A lot of blogs have 1000′s of articles and even though there is a search field it’s a bit like a book without a table of contents.
So this page is a roadmap if you are new. Think of it as an incomplete table of contents (it doesn’t include every post).
CO2 – an 8-part series on CO2 as well as a few other related articles
Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect - a 12-part series on how radiation interacts with the atmosphere
Atmospheric Circulation - some basics of the large scale circulation of the atmosphere
Back Radiation - the often misunderstood subject of radiation emitted by the atmosphere
Confusion over the Basics - science basics and alternative theories explained, including:
Statistics and Climate – an introduction by a statistics novice
General Climate Models
Models, On – and Off – the Catwalk – Part One – understanding GCMs – general circulation models/global climate models
Models, On – and Off – the Catwalk – Part Two – taking a look at a real model, the supermodel Cici
Models, On – and Off – the Catwalk – Part Three - an introductory look at chaos in climate
The Earth’s Energy Budget – Part One – a few climate basics.
The Earth’s Energy Budget – Part Two – the important concept of energy balance at top of atmosphere.
The Earth’s Energy Budget – Part Three - how the earth’s climate system actually radiates away energy and how this changes with more “greenhouse” gases.
The Earth’s Energy Budget – Part Four – Albedo – the reflection of solar radiation, what causes it and how it has been changing
Theory and Experiment – Atmospheric Radiation – demonstrating, by way of experimental match with the theory, why the current “standard” theory about radiation in the atmosphere is correct
Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part One – more on the basic theory and measurements
Here Comes the Sun – finally, the sun as compared to CO2 for the “first order effect”
Predictability? With a Pinch of Salt please.. Part One – what drives ocean currents – ocean salinity and temperature – and why it presents a challenge of predicting future climate
Stratospheric Cooling – the predictions of the cooling stratosphere as a result of increased “greenhouse” gases
The Strange Case of Stratospheric Water Vapor, Non-linearities and Groceries – water vapor in the stratosphere, and how a tiny amount can have an unexpected effect
Those Hazy Skeptics at the IPCC – what the IPCC says about aerosols.
Understanding the Flaw – the open letter from Petr Chylek, a distinguished climate scientist, to the climate community.
Feedback
Clouds and Water Vapor – Part One – climate feedback especially considering Raval and Ramanathan (1989) reviewing clouds and water vapor from the ERBE data
Clouds and Water Vapor – Part Two – some basic concepts about water vapor
Clouds and Water Vapor – Part One – Responses – stuff people said needed to be properly answered
Clouds and Water Vapor – Part Three – more water vapor feedback, especially considering the question about climate records and understanding whether relative humidity is constant as temperature changes
Clouds and Water Vapor – Part Four – looking at one paper where the feedback is broken down into more basic elements and plotted against pressure (height) and sea surface temperature
Water Vapor Trends and Part Two - a lengthy but necessary review of the measurement and calculation of trends in total integrated water vapor over the last few decades
Trying to measure feedback..
Measuring Climate Sensitivity – Part One
Measuring Climate Sensitivity – Part Two – Mixed Layer Depths
Measuring Climate Sensitivity – Part Three – Eddy Diffusivity
Basics
Find Stuff Out and Book Reviews - some good books to read
How Much Work Can One Molecule Do? – CO2 and other trace gases embrace communism
Tropospheric Basics – understanding why pressure and temperature changes as they do in the lower atmosphere
Radiative Forcing, Thermal Lag and Equilibrium Temperatures – understanding how heat capacity fits into temperature changes
The Dull Case of Emissivity and Average Temperatures – how “emissivity” changes with surface type or why the earth is really quite close to a “blackbody”
Planck, Stefan-Boltzmann, Kirchhoff and LTE – explaining a few fundamentals that are often confused
Emissivity of the Ocean – many experiments and studies on this unexciting but essential subject
Sensible Heat, Latent Heat and Radiation – the relative importance of different components in the surface energy balance
Heat Transfer Basics – Part Zero – a few examples of heat transfer, simple stuff but often misunderstood
Heat Transfer Basics – Convection – Part One – an introduction to convection
The Hoover Incident – what the earth’s climate might be like if all of the gases like CO2 and water vapor were “hoovered up” so that the atmosphere didn’t absorb or emit any radiation
Convection, Venus, Thought Experiments and Tall Rooms Full of Gas – A Discussion – three of us put forward explanations and ideas about the high temperature of Venus
Does Back-Radiation “Heat” the Ocean? – Part One – how solar and atmospheric radiation are absorbed by the ocean, followed by Part Two – what would happen if only solar radiation affect the temperature of the ocean; Part Three - some measurements of how heat moves through the ocean; and Part Four – examines a few hypotheses using a simple model of conduction and convection in the ocean.
The Cool Skin of the Ocean – an introduction to this fascinating subject
Simple Atmospheric Models – Part One and Part Two - explaining a couple of simple atmospheric models, introduced with mendacious intent by climate scientists to confuse the good citizens of the blogosphere, knowing that they will never actually read their textbooks
Climate History
Ghosts of Climates Past – hopefully the first in a series
An Inconvenient Temperature Graph – climate history, including some revealing graphs of the last million years.
Very recent Climate History – aka Temperature Measurement
Why Global Mean Surface Temperature Should be Relegated, Or Mostly Ignored – the title says it..
The Real Measure of Global Warming – a look at ocean heat content over 50 years, followed up by Part Two – the Sad Case of the Expendable Bathythermographs
Is climate more than weather? Is weather just noise? – a different perspective on all the trend graphs we are seeing about whether the world is warming up or cooling down, in the light of a very interesting paper by Kevin Trenberth.
Urban Heat Island in Japan – commenting on an interesting paper from IJC 2009.
“Warmest Decade on Record” and the Layman’s Guide to Autocorrelation – more a quick comment on the use and abuse of some terminology.
This page has the following sub pages.
sorry off topic, but the theme picture you have is very nice . is it available somewhere in a larger version ?
thanks
Oke E Doke – See below, it is one of the standard wordpress blog themes, so someone probably has a better one, but not me.
Theme: Mistylook by Sadish.
http://wpthemes.info/
Feedback Mechanisms?
I see in your roadmap you have about the physics of radiation absorption and re-emission and an exploration of Global Climate Models.
I am quite comfortable with the basic physics of the ‘greenhouse’ effect.
What I am very uncomfortable with is how good the GCM theoretical models are and how they account for feedback. I understand they assume a positive feedback process – though I would call it an amplification process: true positive feedback would be disastrous. History however shows the earth’s climate to range between narrowly constrained temperatures. To me this is indicative of a strong negative feedback process against most forcings – Solar radiation, orbital changes, atmospheric composition etc.
Can I ask you to include a section looking at the feedback processes – both those assumed by the GCMs and those that can be inferred by historical records?
Could you also explore falsifiability of the GCMs? What is the present state of proving or otherwise the GCMs?
Jerry:
Yes, the basic physics of the “greenhouse” effect is the easy part.
Your position, your questions nicely sum up the informed side of the “skeptics”, if I can use a label which I also apply to myself.
The GCMs don’t assume a positive feedback. They throw all the known climate’s physics laws and parameterizations of those laws into a model, throw in the current conditions and see what comes out the other side. Well, I don’t mean to write off many people’s life’s work by that throwaway line..
What the climate history shows is food for both sides of the debate which is what makes it so fascinating. If it was solely negative feedback we would probably see minor perturbations around a gradually moving average temperature (as much as it can be reconstructed). But we see sharp up and down movements.
If it was solely positive feedback the planet would be burning or frozen.
And why, as you rightly say, does the temperature not move too much from one fairly tight range?
Tough questions, which will follow on from (slowly) from Ghosts of Climates Past
I am planning a series on the GCMs.
Watch out for Models on – and off – the catwalk
One other area that appears to me to be totally hand-waving and idle speculation is ‘orbital forcings’
My background includes quite a few years working as an oceanographer with tides and tidal currents. For me, these are easily understood and are very predictable – literally. Tides must be one of the most predictable phenomena on earth. I can tell you exactly how high the tide was when Kind Canute did his holding-back-water trick – that is if you can tell me precisely when and where it happened.
Tides, as you realise, are completely the results of short period orbital forcings.
So when I see an irregular interval of ice-ages and general hand-waving about ’100,000 year milankovitch cycles’ I smell a rat.
We should know precisely what the orbital parameters were over a very long period. We should also be able to work out exactly how much energy was flowing into the earth as a result of these changes.
Some exploration of what the actual orbital forgings were compared to the climate record would be very interesting.
I am interested in cycles. It is very evident that similar cycles periods are found in solar proxies and climate proxies. This applies to long cycles such as de Vries 2300 years, medium like Halstatt 208 years, and perhaps something around 55-60 years which fits with temperature extremes of ~1910 low, ~1940 high, ~1970 low, ~1998 high.
To me this is strong evidence that solar fluctuations are a principle factor in climate fluctuations. Any human / CO2 effects must surely be studied against this backdrop of know cyclical solar behaviour?
science of doom – minor point re: the CA link in your Climate Websites section points to the redundant CA mirror site.
Thanks for all the info. on this site – look forwards to getting to grips with it.
Fixed that – I changed it after I thought Climate Audit moved. So I have changed it back.
Congratulations on the Woody Guthrie award.
I would not have known about your site otherwise. I am going to have to brush up on all that mathematics I forgot years ago, to come to grips with all the information you have put forth.
scienceofdoom,
If Nasif Nahle isn’t just an extreme outlier, then I think you may need a part 9 for CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? to go into more detail on calculating atmospheric radiative emission, specifically the effect of path length. I’ve tried in Lunar Madness and Physics Basics, but I’m not very good at simplification for the masses.
I see by the posting time difference of +4 hours that it’s GMT. Does that mean you’re in the UK or is it just that the host server is on GMT?
DeWitt Payne:
I think you did just fine explaining it. But I was wondering whether it made sense to write an article on this topic and bring a few points together.
I think Nasif Nahle is an outlier, but there are a few people showing up now and again thinking that Hottel and Leckner are the real deal while RM Goody and the many afterwards in atmospheric radiation just don’t understand the subject. Of course, Leckner does refer people to RM Goody for atmospheric radiation..
I’ll add it to my list.
The server time defaults to GMT when you start with wordpress.
If you use the right path length, Hottel and Leckner will get you in the ballpark. So I don’t think it’s really about them vs Petty or Goody, it’s about understanding the basic principles of atmospheric radiative emission. You did a good job on the absorption part, but let the emission part slide a little.
I’ve found an email address for Bo Leckner. I think I’ll write him and see if he is willing to put this to rest.
[...] Roadmap [...]
First, thank you for a very illuminating blog.
Secondly, my apologies if this comment/question is in the wrong place, I couldn’t see anywhere appropriate to place it.
A back of the envelope calculation on the heat released from fossil fuels over the past 50 years or so (50*ave. fossil fuel mass p.a.*ave. heat of combustion) gives approximately 1*10^22joules. Applying this to the total mass of the atmosphere (5*10^21 grammes) would give a temperature rise of 2 degs. K in the atmosphere. Assuming efficiencies of energy use of say 40 % would still give sufficient heat for a temperature rise of 1.2 degs.
Other than a paper by Bo Nordell last year (2009) I have difficulty in finding much in the literature on this type of approach (I’m retired so don’t have exhaustive facilities). Is there a simple reason why this energy is ignored?
Roger Jones:
The ocean has 1000x more heat capacity than the atmosphere.
If you add heat to the climate system then in the first instance it will increase the temperature – and as a result this temperature increase will cause a higher radiation (i.e. cooling) to space.
Thanks, I understand that, but isn’t the same argument applicable to CO2?
Not really.
In the first case (burning fossil fuels) you have added a fixed amount of heat: X joules over a time period.
In the second case (adding CO2) you have added a radiative forcing: Y W/m^2.
We can work out a comparison at a very simplistic level to give us an idea whether they are comparable – or whether one is “out of sight” compared with the other.
The comparison – if we use your value of heat added (the first case) –
10^22 Joules / 50 years = 10^22/(50*365*24*3600) = 6.3×10^13 W
So what does that equate to in terms of W/m^2?
Surface area of the earth = 5.1×10^8 km^2 = 5.1 x10^14 m^2
Heat added per sec per m^2 = 6.3×10^13 / 5.1×10^14 = 0.12 W/m^2.
Of course it’s not as simple as this, but it gives a rough idea of magnitude compared with the current forcing compared with pre-industrial levels of “greenhouse” gases of around 2.4 W/m^2.
I don’t know whether your original number was correct. And the radiative forcing (all other things being equal) for CO2 has increased from the 19th century to the present day. If CO2 and other GHG forcing had increased linearly then you could halve that value to account for the change over the last 100+ years.
With your numbers it looks like the radiative forcing is around 10x the heat added when we compare with similar units. This indicates that it is worth looking more closely.
I think it should be 6.3*10^12 rather than 10^13, which means the difference in magnitude is 100-200 times.
I guess I’m battling to absorb the dynamics of the radiation forcing, since if I turn the discussion on its head,and use the figures (ex wikipedia) for 2007, I get 3*10^20 W (or 0.02W/m2) which could heat the earths atmosphere by 0.06 deg. An effect 100+ greater than this would be capable of heating the whole of the earths atmosphere by 1 degree every 2 months. I know you’ve warned against pictures (intuition?) versus the maths but still have difficulty with all the energy being dumped into the water/land heat sink or radiated into space.
Thanks for your attention
Roger Jones:
It’s important to understand how the climate system (or any system) responds to a change in energy balance.
Take a look at The Earth’s Energy Budget – Part Two.
You can see some simple heat examples in Heat Transfer Basics – Part Zero.
If you have a system in balance and you change the conditions slightly so more heat is going in than out then perhaps it will increase in temperature forever?
No it won’t. The temperature will increase until the system moves back into balance. Higher surface temperatures increase radiated heat.
The same is true of any other heat transfer mechanism. Increase the heat into one side of a metal plate when the other side is held constant. What happens? Does the metal plate heat up forever? No. The temperature increases until the conducted heat through the plate matches the incoming heat – at which point it is back in balance.
Does this make sense?
[...] Roadmap [...]
[...] if you have followed the Climate Etc. threads, the numerous threads on this topic at Scienceofdoom, and read Pierrehumbert’s article, is anyone still unconvinced about the Tyndall gas effect [...]
[...] http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/ [...]