays nearly current with changes in the level of energy input. That makes the land chart a good indicator of climate sensitivity as related to the current CO2 forcing package, which, based on today’s increased CO2 level, must therefore be at least 3.5C for a full doubling. The ocean surface response is much slower, but there is a known pathway for it to catch up. (That pathway could in fact be temporarily disrupted if a huge flotilla of icebergs entered the seas, a distinct possibility not to be wished for.)
.
6. This reading of 3.5 for sensitivity purposely avoids making inferences into what may happen hundreds of years later on due to possible changes in the Earth system. I am only interested in getting the clearest possible picture of the current reality, and thus knowing the true magnitude of changes that would be required to fix it in a reasonably acceptable way. To reach a permanent 1.5C limit CO2 must be cut below 376 ppm.
Carl