Natural Tidal Forcing for Global Warming

Those of us who have studied the earth sciences know the earth is warmed by three sources. Primarily the sun, then tidal forces and internal nuclear radiation.

This may be of interest for discussion:

Surf zones warmed from within : Nature News & Comment

It's an October 15 article out of Nature. Here is one passage:

They reference this:

The Surfzone Heat Budget: The Effect of Wave Heating - Sinnett - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

It appears CO2 may have another contender, which could put CO2 in 4th place.

1) Solar

2) Soot on ice

3) Tidal energy

4) CO2

 

interesting, I read the paper through twice and still have a hard time grasping some of the concepts.

As far as Co2 and atmospheric temps, I doubt if CO2 is in the top ten contributors once it gets above 200ppm. During the Cambrian period CO2 was between 3500 - 7000 ppm and the number of invertebrate life forms literally exploded during that period

 

Well, the reality of CO2 is the warmer the ocean is, the less the oceans absorb it. The biosphere changes less I think. The corrent ratio of CO2 and it equalized components are about 50:1 For the atmosphere to change to around 400 ppm, the ocean would have to lose quite a bit which is to be expected when we had lush tropical landscape and dinosaurs. The ratio may have been with warmer oceans closer to 40:1. This wouldn't significantly change the atmosphere by itself, but we also had far more volcanic activity.

Lower CO2 content in the waters and/or warmer waters could be a reason for the population explosion. We really don't know for fact as we can only make educated guesses without a time machine to go back and study.

As for the concepts, the simple simplicity of how friction generates heat. I never considered the water tides either, but always knew the minimal amount of the earth flexing with the tides would cause heat.

 

you can follow CO2 levels up and down through the millennium and is obvious to anyone there is no correlation. Another example would be the Ordovician temperature-drop that occurred while CO2 levels remained quite high. Volcanoes and such only stretch so far when you are talking in terms of hundreds of thousands of years. Anyway good thread, did not mean to derail it into paleoclimatology, it's just my nature from all of the BS claims the AGW crowd likes to toss about how CO2 is some sort of magical thermostat when historically it is clearly no such thing

 

Remained high, but still dropped!

Unless you are seeing something I'm not, other variables are involved too. Over the eons, CO2 has been sequestered more and more, reducing levels with time as well. Really hard to apply today's knowledge of the earth with a time over 400 million years.

Considering O2 was estimated to be 13.5%, and is about 21% now, that implies carbon was sequestered releasing more oxygen.

 

Henry's law and the temperature dependence on the Henry constant. It is why CO2 always follows temperature in the paleontological charts. Do a search for the Van 't Hoff equation

 

I understand such things. I did look for an equilibrium chart I had with multiple kp1 and kp2 points that changed with temperature and salinity, but didn't find it.

There is simply less carbon in the form of CO2, H2CO3, HCO3, and CO3 than there was then. Probably dropped out of the equilibrium as limestone. Look at all the calcium carbonates like limestone as an earth layer. They came from somewhere, right?

 

Yet another benefit of Global Warming, the return of yard wide dragonflies.

See how much you like your Hummer when a 6 foot centipede crawls into it.

 

How do they taste on the barbie?

 

Wave energy and tidal energy are different things. At least get the basics right.

"CO2 causes big bugs" is another flub. High oxygen levels cause big bugs. CO2 has zilch to do with it. Bugs don't have circulatory systems like vertebrates, and instead their heart-thing sloshes the hemolymph around the whole body cavity. Oxygen, instead of being taken into organs by blood vessels, has to diffuse into organs from the outside. Bigger organs are harder to diffuse oxygen into, so that limits bug size. When oxygen levels were at 31%, more oxygen could diffuse in, so bugs got bigger.

 

It is the tidal forces that cause waves.

 

No, it's the wind that causes the waves. Tidal forces make tidal currents, not waves.

 

you are both correct. Tidal waves are the coastal fisherman's friend and wind driven waves are the surfers friend. Unfortunately many mistakenly call tsunamis "tidal waves" which are an entirely different matter,

Tidal waves are the largest oceanic waves on our planet. Tidal waves are formed by the gravitational forces of the earth, sun, and moon.Wind-driven waves are waves that form as wind passes over the surface of the open water. Energy from the wind is transferred into the topmost layers of water via friction and pressure.

 

Not even close. You're talking about a teeny-tiny fraction of the Earth's surface here.

 

Explain what has changed to cause recent warming

 

To make a full explanation would mean there being no unknown unknowns and no known unknowns. Anyone who says that they can "explain" something as chaotic and unknown as the climate is a liar.

 

LOL...

Seriously?

What recent warning, and what do you mean by recent? The amount claimed is insignificant, and natural ups and downs occur.

 

The data that was manipulated.

 

Ooh! The last century would do......

- - - Updated - - -

 

OK fine. We have had a significant solar increase during the last century, and thermal inertia makes these full effects take time. We also had a increase then decrease of anthropogenic aerosols modulating the solar effect. Unless you can accurately quantify these effects, you cannot claim I am wrong with any credibility.

 

I did not save a link to it but read this morning where major tidal changes caused major climate change 4 million years ago.

 

Just because it cannot be disproven that a teapot circles the sun does not mean that there is one doing that.
Shakes head - sometimes it is like talking to flat weathers

But NONE of your explanations addressed the OP and how tidal forces change global temperature

 

I think it has an insignificant effect on global temperatures and is only significant at the local coastlines. That said, it isn't something that changes on a decadal time-frame anyway. It will be a forcing flux will be similar the Milankovitch cycle.

The only way it could put CO2 into fourth place by my account would be if CO2 forcing is even less than I believe it to be.

Please note, I said "could." I did not say "would."

Now with the eccentricity of the earth lessening for the next 26 kyrs, I suspect that the lunar eccentricity would be the only factor in play, and I don't know it its eccentricity is becoming larger, or smaller.

Do you always jump to such unfounded conclusions?

 

The people doing actual science don't wave their hands and declare they feel it must be about tides. They measure the heat flux in and out of the atmosphere, and directly see how outgoing IR is squeezing down in the CO2 absorption bands. That would be how they _know_ CO2 is the primary cause of the warming. In contrast, the "skeptics" here have a feeling that such a thing can't be correct. Very convincing.

We also know the sun is not the primary cause. Solar-induced warming would be characterized by more warming in the summer, more warming in the daytime, and a warming stratosphere. Instead, we see the exact opposite. More warming in winter, more warming at night, a cooling stratosphere. Those are the fingerprints of greenhouse gases, not of a changing sun.

 

Excuse me...

Did they have satellited to witness the solar increase from arounf 1900 to 1950?

Plenty of things modulate the flux. "They know CO2 is primary" is laughable.