|
|
Post by ratty on Jul 7, 2021 0:10:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 7, 2021 0:22:26 GMT
The thesis, step by step ... with supporting data. The tropical and sub-tropical oceans are largely heated by the sun. Largely visible and UV solar inputs in the central-eastern Pacific. SSTA anomalies for the tropical Pacific between 130E & 80W show the trends and macro ENSO events between 1979 and 2021. Major change in frequency between solar cycles 21–22 and 23-24 ( Chart 1). The Troposphere is largely heated by the oceans via evaporation in the central-eastern Pacific. UAH Lower Troposphere temperature anomalies (global & tropics) show a distinct, lagged relationship to ENSO events ( Chart 2). There is a net global troposphere increase of about 0.5 to 0.6 C between 1979 and 2021. This occurs in three distinct steps following major El Ninos. Twenty-five month centered running averages of both heat measures reproduce the related step increases in both the SSTA and the UAH measures ( Chart 3). This does not preclude other factors. Missouri, you say….. “UAH Lower Troposphere temperature anomalies (global & tropics) show a distinct, lagged relationship to ENSO events (Chart 2). There is a net global troposphere increase of about 0.5 to 0.6 C between 1979 and 2021. This occurs in three distinct steps following major El Ninos.”
You didn’t actually say it, but I believe you are concluding that the temperature increase is due to the El Ninos since they were driving the “steps”.
Here’s my assessment. Let’s say there was a church that needed money for a project and 2 members volunteered to help. The first day they each brought a dollar and put it in the collection basket. The pastor checks the basket and notes there are 2 dollars.
The second day, one of the donors puts another dollar in the basket. The second donor comes to the church and takes a dollar out. The pastor checks the basket and notes there are still 2 dollars.
The next day the donor who took his dollar back now puts it back in the basket. The other donor puts another dollar in. There are now 4 dollars in the basket which the pastor is happy to see.
The fourth day the stingy donor takes his dollar back. The other adds a dollar. After 4 days there are 4 dollars in the basket all from one donor.
The net result is that one donor donates nothing even though he can be observed putting money in the basket. The other donor is the one who supplies the money.
If only ENSO is involved, there will be El Ninos and La Ninas but their net effect on global temperatures in the long run will be near zero. ENSO giveth and ENSO taketh away. There are La Ninas with their negative temperature anomalies in addition to El Ninos It’s hard to expect a lot when ENSO is just the result of wind changing directions. It is not a product of outside heat coming in from the sun to add to the earth's heat cache.
If the global temperature is steadily increasing over a lengthy period of time I believe one should look beyond ENSO even though the step-ups in temperature coincide with El Ninos. OK. Here is a question. Lacking an external heat source, does the tropical ocean simply cool to the temperature of the overlying atmosphere? Heat released by the oceans to the atmosphere through evapaporation is largely on a one-way journey back to space. ENSO doesn't generate heat. It's merely the process whereby cooler eastern water moves westward (under strong tradewind conditions), and periodically returns eastward in a warmer state (as the tradewinds die down and gravity waves take over). What provides the heat if not the sun? Some small geothermal contribution is always there, but I've only run into one geologist that believes that geothermal is a primary heat source for strong western Pacific warming. |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jul 7, 2021 3:00:00 GMT
Good summary Duwayne.
Again the El Nino's and La Nina's are just an oscillation. the background is the trend.
Potentially and this is often claimed the frequency of each oscillation can change thus stepping the temperatures up or down.
If you look at the long trend you can see past the "noise" and see the "trends". repeat "trends" LIA and recent warming tend to support the view that CO2 can exist as an impact but maybe as a small player. As we head into the next La Nina and it looks to be loading and early, things will fall a bit. Even if all the lift in temperatures since 1950 is driven by CO2, unlikely, we are fine on this planet and I say that as a parent.
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jul 7, 2021 14:06:16 GMT
Missouriboy, you ask …. “Here is a question. Lacking an external heat source, does the tropical ocean simply cool to the temperature of the overlying atmosphere?”
Are you saying the tropical ocean doesn’t have an external heat source or are you asking what would happen if the tropical ocean didn’t have an external heat source?
The tropical ocean doesn’t lack a heat (energy) source. The sun provides heat. The tropical ocean receives long wave radiation from greenhouse gases. The air above may be a net supplier based upon temperatures. There are other smaller supplies. |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 7, 2021 17:22:45 GMT
Missouriboy, you ask …. “Here is a question. Lacking an external heat source, does the tropical ocean simply cool to the temperature of the overlying atmosphere?”
Are you saying the tropical ocean doesn’t have an external heat source or are you asking what would happen if the tropical ocean didn’t have an external heat source?
The tropical ocean doesn’t lack a heat (energy) source. The sun provides heat. The tropical ocean receives long wave radiation from greenhouse gases. The air above may be a net supplier based upon temperatures. There are other smaller supplies. Please correct me where I get this wrong Duwyane. Greenhouse gases directing outgoing LWR back to an oceans surface, considering most of our planets surface is water, likely originated from an ocean. LWR also has weak penetration into water. Above I surmise returning LWR is unlikely to warm an ocean as it has less energy then when it left the ocean having interacted with another molecule and can't interact with subsurface. Uv penetrates deep into the ocean. Large variances are conceivable through cloud cover etc. And I'd guess the atmosphere would balance, colder, around ocean temps. The amount of energy held in the ocean is practically limitless compared to the energy in the atmosphere. Plus there's the whole specific heat thing. If the sun turned off the atmosphere would lose its heat in days or less I'd think. The oceans might take decades with deep circulation going on etc (I'm obviously not accounting for the total breakdown of weather patterns etc 'should' the sun turn off....) |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jul 7, 2021 23:37:59 GMT
Missouriboy, you ask …. “Here is a question. Lacking an external heat source, does the tropical ocean simply cool to the temperature of the overlying atmosphere?”
Are you saying the tropical ocean doesn’t have an external heat source or are you asking what would happen if the tropical ocean didn’t have an external heat source?
The tropical ocean doesn’t lack a heat (energy) source. The sun provides heat. The tropical ocean receives long wave radiation from greenhouse gases. The air above may be a net supplier based upon temperatures. There are other smaller supplies. Please correct me where I get this wrong Duwyane. Greenhouse gases directing outgoing LWR back to an oceans surface, considering most of our planets surface is water, likely originated from an ocean. LWR also has weak penetration into water. Above I surmise returning LWR is unlikely to warm an ocean as it has less energy then when it left the ocean having interacted with another molecule and can't interact with subsurface. Uv penetrates deep into the ocean. Large variances are conceivable through cloud cover etc. And I'd guess the atmosphere would balance, colder, around ocean temps. The amount of energy held in the ocean is practically limitless compared to the energy in the atmosphere. Plus there's the whole specific heat thing. If the sun turned off the atmosphere would lose its heat in days or less I'd think. The oceans might take decades with deep circulation going on etc (I'm obviously not accounting for the total breakdown of weather patterns etc 'should' the sun turn off....) Nitpicking aside, the only item which I would really question is whether “the atmosphere would lose its heat in days or less” if the sun were turned off.
Above the atmosphere is a vacuum. The atmosphere won’t lose its heat to space through convection or conduction.
Sunlight for the most part passes right through the atmosphere to the earth’s surface. The atmosphere’s heat source for the most part is the earth’s surface via conduction, convection and upward radiation. The atmosphere is heated from the bottom.
If the sun went blank, I would think the atmospheric temperature would fall somewhat in line with the earth’s surface temperature.
Note that the north and south poles receive no sunshine for weeks at a time and their temperatures still are far higher than the marker used by scientists, absolute zero which ultimately would be pretty close to earth’s temperature if the sun quit shining. |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jul 8, 2021 0:52:33 GMT
No Stephan Boltzmann would indicate it drops fast. think of night time as an example typical drop 20C in 12hours it will slow but the cold side of the slower rotating planets show that it falls quite fast.
As the upper atmosphere cools the cold air will drop and fall will continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Jul 8, 2021 3:51:51 GMT
Lacking an external heat source.... I say with no external heat source - aka old sol - everybody will need longer underwear
The Earth's atmosphere has some capacity to hold in heat but not much of one. A relatively simple calculation would show that the Earth's surface temperature would drop by a factor of two about every two months if the Sun were shut off. The current mean temperature of the Earth's surface is about 300 Kelvin (K). This means in two months the temperature would drop to 150K, and 75K in four months. To compare, the freezing point of water is 273K. So basically it'd get too cold for us humans within just a few weeks. Some bacteria seem to be capable of surviving at extremely cold temperatures in space, so there would probably still be some limited bacterial life left on Earth. But anything else would die pretty quickly (even the rats  . We could probably survive if we went deep underground where the Earth's internal heat is higher or if we built totally isolated habitation domes, but at the moment I don't think we're capable of something like that on any appreciable scales.
|
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 8, 2021 5:17:19 GMT
After surface temps rose last week, they're now showing more of a typical nina wave effect blue.  |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 8, 2021 15:06:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jul 8, 2021 15:23:20 GMT
I'm interested in Astro's comments on the current ENSO data. He has steadfastly predicted 2021-22 entering deep Nina phase with punishing resulting cold. He's joined the new forum, so hopefully he'll post soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jul 8, 2021 17:58:22 GMT
I say with no external heat source - aka old sol - everybody will need longer underwear
The Earth's atmosphere has some capacity to hold in heat but not much of one. A relatively simple calculation would show that the Earth's surface temperature would drop by a factor of two about every two months if the Sun were shut off. The current mean temperature of the Earth's surface is about 300 Kelvin (K). This means in two months the temperature would drop to 150K, and 75K in four months. To compare, the freezing point of water is 273K. So basically it'd get too cold for us humans within just a few weeks. Some bacteria seem to be capable of surviving at extremely cold temperatures in space, so there would probably still be some limited bacterial life left on Earth. But anything else would die pretty quickly (even the rats . We could probably survive if we went deep underground where the Earth's internal heat is higher or if we built totally isolated habitation domes, but at the moment I don't think we're capable of something like that on any appreciable scales.
Code, if you scroll up 4 or 5 posts to your original post quoted here, somehow or another it shows a reference in the boxed in quotes area to a July 6 7:39 post from me which says the earth is lacking an external energy source. That thought didn't come from me on July 6 or anytime.
One thing I have found is that if you don't take care to scroll all the yay down when you start your reply to a quote, some of the quote may be omitted.
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jul 8, 2021 18:16:45 GMT
No Stephan Boltzmann would indicate it drops fast. think of night time as an example typical drop 20C in 12hours it will slow but the cold side of the slower rotating planets show that it falls quite fast. As the upper atmosphere cools the cold air will drop and fall will continue. First, let's make sure we don't have a semantics issue. In the science world heat is measured relative to absolute zero. Without a heat source the earth will over time lose its heat and approach absolute zero. Acid says he thinks the atmosphere will lose its heat in days. You are agreeing with that because of your knowledge of Stephan Boltzmann. Do I have it right? |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 8, 2021 18:32:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Jul 8, 2021 19:10:42 GMT
Continued drought in upper Great Plains. 😪
|
|
.
