A carbon tax will NOT work fast enough to address WAIS collapse.

There's only 3 sources of heat available to warm the biosphere. 1) Radioactive decay in the core, 2) Tidal forces, and 3) Solar radiation. Radioactive decay of elements generates about 0.1 W/m2 of energy. Tidal friction comes from the transfer of energy from the angular momentum of Earth to the bending, stretching, warping, etc. of the land and oceans via tidal forces induced by the Earth/Moon interaction (think ocean tides here). Tidal friction accounts for about 0.01 W/m2 of energy. 3) Solar radiation accounts for about 340 W/m2 of heat entering the system that makes it to the surface. So obviously radioactive and tidal sources are very small compared to solar radiation. All of these sources are very stable especially the radioactive and tidal sources. Solar radiation is the most variable at about 0.1% which equates to about 0.3 W/m2 at the surface, but when averaged over multiple solar cycles this also nets out to close to zero. It's the solar grand cycles that have the largest effect on the climate. These can yield variances of several tenths of a W/m2 that persist for decades. Then main sequence stars get brighter as they age. For example, the Sun was only 95% as bright 500 million years ago. However, the change in brightness due to solar aging is very slow being only equal to about -0.03 W/m2 every 1 million years. Variations in solar radiation are absolutely and undeniably responsible for much of the climate change in Earth's past.

Anyway, what I meant to say is that the ocean is absorbing about 92% of the excess heat with the land, atmosphere, and ice absorbing the other 8%. The excess heat in this case is the warming that is being observed. There exists a forcing F that is causing this warming. But, what is the source of this F? We know the ΔF of radioactive and tidal sources of energy is close to 0 W/m2. And the estimated ΔF of solar radiation since 1960 is about -0.1 W/m2. So the net effect of all sources of energy is ΔF = -0.1 W/m2 which means the sources suggest the biosphere should be cooling ever so slightly. But, there's more in play in determining the excess heat than just the sources. We also have to quantify the sinks. Sources are where energy comes from and sinks are where energy goes. So ΔF = Qin - Qout. And as I've shown Qin = -0.1 W/m2. But, what is Qout? Scientists estimate that the net effect of all physical processes that modulate Qout are about -1.0 W/m2 or even lower (bigger negative number). So conservatively ΔF = -0.1 - (-1.0) = +0.9 W/m2. That means even though Qin is slightly lower the fact that Qout has also decreased significantly means the total ΔF is much higher today. So the bulk of this excess heat isn't coming from any of the sources (Qin), but instead is coming from a dramatic reduction in the sinks (Qout).

The best analogy I can give you is that of your house and HVAC. The furnace modulates Qin and the insulation modulates Qout. If Qin and Qout are perfectly balanced then the temperature of your house will remain stable. Obviously if you increase/decrease Qin then the temperature will increase/decrease until Qout reaches a new equilibrium such that Qin = Qout once again. But, what if instead of changing Qin you change Qout by changing the insulation of the structure? If you increase insulation that will work to reduce Qout. And if Qout decreases while Qin remains the same then the temperature will have to increase until a new equilibrium is achieved once again. This is what greenhouse gases do. They don't modulate Qin in any significant way because they are transparent to incoming shortwave photons, but they do modulate Qout because they are opaque to outgoing longwave photons. In other words, the Earth is warming not because of an increase in the source of energy, but because we've been adding insulation to the atmosphere which doesn't let the energy escape. That is the excess heat we are talking about here and that's why the ocean, land, lower atmosphere, and latent of fusion (melting ice) are all increasing.

 

I understand what you are saying, and it was stated very well; thanks. But there is still a problem in my mind. Your premise and assumption was, "if this additional radiative forcing (whatever it may be) completely vanishes overnight the atmosphere will continue to warm for up to 30 years." But your explanation includes additional forcing. My question still is, without additional forcing where does the additional heat that is going into the ocean (92%) and the land and atmosphere (8%) come from? This is a significant question because it relates to the often stated dire result that even if we ceased all CO2 emissions today the globe would continue to warm significantly for decades. I never understood that. That is my question: with no forcing from CO2 and related things, where does the heat energy come from to keep warming the globe? It has to be stored or cached somewhere, but where?

 

Okay, gotcha. Yeah, so, what I'm talking about here is the thermal inertia of the ocean. What's happening is that the equilibrium temperatures of the ocean and air (the temperatures at which the net heat flux becomes stable at near 0 W/m2) are getting disrupted and unbalanced right now. The ocean, because it so readily absorbs solar radiation, is warming faster than the atmosphere can respond. The ocean is warmer and the atmosphere cooler than they need to be for there to be an equilibrium. The heat flux from ocean-to-air is currently > 0 W/m2 and will remain positive even if the ocean stops warming until a new equilibrium is reachieved. This equilibrium is achieved and maintained by several physical processes including but not limited to trade winds pulling heat out of the ocean, tropical cyclones pulling heat out of the ocean, and downwelling of heat from the surface of the ocean to the depths, etc. Research suggests this inertial lag between ocean and air temperatures is on the order of 20-40 years. ENSO cycles are a great example of a natural process that temporarily increases/decreases the heat flux from ocean-to-air which can speed up/down the process of transferring the heat.

This inertial lag is often used as an argument against AGW. Skeptics often claim that it was the grand solar maximum of the first half of the 1900's that is still causing the warming today. It's because the ocean absorbed so much heat during that time that it is still releasing into the air even 60 years after the modern maximum peaked in 1958 they say. But, there's a problem. If the biosphere as a whole stopped warming and the air temperature is increasing simply because the heat is transferring from the ocean to the air then you would expect the ocean to be cooling right now. Ya know...the atmosphere warms at the expense of the ocean cooling. Yet, what we actually see is that ocean continues to warm and quite dramatically I might add.

 

Thanks. I still have some skepticism, but I understand what you are saying. I have to mull it over a bit more.
By the way it is a pleasure carrying on a rational conservation about global warming even though we seem to be in opposing realms. I don't say opposite "sides" because that implies a sharp line of demarcation epitomized by the never ending use of the question, "Do you believe in global warming?" which is entirely the wrong question.

 

True..... back then it melted without our help......
but in 2018 we have the technology to desalinate it and divert it into the world's deserts.......
whereas that was probably not an option for whoever was on the earth millions of years ago.


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ser-or-m-p-bill-casey.539570/#post-1069489904