Now while it is true that the time it takes to hit equilibriummay take some time, it will hit that equilibrium in a logarithmic fashion. This means that it will rather quickly approach the equlibrium, but as it approaches equilibrium, it will slow in meeting that equilibrium. This is basic physics here, so I have no ideal what these warmers are going on about.
Gary F,
I was just shoveling a bunch of record setting warm temps. I noticed how warm they were. It is funny how when you add 0.6 degrees to the raw temperature data, how you hit "record setting" years in the US that are strangely enough 0.6 degrees warmer than average. Just a coincidence, I am sure.
I really can't wait for the next 30 years. By then it is going to be snowing out and you warmers are going to tell us that it is 70 degrees with your "corrections". Actually that isn't fair is it. You have been artificially "correcting" the raw data up in a linear manner, to show your linear temperature trend, haven't you??? So in 30 years, water will freeze at 1 degree celsius. Thank goodness the "uncorrected" temp data is becoming harder to find. Maybe soon you will actually start "correcting" in an exponential fashion, otherwise how are you going to show an exponential increase in temps?
This what happens with uncorrected data???
http://climate.arm.ac.uk/averages.html
LOL.
One of the papers describing a lag on the SkepticalScience site is this one: http://www.bio.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/H...
That points to a minimum of 10 years lag. Obviously, I will never make a climate scientist because I don;t understand it. The "settled science"? says that the heating of the CO2 occurs at the speed of light so is quite fast. Those hot gases, conveniently, avoid all temperature sensors for about 10 years. That did not make sense.
They talk of the climate system's "thermal inertia". That is, a forcing is present but the heat is not stored for some time. They then go on to say say more heat comes in than goes out. This would seem to imply that the excess energy is stored immediately. What happened to the inertia?
Or perhaps we have to wait for the instant heat increase of the greenhouse gases to heat the oceans so that the oceans can then heat the air after a 10 year lag. But the air was hot 10 years ago?
If, on the other hand, the sun heats the oceans and that affects the atmosphere some time later than it starts to make sense. Except, that does not leave much of a role for the greenhouse gases.
The other way round it makes sense, sun heats ocean and the ocean releases CO2 because it has become warmer and so cannot hold as much.
It's a positive feedback loop that we would expect to have a complex polynomic relationship, likely a low grade exponential. As CO2 rises for natural reasons, the atmosphere retains more heat. A higher temperature means lower gas solubility in the oceans, so more dissolved CO2 escapes from the oceans. But also consider the increased amount of atmospheric CO2 would also increase the re-uptake of CO2 into the oceans. But concerning the lag, you're horribly disillusioned. The difference in temperature between shade and direct sunlight is the photons hitting you molecules and the off chance they hit head on, the kinetic energy is transferred to your body and produces heat. Basically you're equating some photons punching you in the face or not, to the ENTIRE volume of the atmosphere gaining or losing heat energy. That's like expecting a bullet to shoot through a mountain just because it can crack a stone.
CO2 from power plants and other sources take quite a while to mix in the general atmosphere, so if a ton of CO2 is generated on a given day, it may be years before it's anywhere close to being evenly distributed in the atmosphere. At this point we generate about 15ppm of CO2 gas every decade. In 1950 CO2 accumulation stood at 350ppm. In 1850 it stood at about 285ppm. Today we're very close to 400ppm. by 2050 it will be closer to 450ppm and rising. Those figures are averages...some parts of the planet measure less, and some are more. All we do know is that from year to year the 'average' keeps rising.
One thing to remember is that while CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, and overall more heat is now daily solar energy is retained than radiated into space most of the heat energy doesn't remain in the atmosphere. Heat tends to migrate from a warm environment to a colder environment. We see this is rising ocean temperatures and in melting surface sea ice and glacier ice at the lower levels. That's why atmospheric temperatures have risen only a degree or so over many decades. This situation is as real as it gets, but because it's slow moving in human terms it doesn't mean that there isn't an 'outcome' point moving toward us.
GaryF thinks C is an idiot. FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
The quick time lag is correct, as the heat trapping capability changes accordingly, but it doesn't mean much. The CO2 level itself is varying through the year, plus the levels will be different at different locations. And unlike with clouds, it is the average temperature that is changing. Also, the year to year changes in CO2 does not change the temperature very much, perhaps .05C at most, while the general variation in temperatures is much higher.
I'm not going to nitpick syntax and language, seeing as how (other than the select slurs I learned in H/S) I know nothing about Tagalog.
Firstly we need to define some commonly used terms.
Climate - "the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years" (dictionary.com).
Weather - "the state of the air and atmosphere at a particular time and place..." (merriam-webster.com).
So weather is happening right now; whereas climate is the summation of all the weather we have had over a much longer period. The clouds you are describing pertains to weather (i.e. clouds = no sun = reduction in temperature). CO2 emissions (along with other greenhouse gasses) effect the overall global climate.
All emissions must be accounted for in a "carbon balance"; (much like balancing your check book); when the input (into the atmosphere) exceeds the removal (into organisms, the ocean and in stone/soil), that is when change happens. But the change happens over time, not over night, if thats what you're implying. Climate systems are stable established pattern. These usually kept in check by positive feed back loops and geographic features.
What we see coming out of a tailpipe or smokestack is mostly water vapor, not CO2 (although the CO2 is present). Soot and large particle emitted can "seed" clouds by adding condensation nuclei. But once again this is "weather" we are observing. The overall change in climate is less apparent unless you're tracking the long term conditions, like the IPCC or NOAA.
And we have routinely exceeded the IPCC's climate projections. So it is happening faster than we had predicted. However I doubt that's what you're asking. I hope this helped you understand.
There really isn't much of a lag CO2 goes up and temperature goes up. Much of the CO2 and heat are going into the oceans, but the combo is what raises in global temps are based on If you are thinking of the 800 year lag, that is total bullsh*t I would say it is a matter of a few days at most but it is the temp that lags behind CO2
The Sun has almost nothing to do with CO2 and temps
There is a lag, because of the high heat capacity of the ocean. One would expect the lag due to greenhouse gases be close to those of the Sun, which is about 10 years.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikat...
James
< it's been 17 years>
It's been 17 years since the 1980s. 17 years is a typical period for how much data we need to say that we have a trend, any trend, at a 95% confidence level. That doesn't mean that there has been a change in trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Raisin Caine
I thought that you were smarter than to use such straw man arguments. Or has Billy hacked into your account.
As weather monitoring technology improves, weather stations will post temperatures closer to the actual temperature, until they all post the right temperature.
I hope they don't get too good though. A senior in an inner city apartment that does not have air conditioning feels the uncorrected temperature, not the corrected temperature.
Radiative transfer theory dictates that the atmosphere should respond quickly to any change in greenhouse gasses. The stratosphere responded very quickly to both El-Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo very quickly "meaning (1-2 years)" to large reductions of ozone. The graph below clearly shows that after the sulfuric acid clouds dissipated the temperature in the stratosphere dropped rapidly below the pre volcanic incident levels. The reduction of ozone caused less scatter of UV and allowed it to penetrate the troposphere and subsequently heated the surface. Of course if your an AGW whacko, you believe the cooling observed was because of CO2.
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/vi...
You still refuse to differentiate between heat and temperature, I see, just as the Raisin refuses to notice that the CO2 content and the consequent heat retention continues to rise..
As I am blocked along with many others I decided to re ask this question.
Well according to their science there should be no lag, as in when clouds come over you can feel a reduction in temperature straight away, so an increase in CO2 should act as quick, radiation blocked either coming in or going out should have no lag.
Apparently to AGW cultists it's an emergency because some academic programmed a computer and printed out a graph in some basement somewhere that says so.
But in the real world with CO2 levels rising and the earth getting greener and the 17 year pause....oh the heresy of that eco thought crime. Maybe some lunatic fringe AGW cultist cracked pot will make a PSA of some teacher pressing a button to murder me and blow my entrails up all over a classroom full of little kids.
>>so an increase in CO2 should act as quick, radiation blocked either coming in or going out should have no lag.<<
Damn, I had no idea you were so stupid.
By "their" science, I assume you mean real science by real scientists and not the massage therapy science of WUTW.
No one (no real scientist) has eve claimed to know that particular value although we all know that there is a complex, non-linear time-dependent relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
Since there is no specific answer to your question even for things as singular as volcanoes, why would you think that there should be for atmospheric CO2?
======
james --
It's been 17 years of record-setting warm temperatures. We do not need excuses - but then, we're not stupid liars, either.
