Stephen wilde comments

  • Stephen Wilde says:

October 7, 2010 at 12:18 am

“Energy will only escape faster if there’s more energy available to begin with. I did read the formula somewhere that it takes some 4x the energy to maintain a heat of double? Correct me if I’m wrong.”

That only applies to simple radiative transfers.

What we have here is a solar induced change in the speed of the hydrological cycle as the level of solar variability alters the temperature of the stratosphere and thus the intensity of the inversion at the tropopause.

That results in changes of upward energy flux from surface to stratosphere partly independent of radiative processes but of course the faster upward flux from surface to tropopause does place more energy at the tropopause so that from there upward the radiative flux has more energy to play with as per your comment.

As per my hypothesis the relevant other warming is the oceans surface temperatures and not CO2. The entire climate change phenomenon is a result of interplay between bottom up oceanic forcing and top down solar forcing and if CO2 has any effect at all then it will only be an unmeasurable miniscule change to the speed of the hydrological cycle with a miniscule shift of the jets due to faster evaporation at the surface from more downward directed IR.

That is why the poleward shift of the jets during a period of active sun was always inconsistent with AGW theory. AGW theory in requiring a slowdown of energy transfer from troposphere to stratosphere would require more equatorward jets and a slower hydrological cycle which does not happen. The models reflect that poleward shift but have no means of recognising it as a sign of change in the speed of upward energy transfer because they do not accurately model clouds, convection and the effect of the phase changes of water on a global basis. A critical omission as it now turns out because logic then leads to a change in the sign of the solar effect on the atmosphere being necessary. Just as Dr. Haigh has now discovered with actual measurements.

  • Stephen Wilde says:

October 7, 2010 at 12:21 am

“The 3-year study found something that can only get its significance in a much bigger context. Any conclusions would be premature.”

The most relevant ‘cycle’ for us is that 500/1000 year one from MWP to LIA to date. Indiviudual solar cycles are not so significant.

Taking those longer time scales then of course we do have adequate long term data for the proposed solar effect. Once one reverses the sign of the solar effect on upward energy transfer rates then the whole thing slots into place provided one then adds the oceans as an independent countervailing force.

Over very long periods the whole thing does even out but if one then takes into account the changing phasing between solar and oceanic effects then one needs to see a couple of glacial/interglacial cycles to see the entire process

Filed under: In other online forums — by Richard Holle @ 12:18 pm on October 7, 2010

Comments

There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment