THERE is nothing new under the sun according to both the Bible and Shakespeare; and One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts would not purport to be the first to claim the atmosphere cools the surface of the earth that is warmed by the sun. He stated this in his maiden speech in the Australian parliament on Tuesday. Apparently perplexed by the concept, Guardian Australia’s environmental reporter Michael Slezak, could have sought expert advice, but instead he rephrased the statement concluding that Roberts’ was wrong because “the atmosphere is not freezing”. Another journalist, Latika Bourke writing in The Sydney Morning Herald, was less inclined to provide her own expert commentary, instead simply concluding that this statement (that the atmosphere cools the surface of the earth that is warmed by the sun) places Roberts at odds with the world’s leading scientific and research bodies including NASA, the CSIRO, and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Yet it is generally acknowledged that approximately 51% of incoming solar energy is absorbed by the land and oceans, and that winds will move heat around via convection such that some areas are cooled; then of course there is evaporation.
But did Slezak and Bourke assume Roberts meant something else with his statement, or do they really believe that because the atmosphere contains carbon dioxide it must be hotter than the earth? We ask this, because Roberts did go on to immediately state in his speech: “How can anything that cools the surface warm it? It can’t.” Given Roberts’ professional training as an engineer, he would most likely have been referring to the second law of thermodynamics as originally formulated which states, heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time. This is somewhat intuitive, yet the concept does appear at odds with IPCC science. How can anything that cools the surface warm it? It can’t.
Indeed, one of the key arguments put forward by the IPCC and its supporting teams, is that half of the radiation from greenhouse gases (chiefly carbon dioxide and water vapour), is directed downwards (sometimes referred to as back radiation) causing warming of the earth’s surface; and that this effect increases as the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases.
The IPCC mantra, which replaces any detailed scientific analysis of the spectral behaviour of these active gases, appears in the “scientific” section of the IPCC report AR4 (2007) and subsequently in the CSIRO’s own report of that year, “Climate Change in Australia – 2007”. The report simply states: “We believe that most of the increase in the global temperature during the latter part of the twenty first century, was very likely due to the increase in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
Roberts made the point in his maiden speech that from the 1930’s to the 1970’s – during the period of the greatest industrialisation in human history when our carbon dioxide output increased greatly – atmospheric temperatures actually cooled for forty years straight. At least this cooling trend is evident in some unadjusted global temperature series, and this is at odds with the CSIRO and IPCC claim that temperatures were generally trending up during the 20th Century. Currently there is arguably an approximately 18 year pause in global temperatures, as measured by NASA’s own UAH satellite-record of global temperature change in the lower atmosphere.
In fact, while not disputing that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, applying an alternative model to that used in IPCC science it is possible to show how an increase in carbon dioxide could cause global cooling.
The standard hypothesis has, at its core, the unproven assumption that the heat-energy absorbed by the increase in carbon dioxide distributed throughout the atmosphere, leads to re-radiation with half of this re-radiation directed downwards – such that the temperature of the earth’s surfaces, both solid (land) and liquid (ocean), are increased. That the corresponding, increased, concentration in layers below those radiating, will simultaneously increase the re-absorption of such radiation, thus reducing the heating effect to an insignificant level, is ignored. Yet this is what calculations by university physicists and engineers shows, contrary to IPCC “science”. In addition, the higherconcentration of this same energy in this region of denser greenhouse gas, will raise the temperature of the local air sample, giving rise to enhanced convection, an effect which leads, in general, to very slightly increased lateral winds, and thus increased surface cooling.
At high altitudes, the greenhouse gases provide the only mechanism for the radiation of heat from the atmosphere to space – the other main constituents of oxygen and nitrogen being unable to do so because of their electronic structures. At these heights, the rarefied absorbers, situated above the radiating layers, are less able to re-absorb the radiation which consequentially escapes to space, thus providing a mechanism of cooling for the earth. Yes, cooling.
Indeed, increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide in these strata of very low pressure, results in increased outwards radiation not balanced by the re-absorption! Hence increased carbon dioxide – ironic as it may sound to the lay person – will result in more efficient cooling of the earth. This was a point made perhaps too subtlety by Roberts, and clearly not understood by those reporting upon his maiden speech.
****
This article was first published at On Line Opinion
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer,
Sorry to say, but I think you have finally lost the plot with your reference to Senator Robert’s claims that greenhouse effect violates of the second law of thermodynamics.
This has been shot down in flames by Roy Spencer, of UAH satellite data fame, as part of his blog see – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/ and Roger Pielke at Watts Up with That see –
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/23/quantifying-the-greenhouse-effect.
Note both of these scientists are card carrying members of the 3%.
Additionally Jo Nova has made it quite clear what she thinks of this heap of steaming horse manure, see –
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/.
After that, it is extremely puzzling why Jo Nova now thinks the senator is the bees knees. Clearly she is suffering from memory lapses.
Finally in my comments to your last blog., I suggested you read Roy Spencer’s excellent articles re the greenhouse effect. Maybe it is time you slow down and catch up with your reading so that you don’t fall for all of Senator Robert’s con jobs.
Hi Miker
So many people so worried about my reputation; not just you: my inbox is overflowing at the moment! I don’t like to upset people, though it seems to just happen: especially when I get really curious about something.
Anyway, I thought you would have realized by now that I’m generally an outlier.
Furthermore, I have never been one to sign up to any consensus even if it includes Watts, Nova and Spencer. I’m an independent thinker; though I hold Watts, Nova and Spencer in the highest regard. But after so many long discussions with John Nicol last week, well I’m almost a ‘Slayer’. He is so knowledgeable. I wish I had more physics so I could undertake the proper quantum mechanical calculation to determine the real effect of carbon dioxide in warming the earth, in heating the atmosphere, in promoting consequent convection and air circulation as well as determining high altitude radiation, which either widens or narrows as the density of the active gas increases. Anyway, Dr Nicol is currently re-doing the calculations – because he can.
On the subject of Slayers (and John Nicol is generally not considered on), I’ve published Nasif Nahle before (more than once) at this blog – in times past. And if you turn to page 199 of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ (Stairway Press, 2011) you will see that Hans Schreuder even quotes me. So, you have perhaps been deceived (but not intentionally by me); if I should have ever appeared more respectable of late, than I really am.
Anyway, I will agree with you that it is difficult to keep up with the reading.
And have you read this:
http://principia-scientific.org/observational-evidence-surfrad-sites-falsify-greenhouse-effect-hypothesis/ ?
I have the most respect for Roy Spencer, and his UHI record – as you know. I think its the best indication we have of global temperature trends since 1979.
But, there is an aspect to this argument that Roy Spencer promotes that is incomplete. I shall quote some from the above link here:
“The cooling effect of water vapor, of course, is not limited to just the fact that its presence decreases the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface during daylight hours. When water is present within a climate system all of the following happen:
1) the surface is cooled by evaporation when water vapor is formed
2) water vapor increases the net, up-going, intra-atmospheric radiation heat loss rate, which moves thermal energy up the atmospheric column
3) latent heat transfer also moves thermal energy up the atmospheric column
4) when the humidity is very high the conditions for ‘moist convection’ exist which creates powerful updrafts, which also moves thermal energy up the atmospheric column
5) when water vapor condenses into clouds it increases the atmospheres albedo and shades the ground
6) when these clouds form water droplets and it starts to rain, snow or hail, this precipitation is nearly always cooler than surface temperatures, which cools the surface even further…
“When you combine all of these effects, one observes within weather balloon soundings the predictable, well documented decrease in the troposphere’s temperature lapse rate and this in turn drops ground level air temperatures. Again, this is the inverse of the ‘greenhouse effect’ as defined by Dr. Spencer, which is an ‘increase in surface temperatures caused by greenhouse gases compared to if those gases did not exist.’ Remove water vapor (the most potent ‘greenhouse gas’) from a climate system and the average yearly temperature goes up.
“Dr. Spencer would have noticed this phenomenon and abandoned his belief in the ‘greenhouse effect’ had he expanded his study to include SURFRAD data and weather balloon soundings that were simultaneously being taken in Goodwin Creek, Mississippi. He would have noticed that, indeed, the higher humidity in Mississippi increased the average “down-welling IR radiation” levels by >50 W/m2 24/7. (This, of course, is not surprising since water vapor is known to increase the emissivity of air, which improves its ability to cool the atmosphere.)
“What he missed because his study was so limited is the fact that the higher ‘down-welling IR radiation’ levels in Mississippi did not, as the ‘greenhouse effect’ hypothesis predicts, increase surface level temperatures. That is, even though the SURFRAD installations in Mississippi lie a little south of the Desert Rock installation and its altitude is lower, the 2012 average yearly temperature at the Mississippi site was >2 °C lower than at the Nevada site and again, this was in spite of the fact that the “greenhouse gas” water vapor was in greater abundance and the ‘down-welling IR radiation’ readings were significantly higher in Mississippi!
“Here is another point to consider. If you read through Dr. Spencer’s article you see his assertion that, contrary to what all weather balloon soundings show, he implies that water vapor, because it is a ‘greenhouse gas’, increases the temperature lapse rate within the troposphere; he asserts that it causes warming of the lower troposphere and cooling of the upper troposphere. This by default means that he believes that a passive mode of “heat” transport—infrared radiation—decreases the entropy of tropospheric air, which is, of course, a violation of the very laws of physics that he professes to believe in. Here is his statement, ‘Downwelling IR from the sky continuously maintains surface temperatures well above what they would be without greenhouse gases (while at the same time cooling the upper atmosphere well below what it would be without those gases).’
“What he is describing here is an augmentation of the temperature differential that exists between lower and up… click on that link for more information!
I’m very confused. Firstly I really couldn’t care less what news media journalists or politicians opine about anything be Slezak, Bourke or Roberts. I prefer to make my own judgments without the static interference from loud mouthed opinion makers. I do not ask for their opinions about my health, I attend a qualified GP and seek their expert up-to-date opinions. So I do not bother with journalists opinions about science in general either. I’m assuming that Jennifer and John are ‘scientists’ and expert in the field of climate science, yes? I have a few questions, please bare with me. I’ll “quote” the things I need some help on.
“approximately 51% of incoming solar energy is absorbed by the land and oceans”
Where does the other 49% go?
Roberts is saying “the atmosphere cools the surface of the earth that is warmed by the sun.” OK I think I understand what he means there, the entire planets surface is cooled by the whole of the atmosphere in contact with it. Do I have that correct?
And then “How can anything that cools the surface warm it? It can’t.” Makes sense.
So my question here is about the Antarctic, the Arctic and those parts of the ocean which are at a temperature lower than the atmosphere in contact with it. What happens in this situation? I also thought about cold chilly nights where the ground is cool but the wind that ends up blowing from another region comes that is warmer, as often happens.
I’m confused be cause Roberts doesn’t mention these things and nor do you in this article. Would you mind spelling it out for me and how Roberts’ statement is still true all of the time?
I notice you yourselves say “the second law of thermodynamics as originally formulated which states, heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change,” – so is there some other change going on I hadn’t thought of in the examples I give above?
“is that half of the radiation from greenhouse gases (chiefly carbon dioxide and water vapour), is directed downwards (sometimes referred to as back radiation) causing warming of the earth’s surface”. Is that not true?
I’m also confused about when you say ” the earth’s surface ” you are actually speaking about the temperature of the ground, and the temperature of the ice and the water in the oceans, yeah? Not the air temperature near the surface. Or are you?
See it’s hard to follow the way different people use the same words for different things, so I want to be sure to clear up my confusions so I get it. I just don’t know the jargon that well yet.
“Currently there is arguably an approximately 18 year pause in global temperatures, as measured by NASA’s own UAH satellite-record of global temperature change in the lower atmosphere.” OK. again is that the air temperature at the surface of the planet or higher up in the atmosphere.
I thinks that’s enough questions for now. Hopefully your reply will clear up the confusions and all will be clearer for me. Thanks very much
Jennifer,
“2) water vapor increases the net, up-going, intra-atmospheric radiation heat loss rate, which moves thermal energy up the atmospheric column”
ITYF that, by absorbing and reradiating infrared, water vapour SUBSTANTIALLY DECREASES the net, up-going, intra-atmospheric radiation heat loss rate.
(Unless of course you’re arguing semantics by saying that it’s an increase because you don’t count ground sourced radiation as intra-atmospheric. But if that’s the case, why concentrate on the minor effect while ignoring the major effect it’s happening at the expense of?)
It’s time to stop cherry picking evidence to support the conclusion that you’d like to be true; look instead at what’s actually true whether you like it or not.
@Confused_Jane September 19, 2016 at 3:29 pm
Your confusion is well founded, though, you might be asking the wrong person about the origin of the confusion.
– Hansen et al1999 explaining lack of warming:
The upshot is that we will be able to understand climate change well only with the help of global climate models that are able to incorporate all of these mechanisms on an equal footing. We will be able to test our understanding during the era of satellite measurements, when all of these forcing factors can be measured accurately.
[http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/]
Michael Mann 2106 explains why Hansen was wrong:
“But Mann, Dessler, Francis and others say there have been quality and trustworthy issues with some satellite measurements and they only show what’s happening far above the ground. They said ground measurements are also more important because it is where we live.” (Satellite record only goes to 1979!)
[http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/01/16/scientist-say-2014-hottest-year-on-record-but-not-in-pittsburgh/]
So, NASA – Gavin Schmidt said, March 2016.
That’s not to say the satellite measurements don’t provide some value, but it is an indication why the surface temperature data analyzed and reported by NASA, NOAA and others is viewed as the gold standard.”
[http://www.climatecentral.org/news/what-to-know-februarys-satellite-temp-record-20091]
But, NASA, April 14, 2016, Washington Post: ” There is far too much focus on surface temperatures. They are but one measure of warming. All other measures . . . continue unabated.”
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/04/14/nasa-smacks-down-climate-change-doubters-in-facebook-discussion/?postshare=7041460656502892&tid=ss_tw]
The ‘missing heat’ is “in the satellites”, but, when it isn’t, it’s at the surface, or “in the ocean”.
Did someone mention oceans?
David Karoly April 20, 2016: “While March is just one month, the record warmth is a reminder of how much land temperatures are warming, David Karoly, a climate researcher at Melbourne University, said.
“Most people are not fish, most people live on land,” Professor Karoly said, noting that the sustained warming over land had been about 40 per cent more than over the oceans.
[http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/worse-things-in-store-steaming-hot-world-sets-more-temperature-records-20160419-goaf58.html]
Confused Jane might ask others to please explain.
Oh no. The oceans ate try global warming again …
Sept. 12 2016: Oceans Are Absorbing Almost All of the Globe’s Excess Heat
[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/12/science/earth/ocean-warming-climate-change.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1]
As an adjunct to Jennifer’s comment above it is interesting to review some consensus views on the global year-average energy budget as cited by the IPCC. Their AR5 report is not easy to access so I thank The Oracle blog HotWhopper with the confidence of knowing it must be true. The graphic here: http://tinyurl.com/gndq99b is slightly different and I use former arguably better descriptive terminology for HEAT loss from the surface:
Evapotranspiration: 52%
Convection: 12%
Total net radiative HEAT loss (Infrared EMR): 35%
Proportion of EMR radiating directly to space through spectral windows: Not Given!
It is odd that they no longer show the direct-to-space value but in the previous IPCC report (Trenberth et al) it was given as 40/161 = 25% and if that were c/o it would mean that only 15% of EMR net HEAT* loss from the surface is relayed from GHG absorption and reemission. Furthermore, the greatest part of that 15% is not CO2.
*At this point it is important to know that the high numeric value of back-radiation shown is not HEAT but a potential of energy. An analogy is in electricity wherein if say a voltage of 12 is opposed by 12v of opposite polarity the net result is zero. The potential difference (aka as PD) is zero. Furthermore if differently arranged there is a PD, unless there is a resistance encountered there will be no HEAT flow. The equivalent of the electrical resistances analogy generating heat, compared to the AR5 IPCC graphic (Wild et al) are in the absorptive GHG’s net PD of (398-342)/161 = 35%
So what to make of these numbers?
• Evapotranspiration is by far the greatest surface cooling effect at 52% per the IPCC et al.
• Its partner is convection (Trenberth = thermals, Wild = sensible heat) adding 12%
• The contribution of all GHG’s of which CO2 is a small part is only 35%
A few years ago I pointed out to Roy Spencer that if global temperature increases, then evapotranspiration cooling should also increase and that since it was the majority energy pool, it should result in a significant negative (cooling) feedback. Paraphrasing his response he agreed that “convection” was very important but that everyone was too busy competing on radiative issues (The smallest energy pool)
A Google search of [ “andrew dessler” + “roy spencer” ] should reveal their warfare in the GRL journal shortly before my enquiry.
That evaporative cooling is but a primary effect but increased cloud cover, convection, advection and ocean circulation are also likely additional negative feedbacks lacking attention.
Oh Gawd Thermodynamics and an awful lot of hot air, that includes Roy Spencer.
Despite the minutiae of chaotic atmosphere thermodynamics which are by no means fully, well even half explained, we do know known knowns, the basics and they cannot be denied. Warm air rises, pressure decreases and water being the fantastic miracle molecule it is, condenses as the air cools, and drops as rain: equilibrium is achieved and it’s simples.
The question is, what does this have to do with man made CO₂ and there is no answer to that, among the background noise: we know not much and there is no signal.
Whoops,
In my first paragraph above, where wrote; the graphic… … is slightly different, I meant to continue with:
to the earlier AR5 version (by Trenberth et al)
The entire climate system follows thermodynamics to a “t”. Just as it follows all of the laws of physics to that same “t”. The physical processes do not *ever* violate the laws of physics. It is in the (mis)interpretation of those events in light of physics that humans make mistakes.
And clearly, since the climate consensus ahs made predictions and claims about the climate that have failed, it is in the interpretation of the events that contains the problems, not the data.
The pathetic efforts of the consensus profiteers to disappear the pause after 20 years is a nice example this in action.
Many of the comments above appear to have misunderstood the explanations given by Senator Malcolm Roberts and by the author of this major posting which seeks to clarify what the Senator has been pointing out to the public for which he takes responsibility in his position in our governemt, and in particular towards the people of Queensland.
To help clarify further the basis of the discussion on Global Warming or climate change, and to demonstrate the real issues involved in this important analysis, I have attempted to set out as briefly as possible the fundamental physics which is continually referred to by proponents of the Global Warming Crisis, but for which no coherent or logical description has ever been presented by the IPCC reports nor by any of the hundreds of mainly geographers, working in the many University and research establishment “climate” groups around the world.
This long comment has been prepared in some haste. Errors there will be but corretions will be made as necessary.
Comments and criticisms on any part of it are welcomed.
Without an understanding of the basic physics which underlies the interactions between carbon dioxide and its resonant radiation field, as well as the processes involved in the transfer of energy between all of the components of the earth/air/radiation/Green House Gas system, it is write pointless for the many economists, biologists, geopgraphers and even meteorologists, who engage in these discussions to provide confident statements as to the long term effects of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
I hope that at least some of them will come to this site and read Jennifer.s article here, and think a little more about their own misgivings and perthaps their own very modest understanding of what lies at the basis of these very important discussions. The world economy and most importantly, the war on povery, depends on that understanding.understanding
The description of the process whereby the air near the surface of the earth produces cooling is complex and is often, too casually, explained by reference to the Second Law of thermodynamics which does in fact apply to the situation as always, but does not tell the whole story. For this reason, the common response is to revert to claiming, incorrectly, that the 2nd Law does NOT apply as has been the case among many of the commentators on this blog. If the temperature of the air above the earth is cooler than the earth, then the earth will continue to be cooled by contact with the earth and by forced evaporation through the wind moving over its water or wet surface, and from the acceptance of its radiation which is absorbed by its Green House Gases. In spite of the plethora of commentators claiming otherwise and trying to “correct” the statement by Senator Malcolm Roberts, what he says has provided a very valuable insight into the deeper world of basic global warming (or not!) theory.
However, in the absence of any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the cooling by radiation of the earth, which depends on the fourth power of the temperature T– power radiated by a “black body”# per square metre = Sigma x T^4 where Sigma is Stefan’s Constant and equal to 5.67 x 10^-8 where T is given in degrees Kelvin K which is 273 + the temperature in Celcius (C). Thus at 27 C (300 K), a common daytime temperature of the air which does not burn the skin nor feel all that uncomfortable even when walking under an umbrella, one will often find that the temperature of the surface of the is often of the order of 65 K earth (try walking on bitumen in the middle of the day in Townsville – November to January – in bare feet!!).
So let us have look at an example where only the sun, a square metre of the ground’s surface (black), the air including some carbon dioxide are involved in the middle of the day, directly under a tropical sun
The power radiated by a square metre of that surface, (an approximate black body at infra-red wavelengths), can be found from the formula above to be about 740 Watts, compared with the sun’s received power, with a perfectly clear mid-day sky, of around 1300 Watts per square metre. As the day progresses our bitumen surface does not become hotter but remains constant for a couple of hours before cooling slowly during the afternoon. What is happening to the power received which is not re-radiated (1300 Watts -740 Watts = 560 Watts per square meter?. Some, a fairly small part of it, is being absorbed by the bitumen which often becomes soft and sticky. The remainder is removed by the cooler air above it by conduction right at the interface, a few microns thick, through which air molecules bombard the bitumen, moving downwards from the air body with energies comparable to the temperature of 27 C and returning to the air with an energy within the range of the normal distribution of energies corresponding to 65 C! The bitumen has become has become oh so marginally cooler and the air so marginally hotter – the energy transferred for one such collision between an air molecule and the hot surface is thus of the order of 38 x 1.38 x 10^-23 Joules!! Not much!
But this process is being carried out by an estimable 1.0 x 10^15 molecules in that thin surface layer, each molecule of that group making some 10^9 collisions per second. Rough estimates perhaps, but easily justifiable by the proper use of known molecular characteristics and which lead to a value for the rate of transfer of energy of something in the order of 500 Joules per second or 500 Watts. The result is heated air, through the collisional transfer of the energy from those molecules heated by this contact at the surface, moving upwards through the higher, cooler molecules in the air sample while being replaced simultaneously by other cooler members of the system which repeat the process just described.
Of the 740 Watts radiated, on our specifically clear day, with no water vapour, and assuming ONLY carbon dioxide of the Green House gas family being present, 72.3 Watts, a little less than 10% is absorbed by the 15 micron band of this gas and a much smaller power by the combination of its 4.7 micron and 10 micron bands. The remainder (on our specifically clear day) is radiated directly to space.
Thus we know from these fundamental calculations that the lower sample of air above our bitumen is warmed 1. By contact as the breeze moves over the surface and 2. Because of the absorption of energy by carbon dioxide. Because the energy absorbed by CO2 is almost totally absorbed within the first 100 metres and that, through turbulence and micro circulation, the heat from surface contact is also distributed well above ground level, we can usefully look at the process involving, say, this first 100 m by assuming that the latter “contact induced” energy is also initially distributed through air up to that level – a total amount of energy increasing from an absorbed power of 560 Watts 72 Watts (in round figures) = 632 Watts or Joules per second
The density of molecules in the air at ground level is very close to 2.5 x 10^ 25 m^-3 so that our 100 metre column of cross section 1 m^2, contains 2.5 x 10^27 molecules. Ignoring the difference in heat capacity for variation in volume or pressure, we may write the change in energy E of a cubic metre of air from the formula E = Nk x Delta_T or 2.5 x 10^27 x 1.38 x 10^-23 x Delta_T or provide a change in temperature of Delta_T = E/(3.5 x 10^4).
Thus the air will be warmed above the the temperature of “surrounding” air, the inverted commas indicationg that we cannot define definitively the dimensions of this surrounding air, although we do know that the result will be a rising of the hotter air sample at a rate commensurate with its increase in temperature, but in such a simple calculation as this it is not appropriate to make any positive claim regarding the characteristics of that rise. However, from experience with wind measurments over flat farm land, as the sun rises over a paddock where herbicides are being sprayed in the early morning, it is known that soon after sunrise the convection somewhere will give rise to a wind of some 15 km /hour or 4.2 metres per second.
Suppose that we err on the conservative side and assume that the upward flow of air from convection of our heated sample is only one quarter of this speed or 1 metre per second. Thus our sample of air may be assumed to rise at this speed, so that the 100 metre column of warmed air is replaced every 100 seconds. In that time, the 632 watts being transferred to it from the ground will add 63,200 Joules of energy distributed amongst the 2.5 x 10^27 molecules providing a temperature rise of 63,000/(3.5 x 10^4) = 1.8 C.
The calculations above are rough and ready, but provide a skeleton only to demonstrate the type of detailed calculation which needs to be carried out before one can simply dismiss the statements as being implausible. The result of 1.8 C may be very different – but not TOO different – from the result we might expect to observe in the temperature of the air as we stand above a hot bitumen surface!!!
And what about the effect of the carbon dioxide in that ait air?? You may well ask.
Calculations of a more accurate nature and making full use of the quantum mechanical representation of appropriate parameters for the measured (and calculated) characteristics of carbon dioxide in the sample of air, shows that yes, all this while this Green House Gas is radiating energy within its spectral bands both upwards towards space and downwards towards the earth at a rate commensurate with its temperature. It is this downwards radiation which is correctly identified as restricting the rate at which the surface of the earth will cool, compared with the rate were no carbon dioxide present. It is a rate which depends critically on the gas temperature and at our nominated temperature has a calculated value of 86.8 Watts per square metre, which when added to the power of the sunlight – 1,300 W/m^2 – gives a total 1386..8 W/m^2 providing a very local, of course, contribution to the surface temperature, corresponding to the standard Green House Effect of Arrhenius. For our piece of bitumen in full unimpeded sunlight intensity of 1300 Watts, the equilibrium temperature is 389.125 K or 116.13 C, while that for the sun plus “Back radiation” of 1386.8 is 6.3 C higher at 395.46 K. This is commensurate with other estimates provided in widely published reports which provide details of the ultimate determination of the temperature increase from the equilibrium temperature of 255 K, (the value found for the world average temperature after taking account of the losses of sunlight from cloud, aerosols and other perturbations leading to an earth albedo of 0.3), to that of 288 K, 33 K (or 33 C) higher after taking account of conduction and the effects of vaporisation from water and re-condensation in the formation of clouds.
Thus we see that the logic of radiation calculations, relating to an pseudo “experimental” arrangement of a patch of bitumen lying peacefully under a tropical sun, provides results which are totally consistent with experimental values found regularly in other situations. However, we have not yet dealt with the key feature of any discussion on global warming, or rather, that which should always be the key feature, but which is so often rejected as inconsequential compared to the more “important” considerations used to “demonstrate” the apparent consequences of the anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – decaying coral reefs, movement of species to “cooler” climes (when temperatures increase in habitats by 0.1 C) and unprecedented droughts, or is it higher rainfall and devastating floods? This is of course the devastating warming to be caused by increases in carbon dioxide – defined absolutely in terms of the climate sensitivity representing the temperature increase caused by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide.
In terms of our reasonably successful “pseudo-experiment”, for which, in context, we determined theoretically the power returned to the earth from carbon dioxide at the current concentration of Nco2 = 1.0064 x 10^22 molecules per cubic metre, we might look now at the effect of doubling this concentration.
Calculations, in concert with the analysis described above, but which involve the use of the well-known Schwartzchild equation for the transfer of electromagnetic radiation through an active, gaseous medium, in this case carbon dioxide in air, and carried out using a full quantum mechanical model of radiation being transmitted through a system of experimentally known temperature and pressure variations, show that for the typical model described above, the doubling of the density of the Green House Gas in the atmosphere, leads to an increase in the “downwards radiation” described earlier as having a value of 86.8 W/m^2, from that value to 87.19 W/m^2 , an increase in this case of 0.4. On its own, this leads to an estimable temperature increase for our bitumen surface from 395.46 to 395.49 or 0.03.
At the same time as the increase in CO2 leads to a very small increase in the net equilibrium temperature of the surface sample, the radiation upwards from the carbon dioxide in our volume of air in contact with this surface, increases from 87. 3 W/m^2 to 90.6 W/m^2, or by 3.3 W/m^2, again a very small amount, but with a higher value than that for the “back radiation” an effect to be expected from the obvious fact that for radiation from a given slice of the atmosphere, the more dense gas below that slice will more readily absorb the radiation travelling towards the earth than will the lower density layers above it absorb similar wavelengths travelling towards outer space.
There is obviously a lot more that can and needs to be said on this topic. Hopefully these few comments may stimulate a more focussed analysis of the difficult processes to be discussed than the superficial presentations provided so far by the IPOCC, CSIRO and the many Units at Universities in Australia, whose research, it is claimed at least, is directed towards studying “quantitatively” the magnitude of global warming to be expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Experimental evidence which tends to favour the results of the above analysis, as demonstrated clearly by the pause in warming over the past, approximately, 19 years, while the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has measurably increased at an accelerated rate.
John Nicol
E&OE
I believe there’s a fundamental flaw in “greenhouse science”. There’s no doubt in my mind that CO2 absorbs in several radiation bands, that it re-radiates in all directions, so that approximately half goes up, and half goes back down. The “slayers” are fundamentally wrong, because the process doesn’t violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In fact they were eventually forced to admit (Judith Curry’s blog) that GHGs simply “slow the rate of cooling” of the surface. Effectively, GHGs just replace some of the heat lost from the surface, which of course, is still cooling. The atmosphere is always cooler than the surface.
The “consensus” is that an increase in CO2 will result in more upward radiation from the surface being absorbed, and therefore re-radiated, moving the upper boundary of maximum re-radiation upwards. This is supposed to result in the “top of atmosphere” layer radiating less to space, because that layer is higher, and therefore cooler. The flaw is that CO2 which has absorbed long-wave IR doesn’t warm up at all. Gas temperature is effectively a measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules. Increase the KE, or increase the number of molecules in a given volume (pressure increase), and the temperature increases accordingly.
The important mechanism, and one that’s misunderstood by very many climate scientists (who are not, and never will be, physicists), is the way the energy is absorbed and re-radiated. Absorption is in specific bands, because each band corresponds to an internal (emphasis here) vibration of the atoms. The C=O bonds can flex or stretch like a spring, and the amount of change is in quanta, resulting in very narrow absorption bands. Various mechanisms, like incremental steps in energy, doppler effect, gas partial pressure, affect the frequency/wavelength of the quanta involved, so that the absorption curves take on a “domed” appearance, familiar from such published curves.
Because the absorption/emission is in quanta, as all energy changes are, the molecule will emit what was absorbed, and at the same frequency. It’s not true, as has been stated by ill-informed people (sceptics, slayers, mostly) that absorbed energy can be re-radiated at different frequencies to those absorbed.
The key is that these energy changes are all internal to the molecule. There is NO change in kinetic energy. The molecule will move at exactly the same speed, no matter what’s happened to the internal chemical bonds. That’s the flaw, and it’s fundamental. CO2 (or other GHG) absorption will NOT warm the atmosphere, and whatever happens to the height of the emitting-to-space layer, temperature of the CO2 plays no role whatever. Climate scientists have struggled to demonstrate lower radiation to space as a result of increasing GHGs, just as they’ve struggled to demonstrate the tropospheric “hotspot”.
As far as atmospheric science goes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,
Tony Price,
It is indeed a dangerous thing. There are three apparent problems with your hypothesis:
1) Warming is an observed outcome, not just a theoretically derived possibility.
2) Radiation emitted by CO2 is also absorbed by solid objects (including the ground) so you can’t dismiss it as having no role whatsoever.
3) UIVMM, temperature is the combination of translational, rotational and vibrational effects, and when a collision occurs, the energy is transferred regardless of whether its original source was translational, rotational or vibrational. Therefore CO2 or other GHG absorption WILL warm the atmosphere.
Jennifer I have not previously read the information on the Principia web site you linked to in your above comment.
A cursory Google search on the author and the provenance of the Principia site reveals a very disturbing picture full of intrigue. In particular the person who I gather runs the site seems to be a very shady character, see – http://hot-topic.co.nz/so-many-lies-and-the-liar-who-tells-them/ .
It also appears to be a site affiliated with the group that refers to themselves as the “Sky Dragon Slayers. “ who I unsurprisingly had never heard of until now.
From reading some of the material at various sites such as JoNova (see the link http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/a-discussion-of-the-slaying-the-sky-dragon-science-is-the-greenhouse-effect-a-sky-dragon-myth/) it appears that this group has created enormous controversy and generated vitriol between the Pro and Anti Sayer communities.
The climate skeptic community is small enough, that splinting into these factions does not appear to be a good move. It is reminiscent of various splinter groups that are prevalent in either extremes of the left and the right. These splinter groups often tend to put more time and effort into their internecine conflicts than facing the common enemy. It reminds me of the Judean League factions in the Life of Brian.
I am also linking to two reviews relevant to the Principia paper (Joe Postma appears to be an accomplice of Carl Brehmer).
https://www.scribd.com/document/121314878/Critique-of-The-Absence-of-a-Measureable-GHE-by-Joe-Postma and https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/16/postma-on-the-greenhouse-effect/.
I see Lord Moncton also joined the fray back in 2011 -. see the following-
”
From: Christopher Monckton
Sent: 31 January 2011 19:52:46
To: Hans Schreuder (Tech Know), …………Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That weblog)
There is a greenhouse effect; increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations add to it; CO2 is a greenhouse gas; at the quantum level it mimics the dipole moment of a more complex molecule; accordingly at its characteristic absorption wavelengths a quantum resonance is established in the molecule, radiating heat that would otherwise have passed harmlessly out into space; and, therefore, adding CO2 to the atmosphere, as we are doing, will cause some warming. It is trivially correct to say that the climate object’s only method of losing heat is by radiation to outer space: however, if some of that heat is retained in the atmosphere, radiating here via the quantum resonance in CO2 molecules rather than radiating harmlessly out to space, warming will of course result. I have already set out, in the simplest terms, the half-page of not particularly difficult undergrad physical math that establishes the fact and magnitude of the greenhouse effect in the whole atmosphere. I sent it to Siddons some time ago, but he remains unconvinced by what is proven mathematics.
The question, therefore, is not whether our adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming, but how much warming will result. This is the central scientific question in the “global warming” debate. Broadly speaking, climate scientists who address that question by measurement and observation tend to favor low climate sensitivity (i.e. not much warming); those who address it by modeling lean toward high climate sensitivity. My own most recent calculations, currently under peer review, suggest lowish climate sensitivity, with the IPCC having perhaps exaggerated it by double (this is a rather more cautious estimate of the exaggeration than that of many climate scientists). Remove even a twofold exaggeration and the climate “problem” vanishes. Where science is proven, one should adhere to it unless there is evidence that the proof is wrong. Like it or not, the fundamental equation of radiative transport, which establishes inter alia that there is a greenhouse effect, is long and definitively proven by reference to Planck’s blackbody law. Nothing from the Slaying the Sky Dragon book provides any serious or credible basis for challenging that proof. Until a serious case is made and submitted for review in the usual way, suggestions to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect are not likely to be taken seriously – and nor should they be.
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley ”
Lastly another puzzling feature of your comment above suggests that your discussions with your spiritual mentor John Nicol has led you to being almost a Slayer, even though John is not.
Is John Nicol forming his own faction and did he dissuade you from signing up?
Tony Price,
I’m very interested in your advice and would appreciate some elaboration.
As I understand it, radiating photons possess kinetic energy and they are absorbed by specific wavelength receptive (or kinetic level) molecules/atoms distributed under a bell-curve. They then whizz off elsewhere and mostly find new transitory accommodation. Presumably the reemissions are at the same kinetic energy level so if there has been no change in molecular kinetic energy the residence time of the photon was zero? Can you point me to evidence that residence time is zero….or does the mass/inertia of the photon become zero within the molecule?
I’m also wondering if you can help me WRT to photon free path lengths into GHG molecules near the surface. I guess they are probably Gaussian in distribution but let’s visualize they peak at 100m in length. Only a small proportion are normal to the surface and most are tending towards the horizontal through 360 degrees, where the net heat transfer effect is zero in LTE. I have a past recollection that the majority of emissions become layered at very low heights near the surface of perhaps only 1m. Am I way off mark, and if so can you point to some data?
Regards, Bob_FJ
I’ll answer Bob fernley-Jones first. Thanks for your intelligent questions!
No, the photons don’t possess kinetic energy as such. A C=O bond can absorb a photon of just the right frequency to cause it to flex or stretch, different frequencies for the two modes. A second or subsequent photon can be absorbed, slightly different in frequency to the preceding one. The two modes result in the two main absorption bands, and those bands are comprised of singe, discrete absorption lines, larger at the centre of the band, and increasingly smaller to either side, resulting in the “dome” shape of the spectral plot. Each line represents a photon related to one of the discrete steps in internal bond energy.
When radiation is emitted, the photon emitted is identical to that which was absorbed last – “last in, first out”, so that the emission spectrum exactly matches the absorption spectrum, for each band. I re-emphasise what I said before – the molecule (applies to all GHGs) doesn’t gain or lose any external kinetic energy whatsoever. The gas temperature is therefore unaltered.
It’s very difficult to get any consistent info about mean free path length for photons near the surface. My best guess based on what I’ve read, and I’ve read a LOT on the subject I’m discussing in general here, is it’s of the order of tens of metres. The MFP depends on the temperature of the emitting surface of course – increase the temperature, and the number of LWIR photons increases also, so the MFP increases, as the lower layers of GHGs are already saturated.
What causes re-emission? Collision with other gas molecules is one well-known mechanism. Spontaneous re-emission occurs in a very short time after absorption, of the order of microseconds. Collision is an important mechanism, and fairly obviously decreases with decreasing pressure, as molecular MFP decreases.
Collision between GHG molecules with non-GHG molecules can also result in energy being transferred yo GHG bonds, resulting in the non-GHG molecule giving up some kinetic energy. This means that non-GHG gases effectively transfer heat energy to GHG gases. The GHG gases emit that absorbed energy as LWIR photons. GHG gases COOL the atmosphere, the don’t in any way, shape or form, warm it.
I hope that answers your questions – if not feel free to ask again, of course. I had many links on the various aspects of GHG behaviour, but lost them all when my laptop went belly-up two years ago with a HD failure. Gradually building them up again (and backing my bookmarks up to a UDB drive!).
Aidan Stanger said (I’m responding to each point in turn):
Tony Price,
It is indeed a dangerous thing. There are three apparent problems with your hypothesis:
1) Warming is an observed outcome, not just a theoretically derived possibility.
– Correlation is not causation.
2) Radiation emitted by CO2 is also absorbed by solid objects (including the ground) so you can’t dismiss it as having no role whatsoever.
– Point me to where I said that it had no role whatever? My post was discussing its role (and GHGs in general).
3) UIVMM, temperature is the combination of translational, rotational and vibrational effects, and when a collision occurs, the energy is transferred regardless of whether its original source was translational, rotational or vibrational. Therefore CO2 or other GHG absorption WILL warm the atmosphere.
– Point me to some sources for evidence backing up that statement as a whole.
Just another couple of points to make here. Oft-quoted, is that an atmosphere with GHGs warm the surface, around 15°C, when compared with an earth without an atmosphere. That’s very likely true, thereabouts.
The problem is in the statement – “without an atmosphere”. With a non-GHG atmosphere, that atmosphere would have no mechanism for losing heat, apart from to the surface, which would be hotter, and not heat up as a consequence. That atmosphere would continue to warm by conduction/convection (and evaporation, assuming there’s water on the surface) and would continue to do so until there was no net transfer to it. At that point it would be very hot, as the process would have been going on for millions of years.
Adding GHGs would cool such an atmosphere, as it could then lose heat energy to space. More GHGs, faster cooling. And yet the consensus is that GHGs warm the surface? The “greenhouse effect” is a net cooling effect, not a warming one.
Ignored in all these seemingly endless discussions, is that GHGs absorb only a part of the radiation from the surface. If that surface warms, then the portion which escapes unhindered will also increase. That’s a cooling effect to counter any small increase in back radiation from GHGs.
Another seemingly endless discussion is sensitivity – the effect of doubling CO2. Even the modellers admit that CO2 bands are effectively saturated. There’d be very little or no increase in back-radiation at all. Almost all of that comes from already saturated lower layers, likely only 10s of metres thick. Any effects are marginal at best.
The likes of Bill Nye (the non-science=nonsense) guy, laughably try to demonstrate the greenhouse effect using infra-red lamps and glass containers of air and CO2.
Small problem #1 – the lamps emit short-wave IR, which plays no part in the greenhouse effect.
Small problem #2 – the glass absorbs IR at all wavelengths.
Result – the lamp heats up the glass jar, which transfers heat to the gas within by conduction. Only gas specific heat (and irregularities in the apparatus) plays a part.
One last point “a cooler body cannot heat a hotter body” – that’s true, and in the case of the earth surface/atmosphere interaction, demonstrably true. My point is the use of the word “heat” implying “heat up” or increase the temperature. Back radiation (which energy originated from the surface anyway) simply replaces some of the lost heat energy. The net transfer is from surface to atmosphere.
What the slayers and others conveniently fail to do is actually define what the Second Law says, which is that there’s a NET transfer from hotter to cooler. Flux between the two is properly described as NET flux. Radiative flux is a vector – it has direction. Up is positive, down is negative. Add the two to get total or net flux, and some enlightenment.
Don’t want to dominate this thread, but one last thought. Can CO2, by whatever mechanism, warm the atmosphere? Assume, for the moment, it can transfer heat energy. CO2 is one molecule for every 3000 molecules of O2 & N2. It must be the proverbial Goliath, to have an any measurable effect.
@ Tony Price,
Many thanks Tony. I’m a bit hampered in being a retired mechanical engineer and I only did chemistry in my first two years back in the fifties. It was not a happy experience, apart from enjoying tormenting the two supervisors, (one withdrew in defeat) and I‘ve not been back there for some six decades. Thus I take-in your carbon-oxygen-bond advice without great comprehension and go from there. So here’s my new understanding of radiative effects without thinking too much about presumably different water vapour:
Earth’s surface nominally radiates hemispherically according to S&B and the PD between it and opposing radiation is the resultant radiative heat transfer from the surface (companioned by conductive heat transfer etcetera). Any receptive GHG molecules above will absorb photons (at altitudes below saturation level) without any change in their KE and since they are elevated above the surface will reemit spherically* resulting in some “back-radiation”. You suggest the MFP are in tens of metres near the surface, which I think supports my suggestion that because most spherical radiation is tending laterally through 360 degrees rather than normal to the surface, there should be an initial layer of intense radiation at of the order of around 1m above the surface. I guess there should be successive ~1m layers above that until lapse rate, saturation and whatnot start to play a part.
It seems to me that there are some intriguing geometric and MFP considerations in the layers “near” to the surface in that a greater proportion of the emissions tending downwards will be absorbed by the surface rather than GHG molecules. Throw-in the distribution ranges of molecular KE and free path lengths, chaotically arranged absorption lines, collisions, complex parallel heat transfer processes and uncertain values, and the maths are tad challenging?
I was about to chat about what happens at say an altitude of 1Km when what with lapse rate at around 5 to 10 degrees/Km (wet to dry) we’re beginning to see a significant T1-T2 value and PD for radiative heat transfer. But groan there are things that bother me including; where/what are the 100% saturation relativities and up-down directionality, and more, so I’ll pause and go tear my hair out.
Meanwhile, radiating photons do possess KE and photon inertia pressure can be calculated, and radiative heat transfer can be S&B calculated from T1 – T2, etcetera. You advise that the residence time of photons in CO2 is of the order of microseconds. OK, that’s not very long, but the number of transactions just within the first 1m layer I’ve imagined above is mind-blowingly immense. Surely the consequence is that there is a significant cumulative delay in heat loss? Even though the bond stretching indicates no change in molecular KE (= change of “molecular T” range under a bell curve) CO2 slows the escape of heat from the surface resulting nominally in warming of the surface.
There’s a great deal of other stuff going on though, and I suspect that negative feedback from evapotranspiration is a killer for CAGW…..and clouds……and……
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* I’ve been puzzled for a long time about S&B calculation of hemispherical (omnidirectional) radiation from a flat body versus molecular spherical radiation. I recall attempts to treat layers of GHG as a near-black blackbody using S&B. However, the latter concept has doubled magnitude of radiation versus a flat body at the same T? I’ve Googled around in the past for help but have been unsuccessful.
Many thanks Tony,
Bob_FJ
With regards to John Nicol’s comment above,
The material he presents is outside my level of competence (which does not appear to be of concern for the majority of the people who comment here) so I will not comment directly other than a few comments .
My major concern is his derived temperature for bitumen in open sun of 116.13C.
Has this been measured (to 5 significant figures , wow!) or just a result of his calculation? Later on he quotes a value of 122.3C These values seem very high (See http://www.civil.uminho.pt/highways/publications/2006_(AR2006)_Minhoto_Pais_Pereira_A.pdf) and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214509516300043 .
I believe there have been reports as high as 75C for temperatures in central Australia during a heat wave (see http://www.roadmaintenance.com.au/index.html%3Fpage_id=30.html).
In contrast, it seems you only need 55C to fry an egg. See http://www.livescience.com/37860-hot-enough-to-fry-an-egg-on-the-sidewalk-this-weekend.html .
This discrepancy maybe simply that his calculations do not include temperature loss via conduction in the other direction i.e. towards the cooler ground. This would explain the much lower values, in real life, reported elsewhere. This massive oversight does not give one much confidence in anything else included in in his comment.
Also John has done his calculation for a black road surface under direct sun in tropical conditions. This seems to be totally unrepresentative of the earth. A more appropriate example would be for the ocean which would give a very different picture. He could also cover the night time situation.
Finally with regard to his concluding statements-
“Experimental evidence which tends to favour the results of the above analysis, as demonstrated clearly by the pause in warming over the past, approximately, 19 years, while the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has measurably increased at an accelerated rate.”
John is a physicist but. I suspect he has never published anything recently in the area of experimental science. If he had, he would realize that providing a result without considering the statistical significance would never pass peer review in any reputable journal. It is also the usual requirement to get a pass grade for an undergraduate report.
You always need to provide an estimate or better still a calculation of the uncertainties for your reported measurement. To claim that the pause exists (or ever has existed) could only be made if you can quote the uncertainties so that this hypothesis could be tested.
To go over it again (see my concluding comments from Jennifer’s previous blog), the situation at the moment is that there is no period from the start of the UAH satellite data until the present where the trend is zero or negative. Even at the height of “Pause Mania”.when, by appropriate cherry picking, you could get a trend below zero, the uncertainties vastly overwhelmed the trend.
To illustrate this – http://s20.postimg.org/deaz62z19/Pause_Busting.jpg. The upper set of curves are for the current UAH V6 beta data, while the lower is the situation two years ago when the trend was negative for a select range of cherry picked months. The confidence intervals (C.I) are 1.96 Sigma i.e. 95%. Even if you relaxed the requirements to 1 sigma (67%) the pause is still statistically insignificant for both cases.
I am amazed that no-one else picked up the obvious issue with the derivation of the surface temperature of the road. Possibly no one else has read John’s contribution which would be entirely understandable
So Jennifer I suggest you might look elsewhere for you guidance and advice.
Sorry to be so harsh about John’s contribution. He sounds like a nice guy.
Bob fernley-Jones – That’s a fair bit to absorb just now, but your thinking, and at least you ARE thinking, many blog commenters hardly excercise their grey matter, is interesting.
Yes, I agree that photons do possess a small KE, but it’s not relevant to GHG absorption IMHO. I’ll get back to you on your comment when I’ve thought about it in more detail.
The problem with the small “extra” warming as a result of GHG increase is that the models (MODTRAN, etc.) don’t represent an equilibrium condition, just the small consequent effect just after an instantaneous increase in GHGs and therefore increase in temp. at the surface. In the long term, once equilibrium is reached, the earth/atmosphere system MUST radiate back to space what is received from the sun. Otherwise runaway warming would have occurred billions of years ago when CO2 and other GHG concentratons were much higher. We wouldn’t be here discussing this now.
Scientists STILL have no real idea what triggers ice ages. My belief in general is that climate science is still in its infancy, and that many apparently correlative mechanisms are poorly understood – the detailed and overall effect of clouds, for example. It’s a fact that most climate models have over-estimated warming since about 1998-2000. The fact that many quite different mechanisms to explain that inconvenient fact have been postulated fills me with no confidence in either the models or the modellers, or some climate scientists, for that matter.
Many sceptics are clutching at straws – they criticise and denigrate good, honest climate researchers and their work, try to fault it in detail, yet accept statements and thin theories from their “own side” without question, and mostly without checking for themselves, even the most cursory checks.
I’ve been researching sea level for about the last 10 years. I recently read a post from a well-respected blogger that sea-level in the Indian Ocean “has been stable for 40-50 years”, in other words, not rising. He was quoting Nils-Axel Mörner, who’s never analysed a tide-gauge record in his life (prove me wrong!). The data doesn’t just suggest otherwise, it proves it. Simply parroting what others claim without checking its veracity at all is not acceptable, in my view, and if you take the partisan view, doesn’t just not support the sceptical view, but damages it irreparably.
Tony Price
“With a non-GHG atmosphere, the atmosphere would have no mechanism for losing heat, apart from to the surface, which would be hotter, and not heat up as a consequence.”
We can freeze and warm nitrogen (frozen nitrogen is used by doctors to treat minor sun caused skin damage) which suggests this gas absorbs and emits energy. When we heat a room surely all the air, including nitrogen and oxygen, is warmed not just the “greenhouse” gases. When the air subsequently cools both nitrogen and oxygen must be capable of emitting energy.
Given these two gases account for nearly 99% of the atmosphere it is difficult to accept they do not also radiate energy to space at the top of the atmosphere.
What am I missing?
Ross Handsaker
rossliz1970@gmail.com
@ Ross Handsaker,
If I can quickly answer for Tony;
• With a non GHG atmosphere, by definition the air would be invisible to infrared radiation from the surface, and whilst more solar energy would reach the surface, more of it would be reflected from the surface too. More importantly, there would be a massive increase in surface radiation directly to space per the Stefan–Boltzmann law. Complications in the analogy include that there would be no oceans or vegetation and thus higher albedo (greater reflections). Diurnal T fluctuation would be extreme, (if less so than the moon because of length of day etecetera), and there would be greater atmospheric convection but surface radiation would be supreme. Average T would be meaningless and a tad tricky to calculate.
• Although the latent heats of evaporation and fusion for nitrogen are much lower than water its boiling point is rather cold at minus 196 ⁰C, thus there is a huge difference between T1 –T2 in the calculation of conductive heat transfer from the human skin into the nitrogen.
• Nitrogen and oxygen have been shown to have no measurable emissions within the Earthly spectra. They are seen to be excited by high energy radiation from space and emit coloured light in the auroras but the wavelengths are measured in Angstroms which are 10,000 times smaller units than microns as used to measure wavelengths in the atmosphere.
Hi Ross,
Some references for above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Magnetosphere/tour/tour_earth_magnetosphere_09.html
Ross Handsaker – I’m not trying to be condescending, but you’re missing the point. Of course, all substances, solid, liquid and gas, can gain and lose energy – kinetic energy of their molecules. Air without GHGs has a minuscule absorption/re-emission of long-wave infra-red. That air could only gain heat by conduction/convection at the earth’s surface, and could not lose that energy to space, except in weak, very low-energy bands. Also, nitrogen and oxygen do absorb a small amount of ultra-violet from the sun, if I remember correctly. A non-GHG atmosphere would continue to heat up, and with almost no absorption by any gases, and no clouds, of course (no water vapour), do that rapidly.
Our atmosphere absorbs quite a bit of infra-red and ultra-violet from the sun, and is heating up before the remainder of the sun’s radiation has struck the surface. Short-wave infra-red accounts for about 50% of the incoming radiation, a point missed by many blog authors and commenters. It’s the main reason sunlight warms your skin.
Thank you Tony for your forbearance. I am aware of the ultra-violet light/oxygen/ozone relationship in the stratosphere and the Kiehl, Trenberth Energy Budget.
If non-greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb energy (kinetic) from conduction/convection/(latent heat)evapo-transpiration, would not they also emit energy at a wavelength relative to their temperature? Given greenhouse gases also absorb and emit energy (infra-red) there seems to be a similarity with non-GHG’s! (I understand infra-red and kinetic energy are both forms of electromagnetic energy.)
As non-GHG’s absorb and emit energy (just like greenhouse gases) it seems odd a non-GHG atmosphere would be unable to cool.
“Second, we do not and cannot affect the level of carbon dioxide in air”
-Senator Malcolm Roberts
Who can possibly believe such a claim?
Ross Handshaker,
“As non-GHG’s absorb and emit energy (just like greenhouse gases) it seems odd a non-GHG atmosphere would be unable to cool.”
The “greenhouse” gas people argue that a “GHG” atmosphere is the one that is unable to cool. Are you telling them that the non-GHG’s are unable to cool?
It’s far easier to solve that dilemma by just saying there’s no difference between “greenhouse” gases, and non-“GHG’s”….far better to just come out and say, quit the differentiation of the various wave lengths, it suits only the believers of the “greenhouse” theory….and looky here, infra-red also comes from the sun…otherwise the diagram in this link is severely mistaken…..
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/formation_ionosphere_big.jpg
.See the blue band of the infra-red of the “solar light waves” coming from the sun ,right down to the Earth’s surface….oh dear, infra-red all over the place.
Maybe it’s best to just forget about “greenhouse” gases.
.
@Mack,
In the chart you cite, the blue bar representing solar infrared is shortwave IR (aka near-infrared). It is “colder” Earth sourced longwave infrared that is involved in the GHG effect. See the following graphic which shows the relevant high energy solar absorption spectra versus the Earthly longwave stuff:
http://www.oocities.org/marie.mitchell@rogers.com/climate_files/RadiationAbsorption_0_11km.png
The following graphic splits out the individual GHG’s for you:
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
See that below about 1.9 microns wavelength (short wave IR) there is no absorption of CO2 shown.
@Ross,
Intuitively you may think that the surface temperature range on Earth at around +/- 50 ⁰C is large, but in the physical realm it is miniscule. It does not follow that all gas species spontaneously emit photons within that small range (or at least not significantly).
It is true that the air is transparent to visible light, for instance per surface reflections in photographs taken in Space, and there is infrared remote surface sensing from satellites through what are known as windows in the spectra (non-absorbent wavelengths).
The sharpest visible light imaging and most rapid heat loss from infrared is in arid regions (absence of water vapour). Even the hottest sand-deserts can get very cold at night as a result of less slowing of emissions from the surface.
If nitrogen and oxygen were to spontaneously emit photons, do you conceive that they do it without absorption of same? Emissions are spherically omnidirectional and thus result in diffusion. This is visibly greatest with higher levels of water vapour and that’s why space telescopes are best located on arid high mountains.
If you were to conceptualize Earth with an atmosphere of only nitrogen and oxygen together with a surface comprising a perfect mirror, it would be an extremely cold place.
See also my comment to Mack.
Ross Handsaker asked:
“If non-greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb energy (kinetic) from conduction/convection/(latent heat)evapo-transpiration, would not they also emit energy at a wavelength relative to their temperature?”
No, there is no mechanism by which they can do so, in any significant way. The absorption/emission spectra are available to see on the net. For O2 & N2, such effects are miniscule, for Argon and other monatomic gases, zero.
The reason is that non-GHG gases are homonuclear – one type of molecule. They can vibrate (stretching) internally, but do not absorb/emit photons in general. The effects I’ve outlined apply to “normal” temperatures. At much higher temperatures, electrons within atoms can gain/lose energy, jumping from one state to another, and cause photons to be emitted. For example, nitrogen is used to “pump” CO2 molecules in a CO2 laser, at high temperature. The CO2 converts the absorbed kinetic energy from the N2 to internal vibration (several modes, so several bands), and almost instantaneously emits photons in its classic GHG emission bands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser
Note, however, right at the bottom of the article, the schoolboy howler “Because the atmosphere is quite transparent to infrared light, CO2 lasers are also used for military rangefinding using LIDAR techniques.”
It should have said that at the power output (kilowatts) for these lasers, and with a very narrow coherent beam, the atmosphere is effectively transparent to IR.
Bob Fernley- Jones. ,
I think you’re throwing a bit of a red-herring there. You’ve given us a non-“greenhouse” atmosphere and added a mirror surface of the Earth…saying we would extremely cold with that. I would say that with that same non-“greenhouse” atmosphere and a black asphalt surface, it would be an extremely hot place.
Mirrors and black-asphalt, Bob, speculative unreal, unquantified, assumptions. Hand waving with zero proof of any “greenhouse” effect of the atmosphere.
Mack – not all the short-wave IR from the sun passes straight through the atmosphere unhindered. Water vapour absorbs some of it (depends on frequency), and ozone (O3) a very little more. It’s not “an argument” that a non-GHG atmosphere cannot lose heat by radiation in any meaningful way, it’s KNOWN scientifically. Absorption/emission spectra have been produced for all known gases, over time. There’s a helluva difference between arguments and hypotheses, and well observed (and measured) and attested scientific fact.
The diagram you linked is demonstrating something quite different to what we’re talking about here, and is from an educational site, which simplifies some things to get the message across.
For those who want an historical context for absorption of long-wave IR by GHGs, absorption by water vapour killed the development of very short-wave (high-resolution) radar during the second world war, leading eventually to all sorts of research and new science. Radar transmissions fall into the very long-wave IR portion of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Microwave ovens were developed after the observation that radar beams close to the transmitter warmed objects in their path (and could cause internal injury to humans, too).
@Tony Price,
Re your comment on MODTRAN. I’ve often wondered about the modelling even though when I last looked it, it seemed to compare quite well with Nimbus satellite observations. For one thing, it seems to me that not all emissions from Earth are within the line of sight of a satellite and I doubt if a corrective algorithm can be reliably applied.
I did a guest essay at WUWT nearly five years ago where I questioned in lay terms the IPCC/Kevin Trenberth ‘Earth’s Energy Budget’ cartoon and appended a short piece comparing Nimbus with MODTRAN. The post created much activity with 669 comments but not much on MODTRAN and I’ve not looked at it since then.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/26/does-the-trenberth-et-al-%e2%80%9cearth%e2%80%99s-energy-budget-diagram%e2%80%9d-contain-a-paradox/
@Mack,
Sorry, the perfect-mirror model was a simple thought exercise to conclude on the points preceding it. If you don’t get it, then please ignore it and instead focus on the lead-up which you don’t seem to have considered.
Your model doesn’t help because it is complicated, for instance it does not eliminate conduction and convection. Also, whilst your black surface would in biological terms be extremely hot at midday in the tropics, it would become extremely cold come night. Near the poles, it would be extremely cold half the year, alternating to a modest mix the other half. Whilst there would be rapid heating directly under the sun, because there are no GHG’s to delay escape of radiation (liberated to free passage at the speed of light), equilibrium would be reached rapidly, (assisted a little by conduction-convection). It is useful to compare the moon but length of day and surface differences are among some complications.
I repeat my penultimate paragraph:
“If nitrogen and oxygen were to spontaneously emit photons, do you conceive that they do it without absorption of same? Emissions are spherically omnidirectional and thus result in diffusion. This is visibly greatest with higher levels of water vapour and that’s why space telescopes are best located on arid high mountains.”
Please study it carefully.
@ Ross,
Oh, and also the two paragraphs before that:
“It is true that the air is transparent to visible light, for instance per surface reflections in photographs taken in Space, and there is infrared remote surface sensing from satellites through what are known as windows in the spectra (non-absorbent wavelengths).”
“The sharpest visible light imaging and most rapid heat loss from infrared is in arid regions (absence of water vapour). Even the hottest sand-deserts can get very cold at night as a result of less slowing of emissions from the surface.”
@ Mack
Sorry, for @ Ross above please read @ Mack. I’m tired from a late night.
@Slayers
Got to love those Flir infra red video cameras. At room temperature they can receive and process with clear detail, pictures of radiation from much cooler objects than themselves. They very simply prove radiation can and does travel from both warm to cool and cool to warm in the sam fashion for both. That is they opperate the same way if the target is cooler or warmer with no transition between.
@Bob F J Thankyou for the link to the radiative balance chart. The supposed imbalance of 0.6W/M^2.
Me thinks far too many inputs and outputs to the planets energy are ignored for this chart to be accurate any more than a fluke.
Examples of other inputs and outputs and errors.
Who here can tell me how much radio, audio and sub Hz energy is transmitted from the Earths magnetic tail as EMR?
Where is the heat from radioactive decay on that chart?
Incoming light divided by 4 is for a Sphere but the earth is not a sphere. The diameter at the equator is wider than from pole to pole.
.
Imbalance continued
Hydrogen and Helium liberated at the surface rise so fast they reach escape velocity and leave the planet. How much energy do we loose that way?
Likewise hydrogen and other protons rain in as cosmic radiation. If these find some O3 to mate with, how much energy and water do we gain this way?
Imbalance continued.
Telegraph lines were melted, opperators were electrocuted, and fires were started on telegraph paper during the 1859 Carrington event. These were just small long single conductors with an earth return through the ground but recieve a lot of non light heat. The salt water oceans are much bigger conductor with an earth return. How much heat do they provide this way from the frequent similar small events?
The regular tidal motion of the oceans generated electric heat by moving a conductor in a magnetic field but how much heat?
How much radio energy is radiated off the planet by cloud to ground lightning and cloud to space sprites?
How much energy leaves the planet as Geo-Neutrinoes?
Does the light from the polar aurora count as incoming or outgoing energy?
How much starlight do we absorb? Now add that to moonlight and offset it by the cosmic background radiation.
Do we gain or loose enegy via the Van Allen belts?
This list goes on and on but what is the point. The chart is not accurate and cannot be with so many unknowns.
Apologies Bob fernley-Jones, I cannot reply to your conversations above, because I’m a layman….but can roughly understand what you’re saying, and it seems OK stuff to me.
Here’s the slayers admitting that back-radiation “just slow the rate of cooling” which is exactly what happens, while completely missing the point.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/why-greenhouse-theory-violates-2nd-law.html
They quote Clausius “Heat generally cannot spontaneously flow [i.e. the net vector] from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”
The “net vector” means just that – there are two vectors – radiation up from the surface (call it positive) and lesser radiation down from GHGs (call it negative). Add the two to get the net vector, i.e. net radiation upwards.
Now, if as they admit, back-radiation slows the rate of cooling, then there is, instantaneously, less radiation up than down (sun + back-radiation). The surface will warm until up = down at equilibrium. I don’t like the term “deniers” when applied to sceptics of all persuasions in this debate, but the slayers ARE deniers.
When it’s pointed out that radiation meters actually measure the down-welling radiation, they wriggle and claim that (thanks, Siliggy) such instruments don’t measure radiation at all! Claes Johnson tied himself in knots attempting to justify this denial. His claims abot what he initially called “infrared cameras” (they quite obviously aren’t) measure (his word, cameras measure nothing) frequency, or the temperature of the emitting body, or……
Such instruments don’t measure, or estimate, or guess at frequency, a very difficult and process for electro-magnetic radiation. To measure something, it has to be sensed. If it’s sensed, then it exists. I won’t go into the evolution (it’s the only word to describe it) of Claes’s wriggling and ludicrous claims, which ended up with him claiming (Judith Curry’s blog) that meters and pyrogeometers “measure frequency”, then using Wien’s Law, estimate the shape of the Planck curve, and so calculate radiation flux. Pure and simply a load of gonads. Later on, in more wriggling under pressure, he claimed they “measure temperature”. They don’t, and they can’t. Temperature of a remote body, whether it’s feet or AU distant (Sun, planets, stars), can’t be measured directly. A radiation meter just measures total radiation flux. It has no way of knowing whether that radiation is coming from a relatively cool body close to it, of an extremely hot one very far away. The meter has to have the distance set, so that the flux measured can be used to calculate that temperature.
The simplest meters use the photo-electric effect, just like photographic light meters. The sensor receives photons. Photons = radiation. Simples.
Tom Price says:
“When it’s pointed out that radiation meters actually measure the down-welling radiation, they wriggle and claim that (thanks, Siliggy) such instruments don’t measure radiation at all!”
Yes have tackled many of them over the years. Well before Judith Curry became a skeptic. The cameras have improved a lot over the time.
I find they tie themselves in even tighter knots when time is introduced.
EG: Light leaves a cool planet just before it explodes. The light is heading out into black space but after travelling for countless light years it finds a hot sun has been pushed into the way. What will it do?
If Malcom Roberts has been influenced by Slayers it would be wise to un-influence him fast.
Completely off-topic, but maybe relevant to Jennifer and her temperature tussles. It just occurred to me what “homogenisation” actually is. It shows what the temperature of, for example Darwin, would be it it were somewhere else.Totally useless and unscientific, and to my mind, fraudulent.
Thanks everyone for your contributions, and may they continue – including Bob F-J: great to read you here.
I have found Tony Price’s most recent contribution very useful in sorting out the politics (as much as the science) in my own mind.
Tony Price writes:
‘They quote Clausius “Heat generally cannot spontaneously flow [i.e. the net vector] from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”
The “net vector” means just that – there are two vectors – radiation up from the surface (call it positive) and lesser radiation down from GHGs (call it negative). Add the two to get the net vector, i.e. net radiation upwards.
Now, if as they admit, back-radiation slows the rate of cooling, then there is, instantaneously, less radiation up than down (sun + back-radiation). The surface will warm until up = down at equilibrium. I don’t like the term “deniers” when applied to sceptics of all persuasions in this debate, but the slayers ARE deniers.’
Thanks for this.
………………………………………..
Tony Price,
If you could indulge us further: you have focused so far very much on what happens in the few metres above the earth’s surface. What about high up in the atmosphere, above the clouds? Can, as John Nicol and I suggest in the above article, more carbon dioxide result in a net cooling?
……………………………………
Siliggy,
Thanks for your contributions in the above thread. And you make comment about Malcolm Roberts being influenced by the Slayers. I had a really good two-hour or so discussion with Malcolm, and also John Nicol last Friday.
Malcolm thinks very deeply about these issues, and has been very influenced by the Slayers. It will only be through the opportunity to unpack the evidence that he might change his perspective, which is very much aligned with the Slayers. John Nicol comes much closer to Tony Price – in perspective.
I learnt a lot from both Malcolm and John discussing and arguing points of detail last Friday.
I would love to be able to open these discussions up to a wider audience.
How can we get some seminars going that involved people such as Malcolm Roberts, John Nicol, Tony Price and others? Is it possible to do something like this over the internet – live?
Jennifer,
I am glad that you have not joined the Slayers.
As for the debate involving Malcolm Roberts, John Nicol , Tony Price etc., I personally would find it very entertaining. So bring it on and I will supply the popcorn.
Referring to your comment above addressed to Tony Price regarding the regions above the clouds. It is well known, by those who have been paying any attention, that as you go higher the temperature trend becomes negative. This is in contrast to the bottom of the troposphere. This is another signature of the Greenhouse effect that was predicted some 40 years ago.
For UAH v6 beta 5 for the lower stratosphere and the lower troposphere, the temperature trends are shown here-
http://s20.postimg.org/aw9htv2l9/UAH_TLT_and_LS.jpg .
Further discussion on the stratospheric temperatures and CO2 (and O3) can be found here –
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/18/stratospheric-cooling/ .
Jennifer – will respond in detail later. I love debate, it’s the life-blood of real science.
Motto of the Slayers: “Think of something, QUICK!”
Everyone should be a sceptic (small “s”). I accept nothing whatsoever without checking for myself, and I’m always willing to change my mind, and my opinion. I’ve changed my mind many times over the years, with those changes bringing me ever closer to what I believe is the truth, or as close as I can get to the truth. No science is ever set in stone, new reliable evidence is constantly turning up.
As Rutherford is is quoted as saying “If the facts change, I change my mind, what do YOU do sir?”
@ MikeR
“It is well known, by those who have been paying any attention, that as you go higher the temperature trend becomes negative.” our arrogant troll, MikeR asserts.
Bollocks. The temperature trend is certainly POSITIVE, going higher between the mesosphere to thermosphere….
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/layers_activity_print.html
You can get above 1500deg C with an active sun on the thermosphere.
also btw MikeR…”Science of Doom” looks like he’s packed it in, having not posted anything since January this year….so it’s no good sending us off to ancient history in defunct alarmist blogs.
@ Mack – in the context of this discussion, what effect does the thermosphere have on climate, which is what MikeR and the rest of us are talking about, or do you just enjoy being pedantic?
Hi Jennifer,
Sure, heat loss from the surface can ultimately only be emitted to space via radiation but its escape is slowed by the GHG’s. That is to say that if there were no GHG’s, (or wet water and AOTBE), surface radiation would instantaneously escape and there would be much faster cooling than with progressive reemissions AOTBE.
This is demonstrable in that water vapour varies around 0 – 4%, whereas CO2 is only 0.04%. In arid, cloudless deserts there are less GHG’s and here’s a quote on desert survival:
“Temperatures in arid areas may get as high as 55 degrees C during the day and as low as 10 degrees C during the night. The drop in temperature at night occurs rapidly and will chill a person who lacks warm clothing and is unable to move about…” http://www.aircav.com/survival/asch13/asch13p01.html
Humid tropical regions have cooler maxima and are more equable including on cloudless days (putting aside some complications in the comparison).
Jennifer asked:
“If you could indulge us further: you have focused so far very much on what happens in the few metres above the earth’s surface. What about high up in the atmosphere, above the clouds? Can, as John Nicol and I suggest in the above article, more carbon dioxide result in a net cooling?”
Something I didn’t mention explicitly, is that in the troposphere, water vapour dominates over CO2. WV is a weaker absorber/radiator, but it covers much of the LWIR spectrum, and there’s a lot more of it. It’s almost entirely constrained to the troposphere, because of course, it condenses to water droplets in clouds at a relatively low level. It’s almost entirely CO2 and the other GHGs which radiate to space.
In theory, more CO2 should result in higher radiation to space, and therefore net cooling. However “consensus science” says that as the radiating layer moves higher with increasing (mainly) CO2, it will have a lower temperature (I agree), and consequently radiate less than before, even though the concentration has increased.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s the sticky issue. Consensus science says that CO2 (and other GHGs) radiate as “black bodies”, but I can’t see how that can be the case. If they did, they’d radiate over a complete Planck curve; but they plainly don’t. They all have clear absorption/emission bands. Their emission spectra might appear to peak on the envelope of a Planck curve, but that’s because the source (the surface) radiates that curve.
I don’t believe that small changes in temperature high up will result in corresponding (temperature to the 4th power) changes in emission. I have seen no convincing evidence for that being true.
Ultimately, the Earth/atmosphere system MUST radiate what it receives, otherwise runaway warming is inevitable. That clearly would have happened in the past, with CO2 concentrations MUCH higher than the recent past. Conversely, why were past periods as warm as now, with much lower atmospheric CO2?
Overall, I think that 40 or so years is too small a span of observations to come to any convincing or reliable conclusions as to what’s actually been happening, and what will occur in the future. IPCC reports have never paid a great deal of attention to clouds, yet a small (1-2%) reduction in cloud cover would easily account for all the warming since around 1970. Similarly, a small increase in water vapour could also explain it. Observation and measurement of both is tricky and patchy. In the words of Joni Mitchell:
I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all
Many (most) climate scientists would agree.
I think there has been a misunderstanding by Mack in his comment above. Clearly I was referring to the long term trend in stratospheric temperatures. This is why I provided a link to a spreadsheet of the UAH lower stratosphere data (and Lower troposphere data) showing the trends from 1979 until the present.
What was discussed was clearly not the same as the vertical temperature profile which is shown at the site Mack linked to. I would have thought this would have been obvious to Mack if he bothered to click on the link.
If however he did however click on the site, then this is an even bigger source of worry about Mack , who unfortunately does not appear to be the sharpest knife in the shed.
As for Mack’s accusation of being an arrogant troll I plead guilty as charged. I have to say, yet again, that I can find it difficult to constrain my condescending tone when faced with arrant nonsense. In short I don’t tolerate fools.
Similarly for the troll line, yes I do like to inject my point of view that often differs from the prevailing opinions and again I must thank Jennifer, in the true spirit of open debate, for not banishing me for my contrarian views.
@ Tony Price
“–in the context of this discussion, what effect does the thermosphere have on climate…..”
The relevance of the thermosphere on the climate might be best explained to you, reading my comments…just very recently…on this posting by Stefan Ramsdorf at Real Climate. I must say I’m very delighted to finally be allowed to comment on Real Climate….Stefan must have let his guard down….or they might be loosening up a bit. My second to last comment however, went into The Borehole …obviously too much for them.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/can-a-blanket-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-660585
Mack – in that post is this:
“The Earth loses heat to the cold universe. The atmosphere inhibits this heat loss. Therefore, the surface remains warmer than it would be without the atmosphere.”
There they go again – what about an Earth with a GHG-free atmosphere? That’s never discussed, as I mentioned earlier. Such an atmosphere has no mechanism for losing heat, so would it end up hotter than one with GHGs? I believe it would (above) and I’m fairly sure that Richard Lindzen said it would. Can anyone provide a quote?
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/153_Regulation.pdf
@ Tony Price,
Hi Tony, Reur:
“It’s almost entirely CO2 and the other GHGs which radiate to space.”
I think some readers might misinterpret that by not realizing that you meant it in the context that emissions from water vapour that might escape directly to space after getting past the GHG’s above cloud level (and from the clouds) are negligible.
The much cited IPCC/Kevin Trenberth ‘Earth’s Energy Budget’ cartoon I’ve Googled for originated in John Cook’s SkepticalScience website, so it must be true:
http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png
It shows radiative heat transfer from the surface (W/m2) of 396 -333 =63 of which 40 escapes directly to space through spectral “windows”.
Thus 63% of LW infrared from the surface escapes directly to space and only 37% is reemitted (progressively) to space from the upper level GHG’s
Oddly though, the AR5 version (Wild et al) does not give a value for direct to space surface emissions.
@Tony Price @8:11 am,
But the only mechanism for warming a GHG free atmosphere would be via conduction & convection from surface interface contact.
However, the stabilized average temperatures of the surface would be very much cooler because of its instantaneous reemissions (and increased solar reflections during the day from increased albedo, but still a near-black blackbody everywhere)
HI, over week ago I asked a number of questions addressed to the authors of the article who were speaking on Roberts behalf and confirming they accept his opinions.
eg What happens in this situation? and Would you mind spelling it out for me and how Roberts’ statement is still true all of the time? and Is that not true? and when you say ” the earth’s surface ” you are actually speaking about the temperature of the ground, and the temperature of the ice and the water in the oceans, yeah? Not the air temperature near the surface. Or are you?
Maybe I missed it, but I can see no response to any of my questions. Should I assume that the authors do not have adequate answers, or they assumed the questions were such bad questions they have decided to ignore them completely?
@John Nicol, I read your post and specifically you did not address my questions at all. You continued to focus upon bitumen under a summer sun, and apparently provided incorrect figures as to it’s potential maximum temperature as well.
You seem to like math, so can you do a new set of sums for the same thought experiment located in the antarctic in winter time? At the top of the Himalayas? or perhaps year round on the earths surface at the Barents Sea?
And what are are your qualifications and expertise in regard to climate science? How many papers have you published in this field of scientific research John? (and that have been cited favourably / confirmed as accurate and useful by your peers)
@Jennifer Marohasy “Can, as John Nicol and I suggest in the above article, more carbon dioxide result in a net cooling?”
Surely the answer is ‘no’. Unless you choose to ignore notions of net radiative balance and the physical laws and drivers toward equilibrium in earths climate system as a proven well known reality.
Yes climate (regional and global) has always changed. One thing that has never changed is the planet’s direction toward ECS equilibrium in the cosmos. If there was no atmosphere it would still head to equilibrium and be a frozen ice ball in space and look white and not blue to passing space travelers and aliens with telescopes.
Is this not correct?
regarding “I learnt a lot from both Malcolm and John discussing and arguing points of detail last Friday.” and “I would love to be able to open these discussions up to a wider audience.” and “Is it possible to do something like this over the internet – live?”
Yes. It’s been possible for about +15 years Jennifer.
Have you ever considered the potential benefits of sitting down with active working climate scientists for 3 hours on a Friday one day and having a ‘discussion’ and arguing points?
Or perhaps doing a post-grad degree course in a specialized climate science field at a University and becoming a field researcher under the guidance of a highly qualified climate science professor who is a highly regarded published author?
If it’s all a con then you would have access to the other side and be the whistle-blower to present hard evidence to the world.
Confused_Jane: I only ask because I want to know:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/27/i-only-ask-because-i-want-to-know/
@Siliggy, you ask more questions that I ever could. They seem more rhetorical than mine though, so am curious, do you already know the answers?
regarding “Incoming light divided by 4 is for a Sphere but the earth is not a sphere. The diameter at the equator is wider than from pole to pole.”
Actually divided by four is for a rotating planet being heated by the Sun. I am fairly sure all the scientists in the world comprehend the earth is not a perfect sphere and never refer to it as such Siliggy. Of course the math for incoming heat is far more complex than merely divided by 4, but I think that’s above both our pay grades.
regarding “Me thinks far too many inputs and outputs to the planets energy are ignored for this chart to be accurate any more than a fluke.”
Ahuh, ok. And your evidence for this is….. what? Your unanswered questions or something else.
PS for John Nicol, Roberts is not part of the “government” as you incorrectly said in your reply comment up above.
He’s a merely a humble cross bench senator from Qld who, being a member of the political party One Nation, was elected to the senate on 593,013 votes all up or 4.3% of the total electorate.
If you stood for the senate at #2 position you would have been elected to the senate too. It really doesn’t mean much as to Roberts ‘credibility or importance’ nor what he has to say about anything at the end of the day.
At the moment he gets to vote in the upper house, and then one day he won’t. What says about climate science and other matters is frankly irrelevant especially to the Government and the 95.7% of the electorate who vote.
95.7%; that’s almost the 97%! Aren’t numbers wonderful.
@my two comments above,
I should add that I don’t wish to be unpopular here and should clarify that I’ve been addressing the primary topic which I understand to be: “Do GHG’s cool the surface?”
I believe the evidence is very strongly NO.
However that does not mean that I think increasing CO2 levels beyond 0.04% in the atmosphere are a concern.
The ultimate truth of the IPCC, SkepticalScience, Hot Whopper, Real Climate Etcetera is that global average heat loss from the surface, (as it closely affects the biosphere and human environment) is confirmed by the alarmists in (W/m2) at: 161 of which only 23 (14%) is via GHG reemissions, as initiated near the surface.
Convection and evapotranspiration (in consensus with the prophets of doom) is (17 + 80)/161 = 60% of the surface cooling.
To me, it seems that if this is only half-right then it is potentially a big source of negative feedbacks which I firmly believe negates any concern with increasing GHG warming effect. Nominal GHG warming effects would result in increased feedback surface cooling by dumping latent heat up at cloud level where the clouds emit some upwards. We don’t live up there so that’s good. It also seems likely that increasing water vapour would increase cloud cover thus reducing insolation and increasing rainfall…..and there’s other potentially good stuff.
Unfortunately though, it seems to me that research is hyperventilating in the wrong direction.
Any hypotheses about radiative effects especially above cloud is in my view mainly of academic value and if we are forced into vast expenditures in “climate science” rather than some other more important issues (including I think greater risks to humanity) we should concentrate at the biosphere level and the ‘poorly understood’* phenomena such as clouds and evapotranspration and ENSO and….and….
* It’s technical meaning
@cohenite the link goes to this “it is worth asking for answers from the expert community at WUWT.”
Words have particular meanings cohenite.
expert
noun
1.
a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.
“an expert in health care”
synonyms: specialist, authority, pundit, oracle; More
adjective
1.
having or involving a great deal of knowledge or skill in a particular area.
“he had received expert academic advice”
synonyms: skilful, skilled, adept, accomplished, talented, fine; master, masterly, brilliant, virtuoso, bravura, magnificent, marvellous, wonderful, outstanding, great, exceptional, superlative, formidable, excellent, dazzling, first-class, first-rate, elite, superb; proficient, good, able, apt, capable, competent, clever; experienced, practised, qualified, knowledgeable, well versed; specialist, professional; deft, dexterous, adroit;
That misuse of the word ‘expert’ may an example of Malapropism.
Choose your experts wisely, do not let your experts choose you.
Good advice confused Jane. I’m sure you do not let experts choose you. As to this:
“I am fairly sure all the scientists in the world comprehend the earth is not a perfect sphere and never refer to it as such Siliggy. Of course the math for incoming heat is far more complex than merely divided by 4, but I think that’s above both our pay grades. ”
Actually the foundation of alarmism is based on that very assumption of a perfect sphere as our good friend and scientist Arthur Smith shows:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
Arthur’s perfect sphere was discussed here some time ago:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/10/proof-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-arthur-smith/#comment-66797
All your questions and more were discussed way back then.
@cohenite “based on that very assumption of a perfect sphere as our good friend and scientist Arthur Smith”
Perhaps then you could do a quick copy/paste of where that is assumed in smiths doc?
“All your questions and more were discussed way back then.”
They addressed how the air is cooler than the antarctic ice sheet and parts of the oceans surface? Where?
@Confused_Jane,
I spotted a point you raised that I found interesting!
Yes, it annoys me too that the word “expert” has had some very misleading uses, especially in the media. For instance from that great seeker of truth, the ABC*, here’s an example from the TV panel show Q&A. They recently stacked a panel that included Professor Brian Cox as an inferred climate change expert to attack the lone Senator Roberts’ opinions on AGW. However Cox’s scientific training is in ‘particle physics’ which couldn’t be further removed from the ‘Earth sciences’ (various specialist fields in which are involved in the very loose title of ‘climate science’, even dendrochronologists).
In fact Cox now does very nicely in the new industry of ”science communication”, advantaged with a charismatic TV personality. He is also a self-admitted political activist with a colourful past including being a keyboard player in a band and a self-admitted taker of drugs to enhance his “scientific perceptions”. (He has even accused members of the UK Royal Society of the same practice for the advancement of their science). Cox admits youthful influence from Astro-professor Carl Sagan who was a popular early “science communicator” and sometimes the creator of controversy such as in his pet assumption of the GHG effect fully explaining why Russian space probes discovered the surface of Venus to be not cool as in the contemporary consensus but astonishingly; very, very hot.
Another example was when ABC TV’s Media Watch (MW) attacked the work of acoustical engineer Steven Cooper who conducted innovative research at and around a wind farm over a period of eight weeks involving varying ambient and operating conditions. Cooper found in three homes around 1.6 Km distant significant low frequency sound in some rooms and also floor vibrations under specific conditions, and his massive highly technical report was praised globally by experts in acoustics. The three homes held complainants of health symptoms that they attributed to the wind farm, and Cooper found correlations with their blind diary notes to specific measured conditions, causing him to recommend full medical research. However, despite that MW knew of the professional global commendations, that was excluded from their agenda and they only cited on-air the loud opinions from four “experts” unqualified to comment on the physics of infrasound etcetera. Simon Chapman for instance holds a position in Health but his PhD thesis was on cigarette advertising and he is famous as an activist against tobacco and for arrogant activism for the wind farm industry. His CV has no hint of expertise in acoustics, which is what it was all about. The NHMRC have since released funds for the medical research as recommended by Cooper.
*the Oz equivalent of the BBC
Thank you, cohenite, that’s exactly what I wanted to see.
This discussion is descending into a confused babble of raised voices. A few points:
1. Don’t confuse the Kiehl & Trenberth “radiative energy budget” ( which actually contains more than radiative energy) with the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect. The diagram averages out all the factors over the entire surface, over a year. The greenhouse effect is right here and now, and its effect is different over the entire surface of the globe.
2. The atmosphere doesn’t control the climate; the oceans, and to a lesser extent the land surface do. Because of specific heat, the heat capacity of a dry atmosphere is equivalent to about 3.5 metres depth of sea-water across the oceans, for a moist atmosphere a little more.
3. A warming atmosphere can’t heat the oceans; too little heat capacity, and any small increase leads to increased evaporation. Evaporation is key; latent heat of evaporation is >1000 times the specific heat of water; the ocean surface will cool.
4. For similar reasons, a warming atmosphere cannot melt large amounts of either sea or glacial ice.
5. Climate models assume a “water vapour feedback”, where warming will lead to increased evaporation from land and oceans. The problem with that is that increased water vapour will lead to increased low-level cloud cover, reducing insolation at the surface, a major negative feedback.
6. Climate models can only approximate what goes on in the atmosphere/surface interaction, yet are dealing with and modelling small incremental changes. They’re doomed to fail, and are indeed failing.
7. The IPCC wasn’t set up to investigate the climate per se., but the narrower remit of mankind’s influence on the climate, and so has very narrow terms of reference. IPCC reports aren’t a distillation of pure science, but applied science; science with an agenda. They are converging with the truth though, albeit slowly, and as a result of informed criticism.
Finally, don’t descend to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It’s largely irrelevant whether the K & T budget assumes a perfect sphere, and that the Earth isn’t such. Sceptics (large “s”) have a long history of clutching at straws; that a small error here, or an assumption there, disproves something or other, or proves the opposite. Don’t assume for one moment that what you read on WUWT (or a dozen other blogs) is expert testimony, or carries any more weight than what you might read elsewhere. I can pick holes in much of what I read there, and what I read is less and less as time goes by.
“Perhaps then you could do a quick copy/paste of where that is assumed in smiths doc?”
You’re kidding; the first equation is predicated on a sphere. Try reading something and stop pretending to be dumb whoever you are.
Confused Jane,
I’m always keen to sit down with Bureau, and other climate scientists.
If you could organise an internet chat/discussion, that could include mainstream climate scientists and others that would be fantastic. I know the technology exists, but getting everyone together and making the discussion open to the general public, that would be a first.
I am not sure where you are based, but I would really like to hear a proper discussion between spectroscopy experts. A discussion that included all sides, rather than just preachy propaganda: you get a lot of preachy propaganda in Uni climate science courses now-a-days. I’ve had a look through some of the material on offer.
I’ve had useful discussions with Oscar Alves’ group at the BOM; he’s incharge of the seasonal rainfall forecasting using General Circulation Models. This is what you learn about if you do a course. Of course, its well known that I think GCMs are old technology: that the future is with artificial neural networks (ANNs).
As far as I can tell, my monthly rainfall forecasts are potentially far superior than anything produced by the BOM: considering skill scores. You can read more about this from my publications here: http://climatelab.com.au/publications/
I would like to better understand meteorology, and also atmospheric physics.
As I mentioned above, if you would like to organise a one-off, and or regular internet chat, I would be keen to participate.
@cohenite, in science, words really matter.
Copying what I wrote and that you wrote again:
@cohenite “based on that very assumption of a perfect sphere as our good friend and scientist Arthur Smith”
Perhaps then you could do a quick copy/paste of where that is assumed in smiths doc?
Given you used the words “a perfect sphere”, I asked the question.
Now you come back with: “Try reading something and stop pretending to be dumb whoever you are.”
Well I did read it cohenite, which is why I asked the question. Perhaps you did not read it, or confused yourself over it’s true meaning. Who knows?
But given you now refuse to copy/paste I will do it for you and everyone else:
Quote: “For a spherical planet of radius r ”
Is that what you are referring to? Seems to be.
Now hear this:
spherical
adjective
shaped like a sphere.
“spherical pearls”
synonyms: round, globular, ball-shaped, globe-shaped, orb-shaped, orb-like, bulbous, bulb-shaped, balloon-like;
cohenite, no where in science does ‘spherical’ equate to a ‘perfect sphere’.
It might in your world, but that is not scientific, accurate or true.
You are more than welcome, because I do not mind educating people who believe in myths not facts. Experience tells me it is others who most often become somewhat disagreeable about that. I do not. Everyone makes mistakes. It’s human.
It’s extraordinary rare to be thanked for pointing out anothers obvious mistake though. That too is a very human ‘quality.’
If good enough was close enough Apollo 11 would have missed the moon and ended up out past Pluto. Words and math and the Laws of Physics really do matter cohenite.
Maybe you should leave it to the scientists?
@Bob fernley-Jones, I have no interest in the matters you raise. I simply would like to have my questions answered if possible. If that’s not possible, that’s quite ok too. I will move on.
I don’t accept that Roberts is a useful contributor to public discussions about climate science. His opinions and beliefs do not rate on any scale.
His level of ignorance should not be set as a high bar for excellence and scientific rigor. I am questioning his statements that appear to be supported by John Nicol and Jennifer. What Roberts says makes no logical scientific sense to me.
Maybe I am wrong, if so I am waiting to be corrected and shown clearly where I am wrong.
@Jennifer, Skype is one service that provides for live video conference calls. It’s also free. For others I suggest you google it. I am not up to date with today’s options.
Cohenite states to Jane above “You’re kidding; the first equation is predicated on a sphere. Try reading something and stop pretending to be dumb whoever you are.”
Cohenite is clearly not pretending.
As they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I should add, a tiny bit of knowledge is even more dangerous.
Yes the earth is not perfectly spherical. The earth is an oblate spheroid where the difference between the shortest axis and longest axis is 42 km or just 0.3% of the average diameter.
On that basis alone, anyone with any scientific judgement would think it likely that the assumption of sphericity would be reasonable.
As Cohenite dismisses Smith’s paper peremptorily on the basis of equation 1, I will go into more detail regarding equation 1 than is normally necessary to ensure it understood by Cohenite.
Equation 1 uses the term pi x R^2 for the area of a circle which is the cross-section through the centre of a sphere.
For an oblate spheroid the area should be that of an ellipse rather than a circle. From year 10 or 11 geometry, the area is a x b where a is the length of the semi major axis and b is the length of the semi minor axis.
In the case of the earth, the 0.3% difference represents the difference between the major and minor axis length. For the semi major axis and semi minor axis the deviation from a sphere is 0.15% . The area then equals (a-c)*(a+c) , a being the average of the semi major and semi minor axis and c is 0.15%. This gives the area as Pi x ( a^2-c^2) . So the difference between the area of a circle (pi x a^2) and an ellipse is proportional to 0.15% squared which is about 2.25 parts in 1 million.
There are other equation in Smith’s paper that assume sphericity but all the terms contain factors in r^2 so similar considerations follow.
In reality the assumption of sphericity is totally reasonable and only those who lack any semblance of scientific judgement would bother raising this issue.
“As Cohenite dismisses Smith’s paper peremptorily on the basis of equation 1, I will go into more detail regarding equation 1 than is normally necessary to ensure it understood by Cohenite.”
I most certainly did not dismiss Smith’s paper peremptorily. It took me and a few others about 700 comments in exchange with Smith and few other alarmists to not dismiss but disagree with his treatise.
Smith’s paper again:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
The posts and comments about Smith’s paper:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/10/proof-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-arthur-smith/#comment-66797
The issue of sphericity addressed early in the piece:
“Miskolczi showed that failing a variation in an external radiative source the atmosphere of the earth would maintain radiative and thermal equilibrium by variations in radiative indices; for instance as CO2 levels have increased, RH has declined.
G&T do not dispute heat trapping properties of the thermoluminescent gases; they do dispute that the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse which doesn’t have mitigating feedbacks.
Smith erroneously incorporates all the fallacious elements of the greenhouse concept; he states;
“Similar to the effective albedo, an effective emissivity and effective radiative temperature can be defined as averages over the planetary surface;” (p2).
This is wrong for a number of reasons; the Essex paper on the fallacy of an average temperature is one reason; as a corrollary, the Pielke paper on the fallacy of standardising SB emission is another; G&T note this at Fig 3 on p 20; the constant o~ in SB is not universal because at each point of space many (disparate) rays are associated; thus at TOA, outgoing radiation will have different energy vectors depending on their surface source; this is consistent with Stewart’s Law which says that the emissive power of an object is dependent on its nature, its temperature and the frequency of observation (per Robitaille).”
Smith used averaging in his paper based on the assumption of Earth being a (perfect) sphere. This was the beginning of his problems.
@Confused_Jane
Reur: “…I have no interest in the matters you [Bob_FJ] raise. I simply would like to have my questions answered if possible. If that’s not possible, that’s quite ok too. I will move on.”
That’s OK. You are free to express your dogmatic interests just as I’m free to say that the ONLY single thing I’ve found to be interesting in your tiresome rambles was on the common misuse of the term “experts”. If you wish to ignore that; OK shrug, but maybe passing rational readers here will take note? It’s entirely up to you and I’m not surprised by your dismissal of it given the tenor of your suspiciously trollish trivia.
Furthermore, your slightly arrogant question of whether it’s possible to answer your interrogations might be better put as to; can any readers here overcome a likely boredom of it?
You assert: “I don’t accept that Roberts is a useful contributor to public discussions about climate science. His opinions and beliefs do not rate on any scale. His level of ignorance should not be set as a high bar for excellence and scientific rigor.”
Really? Did you know that Roberts is a professional engineer and is thus trained in various Earth sciences including thermodynamics which are an essential foundation in the so-called “climate science” (which includes some weird stuff like dendrochronology but certainly not ‘particle physics’)?
On the other hand the media lauded slayer of Roberts; Professor Brian Cox is NOT a qualified ‘Earth scientist’ but a particle physicist turned TV personality and a colourful self-admitted political activist and hallucinatory-drug taker etcetera.
I guess it would be too much to ask that you deign to CAREFULLY read the transcript of the ABC Q&A and Cox loaded 5 to 1 (including “chairman” Jones) attack and denial of important scientific points raised by Roberts.
You should study question 2 here: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4499754.htm
Don’t confuse the controversial political views of ‘One Nation’ with Roberts’ understanding of science (as it seems the cheering Q&A audience, panel and chairman did).
I’m willing to help you if you might be interested, but I doubt if that suits your dogma.
Cohenite
For the sake of my sanity I decided not to trawl through the 700 comments at
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/10/proof-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-arthur-smith/#comment-66797 .
I see Cohenite did generate a mere 119 comments. What a busy boy.
I did however, to save the effort required, a search on the word “sphere” and “spherical” and found 15 references in total, of which 13 were passing references.
Cohenite generated one comment regarding a sphere which was ignored by everyone except for a solo response which suggested the difference between a sphere and an ellipsoid was negligible .
Other than that there is no discussion at all of the deficiencies or limitations of a spherical representation for the earth with regard to Smith’s calculations.
In your canned reply above (cut and paste job from the above link) you do not even mention any issues with sphericity (or lack of) except obliquely with these two sentences?.
to quote “averages over the planetary surface;” (p2) and possibly “depending on their surface source” which is more than likely referring to the emissivity of the surface. The rest is padding that is irrelevant to spheres etc.
Finally w.r.t. Cohenite’s last statement “Smith used averaging in his paper based on the assumption of Earth being a (perfect) sphere.”
Yes, Smith did assume a perfect sphere as any sane person would ( see my calculations above). In contrast Cohenite has not provided any evidence anywhere that this assumption has any ramifications upon Smith’s calculations.
Zero , I repeat zero evidence. Actually zero to the power of n (n for nong or nitwit, whichever you prefer).
Now the babble has died down a bit, perhaps we can get back to a level-headed discussion. It’s very common for Sceptics to pick on one or more detailed aspects of climate theory to claim a “flaw”, and yes, it is a theory. No one knows how the climate works overall, and relatively few know how it works in detail. Not me, not you, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Richard Lindzen, not the thousands of “Nobel Prize” winning “contributers” to the last IPCC report.
If you cling to chauvinistic beliefs that the “greenhouse effect” doesn’t exist, or that global sea-level is stable or even decreasing, or that satellites can’t measure sea-level, or whatever, then you’ve joined the “slayer” camp, ignoring clear and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. You’re not a thinker, and your mindset is just that, set. I’ve no time to spare for non-thinkers, unless they’re willing to be enlightened and maybe change their minds.
I’ve changed my mind many times in the past, on some subjects I’m sure I’m changing my mind right now.
I’ve read through the Smith paper linked to by cohenite, and it is of course flawed in detail; it makes many assumptions, several of which can be challenged. His two “worlds” don’t and can’t exist; one without an atmosphere, yet with identical surface albedo to Earth as we know it, with oceans, ice and vegetation – an impossibility. The other is our familiar Earth but without clouds. It’s a purely mathematical exercise, and an unnecessary one too; physics and observation supply the answers without recourse to spherical geometry.
The real question, is how will the climate respond to an increase in GHGs. No-one knows, not me, not you…..
If I was a climate modeller, and my model generated a long-term projection, which incidentally they were never designed to do, and cannot do, and observations increasingly deviated from my model projection, I’d give up and do something else.
Predictions of continued and increasing warming are based purely on model output; models which contain many assumptions and corresponding “fudge factors” to constrain the output to something which looks “reasonable”. Therein lies the weakness of models; internal constraints the climate is not so constrained. Don’t get me wrong, models have a place in climate science, just not to make “projections”. It was an early attempt to model temperature which led to chaos theory; the climate is a chaotic and stochastic system – it can’t be modelled.
Will an increase in GHGs lead to cooling? I don’t think so, but I may be wrong. Will such an increase lead to more warming? Possibly, but I doubt that too. What I am fairly sure of however, is that we’re not going to see CAGW. Basing predictions on a relatively short period (decades), during which poorly understood natural variation operated is foolish, to my mind.
I study sea-level, been doing that for more than ten years, By carefully choosing start-points, I could “prove” that sea-level at for example Sydney, will increase, decrease, or stay much the same. While criticising their “opponents” for doing precisely that, some Sceptics do just the same. Don’t fall into that trap.
As an aside, I’ve found the BOM’s National Tidal Centre (Adelaide) to be a mine of valuable and accurate information and data. They clearly haven’t got an agenda, and thankfully, homogenising gauge data is never done; it would be totally nonsensical.
Cohenite.
I have just read Roy Spencer’s latest blogs. Hot off the press You should too, see-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/errors-in-estimating-earths-no-atmosphere-average-temperature/.
Interesting that Roy models the earth as a sphere and states explicitly ” obviously, the calculations need to be done on a sphere.”
So Cohenite, if you are still serious about your objection to the use of such spherical assumptions, you need to get over to the comments section, over at Roy’s blog, and give him hell. It will be fun to watch.
miker; the strawman is entirely yours. My objections to Arthur and alarmists generally are more substantial than spheres. The sphere is as I said, merely the beginning of alarmism’s problems.
The fact that you ignore my point about the deficiencies of a GAT as not capable of truly representing the radiative fluxes which underpin the EEB indicates to me that a bit of trolling is going on. Good luck with your sanity.
Tony,
I agree that the tide data for Australia is valuable, and have noted that the BOM’s national tidal centre doesn’t homogenize. What is your assessment of the Fort Denison tidal data, and the trends generally in the longer records?
But I disagree with you comment about modelling climate. I think it is possible, and that we can do a much better job with medium terms forecasting.
Cohenite,
What is this straw man argument you talk of above? You clearly have an overactive imagination.
I am pretty sure you introduced the topic of the appropriateness of the sphere with regard to Smith’s paper. I have stuck to just this point by demonstrating the insignificance of the earths shape’s departure from a sphere. I also provided a reference to show this the standard way it is handled in modelling and in deriving the appropriate equations.
With regard to the acronym GAT I am guessing, could you be referring to the authors Gerlich and Tscheuschner, the authors of that widely ridiculed 2009 paper?. Perhaps you are referring to global air temperature or global average temperature or possibly gin and tonic? .
The Gerlich paper had some coverage in the 2010 debate ( you mentioned it once disparagingly) but discussion of the latter terms were almost non existent with the possible exception of the term global average temperature. This was mentioned 30 times out of the 700 comments and It was mentioned in 2 of the 119 comments generated by Cohenite .
The only significant other related discussion averages were comments regarding Cohenite’s lack of understanding of the non-commutative nature of the averaging process. You did however make one highly relevant comment on this particular matter to quote ‘my maths is well behind me; I make my living verbally assaulting people not assaulting them by stats or maths”.
Sounds like you are a lawyer? To rectify your other shortcomings I believe you can take adult education course in Maths and Statistics. I also have some left over text books for my son’s year 10 courses in Maths that I could send you.
EEB is a bit of a mystery. Earths equilibrium balance?
At least you seem to have given up on the sphericity issue which seemed to be your primary concern.
Finally Cohenite , yes I am worried about my sanity. Thank-you for asking. As I have said before, I have heard that insanity is communicable via the internet I could be in great danger and I should update my antiviral software.
This is an unfortunate example of what can happen.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/10/proof-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-arthur-smith/#comment-65514
He must have read all of your 119 comments.
Jennifer,
I have had the misfortune, due to curiosity. to click on the web site of Graeme Bird, the author of the comment linked to above. This, raised some aspects of the material i.e. the anti-Semitic rants that raised some questions regarding Malcolm Roberts past indiscretions in this matter.
I am referring to the material that angered Andrew Bolt in 2012 , see http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/no-of-course-i-dont-endorse-this-stuff/news-story/d670e94907dc125d9139ef8a22c12a01.
Malcolm was he was astute enough to be more discreet than Graeme Bird and used code words.. He obviously realized that public manifestation of such material has been frowned upon in polite society since the events some 70 years ago.
Jennifer, as you seem to be good budddies with Malcolm Roberts, could you let us know whether he still subscribes to these views?
Maybe Malcolm could be encouraged to say something publicly. This would be reassuring to those who find these views repulsive. I am sure Jennifer also finds these views repulsive but I hope she is not tarred by guilt by association.
So Jennifer please comment on these matters, as distasteful as they may be.
Bob fernley-Jones, well aren’t you a charming old chap. Thanks very much for the verbose insults. My cat ate my dogma.
My questions originally posed remain valid questions imo: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/#comment-582176
Given there is no such a thing as a ‘cooling effect’ in basic Physics one would think that John Nicol would at least have pointed that error out in the language used by Roberts that places everything inside out and upside down. Being that the earth’s surface and oceans heat the atmosphere, correct? There a good reasons behind my questions. I’m surprised they are being ignored. It raises questions about the authors that they are not. Nothing I can do about that.
MikeR, “In reality the assumption of sphericity is totally reasonable and only those who lack any semblance of scientific judgement would bother raising this issue.”
Correct. They would also likely fail to note their own scientific and logical errors. Far too many confuse their indignant online debating interests with hard facts and the truth. Anyone can argue till the cows come home, but far less can thinking logically and apply true facts with genuine scientific rigor. This of course does not matter when the game is all about winning an online ‘debate’ over nothing such as a perfect sphere and it’s meaninglessness to the discussion and the science.
as MikeR pointed out: “Other than that there is no discussion at all of the deficiencies or limitations of a spherical representation for the earth with regard to Smith’s calculations.”
Yet to cohenite he holds to the false belief that somehow his debating skills wiped the floor clean with only him left standing, and he is the mop to wipe the floor clean of my simple questions. This is not uncommon and permeates Roberts own beliefs in his superior reasoning skills over and above all science.
cohenite says “The sphere is as I said, merely the beginning of alarmism’s problems.”
Except it is not a problem. Never was and never will be. So it’s only your problem cohenite and no one else’s. If you have this totally wrong, then the question naturally arises of what else do you have totally wrong about basic science?
@Tony Price September 22, 2016 at 4:45 am asks
“Can CO2, by whatever mechanism, warm the atmosphere?”
The question is fundamentally flawed for many reasons. CO2 is of ‘the atmosphere’ in and of itself. May as well ask can a cat warm itself. It’s a nonsense question that ignores everything that contributes to the heat of a cat. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Correct?
Heat is energy. Correct? CO2 is matter. Correct? How can ‘matter’ (CO2) heat itself or the other ‘matter’ (the atmosphere) alongside of it? The ‘heat’ (energy) must have come from somewhere else first.
It did not originally come from the bitumen on the roadway as suggested by Roberts and Nicol.
The correct question to ask is: “Can CO2 reduce the rate of loss of heat energy of the atmosphere to space?”
Yes or No are the only two valid options. Answering “I do not know” is not acceptable in climate science. If there was no atmosphere the planet would be a solid ball of ice.
Science is not grounded on who won the latest debating stoush in the pub or in Parliament. E=MC2 is not founded on a popularity contest at a bar nor on a Plebiscite.
@Tony Price September 29, 2016 at 9:26 pm , I have a few relevant thoughts on your relatively even handed comments.
“Predictions of continued and increasing warming are based purely on model output; models which contain many assumptions and corresponding “fudge factors” to constrain the output to something which looks “reasonable”.”
Not so. ‘Predictions’ have also been based on basic theory and maths, that logically leads to a future scenario direction for a very long time. Long before super computers were thought of. Underpinning the current GCMs is typical human ingenuity, knowledge, reason and logic.
“Therein lies the weakness of models; internal constraints the climate is not so constrained. Don’t get me wrong, models have a place in climate science, just not to make “projections”. It was an early attempt to model temperature which led to chaos theory; the climate is a chaotic and stochastic system – it can’t be modelled.”
But it can be modeled. What cannot be done is for it to be perfectly modeled for the reasons you have given and several others. An absence of perfect evidence is one. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence either. We still have human intelligence, creativity, reason and logic to help fill some of the gaps.
So the ‘modelers’ use what they know they know well enough, and what they have as tools in the moment in the real world.
“Will an increase in GHGs lead to cooling? I don’t think so, but I may be wrong. Will such an increase lead to more warming? Possibly, but I doubt that too. What I am fairly sure of however, is that we’re not going to see CAGW.”
OK, that’s your opinion. It’s clearly seems to be based on an absence of evidence (following what you have said) and not on a positive definitive knowledge nor a compelling rational argument.
“Basing predictions on a relatively short period (decades), during which poorly understood natural variation operated is foolish, to my mind.”
OK, sure. That’s an assumption (which is fine to do in theoretical science) however your comments do not match the reality of the various methodologies and timescales employed in GCMs. Perhaps you could have another look at what they do and how they are made these days.
Everyone should of course be clear that those who produce these GCMs do not and have never said they are a ‘perfect’ in design or output. They do not claim that X will happen in Y year. There is no guarantees given. They have never said these future predictions are correct and you;re a fool to not believe them.
Instead they qualify everything, provide error bars and broad ranges of possible outcomes in the future.
They say that all GCMs are ‘wrong’ up front. They also say that depite that they are still extremely ‘useful’.
They do not say what it sounds like you ‘believe’ they are saying about their climate models and the inputs they are based upon. I think you should seek out more information on this matter, and hold the opinions close to your chest until you do know all the relevant facts.
Lastly I will add that there is a very good reason why climate scientists upped their efforts into producing GCMs into the future.
They were asked to by Governments of the UNFCCC to help guide them in policy responses and the likely time frames they had to make any changes regards AGW.
So the Governments funded the departments to do this kind of modeling, and they also provided the really super-expensive use of government owned and funded super computers so they could do this work and present their results via published papers, the IPCC and at the UNFCCC.
I do not think than a response of – “sorry we can’t do that because they would not be perfect” – to these requests decades ago would have been appropriate. Do you?
In a world full to the brim in disinformation, I humbly suggest that you dig a lot deeper Tony.
Confused Jane says..
“If there was no atmosphere the planet would be a solid ball of ice”
Pretty profound thinking there, Jane….the atmosphere actually preventing the oceans from totally freezing up. As I’ve just very recently said on Real Climate,..”I always thought it was the sun that melted ice”
Even the lady at the Hot Whopper site ( the place where our verbose, arrogant troll, MikeR hangs out) has made a posting about this….she quotes me…
“Are you seriously telling me that radiation from the atmosphere..or some atmospheric effect, is actually keeping the whole planet from totally freezing up !!?
I always thought it was the sun that melted ice.”
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/are-you-seriously-telling-me.html
Go and visit Real Climate, Jane. Make sure you read into this link…..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/can-a-blanket-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-3/#comment-660883
Cohenite and myself are getting rather tired of your, and MikeR’s, nitpicking blathering.
I cannot speak for Jennifer, though.
Jane In exchange for answering your question could you please elaborate on your statement. You say “Actually divided by four is for a ROTATING planet being heated by the Sun.” Bold (capitals) mine.
Would the number 4 go up or down with rotation speed according to your theory?
Just curious about the effect on radiative balance of LOD changes around the times of the two big (Asian and Japanese) Tsunamis.
There was silly old me thinking it was a formula for a stationary theoretical black body that did not take rotation and surface night cooling into account. So good to have better informed instructors such as yourself who do not need to resort to just pasting links around to explain LOD effects.
The answer to your question “@Siliggy, you ask more questions that I ever could. They seem more rhetorical than mine though, so am curious, do you already know the answers?” is No. apart from being reasonably sure that the heat from radiactive decay is not accounted for. I do not knaw the answers and supect nobody does.
Mack, “Cohenite and myself are getting rather tired of” so who on earth are you? And give me a reason why I should even care. John Nicole and Jennifer posted an article. I asked some questions about that. You personally (and the items you mention) are about as unimportant and irrelevant to me as a mosquito biting the rump of an elephant in India 5 millennia ago on a Tuesday in July. If god placed me on this earth to make feel good and to do what you told me to do, then she would have told me first.
But given you have placed your head on the golf tea, do you still posit that it is the shadow of the Earth that causes the appearance of the phases of the moon? Please share what else you do not know about the most basic knowledge of the world in which we live Mack.
Too right you cannot speak for Jennifer. You do not even need to say that. Silence would have made yourself look less foolish and immature. If only all those climate scientists were as ‘nitpicking’ as you were, they wouldn’t have made all those dumb mistakes, and become so confused about the climate system. They could have simply asked you or cohenite instead and saved the world billions in wasted research the last two centuries.
I am not predispositioned to waste my time. Suspecting I will never obtain a straight answer to any of my questions, I leave Jennifer with a rhetorical question, or two, for her to think deeply upon – as if she was 16 years old again about to decide whether to embark on a career in science or not.
While the scientific method is self-sustaining and valid, it is also true that the only foundation of science is philosophy, that even predates the Greeks,
and given that philosophy could be described as the application of observation coupled with logic and reason of the human mind,
and given the known laws of Physics, including the laws of thermodynamics,
that absent the atmosphere the Earth’s surface would be frozen solid (where all other things being equal),
then logically would it not follow using basic reason alone,
therefore the net effect of the atmosphere and across time has been and is to warm the surface temperature of the Earth than it otherwise would have been?
And if this then be true, when Malcolm Roberts says, and I quote: ” “How can anything that cools the surface warm it? It can’t.” it is not scientific
and when John Nicol adds in the article: “heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”, it is true and correct.
and yet “Hence increased carbon dioxide will result in more efficient cooling of the earth.” is unscientific and cannot be logically be true and correct. Nor can it follow from Roberts’ untrue and unscientific and illogical claims.
There is a never-ending dance that has been going on between the Sun, the earths surface, and the atmosphere forever.
The net effect of the physics of the atmosphere is to raise the temperature of the earths surface than it otherwise would be, ie frozen solid.
And simultaneously therein warmed itself from the heat of the Sun, originally.
So when Roberts asserts that the atmosphere cools the earth’s surface, Jennifer, you should already logically know for certain using reason that that is not correct at all.
And that obviously Roberts does not really have a clue what he is talking about here.
Just my humble opinion.
Siliggy, you raised the issue of supposedly ‘obvious errors’ in the science and math as a result of the earth not being a perfect sphere mattered. Not me. I see no need to belabor that point further.
regarding this “Jane In exchange for answering your question ”
You haven’t answered it. You have nothing to exchange. And I don’t have a theory either.
Lets not forget the leaky one way diode CO2 presents to outgoing radiation (UP and out favoured) .
“Atmospheric pressure strongly affects the absorption spectra of gases (through
pressure broadening). This poses a major problem in computing the transfer of IR
radiation through the atmosphere with varying pressure, temperature, and amount
of gases. ”
Also see figure 6.1
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
More info on that and other broadening.
http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~mboett/astro401_fall12/broadening.pdf.
“Just my humble opinion”
Aahahahaha….yeah, right. You’re another, closed minded, AGW brainwashed clown,(gender equality..tough) , who obviously reads her science with eyes squeezed tightly shut and fingers jammed in your ears. Nah, sorry Confused Jane, I’m here..and real.
Come up with science, or numbers to support your theory that the atmosphere is stopping the oceans from becoming frozen solid…or just admit you’re wrong with that contention of yours….”If there was no atmosphere the planet would be a solid ball of ice”.
btw, “golf tea” would be what you’d drink back in the clubrooms?
Jane says” “and given the known laws of Physics, including the laws of thermodynamics, ”
Those laws of thermodynamics they were influenced by Maxwell, the guy who tried to explain why there was an ether to Einstein the patent clerk who would not accept the similar argument from Tesla the Physicist / engineer who designed grids like the one in S.A. right?
Jane says “There is a never-ending dance that has been going on between the Sun, the earths surface, and the atmosphere forever.”
Oh yes all terribly unstable with six hundred year long droughts and mysterious mass extinctions etc until humans fixed it.
Perhaps it had something to do with the rest of the universe throwing in a bit of a curve ball being the change in cosmic radiation and how it will modulate the nearly random changes in the long and short term solar cycle spectoral shift alteration of the magnus effect of polarised light refraction from the top of the atmosphere back out instead of that energy going into the fourth phase of water.
Spin angular momentum of light (polarised percentage).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_angular_momentum_of_light
Magnus effect.
https://youtu.be/2OSrvzNW9FE
Change in cosmic radiation.
http://www.spaceweather.com/cosmicrays/stratosphere_11sep16.png?PHPSESSID=behtodiq1l678esjhphd7eoqu3
Well its not rocket surgery.
I suspect someone impersonating Mack is generating nonsense. That person has linked to sites such as HotWhopper and RealClimate where there are a large range of comments that ridicule Mack’s astronomical levels of ignorance about climate science.
Whoever it is should just stop because Mack (aided and abetted by Cohenite) has already provided enough ridiculous material for several years of Comedy Festivals.
Just in case it really is Mack (surely he can’t be that stupid, however on second thoughts ) then his last comment above needs to be addressed.
Mack ,as you are an legendary expert on these matters , (a legend in your own mind) , do a back of envelope calculation to calculate how long it would take to melt a layer of ice , 10 cm thick on top of a layer of water which is at 0 degrees C and an air temperature also at 0 C.
To help you on your way, it takes 333 KJ of heat to melt 1 kg of ice. A square meter of ice 10 cm thick weighs about 92 kg. The amount of energy ( I will use a TOA power figure) that is incident on the earth in 1 minute is 82 KJ. Assume this figure corresponds to continuous direct sunlight overhead.
If the earth stopped rotating, then how long would it take for ice which is continually illuminated by the overhead sun (no clouds) to melt . Use a figure of 0.6 for the albedo of ice. Assume a flat surface over 1 square meter.
Cohenite can provide a correction for the curvature of the earth over that area. He can assume, if he likes, a perfect spherical earth. I promise not to nitpick.
I don’t want an exact answer just order of magnitude. Express your answer in days. Do the calculations and let us know the answer. Also let me know if you need any help .
Once you have the answer consider, instead of a hypothetical stationary earth, an earth that rotates on its axis every 24 hours.
I eagerly await Mack’s calculations and will check in periodically to see how he is going.
I do suspect however, he will find any excuse to avoid the rigours of actually doing a calculation. The excuse will be interesting, probably along the lines of the dog ate my homework.
The other option is silence as he wanders off to find solace at some other web site that caters for like minded individuals.
I get homework from this academic teaching twat, MikeR.
Nah, sorry teach, my days of listening to you lefty,AGW brainwashed, looney teachers have long since passed.. find somebody else to solve your problem.
“someone impersonating Mack” …diplopia of the eyes affecting your brain too, MikeR?
Mack,
I take it as a no with regard to your homework. Just as I thought.
Let me know if the dog regurgitates your calculations.
MikeR
Is it safe to assume the ice is pure ammonia from polar bear piss at -272 degrees C? If it is water what is the salinity? What is the humidity of the air? What is the wind speed? Is the surface of the ice rough or smooth? What type and quantity of Planckton is growing there and what nutrients does it have? You need to give the spectoral make up of the light that day and not just the 82KJ because pure IR will not penetrate the melted surface of the water that forms on top of the ice. At the other extreme the planckton exposed to UV will send up DMS to quickly form clouds. Also the most important information would be the amperage of the Birkeland current.
Is it also exposed to moonlight? Are there waves to crack it? Is the motion of the conductive water in a strong or weak part of the earths magnetic field? Have there been any gamma ray bursts? How much cosmic dust fell in that area today? Is there any Volcanic ash to consider? What is the isotope makeup of the water? Was that zero degrees C measured in a Stevenson screen behind a big jet engine at the nearby airport or at the contact point of the ice? Is the ice exposed to reflections from nearby snow covered slopes? Are there clouds especially those comet dust noctilucent ones about? How much UV is reflected up from underneath the ice? What is the PH of the water? Is it at sea level? What is the barometric pressure? The sun is only ever directly overhead between the tropics. Why would there be ice there at all if it is a sea level? Anyhow the answer is 42 but am not sure of the unit yet.
Mack said – btw, “golf tea” would be what you’d drink back in the clubrooms?
Aha! So true! I made a typo and should have said ‘golf tee’. Thanks for the correction. I like being corrected when I am wrong. Everyone learns something useful.
regarding – Come up with science, or numbers to support your theory that the atmosphere is stopping the oceans from becoming frozen solid…or just admit you’re wrong with that contention of yours….”If there was no atmosphere the planet would be a solid ball of ice”.
Um, not my theory. Others did the ‘science/math’ on that decades ago. Don’t shoot me I am merely reporting the delayed news.
How’s those phases of the moon going Mack? It’s a new moon now which must mean another total lunar eclipse.
Siliggy, in case you’re interested in feedback, I am so not interested in anything you have to say. I’m not alone. Good luck with all that pent up anger.
Sliggy
Thank you for your suggested amendments to my homework for Mack,. Alas, Mack has fled the scene and appears to be incapable of even performing the simple calculations required to melt a slab of ice. I think the additional burden would be beyond him.
Personally I think you should perform these calculations yourself and take full credit accordingly.. You would need to find a very large envelope, say A1 size and use both sides.
I might also suggest some further modifications (you don’t need to credit me).. At this level of detail you should also include the neutrino fluxes,, the effect of tachyons and gravity waves. The 3 degree K microwave background and the combined effect of starlight needs to be also considered. They don’t actually go away when the sun comes out. Pass this latter information onto Mack to supplement his vast store of knowledge re astronomical matters.
On this matter of Mack and his struggle with the calculations maybe you could give him a hand, and a foot up. It is difficult if your calculations overflow your storage capacity. You could lend him your fingers and toes, and any other available appendages to help him out.
By the way 42 is a bit too large. Maybe you need to include Cohenite’s suggestions and incorporate in your calculation of the curvature of space/time by the earth, using a more sophisticated model than a perfect sphere.
Miker
Better get started straight away then as this calculation will go out of date thousands of years before we complete it or if i do it alone 10s of years. Will be using the carboard envelope a flat TV came in.
Lets start by making three quarters of the supposed problem disappear in a puff of mathemagic. So the ice exists in a more realistic world.
Bob provided a link above to a chart that despite Jane’s strong faith and math from a dictionary will have used divide by 4.
It has an imbalance of 0.6 W/M^2 http://tinyurl.com/gndq99b
The radius from pole to centre of the planet is 6360 Kilometres.
The radius from equator to centre of planet is 6378 ( It this difference greater at TOA?).
So the illuminated area is Pi x 6360 x 6378.
The re-radiating area is (2pi r1 r2)+(2pi r2^2)
While you would think this only makes a small difference of 4 compared to 4.005 that equates to 1361/4 = 340.25 compared to 1361/4.005 = 339.8
A difference of 0.45W/M^2 (3/4 of the 0.6 gone).
I got my radius numbers from http://www.space.com/17638-how-big-is-earth.html
Wiki has a larger difference.
“polar minimum of about 6,357 km and the equatorial maximum of about 6,378 km “
Siliggy, quick. You don’t have much time left. Alert the Nobel Prize people.
2016 announcement for Physics: Tuesday 4 October, 11:45 a.m. at the earliest
http://www.nobelprize.org
It’s a pretty picture, thanks but according to Roberts and supported by John Nicol above not only is the 0.6 a total myth but the 342 ‘thermal down surface’ from greenhouse gases is a total lie and breaks the laws of thermodynamics. The atmosphere cools the earth they say and so say you.
I can’t see, and no body else would either, how this graph or your axis calculations helps your argument one bit. Maybe the nobel prize people can help?
Sliggy,
You suggest to remove 3/4 of the parameters to make the calculations of the melting of an ice block more tractable . I agree with you but which 3/4 did you have in mind? I’m ok with tachyons and neutrinos and even moonshine but please don’t remove either the sun or the ice.
With respect to you calculation directly above, the formula you present for the surface area of an oblate spheroid is an approximation. The more exact formula shown in the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid which uses the eccentricity and the inverse hyperbolic tan function gives a value of 4.0025 (instead of 4.005) or 0.06%.
The surface area of the oblate spheroid is larger than that of the equivalent sphere. by 0.06%. This would result in correspondingly larger radiated energy which would then lower the (GHG free) temperature of the earth. Accordingly this would also mean the effect greenhouse must be might be very marginally larger than when calculated using a sphere.
Due to the large range of uncertainties in these energy balance calculations, I think this effect would be most likely lost in the noise.
MikeR
“please don’t remove either the sun or the ice.”
So we could remove the atmosphere then.
Could we alter the shape of the ice a bit as per the specification below?
“If there was no atmosphere the planet would be a solid ball of ice”
@ Confused_Jane,
Poor assertive Jane,
”…according to Roberts and supported by John Nicol above not only is the 0.6 a total myth but the 342 ‘thermal down surface’ from greenhouse gases is a total lie and breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
Where do Roberts and Nicol claim what you say, or where do mainstream sceptics deny the crude concept in the latest AR5 (Wild et al) cartoon? BTW the AR4 version (Trenberth et al) estimates 0.9.
Could Siliggy have possibly cited the cartoon to show that in AR5 their latest guess was that 0.6/340 = 1.8 % of solar energy reaching Earth’s TOA is retained somewhere unknown around the surface (3.4% in AR5)? Maybe his purpose was that the currently guessed net effect of an immense complexity, even if it might be correct, is a needle in a haystack. Further, that it is not to be naïvely assumed to have been totally caused by a small increase in a trace GHG?
Also, the concept of significant GHG back-radiation (predominantly from water vapour) is agreed by mainstream sceptics. Nevertheless, the Wild estimate for a global year-average and the shape of the arrow portraying it creates a smile here and there.
What you may not realize is that the 342 guess is not HEAT but a potential. The net RADIATIVE HEAT transfer is illustrated as being 398 – 342 = 56 which is 35% of solar surface HEAT absorbed. Oddly, Wild does not show how much of the 35% escapes directly to space, but Trenberth gave it at 40. If that were c/o to wild, only 16 would be involved in GHG transmitted HEAT loss or only 10%. Of that 10%, CO2 is a minor player given that humid areas make-up a large part of the Earth’s surface area (oceans >70%, especially tropical) where the H2O %v can be up to 100X greater than CO2.
Furthermore, note that solar energy potential in space does not have a temperature. It has no specific heat and can only generate HEAT if it is absorbed by matter, rather like electrical voltage potential cannot generate HEAT unless it encounters a resistance.
BTW, another smile with the Wild cartoon is their terminology for the back-radiation of ‘thermal down’. It’s quite funny because longwave infrared is actually much less thermal than the high energy visible and UV light from the sun and at least Trenberth calls it ‘back radiation’.
PS Whilst GHG’s do undoubtedly result in HEAT LOSS from the surface and heat loss to space can only be achieved via radiation, I’m doubtful that the net effect would be greater than if we had an atmosphere free of GHG’s. It is immensely complicated though and I think IMPOSSIBLE to model realistically. How can you have a planet with no GHG’s but still have oceans, clouds vegetation and the same albedo etcetera?
The latter point is not 50%!
Assuming we can still have a magnetosphere, am just going off to do a bit of research to figure out if the Birkeland currents alone could melt the ice now that they flow through it instead of the missing ionosphere.or if we need to include some radioactive decay, starlight, neutrino flux, dark energy, cosmic radiation etc. Sunlight excepting that which bounces off other planets and the moon will only be counted after radio frequency and microwave frequency sources are counted with the solar wind and all other non visible energy from the sun.
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1957/tf/tf9575300687#!divAbstract
See you in a decade or so.
WHOOPS
MY last sentence above was killed by HTML thingies
Transcribed to words it would read:
The latter point is not less than 2% stuff as alluded by Siliggy but more like more than 50%!
Bob fernley-Jones
Thankyou for your highlighting my radiative balance questionings Bob.
I am also disagreeing with Roberts and confused Jane when they both say that GHGs can only warm or only cool. While they agree on this point with each other I am convinced that Roberts and Jane are together on this and wrong. GHGs do both cool and warm.
Rather than claim they warm or cool like Roberts and Jane who only disagree about the sign, I say they stabilise the climate through multiple forms of negative feedback. So the best thing to do for the planet is to increase CO2. If Roberts and Jane are correct then Co2 would either warm or cool us. Which is bad either way. Instead the lovely life giving gas nurtures, feeds and protects us from extremes.
Bob fernley-Jones says
“heat loss to space can only be achieved via radiation,”
Think i disagree with you on this point. while there are many many ways we loose energy to space this one is an example of actual heat in matter.
Now this below comes from an unreliable website with some strongly subversive political views that are not compatible with the Australian way of life, so check the details and keep your eyes wide open.
“Dandouras found plasmaspheric winds are continuously flowing from the upper atmosphere into the magnetosphere.”
“Dandouras estimates the winds are pushing almost 90 tonnes of plasma daily at speeds of over 5000 kilometres per hour.”
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/07/03/3794480.htm
@Siliggy,
OK, there may be some weird stuff going on, for instance solar wind blowing trace hydrogen away, but I think that even geothermal heat from below the Earth’s crust (nicely absorbed in chilly conductive water at ocean bottoms) would be bigger than all that. Oh and there’s meteorites and dust and stuff from space but the net scale of it all is I suggest rather small and things are already IMPOSSIBLY complicated without trying to include them too.
It would have been more concise if I’d said: in the context of the Energy Budget cartoons, the only way to loose HEAT to space was via EMR.
It amuses me how alarmists scream stuff like if we can discover a virus that stops cows from belching and farting we save umpteen gigatonnes of GHG’s. What is the percentage of CO2 again? Hovering at about 400 parts PER MILLION?
Goodness miker is still here spreading cheer and rambling on about ice melt which is NOT happening as the vultures of alarmism would like.
Something miker said earlier took my eye as I read his prior pronouncements and condescensions was how I had been castigated in the Arthur Smith thread for not understanding “the non-commutative nature of the averaging process.”
In actual fact I have been banging on about this since the great Essex, McKitrick and Andresen paper came out:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
Followed by the equally great Pielke paper:
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf
The issue covered by these papers, and this defeats dear Arthur, his sphere and the notion of a GAT as used by the alarmists, can be expressed simply:
(A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4
This neat little formula goes to the heart of the ‘billiard ball’ sphere approach by Arthur and the alarmists and why it is wrong. And commutativity is the reason. The average value of the fourth power of temperature is something different than the fourth power of the average temperature. Motls dealt with this many years ago:
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2008/05/average-temperature-vs-average.html
The Earth is not a billiard ball and the assumption of uniformity is wrong. It is wrong not just because the Earth is not a perfect sphere but because of profound non-linearities/non-uniformities which include:
climate zones – latitude etc.
albedo variations
weather – random local, temporary variations
seasons
day-and-night cycles.
Lubos gives an example based just on climate zones. Lubos says: “if we approximate the world by 4 climate zones of the same area whose temperatures are
313 K (40 °C)
293 K (20 °C)
283 K (10 °C)
263 K (-10 °C)
The arithmetic average of these four temperatures is 288 K (15 °C).
The figures in Celsius degrees are included for your better understanding. Let us consider the Kelvin figures to be exact. Now, take the fourth power of these four temperatures, multiply them by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and calculate their average. You should get
(544.2 + 417.9 + 363.7 + 271.3)/4 =
= 1597.04 / 4 = 399.26 Watt/m²
That differs by 9 W/m² from the figure that we calculated from the arithmetic average of the temperatures! Now, 9 W/m² is a lot. It is more than five times the change of the irradiance (1.6 W/m²) blamed on greenhouses gases added since 1750!”
The point is you can have an increasing GAT but a decreasing EEB and therefore a decreasing greenhouse effect by assuming a sphere for your calculations as Arthur does.
Is that clear enough for you miker? Maybe you’d like to curtail your arrogance now mate because some of us have been dealing with this alarmist crap since you were in diapers.
Some of John Nicol’s 2752 comments on climate, politics and society can be viewed here:
https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-nicol-3479/activities
Could this info help at all?
“What happens when the trace greenhouse gases are removed?
“Because of the non-linear impacts of CO2 on absorption, the impact of removing the CO2 is approximately seven times as large as doubling it. If such an event were possible, it would lead to dramatic cooling, both directly and indirectly, as the water vapor and clouds would react.
“In model experiments where all the trace greenhouse gases are removed the planet cools to a near-Snowball Earth, some 35°C cooler than today, as water vapor levels decrease to 10% of current values, and planetary reflectivity increases (because of snow and clouds) to further cool the planet.
“Despite being a trace gas, there is nothing trivial about the importance of CO2 for today, nor its role in shaping climate change in the future.”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
or this?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? (sorry it’s an anathema conspiracy website)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
There’s also
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
COP21: Experts discuss ‘greenhouse gas emissions neutrality’
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop21-experts-discuss-greenhouse-gas-emissions-neutrality
Sceptics’ publishing record on climate
Bob Ward says those who seek to reinterpret the science of climate change often have minimal publication records. Publication involves peer review. This process weeds out experiments and papers which are sub-standard. By contrast, anyone can write a book, write a newspaper article, or address public meetings.
Bob Ward mentions a paper by Bob Carter, saying it contains false quotes and numerous examples of inaccuracy. Bob Ward says the Carter paper is the worst that has ever been published about climate change.
Bob Carter was offered the opportunity to respond to Bob Ward’s claims. Bob Carter rejected the offer and submitted the written statement which appears below.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/sceptics-publishing-record-on-climate/2961448
Bob Carter and John Nicol were great mates working together at JCU for decades.
Anything but confused Jane reveals her true nature, impugning her betters, John Nicol and especially the late, great Bob Carter, whose shoes she(sic) is not fit to lick.
Just another alarmist troll.
“alarmist”? Who are the alrmists, really.
“Bring it in tight. Those of us who are climate change deniers need to be singing from the same hymn sheet. For it is, of course, more urgent than ever now that science is crowding in on us, now the climate is changing before the people’s very eyes, and our denials are exposed as progressively more ludicrous.”
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-deniers-listen-up-your-end-is-nigh-20160930-grsejk.html
What do sugar and climate change have in common?
http://theconversation.com/what-do-sugar-and-climate-change-have-in-common-misplaced-scepticism-of-the-science-66296
Alarmist? “Maybe you’d like to curtail your arrogance now mate because some of us have been dealing with this alarmist crap since you were in diapers.”
Really.
back@Bob fernley-Jones
“solar wind blowing trace hydrogen away”
As I said above (way up there some place) Hydrogen and Helium rise beyond escape velocity. So leave without the solar wind needing to help.
Here is a possible sequence. While the sun also hits the oceans with a smaller and weaker amount of Ghz resonant water notes like 2.5Ghz a lot of UV hits them. This could break a lot of bonds and send Hyrogen up from both water and methane breakdown. In a large daily amount. The hydrogen can leave the planet never to return all on its own without the help of the solar wind. It will take its charge, heat and E=MC^2 all with it only to be replaced each day by cosmic and solar wind Hydrogen.
What i am saying is a Hydrogen energy balance chart is needed.
@ Confused_Jane
Poor gullible Jane,
“Bob Ward mentions a paper by Bob Carter, saying it contains false quotes and numerous examples of inaccuracy. Bob Ward says the Carter paper is the worst that has ever been published about climate change. Bob Carter was offered the opportunity to respond to Bob Ward’s claims.”
Did you know that Bob Ward is the top MEDIA MAN at the ‘London School of Economics and Politics Grantham Institute’ who was the star in an Oz ABC radio’s so-called ‘Science Show’ in late 2010 that malevolently maligned Professor Bob Carter during the launching of his book The Counter Consensus. The show was presented by Robyn Williams who amongst other crap is famous for contradicting the IPCC for their forecast at the time of I think it was a 41 cm centennial sea level rise. No, that’s not enough, he wanted 100 metres!
The two-year old paper that MEDIA MAN Bob Ward attacked was one of some 100 published by Bob Carter, (he primarily a marine geologist who for instance has made valuable contributions in paleo sedimentary work in understanding past climatology), was an old matter already closed-off in writing. The reincarnation of it coinciding with Bob Carter’s new book was obviously malicious and I researched it in depth. This led me to correspondence with the Producer et al but all were in denial and I published some articles online of which I extract from one of them this brief sequence of events:
“1) 24/Sep/2010 Email from the Science Show producer, invited Professor Carter to have a telephone interview following an unheard critique by Bob Ward.
2) 26/Sept/2010 Reply Email from Bob Carter suggested amongst other things, an interview on his book which was declined. Additionally, based on previous experience with Bob Ward, an already published response was emailed to the producer, but was ignored during the broadcast. (instead, it was posted on the ABC website, for the “convenience” of listeners)
3) 2/Oct/2010; Bob Ward, a PR man from the London School of Economics egregiously attacked a two year old paper by Professor Carter. (without reference to the professor’s already published response to Ward’s previously published attack, or his other 100 or so papers etc)”
This is only a snippet and I doubt if your dogma (apparently preferring Armageddon to rational analyses such as that from Bob Carter) will allow you to read my two in-depth “Get Carter” posts at WUWT, but I recommend that you do that.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/10/%e2%80%9cget-carter%e2%80%9d-campaign-grows-on-austrailias-abc-radio-tv/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/%e2%80%9cget-carter%e2%80%9d-and-his-supporters-part-b/
I rank media man Bob Ward for malevolent dishonesty at being lower than the worst second hand car salesmen or estate agents.
Confused Jane says…
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/#comment-582304
“…..but the 342 ‘thermal down surface’ from greenhouse gases is a total lie…..”
You certainly are confused, Confused Jane. You haven’t even got that number right, ie. when quoting the “backradiation” you’ve been brainwashed with, derived from Trenberth’s looney Earth Energy Budget cartoons. It’s 324w/sq.m. NOT 342.
Maybe you’ve got a bit of dyslexia.
http://principia-scientific.org/why-climate-skeptics-say-what-they-do/#comment-9895
@ Mack,
Actually, Jane correctly cited the later AR5 cartoon by Wild et al .
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/#comment-582180
MACK. You sure are right about Trenberths cartoon being loony. Just look at the quantity of backradiation that is reflected from the surface by albedo. Zero none at all. INSANE.
“A large fraction of the sunrays’ energy is in the near infrared and to prevent overheating it is important that plants absorb little of this photosynthetically useless radiation.”
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/albedo_wavelength.html
Assuming you’re correct and nothing about climate science and warming is true, what do you want to see happen?
@Siliggy,
That’s interesting. Quoting your source:
“… The reason why even fresh, white snow will melt under the sun when the air temperature is just below freezing, is because about half of the sun rays’ energy is in the infrared, especially the near-IR, which is largely absorbed by the snow.”
I’ve always been amused that alarmists scream over the famous “Ice Albedo Feedback” as a disaster because seawater is so dark compared to melted sea ice that the oceans absorb more heat whilst first-up forgetting that it’s a relatively tiny low energy area compared to the whole globe.
Additionally they forget that when the sun does appear in the sky up there, most of the time it is at low elevation when reflection transforms from diffuse to specular and reflectivity can be higher than for old snow atop ice.
Additionally, the water is liberated from insulation and is free to lose heat to the atmosphere.
Additionally, solar infrared is extinguished not at depth at up to around 100m as with visible light but at only millimetres, the longer wavelengths in the skin itself.
Additionally…………
I hadn’t thought about that additional point you’ve raised.
@ Bob Fernley-Jones
“Actually Jane correctly cited the later AR5 cartoon by Wild et al.”
Well then, Bob, Wild et al must’ve got their number confused exactly in the same way that Confused Jane just did. Wild et al.must be.slightly dyslexic as well.
In any case, both the cartoons are looney. As I’ve just said to a number of other people…You must be hellishly hot at night-time, Bob, according to Wild et al, you’re only getting an average of 161w/sq.m.of solar radiation impinging on the Earth’s surface, but you’ve also got an average of 342w/sq.m. BELTING DOWN FROM THE ATMOSPHERE 24/7 !!!?.
@ Mack,
Actually, the back-radiation is not HEAT but an energy potential which is opposed by the upwelling radiation and it is the potential difference which determines any HEAT transfer.
Cohenite,
I read your last dispatch (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/#comment-582314 ) with much bemusement especially as you still are obsessed with the perfect sphere. Contrary to your statements, none (underline none) of the linked papers refer to a sphere or lack of sphericity. Again nothing , nada, zilch- Does anyone know how you say zero in Urdu?
You do claim later that the earth is not a perfect sphere because it has different regions with different characteristics . The term sphere is related to geometry and not to geographical variations on the surface. In particular I need to remind but you that you first raised this in reference to equation 1 of Smiths paper . This involved a geometrical equation and you used it to summarily dismiss the rest of his paper.
Your cut and paste from Motel’s deranged paper illustrates another problem with your lack of formal scientific or mathematical training which you previously have alluded to. The non-commutativity of the S-B equation requires you to uses the average the whole body temperature before applying the S-B equation, not to apply the S-B equation to each region and then average.
Your approach only makes any sense if each of the items being measured were independent bodies and the answer you give would indeed be correct. To emphasize , the calculations you presented were for different regions of the earth. Now if the Southern Hemisphere was not connected to the Northern Hemisphere and therefore thermodynamically isolated , Motl ‘s and your calculation would make sense but otherwise it’s total nonsense.
It is no wonder Motl’s work has been ignored since 2008 and has not even entered the folklore of the denial community except for the occasional attempts at resuscitation by some.
You claim you have been dealing with alarmist crap since I was in diapers. My mother ensures me that I was out of nappies by the age of 2 or 3. If you have been studying this material for that long and regenerating garbage that you find on a range of dubious web sites then I think you should have rather spent the time to take a course in some relevant area of science.
With your self confessed background of “making a living verbally assaulting people” from which I assumed you were a lawyer (or maybe a debt collector), reminds me of the saying “ a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client”.
In other words sometimes things are best left to the experts, otherwise you are in great danger of making a fool of yourself, and yes I recognise (unlike yourself) that I am no expert in the area of climate change.
@ Bob fernley-Jones
“Actually, the backradiation is not HEAT……”
Of course it’s not “Heat”. Where did I ever say it was HEAT.
It’s watts per sq.m.. WATTS…..a measurement of POWER. Electrical WATTage…a measurement of power of an electrical appliance.
WATTS per sq.m….a measurement of the POWER from the sun.
You looney AGW believers who subscribe to these Earth Energy budget cartoons try to tell us that 324 watts/ sq.m worth of POWER is belting down from the ATMOSPHERE.
Is your hometown Looneyville, Bob? Do you leave your bacon and eggs out on the porch overnight and have them cooked for you, by your “backradiation”, in the morning?
More nitpicking blathering from our academic teaching twat, Cohers.
Just ignore it.
@ Mack,
I’m quite surprised at your misunderstandings, and even wonder if you’ve confused me with someone else. I’m a retired mechanical engineer and spent five years in qualifying, that’s including in thermodynamics. You make unconventional assertions in thermodynamics but your experience is?
I describe myself as a mainstream sceptic of CAGW, that is to say that there may well be some AGW from increasing GHG’s but that they are likely to be minor, what with various negative feedbacks and other complications.
BTW the unit of power; ‘Watt’ is commonly defined as ‘joule/sec’, where joule is a unit of energy which can be other than electrical. I don’t know why you introduced Watts, but I’ve lost interest, so don’t bother to explain.
Bob, Mack was talking about miker I think.
Miker has missed my point, but seems to agree with what I was saying and claims credit for saying what I was saying but castigating me for saying it. Or something.
What I said was the assumption of a sphere to generate a GAT was a false assumption; but what was worse were the different radiative areas of the Earth which confounded the point of a GAT.
I repeat (A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4 which miker seems to understand when he goes on about S-B. That’s exactly the point Motl, McKitrick and Pielke were making. If you average radiative emissions with out considering regional and climatic differences you will get an EEB which is out of kilter with the GAT: literally GAT can be rising and the EEB decreasing. For instance if temperature is rising in a cooler area such as the Arctic but decreasing in the tropics then GAT will not reflect the S-B based EEB.
It is such a simple concept which undermines alarmism because alarmism is based on a rising GAT. It ignores for instance OLR which has been increasing.
Anyway, miker has understood the point but not accepted it; he has ignored the Essex and Pielke papers which deal with this point at length and concentrated on poor old Motl who has done a very good summary.
Also of interest is a 3 part post by Lucia at Rankexploits beginning here:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/spatial-variations-in-the-temperature-anomalie-atmoz-vs-pielke-sr/
Lucia sums up the issue:
“What was Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.s’ point
Dr. Roger’s point was: failing to account for spatial variations in the temperature introduced uncertainty in the estimate of the radiative heat flux from the planet.
The specific equation Dr. Roger Sr. discusses is:
(1)
dH/dt = f -T’/λ
where H is the heat content of the land-ocean-atmosphere system, f is the radiative forcing (i.e. the radiative imbalance), T’ is the change global average surface temperature in response to the change in H, and λ is called the “climate feedback” parameter which defines the rate at which the climate system returns forcing to space as infrared radiation and/or as changes in reflected solar radiation (such as from changes in clouds, sea ice, snow, vegetation, etc).
The approximation that concerns Dr. Roger Sr. is the use of a single point temperature anomalie, T’, to estimate the radiant heat loss using this term: T’/λ. In his paper, he specifically discusses the difficulties associated with estimating the climate sensitivity, λ. (This is estimated to fall between 2.0 and 4.5, and is of great importance to the debate over AGW.)”
Miker is a typical alarmist: smug, arrogant and dismissive of anything contrary to the alarmist narrative.
Cohenite says,
“Bob, Mack was talking about miker I think.”
Cohenite was correct.,Bob, I was referring to Miker as it is related to Miker being on the receiving end of my comment here.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/#comment-582294
So, if I may ask, if the ghg effect is only minor, cannot become ‘catastrophic’ as Bob says, and if there’s been a long term hiatus in rising global temperatures, and if as Jennifer has said the warming is overstated due to corrupted raw data, and if as Roberts says the atmosphere cools the earth’s surface, and if as John Nicol suggests an increase in CO2 increases the cooling effect out to space of the atmosphere, then how come is it the following is occurring in the Arctic Circle this year and apparently getting worse?
The ocean temperatures are as high as 8C above long term average.
The air surface temps are as high as 12C above long term average.
The summer sea ice minimum is 45% less than it was in 1979.
The winter sea ice maximum is 11% less than it was in 1979.
There was a huge region of sea ice near the north pole that was only 30-40% sea ice.
The annual sea ice Minimum has fallen to only 28% of the Maximum which is down from 43% only 37 years earlier.
The multiyear ice has all but disappeared in the last 5 years.
I’ve used the key figures from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ and you may also check if this info is correct:
‘Dwindling of Arctic’s oldest ice since 1990’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lachmN5YO4
Arctic SIE 2016 MARCH TO SEPT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVJ9DfVhAYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTgci8RmZIU
2016 Sea Ice Extent North Pole region – ‘Slush’ on 27 Aug with only 30-40% Ice Cover or 60% Water
http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPYTcyM0NRdmt1Mlk
NASA Worldview “true-color” image of the North Pole on September 8th 2016 – darker areas are open water/slush
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NPole-Terra-20160908.jpg
Where anything above ‘15% sea ice’ is counted as Arctic SIE area.
Sept 8th ‘Arctic Sea-Ice On Last Legs’ by Paul Beckwith – Arctic Sea Ice has been pulverized, hacked to pieces, smashed to smithereens; you can use whatever phrase you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xknMZFYUp2U
Paul Beckwith is a well known Canadian climate science educator; Part-time Geography professor (climatology, oceanography, environmental issues), University of Ottawa. A Physicist and an Engineer with a Master’s Degree in Science in Laser Optics, Bachelor of Engineering and Engineering Physics. Who has won Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario Gold Medal.
He could be seen as a cross between Bob (engineer) and John (physicist).
Any comments about the collapsing Arctic Sea Ice Extent and the warming across the Arctic Circle?
Also @ Bob fernley-Jones…..saying to me..
“You make unconventional assertions in thermodynamics but your experience is ?”
I’ts not very relevant what my experience wrt the AGW issue, is, Bob.
They talk about people.. as “experts”, or he/she has “expertise”, but who has the arrogance to call themselves such, in this vast field.
My job description?, maybe here?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/#comment-210233
@Confused_Jane
I wish I had more time to help you with all of your points but WRT your concern for the Arctic:
• Unless you are familiar with spherical geometry and thermodynamics you may find this difficult to follow but in terms of its surface area and thermal significance, the Arctic is a small thermodynamic part of the globe. In fact if there is a fluctuation towards warm up there, the temperature gradient from the mid latitudes comprising the bulk of the global surface area and the energy input from the sun is reduced, and hence what was already a relatively trivial heat loss to up there in terms of resultant global average temperature would be reduced.
• I don’t have the information to hand and I’m too busy but if you Google around for Petr Chylek and/or Jason Box + Greenland you should be able to find that they (and others) found authentic weather station records revealing that it was warmer there in the 1930’s until maybe very recently.
• To give you an idea of how the Arctic Scare has been exaggerated by some, even Jason Box who later became a lead author in the IPCC AR4 report predicted in his chapter (for the IPCC) disastrous melting of Greenland ice and sea level rise. However there was no mention of the fact that he was a joint author in a paper (I think with Chylek) showing that it was warmer there in the 1930’s.
• There are also records of wooden vessels making traverses of the northwest (or northeast I’m not sure now?) passage and a great deal of other anecdotal evidence describing navigable waters and retreated glacier tongues back then. Also, decades ago American and British submarines have surfaced at or near the North Pole on several occasions. There’s a famous photo of three of them surfaced up there. (2 Yanks + 1 Brit)
• The name Ngheim of NASA sticks in my mind so I’ve just done a Google on him +wind for you and found this again concerning a big low in 2007: http://tinyurl.com/jo7bezu Quote: ”Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.”
• I recall that there is a somewhat similar NASA report to this for the record low summer ice in 2012 but I don’t have time to finger it for you.
• NASA seems to have different perspectives to your cited NSIDC and its VERY colourful director Mark Serreze.
• Meanwhile of course the alarmists seldom talk of the Antarctic where the sea ice coverage has been steadily increasing per the satellite observations since 1979.
• Nevertheless, those alarmists had a moment of elation recently as e.g. here in ‘The Australian’ newspaper: http://tinyurl.com/zooagjc (oddly in ‘National Affairs’, not ‘Environment’) when a Dr Lieser claimed a sudden early reduction of sea ice cover in September, when it can typically be down to 40 C below zero around the coast and even colder inland! He based it on online graphics from NSIDC but they were not credible for that time of year and data error was the most plausible conclusion. I subsequently made four separate submissions to the Oz of publically available graphics from various sources showing that the satellite data were indeed faulty but the online moderator deleted them all. I later also emailed Dr Lieser that the satellite data fault is associated with firstly a problem with satellite F17. That forced a change in April to satellite F18 with which calibration issues are still not resolved. He has remained silent too long for scientific respect despite me emailing him both at UniTas and his other base at ECRCRC. My Letter to The Editor at the OZ was also not accepted. My email to the author of the Oz article also gathered no response. It seems that none of them entertain inconvenient FACTS.
• Another fact is that the Arctic is an extremely volatile environment in weather systems and ocean currents and whatnot that are split between the Atlantic and Pacific and involving complex land masses. Short term variability there is not indicative of meaningful trends. If you go to this NSIDC interactive graphic you can select specific years in the NH and SH for interest but importantly if you click between Arctic and Antarctic you would find that the 2-sigma limits (an indication of volatility) are very much greater in the Arctic than the Antarctic. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Look Gotta go, wish I had more time
“The ocean temperatures are as high as 8C above long term average.
The air surface temps are as high as 12C above long term average.”
What a load of rubbish.
Cohenite,
Firstly I have had a bit of a read of the first paper by Essex , McKitrick and Andresen.
I think this type of paper was what was in mind by the person who coined the expression ‘mathturbation’.
The simulations that were done that produced figures 2 and 3 use a crazy range of values for the moments r and s. I can understand r=1 (simple average), r=2 (r.m.s.) and r=4 (which could have some physical significance for the S-B equation that contain a T^4 term) but using a range from r=-125 to r=125 . You have to be kidding. There is no basis to use such ridiculous moments. Cohenite , maybe you can suggest a good physical reason to uses moments greater than 4? This is crazy stuff that is so far from reality that I can still hear the opening tune from Fantasy Land ringing in my ears after reading this nonsense.
The ridiculousness of the exercise, that the authors have indulged in, has been pointed out on many occasions. Starting with http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2005/11/temperature-rex-bites-essex-and.html and finishing with http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2007/03/once-more-dear-prof.html .
Some have surmised that the only reason this paper got through peer review, even in such a lowly ranked journal, was that one of the authors was on the editorial panel.
McKitrick has also been a serial offender with regard to junk science see http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/26/mckitrick6/ , so it is not surpising to see that he was involved in the above fiasco.
I think we have already disposed of the third link by Motlr as it is clear that it was inappropriate use of the S-B equation and his conjecture has sunk , without a trace. This stuff has never been published (see https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zz-EcVUAAAAJ&hl=en) and clearly, with good reason never, will be.
The second paper by Roger Pielke , I agree is very different. Compared to the other two it does make some sense . From the paper and Lucia’s comments you linked to, they make a good case that there is large uncertainties in the energy balances derived from an average global temperature. Thank you for pointing this out. Despite this the surface temperature measurement and satellite temperatures are still appropriate metrics for almost everything else.
It seems that the whole argy bargy has moved on since 2008. Roger Pielke has posted material in 2014 that indicates that a better metric to calculate is the energy uptake of the ocean (https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/28/an-alternative-metric-to-assess-global-warming ) which seems eminently reasonable as the oceans contain more than 90% of the accumulated energy over the past decades . This now seems to the battleground with regard to calculating the GHG forcing λ.
Good examples of the debate are at https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/weve-all-forgotten-about-the-oceans/ and https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/watt-about-rogers-questions/ .
The latter is good reading as Roger Pielke and the blogger and others exchange views in the comments section in a reasonably cordial manner (with a few exceptions).
So this is probably first time I have to admit, begrudgingly, that Cohenite has provided some material that cannot be simply dismissed as per usual.
I congratulate him and note that the past 60 years or so of intensive study of climate change by Cohenite has not been a total waste
Bob, you mention “the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years” and then “Short term variability there is not indicative of meaningful trends.”
I raised the issue of the arctic and the last 37 years to today. The trend is clear a linear trend of 90,000 sq klms per year loss on SIE of the minimum, and in the last 5 years a loss of 180,000 sq klms per year, an accelerating trend. 2012 was excluded from the numbers completely as a outlier year.
I asked “Any comments about the collapsing Arctic Sea Ice Extent and the warming across the Arctic Circle?” in light of the positions of those mentioned in the beginning who all deny there is any AGW/CC occurring.
I note no one addressed the actual question, and cohenite even denies the thermometer readings of today’s highly technical equipment.
The Arctic is losing ice mass and has been since before 1979 – and in a world where there is no global warming but only conspiracies and incompetence I note no one here nor anywhere else is able to explain that ‘scientifically’ and still believe what they believe that there is no global warming that could cause the Arctic Ice to melt so quickly.
It’s understandable why this question is being avoided by every ‘skeptic’ around the world. There is no logical response that would also support their beliefs about AGW/CC.
A rock and a hard place. Enjoy it.
cohenite October 4, 2016 at 7:06 pm #
What a load of rubbish.
cohenite, the empirical evidence proves the long term trend of sea ice melting mainly due to a long term trend of increasing ocean temperature.
Observations prove the sea ice has lost all it’s multi year ice now. Empirical evidence proves the maximum and the minimum SEI has fallen 11% and 45% respectively over the last 37 years.
The empirical evidence of seasonal weather patterns matches the recorded increase in temperature and annual variations of SEI.
If it wasn’t warmer then the arctic sea ice would not be melting.
Yet it is.
If it wasn’t warmer in the Arctic and the oceans globally there would still be decade old sea ice there and the minimum would look just like it did in 1979 and before – frozen solid. But it isn’t.
It’s icy slush and open water because it is much warmer up there now.
Why is this so?
Empirical evidence proves the maximum and the minimum SEI has fallen 11% and 45% respectively over the last 37 years.
A combined sea ice area of 5,200,000 sq klms.
It takes an enormous amount of heat to melt that much ice.
In a world with no global warming and no temperature effect from increasing CO2e why isn’t the Arctic SIE in winter still over 16 million sq klms and the minimum still above 7.5 million sq klms with some sections comprising over 5 year old multi-year ice flows?
The empirical evidence proves the summer Minimum SIE has fallen from 7.5 mln to 4.1 mln sq.klms losing an area of 45% or 3,400,000 sq klms of sea ice and natural albedo area since 1979.
It takes an enormous amount of extra heat to melt that much extra ice every year.
What is causing this is the question?
@ Confused_Jane
I‘m sorry Jane but I’ve lost interest in trying to help you any more beyond this quickie, because it seems you cannot tolerate good news. You are still banging away about the satellite record for the Arctic but ignore the unwelcome satellite record for the Antarctic.
Perhaps you don’t want to know about the significance of the major ice losses in the Arctic in 2007 and 2012. Huge storms broke-up the ice and drove it into warmer waters where it melted. That is by AGW and it has a cumulative effect in critically reducing the multi-year ice cover and thickness.
You deny the strong evidence of less sea ice in the 1930’s. You showed no interest in navy submarines surfacing at the North Pole prior to the relatively recent low levels in September.
I’ve just spent about two minutes on Google to find the photo I remember of three subs up there and here’s the related text:
“U.S. and British sailors explore the Arctic ice cap while conducting the first U.S./British coordinated surfacing at the North Pole. The ships are, left to right: the nuclear-powered attack submarine Sea Devil (SSN-664), the fleet submarine HMS Superb (S-109) , and the nuclear-powered attack submarine Billfish (SSN-676), 18 May 1987”
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0866403.jpg
Notice the open water and polynyas in the distance and the time of year: MAY! (it’s not even summer)
There are earlier surfacings on record, some involving breaking through thin ice (MARCH 1956?) but please don’t let that disturb your dogma.
Finally,
There is a relevant article on Jennifer’s recent post here revealing how the recent extraordinary weather around SW WA (Perth) is affected by a change in the Leeuwin ocean current. Such currents are and warm or cold “Ocean Blobs” have critical regional effects, and as I’ve indicated the NH sea-ice region is relatively small and chaotic.
Also on that thread there is this perceptive comment which demonstrates what is seldom mentioned why perhaps Serreze and his staff at NSIDC are keen to emphasise the negative.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/10/understanding-wild-wet-weather-across-southern-australia/#comment-582350
Causing what?
Causing this really close to the north pole during the last 2 months
NASA Worldview “true-color” image of the North Pole on September 8th 2016 – darker areas are open water/slush
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NPole-Terra-20160908.jpg
Sea Ice Extent North Pole region shows a darker area of about 500,000 sq klms
27 Aug mainly icy slush with only 30-40% Ice Cover or 60% open Water
http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPYTcyM0NRdmt1Mlk
Why is this so?
The empirical evidence tells us that the rate of arctic sea ice melt is increasing due to increasing ocean and surface temperatures across the Arctic region.
The empirical evidence of climate change science tells us man-made global warming is real.
In my haste, sorry,
For: That is by AGW
Read: That is not by AGW
Senator Malcolm Roberts denies that adding greenhouse gases can cause global warming, that is the core of his claims, and it is simply wrong.
@ Confused Jane,
I have to agree with you that Roberts’ claim in his maiden speech of:
“How can anything that cools the surface warm it? It can’t.”
is at best an exaggeration or a naïve statement, but is clearly wrong.
You may have noticed that I’ve steered clear of that in these comments while remembering his previous sortie on ABC Q&A where he delivered many valid scientific points that were evaded by the panel and chairman whereas serious misinformation delivered by Professor Brian Cox, a self-admitted political activist, was accompanied by screaming and loud hand-clapping from the audience (and laughter when Roberts made some valid points).
However, I’m sorry for you for being sucked-in by the host of other alarmist activists such as in NSIDC and your focus on the Arctic.
1) For instance you have claimed: ”It takes an enormous amount of heat to melt that much ice.” but that is naïve in several ways:
a) Long-time average sea ice cover per NSIDC algorithms varies annually from around 6 to 13 million Km squared. Compare that with the surface area of the globe which is about 516 million. An eyeballed annual average seems to be roughly 8 million or 1.5%.
b) The Tropics cover almost exactly 40% of the Earth’s surface area and this is the heat engine for the globe. That vast pool of energy delivers most of the energy reaching the Arctic and arrives from atmospheric and oceanic heat convection.
c) Solar radiation input up there is relatively trivial because of the geometry of its low elevation in the sky (just as oppositely the heat of the day locally is when the sun is overhead)
d) I‘ll skip the S&B law stuff because its complicated but because it is very much colder in the arctic the energy levels are relatively low. Low surface area and low energy levels combined mean that for global average energy balance it is trivial.
e) This gets even more obscure/inconsequential with the following point.
2) You are elated by this gem: “Sea Ice Extent North Pole region shows a darker area of about 500,000 sq klms 27 Aug mainly icy slush with only 30-40% Ice Cover or 60% open Water”
f) But 30-40% ice cover is comfortably within the usual metric for reporting ice cover! If you would deign to open the link to the NSIDC interactive graphic I provided above, you would find that it measures the millions of square km as: Area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice.” Might that mean that up to 85% of those gridded areas of declared sea ice cover can be open water?
g) THINK!
h) One puzzle is that if there are unusual winds or currents, the same volume of ice could be compressed into a smaller area enabling a scare that the ice has melted away.
3) This might be a bit difficult for you but there’s this thing called latent heat for material phase change:
i) The latent heat of fusion of water (or the heat required to melt ice without any change of temperature) is a mere 334 Kj/Kg whereas the latent heat of evaporation is a massive 2257 Kj/Kg. The amount of global evaporation is massive compared to melting ice.
j) THINK!
“Confused_Jane October 5, 2016 at 10:35 am #
cohenite October 4, 2016 at 7:06 pm #
What a load of rubbish.
cohenite, the empirical evidence proves the long term trend of sea ice melting mainly due to a long term trend of increasing ocean temperature”
I never said anything about sea ice; I referred to your ridiculous assertions that ocean temps were >8C and air temps >12C above average. Evidence please and stay on topic.
Cohenite i think the Arctic did change temperature by about that much but in the other direction. As usual Jane has the sign wrong. It got colder. From about 500AD to about 1300 AD the Dorset culture people otherwise known as the pre inuit Paleo-Eskimos or Tunit lived there. They seem to have died out as the litle ice age drove away their food and allowed the mordern inuit to ignore their timid land right claims. It seems they ate caribou, foxes and seals.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1940.42.3.02a00080/pdf
“….killers of seal
they couldn’t compete with the little men
who came from the west with dogs
Or else in a warm climatic cycle
The seals went back to cold waters
and the puzzled Dorsets scratched their heads
with hairy thumbs around 1350 A.D.
– couldn’t figure it out
went around saying to each other
plaintively
…………..’What’s wrong? What happened?
…………..Where are the seals gone?’
And died.”
http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/preserved-legends-and-ice-what-led-extinction-dorset-culture-004524?nopaging=1
Many researchers dismissed the tales as pure fiction, but a major new genetic study suggests that parts of these stories were based on actual events.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140828-arctic-migration-genome-genetics-dna-eskimos-inuit-dorset/
“This is demonstrated by the huge area occupied by Dorset groups and by evidence that they had perfected winter hunting on the sea ice. This was important since the Dorset people appear to have adapted very successfully to a climate that had become colder than that of encountered by their ancestors of the Arctic Small Tool tradition cultures.”
http://anthropology.uwaterloo.ca/ArcticArchStuff/dorset.html
Also
The history of Arctic sovereignty reveals a number of “game changers” that previously altered the status quo, as well as several general trends. The most striking “game changer” was the end of the great ice age, which eventually saw waves of Palaeo Eskimos slowly moving from Siberia eastward to Greenland. The last wave of these hardy migrants did not survive the little ice age. However, around 1250 BC, a group of whale hunters from the Bering Strait would arrive in Northern Greenland. Considered ancestors of present day Inuit, they had sophisticated weapons and means of transportation that allowed them to survive the little ice age.
A more dramatic effect of the little ice age was the disappearance (around AD 1400) of two large farm colonies located in Southern Greenland. Norwegian Vikings emigrating from Iceland established the farm colonies (around AD 980), over 200 years before the arrival of the Thule Inuit and 500 years before the alleged discovery of America by Christopher Columbus
https://www.opencanada.org/features/the-weight-of-history-in-the-arctic/
A question rather than a reply.
Everyone is focussed on greenhouse gases capturing heat leaving the earth.
Do greenhouse gases capture heat directly from the sun as it enters the atmosphere thus reducing the heating of the earth in the first instance as “50%” would be reradiated back into space.
This certainly is the case for smoke from bushfires. (yes particulate carbon rather than CO2). The general principal is the same however. The “blanket” would in this case be acting as a mirror before the heat energy reached the ground.
I should think the wavelength of the radiant energy entering from the sun would be the same as that being radiated out. If this hypothesis was true greenhouse gases should provide a very slight cooling effect.
Any thoughts re this in the blogosphere?
Miker, Essex, McKitrick and Andresen are all top mathematicians. I hate to pull rank but what are you? And regurgitating eli wabbit cuts no ice around here. That malcontent has nothing useful to say.
EMA is a great paper. They anticipated the nonsense raised by the wabbit and you. Essex et al state: “local equilibrium states in a field are defined at a particular location, r” (p 6); they also say; “the data are independent of the averaging rule used, therefore the sign of the derivatives are not intrinsic to the data, but a property of the averaging rule selected” (p 13); which means different methods can produce different results. Eli intended to prove them wrong but proved them right by changing the value of ‘r’.
As for Figure 2 and the range from r=-125 to r=125; you have misunderstood this; as EMA say:
“The data are monthly averages from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) [3]. Missing months were interpolated linearly as long as there was no more than one missing month in sequence, and it wasn’t at the start or finish of the sample. For each value of r,s (cf. Eq. (23)) the monthly r,s-means across the stations were computed, then a linear trend was fitted using ordinary least squares after deleting rows with missing data. The trend values are plotted in Figures 2 and 3. For the simple mean (r = 1, s = 0) the decadal “warming ” trend was 0.06 ◦C/decade. This turns out to be the peak value of the trend: for most values of r and s the trends are negative, indicating “cooling” across the 1979 to 2000 interval. It might seem contradictory that the same data show “global warming” of about 0.02 ◦C/decade for s = 0.04, but “global cooling” of −0.04 ◦C/decade for s = −0.04. But there is no contradiction in the data: They do not show “global” anything. The data are local. The interpretation of “global” warming or cooling is an artificial imposition on the data achieved by attaching a label to, respectively, a positive or negative trend in one particular average.”
This is indisputable. It is a complete contradiction of alarmism.
Brian the Engineer October 5, 2016 at 7:55 pm #
A question rather than a reply.
Everyone is focussed on greenhouse gases capturing heat leaving the earth.
Do greenhouse gases capture heat directly from the sun as it enters the atmosphere thus reducing the heating of the earth in the first instance as “50%” would be reradiated back into space?
No. sunlight passes straight through co2 and other ghg. Only after the sunlight it heats the surface the reflected infrared heat energy is then able to be reflected/deflected by ghg and that is what creates added warming of the atmosphere and surface temps.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
https://www.princeton.edu/geosciences/people/bender/CO2Sampling/climate.xml
It’s quite basic physics, is well known for over a century, and all the research since then continues to provide hard evidence the GHG effect is real and increasing rapidly.
Any ‘skeptic’ activist who claims the earth is not warming rapidly in geological terms or that CO2 GHGs have nothing to do with it are lying (and some believers in this are just gullible fools who don;t know any better).
Science info found here:
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=greenhouse+gases+effect+light+infrared+heat
cohenite October 5, 2016 at 3:58 pm # “assertions that ocean temps were >8C and air temps >12C above average. Evidence please and stay on topic.”
Evidence? It’s everywhere for those who decide to look at it. First it is in the video Sept 8th ‘Arctic Sea-Ice On Last Legs’ by Paul Beckwith – he draws on hard evidence of modern day observational records of scientists.
Of course Nasa and Beckwith and thousands of others could be lying. But there is no evidence they are lying or corrupting their data.
cohenite, you could try http://www.giss.nasa.gov or https://weather.gc.ca or http://wmc.meteoinfo.ru/ or http://scholar.google.com if you do not believe Beckwith’s data presentation from NASA’s compiled data.
It’s not job to educate you, that’s 100% your responsibility.
Siliggy repeatedly ignores the central question about arctic sea ice loss from 1979 to 2016 by talking about irrelevant ancient history when there was no hard data of SIE or PIOMASS.
I could repeat my questions but that would only be a waste of time. The questions stand, the context is clear, the data is undeniable and the empirical evidence overwhelmingly true and correct.
@ Confused _Jane
Poor emphatic Jane,
“No. sunlight passes straight through co2 and other ghg. Only after the sunlight it heats the surface the reflected infrared heat energy is then able to be reflected/deflected by ghg and that is what creates added warming of the atmosphere and surface temps.
Wrong again.
Only about 50% of sunshine is visible light to which GHG’s are indeed not absorptive. The rest of the spectra are mostly near-infrared (shortwave IR) and some UV which is absorbed by O3 and O2 (thankfully or we’d be in trouble) and the IR is absorbed in GHG’s and clouds.
I suggest you Google [ atmosphere + absorption spectra ] but you might have to try other combinations
Bob fernley-Jones October 5, 2016 at 3:12 pm # , I have zero to little interest in media events and celebrities, be it Q&A or SNL or people’s opinions about either Cox or Roberts. The carry on in the media and tv does not concern me, nor does it in any way ever influence my beliefs or opinions about climate science. I might think Roberts is a dill, but that is 100% besides the point. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.
My only interest is the data, the quality of the science and the empirical evidence it has produced. And that’s it. For that empirical evidence is either correct or it is not. Hand waving greenie street protests and clapping on Q&A and John Howard lectures on climate science and docos by Al Gore are all totally irrelevant to me, and they should be equally so to all clear thinking individuals. Personally I do not buy misinformation nor disinformation. None of these people represent climate science. The published papers do that alone.
Bob says: “Long-time average sea ice cover per NSIDC algorithms varies annually from around 6 to 13 million Km squared.”
Long-time is 37 years. more recently this is showing a range of 4 to 14.5 mln sq.klms
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
The Arctic is part of the earth’s climate system. What happens there is directly interconnected with the rest of the globe. Heat from the tropics moves towards the arctic over time. They are not two separate disconnected regions but are joined at the hip.
“c) Solar radiation input up there is relatively trivial because of the geometry of its low elevation in the sky (just as oppositely the heat of the day locally is when the sun is overhead)”
Bob thanks for the grade one climate science lesson but I am not mentally retarded.
“f) But 30-40% ice cover is comfortably within the usual metric for reporting ice cover!”
Yes Bob, I know that. I also know that 15% is the minimum marker for SIE. I know that. How many of the US population knows that – make a guess.
I also know that when they say an area had only a 30-40% ice cover that 60% was unfrozen ocean water. When it is 15% that 85% is open water slush.
I know all that Bob and more. Could you maybe address my questions now, knowing that I already know the details and am not stupid? Thanks.
Bob, Brian the Engineer can read what I wrote all by himself, and he can view the links I provided, and then go searching for himself if he chooses to get down and dirty with the hard core details.
He asked a very simple question, showing he did not know that much about climate science, and so he got a very simple answer with directions where to go to find out more.
If you think you can help Brian the Engineer, then I suggest you address him directly without any adhom comments about myself. Be a man. You can do it!
For cohenite, a repeat “If it wasn’t warmer in the Arctic and the oceans globally there would still be decade old sea ice there”
Melting sea ice and temperatures are a direct correlation. Unless temps rise the ice cannot melt. It is the same physics from winter to summer periods as it is each summer progressively over 37 years to today.
Both these statements are true in the Arctic today.
The ocean temperatures are as high as 8C above long term average.
The air surface temps are as high as 12C above long term average.
It’s not an ‘opinion’ nor a ‘belief’ nor am I being influenced by anyone else’s opinions – it is what the empirical evidence is.
“_Jane October 6, 2016 at 9:14 am #
cohenite October 5, 2016 at 3:58 pm # “assertions that ocean temps were >8C and air temps >12C above average. Evidence please and stay on topic.”
Evidence? It’s everywhere for those who decide to look at it.”
There’s nothing at your links to substantiate the exaggerated figures you gave of 12C ocean increase and 8C atmosphere increase.
Ocean temps: SSTs are a good indicator of ocean temp; SSTs have only fluctuated by 1.5C over the last 2000 years:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156843410050134&set=p.10156843410050134&type=3&theater
Tropical SSTs have increased by 0.2C since 1981:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/fig-7-tropics-comparison.png
Air temperatures; even using the discredited GISS indices air temperatures have only increased by 1.2C since 1888:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12
Using the more reliable satellite records air temperature has increased 0.7C since 1979:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12
“There’s nothing at your links to substantiate the exaggerated figures you gave of 12C ocean increase and 8C atmosphere increase.”
You are correct cohenite, because I never gave those figures. Try again. Accuracy really counts in scientific disagreements.
Both these statements are true in the Arctic today.
The ocean temperatures are as high as 8C above long term average.
The air surface temps are as high as 12C above long term average.
Ok, so you’re saying they’re right for the Arctic. So you’re evidence please; not a convoluted sprout about ice melting and therefore the temps must be higher.
Brian the Engineer
Yes, indeed, CO2 has a cooling effect…..as you queried about the absorption of incoming solar radiation and the “blanket” acting to cool us. This happens in the thermosphere, where, with an active sun, temperatures of this section of the atmosphere can reach up to about 1500 deg. C. The newer outer satellites can actually see the glowing of waste nitric oxides and CO2 as they shed hundreds of watts into space, before they “arrive here”. (Saber study)
CO2, like any other gas, also has a cooling effect in the lower atmosphere as well.(even moreso than water vapour!)
The science explaining this is just above my comment here..
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/recycling-of-heat-in-the-atmosphere-is-impossible/#comment-476235
Malcolm Roberts, talking about “Greenhouse gases” is even wrong too….
It immediately recognises a belief in an old ,outdated, unreal, crackpot “greenhouse” theory.
I’m curious if Unsettled Malcolm Roberts would believe any of this? (I’ll drop him a line in aph canberra and ask him direct)
Earth System Dynamics (ESD) is an international scientific journal dedicated to the publication and public discussion of studies that take an interdisciplinary perspective of the functioning of the whole Earth system and global change.
Research Article
Young People’s Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions
by James Hansen1, Makiko Sato1, Pushker Kharecha1, Karina von Schuckmann2, David J Beerling3, Junji Cao4, Shaun Marcott5, Valerie Masson-Delmotte6, Michael J Prather7, Eelco J Rohling8,9, Jeremy Shakun10, and Pete Smith11
1Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY 10115
2Mercator Ocean, 10 Rue Hermes, 31520 Ramonville St Agne, France
3Leverhulme Centre for Climate Change Mitigation, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
4Key Lab of Aerosol Chemistry and Physics, SKLLQG, Institute of Earth Environment, Xi’an 710061, China
5Department of Geoscience, 1215 W. Dayton St., Weeks Hall, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706
6Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (CEA-CNRS-UVSQ) Université Paris Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
7Earth System Science Department, University of California at Irvine, CA
8Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, 2601, Australia
9Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, SO14 3ZH, UK
10Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
11Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, 23 St Machar Drive, AB24 3UU, UK
Received: 22 Sep 2016 – Accepted: 27 Sep 2016 – Published: 04 Oct 2016
Abstract.
The rapid rise of global temperature that began about 1975 continues at a mean rate of about 0.18 °C/decade, with the current annual temperature exceeding +1.25 °C relative to 1880–1920.
Global temperature has just reached a level similar to the mean level in the prior interglacial (Eemian) period, when sea level was several meters higher than today, and, if it long remains at this level, slow amplifying feedbacks will lead to greater climate change and consequences.
The growth rate of climate forcing due to human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs) increased over 20 % in the past decade [2005-2015] mainly due to resurging growth of atmospheric CH4, thus making it increasingly difficult to achieve targets such as limiting global warming to 1.5 °C or reducing atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm.
Such targets now require “negative emissions”, i.e., extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere. [end extract]
see the rest here http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-42/
New Pew research fwiw
Three-quarters of Americans (76%) have either a great deal (21%) or a fair amount of confidence (55%) in scientists, generally, to act in the public interest. Confidence in either group is about the same or only modestly different across party and ideological groups.
Confidence in the news media, business leaders and elected officials is considerably lower; public views about school and religious leaders fall in the middle.
Some 72% of Americans report not too much or no confidence in elected officials to act in the public interest.
graph http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/ps_2016-10-04_politics-of-climate_0-07/
graph http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/ps_2016-10-04_politics-of-climate_0-08/
Roughly two-thirds of Americans [66%] say climate scientists should have a MAJOR ROLE in policy decisions about climate matters, more than say “the public, energy industry leaders, or national and international political leaders” should be so involved.
But, overall, majorities of Americans appear skeptical of climate scientists.
No more than a third of the public gives climate scientists’ high marks for their understanding of climate change;
even fewer say climate scientists understand the best ways to address climate change.
And, while Americans trust information from climate scientists more than they trust that from other groups, fewer than half of Americans have “a lot” of trust in information from climate scientists (39%).
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/ps_2016-10-04_politics-of-climate_1-02/
Does this mean the ‘3%, the deniers, PR firms and fossil fuel industries’ are winning the Climate War of Words?
cohenite, So you’re evidence please;
I already answered that question more than once. Please review what has been said quietly and calmly is best.
It’s your claim Jane, not mine; what is happening in the Arctic is neither exceptional nor unnatural; I have evidence to support my position but you show me yours first please.
Cohenite re http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/#comment-582368
If you show me your qualifications I will show you mine. Actually I will go first.
To the chagrin of most people here, I do admit to have had formal training in the dark arts (too many years) and worked in a scientific environment in both academia and industry for many more years. I have reviewed occasionally articles for journals and I so I think I can judge rubbish.
Now what is your background again to be eminently qualified to judge the merits of a scientific paper ?
You described your credentials, must I remind you again, as a verbal browbeater who lacked background in stats and maths so it is entirely understandable that you think McKitrick is a genius , despite him not understanding the difference between radian and degrees, see -http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/26/mckitrick6/.
The paper in question is seriously flawed , as out lined in the links I attached in my previous comment. As a result of your self confessed deficiencies in maths and stats, I thought you would find it difficult to understand the demolition of this paper, which was outlined in those links.
Anyway, I will attempt to discuss the material that you cut and pasted from the paper in question. Could you elaborate which criticisms by Rabbet, or others, you are referring to in particular for your use of sentences from page 6 and page 13 of the article. The extract from p6 is just a statement that no-one would argue with. How does this negate Rabett’s objections? Please explain.
I gather page 13 just states that the trend can have different signs depending on the type of average used. Yes it could, but the whole justification of using the large range of averaging method is, what is at issue i.e. do these other averaging method have any physical basis?
Up to r=4 may make some sense. Obviously r=1 does. For r=0 the answer is 1 to the power infinity for any distribution of data ( Cohenite what is the answer to this riddle?) .
The same arguments that are used by Essex et al. could be used for any situation where you are averaging temperatures from more than one location. So according to this paper there is no such thing as an average temperature for NSW or basically anywhere else. No wonder the ridicule flowed.
The other significant slab that you copied from the paper elsewhere in your comment does not address the issues regarding totally unrealistic values for r and s . Did you actually read this before you cut and pasted it? Clearly not. It only refers to values of r and s that are less than 1.
Finally Cohenite. I always need a laugh and you as per usual can always be relied upon to provide one . This one is a beauty. “This is indisputable. It is a complete contradiction of alarmism.”
For something that is indisputable, it has attracted an awful lot of disputation.
To stress this, there has been no specific rebuttal of Eli Rabbet’s criticisms by the authors of this trash or by others that I am aware of. If you could point this out then I would be interested.
In reality the claims are highly disputable and do not stand up to any scrutiny at all.
At least McKitrick has the excuse that he is an economist. The other two authors do not appear to have the same excuse.
@ Confused_Jane
@ http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/#comment-582375
Poor Jane, I’m not worried about Brian, it’s you that I have sympathy for and being a soft sort of guy I feel that you need help. You made this assertion: ”No. sunlight passes straight through co2 and other ghg”
Wrong! Lookup ‘wrong’ in the dictionary Jane like in your habit before this on some other words. It’s quite a concise word so the dictionary should clarify any confusion you may have on its meaning.
Then perhaps if you have any interest in truth, check this spectral graph showing incoming and outgoing absorption bands under their respective Planck curves:
http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Images/sun-earth-planck.jpg
ALL five GHG’s charted absorb incoming solar radiation, as do clouds (not shown).
PS Don’t be confused that the area under the incoming Plancky is much bigger than the outgoing. Incoming is shown at TOA and is reduced at surface level to the same as outgoing (for equilibrium) because of incoming absorption and reflection annat.
@ Confused_Jane
@ http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/#comment-582374
Poor tragic Jane,
She’s still banging on in an obsession over the recent satellite data in the highly volatile Arctic.
Still in blissful dismissal of opposite trends in Antarctica which has a stable circumpolar ocean current.
Cannot comprehend that in terms of the total global energy budget the Arctic is trivial.
Still in denial that 2007 and 2012 experienced major sea ice loss attributed by NASA to unusual winds driving ice into warmer waters and that these events are cumulatively critical to reduced multiyear ice cover
Not interested that three naval submarines surfaced in open water at the North Pole in MAY 1987. Poor Jane, does she not know that that was four months before the typical September minima and barely into the melt season?
I doubt that she’d be interested that 58 (fifty-eight) years ago: “USS Skate (SSN-578) made submarine history on 11 August 1958 when it became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.” Ok, it was in summer but still about about 1 million square Km light of the typical September minimum.
Oh! Look at the time! Gotta go.
Hi Bob, Jane, Cohenite, Siliggy, Mack etc. .
I have attached a number of links relevant to the Arctic warming.
https://s20.postimg.org/64gq2sz4t/Arctic_Ice_and_Temps.jpg
https://s20.postimg.org/xt3dabm59/Arctic_SST.jpg .
The sea ice graph is from Tamino- see https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/its-the-ice-stupid/ and the SST data is from http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/sea_surface_temperature.html.
This graph is particularly relevant as it is of yearly averages (up till that month) and not very sensitive to weather conditions (such as unusual winds) around the September minimum that concerns Bob so much.
The SST for parts of the Arctic show an increase a bit under 2 degrees C since the early 1980s. This is in contrast to the much smaller SST increase in the tropics as noted by Cohenite. Surface temperature (GISS) are also up about 2 C while the troposphere is up by around 1.5 C (RSS) and 1C (UAH),.
These temperatures possibly might account for the loss of sea ice.
However we should never jump to conclusions ,as this correlation not causation. It might be simply the ice melting due to the warming or It might be the loss of ice is causing the heating. i.e. The ice melting may be warming the Arctic seas and the atmosphere. The reduction in albedo due to reduced ice cover could be causing this, see http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/ .
Hmm, I wonder what that means long term?
But of course it could be due to something independently that is causing the temperatures to increase and ice to melt. Possibly all those influences that Siliggy suggested , maybe moonlight or neutrinos . As my grandpa used to say “never trust a neutrino (or any other elementary particle) . You just don’t where they have been”.
I see from above there has been also much discussion re submarines surfacing at the north pole etc., some prior to 1979.
For a look at ice well before 1979 and up till now see -https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850 .
It’s fine by me that people choose to ignore the links and the empirical evidence everywhere.
But really, is it necessary to throw in the Poor tragic Jane, Poor Jane, it’s you that I have sympathy for… insulting belittling gas lighting ad hominem too?
It’s play ground level bullying and name calling is it?
Yawn.
“cohenite, So you’re evidence please;”
I already answered that question more than once. Ignore it or Google it. Yawn.
Not watching the empirical evidence and where to find the empirical data doesn’t count for evidence of the absence of evidence.
http://youtu.be/xknMZFYUp2U?t=9m56s
I think they have the date there at 8th sept 2016 ocean SST 4 to 8 degrees C above normal. The guy is live online to a noaa.gov web page. Go look at it or ignore it.
Ocean SST 4 to 8 C ‘anomaly’ above normal. all around the arctic circle, europe, russia, greenland, canada, alaska, spreading into the north pacific and atlantic oceans.
http://youtu.be/xknMZFYUp2U?t=10m39s
You have accused me of what was it, again? Oh, doesn’t matter. Carry on!
August 1956
https://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02203-dmi/images/late-chart-1956-08-lg.jpg
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
Figure 1. The chart from August 1932 showing both direct observations (marked in red) and the presumed but not observed ice edge (the white edge). Observed regions also often show the type of ice present, with the standard legend in the top right corner.
https://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02203-dmi/images/aug-1932-dmi-chart.jpg
and
https://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02203-dmi/images/mid-chart-1934-08-lg.jpg
Feel free to compare, feel free not to.
Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for August 2016 was 5.60 million
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/09/n_extn_hires.png
and
Experts explain Sea ice decline in the Arctic (April 2016)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgsDfPF7Teg
They’re dreaming?
Seriously, some anonymous guy gesticulating at a ominously coloured graph is your evidence of EXTREME temperature at the Nth pole?
Actually, the land temperatures are here;
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
In the first 100 days of 2016 there were a number of days 12C above average.
In 1976 in the first 100 days there were a number of days nearly 20C above average:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
So, the Arctic is cooling. This correlates with a paper showing 20thC Arctic temperatures peaked prior to 1950 and have been declining since:
http://www.clim-past.net/9/2379/2013/cp-9-2379-2013.html
Figure 5 from the paper:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/1d09a-arcticreconstruction.jpg
Whatever warming has occurred in the Arctic has been natural:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html#affil-auth
I think you are confused because you have a closed mind and don’t know what you are doing. Just saying.
Press conference, at European Geosciences Union General Assembly 21 April 2016.
Air Temperatures were 20°C to 40°C above normal in December 2015 into January 2016
http://youtu.be/LgsDfPF7Teg?t=9m5s
It’s an interesting report for sea ice thickness and volume over the last winter too. There was 15% less sea ice volume this year than in 2015.
http://egu2016.eu/information/general_information.html
Simulated models by the EGU show a sea ice free minimum arctic by mid-century 2050 (other scientists calculate it could happen much sooner in 2030 or 2040).
https://youtu.be/LgsDfPF7Teg?t=3m48s
Arctic Ocean waves and by 2100 likely to be Ice Free for 7 months of the year.
https://youtu.be/LgsDfPF7Teg?t=15m53s
So say the expert scientists who study the Arctic closely with their empirical evidence and up to the moment data. The energy experts are using their data to project a likely 48% increase in global energy consumption by 2040.
On 2012 figures that’s an increase of 20% Coal, 40% Oil and 80% in Natural Gas by 2040 (or only 24 years from now).
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26212
Of course, if GHG’s don’t actually cause global warming there is nothing to worry about.
“In the first 100 days of 2016 there were a number of days 12C above average.”
Really?
Didn’t I say –
“The ocean temperatures are as high as 8C above long term average. The air surface temps are as high as 12C above long term average.” ?
and
“It’s not an ‘opinion’ nor a ‘belief’ nor am I being influenced by anyone else’s opinions – it is what the empirical evidence is.” ?
and then didn’t cohenite say to me –
cohenite October 4, 2016 at 7:06 pm #
“What a load of rubbish.”
and
“I referred to your ridiculous assertions that ocean temps were >8C and air temps >12C above average. Evidence please and stay on topic.”
and
cohenite October 6, 2016 at 10:49 am #
“Ok, so you’re saying they’re right for the Arctic. So you’re evidence please; not a convoluted sprout about ice melting and therefore the temps must be higher.”
What I said was correct. Wasn’t it?
cohenite October 6, 2016 at 8:16 pm # –
“Seriously, some anonymous guy gesticulating….”
Are you serious? You can’t be serious.
Paul Beckwith
5,701 subscribers • 921,036 views
http://www.youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith/about
http://www.lpc.uottawa.ca/members/beckwith/
MikeR October 6, 2016 at 4:29 pm #
Cohenite re http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/#comment-582368
Most of the deltoid links are defunct so I am left with your declarations. Pardon me if I don’t accept them. I don’t have access to Mckitrick’s paper referred to in the lambert BS. Are you saying he calculated using a degree instead of a radian or did he use the degree equivalent of a radian?
I never said anything about my qualifications.
In any event lets look at the EMA paper which is here:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
Your claim that:
“Yes it could, but the whole justification of using the large range of averaging method is, what is at issue i.e. do these other averaging method have any physical basis?
Up to r=4 may make some sense. Obviously r=1 does. For r=0 the answer is 1 to the power infinity for any distribution of data ( Cohenite what is the answer to this riddle?) .”
is disingenuous. The point of EMA is to show that not only the data to be averaged but methods of averaging give a false or rather different result. The analogy of averaging the telephone book applies to the point about data and the different results produced by different averaging methods is discussed in section 3.1.1.
The other particularly relevant sections of EMA are section 3 and 3.2. Averaging methods are distinct from physical causation. The example of the average of the temperature of an oven cook top can perhaps explain this. You could make sense of it by measuring the overall infrared radiation – but then you would be measuring an extrinsic property, that can be validly summed over the area of the cooktop.
The intrinsic property – temperature – can’t be validly summed over the area of the cooktop and the various ways you could do it wouldn’t agree, and wouldn’t agree with the extrinsic result.
These sorts of discussion remind me of the philosophy of science about causation. While we use the term ’cause’ very loosely and assume we know what we mean, on close examination the concept is very difficult to define, and most people are totally clueless about what they mean when they say ‘a’ caused ‘b’.
Essex et.al. are making valid philosophical points that are wasted in ignoramuses.
In your case your qualifications merely add a gloss to your otherwise average alarmist trolling.
Cohenite,
Google is your friend – http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/26/mckitrick6/
it took me about 60 plus or minus 15 seconds/
@ Confused Jane
“Are you serious? You can’t be serious.”
Yeah , Confused Jane, Cohenite and myself are serious.
Paul Beckwith is yet just another AGW brainwashed teaching academic. He looks about the age-group of maximum indoctrination,ie the 40 to 50 age bracket.
His head has been filled with “greenhouse gas” crap. …much in the same way as yours has.
Maybe you were one of the little girls in this clip?…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/video.cfm?c_id=26&gal_objectid=11634737&gallery_id=160389
“MikeR October 6, 2016 at 9:17 pm #
Cohenite,
Google is your friend – http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/26/mckitrick6/
it took me about 60 plus or minus 15 seconds/”
Comprehension is not yours. I said deltoid links not you link to deltoid. Anyway this is BS. The EMA paper is the issue not some little alarmist’s, like lamberts, alleged faults with McKitrick.
You are being disingenuous about the paper. Their use of a wide range of averaging methods and data is the point and they are simply covering all bases.
Cohenite,
Yes indeed, you have not said anything about your qualifications except for the aside that you are not strong in stats and maths, which is just stating the very obvious.
Also yes, you could measure the temperature of your oven cook top in many ways.
I would use a thermometer, assuming you have a one that could withstand the heat. You might need to calibrate it using an ice bucket and boiling water at STP. I would not recommend estimating the temperature by physical contact, especially if your medical insurance is not up to date.
You could take multiple readings as the cook top warmed and average them using the EMA formula for r=125 or r=-125. Let me know the outcome. If you do get a negative trend for any of these values then you may realize that r=1 is a good choice. Anyway send me the results and I can plot them in Excel for you.
Actually to emulate the EMA paper you need to do it for 12 cook tops.
Your last points diverged into the realm of philosophy. Philosophy is not my strong point despite the initials after my name. Does an average temperature exist? Does temperature exist? What is the point of temperature? If temperature didn’t exist would it have to be invented?
If my child has a temperature of 104 C and it is increasing should I worry? To avoid a visit to the emergency department, can I process the data to reduce the child’s temperature so it is decreasing?. What value of r should I use? So many questions.
Cohenite,
The original paper by McKitrick and Michaels (2004) is at –
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2004/26/c026p159.pdf .
You will find the balls up in Table 1 – Absolute latitude COSABLATi Cosine of absolute value of latitude in degrees .
This stuff up is documented in the code here at http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gsmod.txt .
See
genr abslat=abs(lat)
genr coslat=sin(2*lat)/(2*sin(lat))
genr cosablat=sin(2*abslat)/(2*sin(abslat))
lat should be in radians.
For more information about this see http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/25/mckitrick-mucks-it-up/.
Sorry to do a cut and paste from the above article but it does sum it up beautifully.
“It’s well-known that the rate of warming varies with latitude, but McKitrick and Michaels find no such effect for their variable, which is the cosine of absolute latitude. Lambert checked and, amazingly enough, found that the data set used by McKitrick and Michaels had latitude in degrees, but the cosine function in the SHAZAM econometric package, they used expected input in radians (which is what any mathematically literate person would expect). If you apply this function to angles measured in degrees you get nonsense.
Once Lambert did the correct analysis, latitude was highly significant and the economic variables became much less important. The results reported by McKitrick and Michaels can be explained by an obvious confounding effect. Rich countries tend to be at high latitudes, and so GDP acts as a proxy for latitude.”
Here’s an interesting report from Breitbart of 20/Sep/2016 covering a time when typically Arctic ice is at its lowest level. Other media including the BBC would have been ecstatic over the “great success” of what was actually another case of failure in the NWP. See 2) for 1940 – 1944 successful 2-way passages by a Canadian schooner when it was likely there was less ice around than today.
1) The Polar Ocean Challenge expedition – aka Ship of Fools II – has escaped from the Arctic by the skin of its teeth.
It was supposed to show how amazingly navigable the Arctic Circle has become now that climate change is supposedly melting the polar ice caps at a dangerous and unprecedented rate. But according to one observer who has followed their progress closely (see comments at Paul Homewood‘s place), the intrepid explorers – including a 14-year-old boy – came within just two days of calamity, after being hampered by unexpectedly large quantities of a mysterious substance apparently made of frozen water. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/20/ship-fools-ii-expedition-escapes-arctic-freeze-nick-time/
2) from Wikipedia:
Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen was the second to sail the passage, crossing west to east, leaving Vancouver 23 June 1940 and arriving at Halifax on 11 October 1942.[46] More than once on this trip, he was uncertain whether the St. Roch, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police “ice-fortified” schooner, would survive the pressures of the sea ice. At one point, Larsen wondered “if we had come this far only to be crushed like a nut on a shoal and then buried by the ice.” The ship and all but one of her crew survived the winter on Boothia Peninsula. Each of the men on the trip was awarded a medal by Canada’s sovereign, King George VI, in recognition of this notable feat of Arctic navigation.
Later in 1944, Larsen’s return trip was far more swift than his first. He made the trip in 86 days to sail back from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Vancouver, British Columbia.[47] He set a record for traversing the route in a single season. The ship, after extensive upgrades, followed a more northerly, partially uncharted route.
Ok McKitrick made a mistake; now in the interests of balance let’s discuss mistakes made by alarmist scientists; start by googling my name here and at Jo Nova.
Incidentally your comparison with a child with a high temperature is a beautiful and insidious one. Children are so precious and the planet is so similar to a child, isn’t it? I think you’re pretty good at philosophy.
“Actually to emulate the EMA paper you need to do it for 12 cook tops.”
They used 12 separate sites as shown in Table 1; cook tops or temperature sites, the point is the same.
Speaking of cooking and by implication kitchens, EMA say this at 3.1.2:
“Let’s consider a specific example involving temperature. A glass of ice water at 2 ◦C is sitting beside a cup of coffee at 33 ◦C. The two remain isolated, but are allowed to relax to room temperature, which is 20 ◦C, according to Newtonian cooling (heating). To complete the example, a plausible relaxation time of eight minutes for each container was set for the sake of this illustration, but the phenomenon we will find is not unique to this value. In this manner the ice water is allowed to warm, while the coffee cools accordingly. For this example, the two independent temperatures were averaged in four different ways. They are not exhaustive by any means. Furthermore, examples with other temperature units and other averages may be formulated, but these would not add materially to the value of the example.”
So they start with the 4 ‘physical’ averaging methods to prove the inherent faults of a GAT and later use the 125 methods: sort of kitchen sinking the problem.
It’s a great paper and was wrongly maligned by the alarmists; but that’s the nature of the beast.
Anyway, look at my lists of bad alarmist papers and pick or suggest one of your own. I don’t think you can go past John Cook’s 97% consensus paper for setting the standard for bad papers.
Here are two satellite shots of the NWP with the caption: “The northwest passage is increasingly ice-free.” The same source describes that in 2016 several large vessels (with the benefit of satellite information and GPS etcetera) made successful transits and the second image relates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
The first image is dated 09/August/2013 which is fascinating because that was the year after the disastrous great low of 2012 when so many polar bears would have perished from being unable to eat so many seals.
BTW, 2016 cover has returned to within 2 sigma of long term average and the failure of satellite F17 in April and subsequent calibration problems with F18 have perhaps at last been overcome.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
“I don’t think you can go past John Cook’s 97% consensus paper for setting the standard for bad papers.”
The primary problem of Cooks paper being it was not a climate science paper spelling out the details of the empirical evidence for climate change and AGW in the industrial era. IT was a “social sciences/psychology/statistics” paper.
Relevance to the empirical evidence for AGW/CC is Zero!
Why do we think that climate skeptics are irrational?
A major reason is that almost none of them have any genuine expertise in climate science (most have no scientific expertise at all), yet they’re confident that they know better than the scientists. Science is hard. Seeing patterns in noisy data requires statistical expertise, for instance.
Climate data is very noisy: we shouldn’t rely on common sense to analyze it. We are instead forced to use the assessment of experts.
So we think that experts should have much greater standing on these questions than non-experts. And we think that a consensus of experts is particularly good evidence for a claim. Famously, there is a near consensus among (relevant) experts about climate. The exact numbers have altered from study to study, but there is a consensus on the consensus: about 97% of climate scientists agree that the world is warming and that our emissions are largely to blame.
In response, climate skeptics sometimes argue there is no consensus. They claim that consensus is no reason to believe in the ‘science’.
But what the skeptics neglect to admit is that the Consensus among scientists in the fields of climate science is NOT a Consensus of Belief, but a consensus on the empirical evidence of the climate science across decades and centuries up to today.
They agree that the Data and the basic science which underpins climate science is valid, robust, and accurate and therefore the empirical evidence for AGW/CC and global warming now and into the future is true.
The scientific consensus is based on the actual science and nothing to do with vacuous ‘opinions’ nor ‘beliefs’.
If the Cook papers never got the published the facts remain there is a scientific consensus on climate science.
Outliers and liars are irrelevant to that core self-evident fact.
It is what it is. Saying it ain’t on a blog site or in a newspaper makes no difference to the empirical evidence of itself.
“when so many polar bears would have perished from being unable to eat so many seals.”
Relevance?
School yard Humour perhaps?
“successful 2-way passages by a Canadian schooner when it was likely there was less ice around than today.”
less ice? evidence, got any?
Pray tell what was the SIE, the volume and the PIOMASS of the arctic sea ice in 1940-1944?
Did the Canadian schooner circumnavigate the arctic sea ice? Nope.
Did the Canadian schooner come close to the North Pole like a schooner did in 2016?
Did anyone ever tell you that good science requires hard data, math and empirical evidence before any decent scientist would say anything like – “when it was likely there was less ice around than today”
That ain’t science. That ain’t scientific nor logical. That’s an opinion based on political ideology beliefs and human cognitive dissonance at work.
Mack October 6, 2016 at 9:30 pm # and Paul Beckwith?
He’s a graduate Masters in Physics. He’s a graduate Engineer like Bob.
He’s talking about the empirical evidence and data directly from satelites and NOAA and NASA Giss.
If any of you bothered to look at the video you’d see the URLs on his screen, the file names, and could easily find them yourself. It’s all recent data.
And not surprisingly you simply ignore the empirical evidence for temperatures being 20-40C higher than normal, and ocean temps 8C higher than normal.
No, nothing to see here, the ‘real problem’ is that Paul Beckwith is a trained scientist and teacher and PHD student in his 40s 50s, he is also using cutting edge uptodate Data and explaining what it means.
And we can;t have that now can we Mack.
The world is much better when we believe the phases of the moon are caused by the earth moving between the moon and the light from the sun. Hey champ!
Yes Mack, the only “real problem” we have in this world are those smart people who go get degrees and tel all us dumb people what to believe and then talk to us like low life scrum, hey Mack!
cohenite, you must have missed this comment question because I did not see a reply from you yet.
October 6, 2016 at 10:49 am # I asked
“What I said was correct. Wasn’t it?”
Bob? “What I said was correct. Wasn’t it?”
Jennifer? “What I said was correct. Wasn’t it?”
John Nicol? “What I said was correct. Wasn’t it?”
Silligli? “What I said was correct. Wasn’t it?”
Mack? “What I said was correct. Wasn’t it?”
In fact what I said was “conservative” given the empirical evidence shows air temps in the arctic can be as high as 12C to 20C to 40C above normal these days.
In fact areas inside the arctic had air temps 12C to 15C above normal over a decade ago now wiht the spring melt beginning 4-6 weeks before historical norms.
No do not ask me to show you the evidence when if you were “serious” and “knowledgeable” and keen on “science” and up to date with the Data and empirical evidence for climate change then you too would have known this a decade ago already.
cohenite said October 6, 2016 at 1:48 pm #
“It’s your claim Jane, not mine;
what is happening in the Arctic is neither exceptional nor unnatural;
I have evidence to support my position but you show me yours first please.”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/#comment-582384
I showed you mine, now you show me yours that “what is happening in the Arctic is neither exceptional nor unnatural”.
I know, so don’t worry, because there is no scientific empirical evidence or Data to support your position. Silence speaks for itself.
@ Confused Jane,
It’s quite amazing how you keep blathering on here…obviously your “greenhouse” gas religion is very strong.
We get “empirical evidence” from you, over and over. Sorry , you’ve not got one shred of empirical evidence that quantifies what the “greenhouse effect” is…let alone the warming of the planet from CO2. Absolutely nothing (no evidence whatsoever) that links any warming of the atmosphere being attributed to the so called “greenhouse gases”.
John Nicol says:
“as demonstrated clearly by the pause in warming over the past, approximately, 19 years”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/#comment-582186
The empirical evidence proves beyond all doubt that there has been no pause in warming over the past, approximately, 19 years.
None!
It cannot be the fault of climate scientists, universities, CSIRO, the BOM, Nasa-Giss, nor anyone else’s fault that John Nicol, Jennifer Marohasy and Malcolm Roberts are not aware of what the empirical evidence actually is.
Therefore I ask again, rhetorically:
Confused_Jane October 4, 2016 at 1:03 pm #
So, if I may ask, if the ghg effect is only minor, cannot become ‘catastrophic’ as Bob says, and if there’s been a long term hiatus in rising global temperatures, and if as Jennifer has said the warming is overstated due to corrupted raw data, and if as Roberts says the atmosphere cools the earth’s surface, and if as John Nicol suggests an increase in CO2 increases the cooling effect out to space of the atmosphere, then how come is it the following is occurring in the Arctic Circle this year and apparently getting worse?
The ocean temperatures are as high as 8C above long term average.
The air surface temps are as high as 12C above long term average. [as high as 20C to 40C at times]
The summer sea ice minimum is 45% less than it was in 1979.
The winter sea ice maximum is 11% less than it was in 1979.
There was a huge region of sea ice near the north pole that was only 30-40% sea ice.
The annual sea ice Minimum has fallen to only 28% of the Maximum which is down from 43% only 37 years earlier.
The multiyear ice has all but disappeared in the last 5 years.
Original url for more detail about the empirical evidence and data
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/#comment-582339
_Jane October 7, 2016 at 11:24 am #
“I don’t think you can go past John Cook’s 97% consensus paper for setting the standard for bad papers.”
The primary problem of Cooks paper being it was not a climate science paper spelling out the details of the empirical evidence for climate change and AGW in the industrial era. IT was a “social sciences/psychology/statistics” paper.
Relevance to the empirical evidence for AGW/CC is Zero!”
Tell that to Obama and other world leaders who quoted Cook’s consensus:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/
I’m glad you’re here Jane; this site hasn’t had such a fun alarmist since luke left. You’re not luke are you?
As for Arctic temperatures goggle Bi-Polar seesaw:
http://www.princeton.edu/~cmngroup/13_Science_Editors_Choice.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/ocean/eas3530/papers/AMO_Seasaw.pdf
Mack October 7, 2016 at 12:20 pm #
@ Confused Jane, “Absolutely nothing (no evidence whatsoever) that links any warming of the atmosphere being attributed to the so called “greenhouse gases”.
Really? Because you say so, it must be so. Is this your version of “empirical evidence” Mack? Well, what about those phases of the moon Mack? You’re wrong about that but 100% correct about the most complex hard science today – climate science.
The lack of acknowledgement for your “great scientific talent” must be excruciating.
Five Characteristics of Science Denial
1) Fake Experts
2) Logical Fallacies
3) Impossible Expectations
4) Cherry Picking
5) Conspiracy Theories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ
That video is only a summary of many earlier studies published on Denial vs Skepticism
One example being:
Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? You have access
Pascal Diethelm, Martin McKee
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn139 2-4
First published online: 21 January 2009
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2
extracts include
Black is white and white is black
HIV does not cause AIDS. The world was created in 4004 BCE. Smoking does not cause cancer. And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions. Few, if any, of the readers of this journal will believe any of these statements. Yet each can be found easily in the mass media.
The consequences of policies based on views such as these can be fatal.
There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus, convincing many of the public, and often the media too, that the consensus is not based on ‘sound science’ or denying that there is a consensus by exhibiting individual dissenting voices as the ultimate authorities on the topic in question. Their goal is to convince that there are sufficient grounds to reject the case for taking action to tackle threats to health. This phenomenon has led some to draw a historical parallel with the holocaust, another area where the evidence is overwhelming but where a few commentators have continued to sow doubt.
All are seen as part of a larger phenomenon of denialism.
Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way. The first is the identification of conspiracies.
There is also a variant of conspiracy theory, inversionism, in which some of one’s own characteristics and motivations are attributed to others.
The second is the use of fake experts. These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge.
The use of fake experts is often complemented by denigration of established experts and researchers, with accusations and innuendo that seek to discredit their work and cast doubt on their motivations.
The third characteristic is selectivity, [cherry-picking] drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field.
The fourth is the creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon.
Although Philip Morris eventually scaled back its GEP programme, as no epidemiological body would agree to such a standard, British American Tobacco still uses this criterion to refute the risk associated with passive smoking.
The fifth is the use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies.
For example, pro-smoking groups have often used the fact that Hitler supported some anti-smoking campaigns to represent those advocating tobacco control as Nazis (even coining the term nico-nazis),26 even though other senior Nazis were smokers, blocking attempts to disseminate anti-smoking propaganda and ensuring that troops has sufficient supplies of cigarettes.27
Logical fallacies include the use of red herrings, or deliberate attempts to change the argument and straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented to make it easier to refute.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2
[end extracts]
So there is ample evidence about how “denialism” is used to manipulate politicians and the public in regard to the scientific empirical evidence and accumulated knowledge .
Denialists’ Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts
Chris Jay Hoofnagle
University of California, Berkeley – School of Information; University of California, Berkeley – School of Law
February 9, 2007
Abstract:
The Denalists’ Deck of Cards is a humorous illustration of how libertarian policy groups use denialism. In this context, denialism is the use of rhetorical techniques and predictable tactics to erect barriers to debate and consideration of any type of reform, regardless of the facts.
Giveupblog.com has identified five general tactics used by denialists: conspiracy, selectivity, the fake expert, impossible expectations, and metaphor.
The Denialists’ Deck of Cards builds upon this description by providing specific examples of advocacy techniques.
The point of listing denialists’ arguments in this fashion is to show the rhetorical progression of groups that are not seeking a dialogue but rather an outcome.
As such, this taxonomy is extremely cynical, but it is a reflection of and reaction to how poor the public policy debates in Washington have become.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962462
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/the-denialists-deck-of-cards/
and also Science Denial and the Science Classroom
Dennis W. C. Liu*
http://www.lifescied.org/content/11/2/129.short
The Hoofnagle brothers’ “denialism blog” website
Here we will discuss the problem of denialists, their standard arguing techniques, how to identify denialists and/or cranks, and discuss topics of general interest such as skepticism, medicine, law and science.
I’ll be taking on denialists in the sciences, while my brother, Chris, will be geared more towards the legal and policy implications of industry groups using denialist arguments to prevent sound policies.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/
The empirical evidence is all out there – denial of that evidence is not evidence of no evidence.
You’re not luke are you?
No.
As for Arctic temperatures goggle Bi-Polar seesaw:
Already know about that. The world is a big place. Everything is connected. Including the melting arctic sea ice is interconnected into the whole climate system.
How could it be otherwise cohenite?
“Tell that to Obama and other world leaders who quoted Cook’s consensus:”
I am not responsible for what Obama or anyone else says or does or quote.
That there is a scientific consensus in AGW/CC is self-evident. No study is needed to know that.
Neither Obama nor Cook have any say over the Data and the Empirical Evidence of AGW/CC today.
Me neither.
It is what it is.
Knowing that everything is interconnected in the global climate – IF the ghg effect is only minor, cannot become ‘catastrophic’ as Bob says, and if there’s been a long term hiatus in rising global temperatures, and if as Jennifer has said the warming is overstated due to corrupted raw data, and if as Roberts says the atmosphere cools the earth’s surface, and if as John Nicol suggests an increase in CO2 increases the cooling effect out to space of the atmosphere, then how come is it the following is occurring in the Arctic Circle this year and apparently getting worse?
Any ideas why that is so?
Seriously, what do you want to see happen?
Here’s some example possibilities
Reverse the tradition of “tenured professors” in Universities?
Privatise all Universities on the globe?
Privatise the CSIRO after every climate related department was permanently closed?
Switch off every satellite in space that is doing climate research like Cryosat does?
Defund the Pentagon and the US Navy of all climate and sea level rise research they are currently doing?
Sack every person in the Public Service who ‘believes’ agw/cc is real and the science is valid?
Shutdown the IPCC body?
Repeal the creation and disband the UNFCCC and cancel every treaty which was made by 192 nations since 1990?
Pass a law similar to the holocause denial laws that makes it a criminal offense for anyone to deny the climate science is flawed and that the myth of agw/cc is being driven by a secret global cabal of anti-capitalist eco-nazis and their ‘front cover’ is the United Nations and it’s insidious Agenda 21?
Given it’s believed and accepted the BOM, CSIRO, Universities, NASA, GISS, NOAA, the EPA in the US, the EU climate scientists, the IPCC are all involved in a major conspiracy to corruptly change and manipulate the historical temperature data to show warming where none exists, shouldn’t all those institutions be shutdown and the staff sacked?
Know one seems to know what any of you want to do with all these climate related activities given you seem to believe (know for certain?) agw/cc isn’t even real.
What do you want to see happen?
(Your comment is awaiting moderation – sorry it was way too much text, this is much shorter)
Mack October 7, 2016 at 12:20 pm #
@ Confused Jane, “Absolutely nothing (no evidence whatsoever) that links any warming of the atmosphere being attributed to the so called “greenhouse gases”.
Really? Because you say so, it must be so. fyi Five Characteristics of Science Denial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ
That video is only a summary of info from many earlier studies published on Denial vs Skepticism
One example
Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?
First published online: 21 January 2009
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2
The consequences of policies based on views such as these can be fatal.
All are seen as part of a larger phenomenon of denialism.
Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way.
imo there is ample evidence about how “denialism” is used to manipulate politicians and the public in regard to the scientific empirical evidence and accumulated knowledge.
The big question is, which is which?
earlier refs include Denialists’ Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts February 9, 2007
“In this context, denialism is the use of rhetorical techniques and predictable tactics to erect barriers to debate and consideration of any type of reform, regardless of the facts.”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962462
The Hoofnagle brothers’ “denialism blog” website
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/
Really helps to check in with http://scholar.google.com occasionally and look at the scientific work and data records. It’s really useful to find the original papers by people you might see in a youtube video. For example Professor Peter D. Ward UW
https://www.ess.washington.edu/people/profile.php?pid=ward–peter
Using his proper initials PD Ward you can search for his papers like this http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=PD+Ward&btnG=&hl=en
It take’s a lot of time and patience but is worth the effort. eg note the names and dates of graphs and images seen in videos and google that. Look for the originals especially and read their info pages and check their archives.
eg http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/detect/global-temps.shtml
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/air_temperature.html
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/sea_surface_temperature.html
August SSTs are increasing at ~0.5°C/decade in these regions.
Average annual surface air temperature anomaly (+1.3°C) over land north of 60°N for October 2014-September 2015 was the highest in the observational record beginning in 1900; this represents a 2.9°C increase since the beginning of the 20th Century
The record-breaking year continues a long-term warming trend — 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have now occurred since 2001. (hiatus?)
I think all those statements are based on ’empirical evidence’ provided by good science in those links above
Or look for yourself? “North Pole Web Cams (online videos) provide an otherwise unobtainable view of sea ice conditions throughout the Arctic summer. Animations of the images are available as YouTube videos.”
(No web cams were deployed in 2016, due to funding constraints)
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/detect/ice-npole.shtml
Cohenite
Returning to the topic of the EMA paper.
McKittrick and his partner’s postmodernist interpretation of averages (they consider all types of averages to be thermodynamically equivalent) was always going to be a hard sell . I am glad you raised section 3.12. from the EMA paper as this material totally shreds their reputations and I wouldn’t buy a used car from this mob.
The major problem is they using Celsius instead of Kelvin in the calculation to generate for figure 1 . The only correct curve corresponds to the simple r=1 average. For the r=4 (R4) average corresponding to the SB law which, if you want to get sensible results, you need to use uses Kelvin of course.
ELI Rabbet generates the correct curves here, see- . http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2007/03/rabett-writes-universitaets-prof.html . As Eli notes this is a monumental clusterf…k .( a generous description) which might even outdo McKittrick’s earlier disasters.
The only remaining question is that it got through peer review. It must have helped that one of the authors was on the editorial panel otherwise it is inexplicable.
I guess we can count our blessings that, despite being North Americans, they didn’t use Fahrenheit.
This kind of info turns up often and is very clear in what they say.
“Mean SSTs in August 2015 in ice-free regions ranged from ~0°C in some places to around +7 to +8°C ” (Fig. 5.1a).
Am I the only person to remember last years +8C, or am I the only one who saw that info besides NOAA staff?
North Pole Web Cam Summer 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Na7yAMQag&feature=youtu.be
vs Aug 1962 Subs
http://navsource.org/archives/08/575/0857805b.jpg
vs April 1909 Peary Arctic Expedition
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photos/north-pole-expeditions/#/10496.ngsversion.1467941798455.jpg
1952 KINGDOM of ICE: The American Navy Returns to the North Pole
“then how come is it the following is occurring in the Arctic Circle this year and apparently getting worse?
Any ideas why that is so?”
Bipolar seesaw.
“McKittrick and his partner’s postmodernist interpretation of averages (they consider all types of averages to be thermodynamically equivalent)”
Exactly the opposite.
“The major problem is they using Celsius instead of Kelvin in the calculation to generate for figure 1 . The only correct curve corresponds to the simple r=1 average. For the r=4 (R4) average corresponding to the SB law which, if you want to get sensible results, you need to use uses Kelvin of course.”
That’s interesting. What is the GH temperature miker; is it expressed in Kelvin or Centigrade? Arthur Smith uses both:
“5. The measured average temperature of Earth’s surface is 33 degrees C higher than the limit determined by items (2) and (3). Therefore, Earth is proved to have a greenhouse effect of at least 33K”
What does the IPCC use: Kelvin or Centigrade?
As to eli; around here eli is a bit of fun: you know, like a snakebite. But as you have already conceded eli was done like a dinner by Lucia. Indeed Lucia does use Kelvin:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/spatial-variations-in-gmst-eli-rabbett-vs-dr-pielke-sr/
But as she makes plain the calculations apply to the IPCC versions of the GHE. Kelvin and Centigrade are standardised in ITS-90. This complaint by you parroting the wabbit simply avoids the main point: the GAT used by alarmism to justify its ideology is wrong.
Bipolar seesaw?
Despite Antarctic Gains, Global Sea Ice Is Shrinking
Author: Maria-Jose ViñasMike Carlowicz
February 27, 2015
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/despite-antarctic-gains-global-sea-ice-shrinking
Claire Parkinson has been studying polar sea ice for about four decades. She has been speaking to public audiences for nearly as long. And it was those public audiences who provoked one of the NASA climatologist’s latest research projects.
“When I give public lectures or talk with people interested in the topic of polar ice, somebody will often say something like: ‘Well, the ice is decreasing in the Arctic but it’s increasing in the Antarctic, so don’t they cancel out?’” said Parkinson.
“The answer is no, they don’t cancel out.”
Earth has been shedding sea ice at an average rate of 13,500 square miles per year since 1979.
click > play on bottom left to see 1979 to 2016 air temp changes
http://nsidc.org/soac/temperature.html#merra-temperature
more
http://nsidc.org/soac
I think that’s called empirical evidence.
Can some one help poor Cohenite out before he digs his hole even deeper.
Clearly Cohenite thinks the absolute zero Kelvin is another post modern social construct and is the same as degrees 0 Celsius or 0 degrees Fahrenheit. Can someone please disabuse him of this notion and explain why Kelvin is normally used for thermodynamic calculations.
Maybe one of the engineers, say Bob fernely-Jones, or a physicist such as John Nicol can help.
If Bob and John maintain radio silence , which would be a mjaor worry in itself, then Cohenite should try reading the Wiki at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_temperature .
As to the reference to Smith’s use of C and K. This is irrelevant in the context he uses it.. He is clearly referring to the difference (underline difference for Cohenite’s sake) in temperatures i.e. green-house gases contribute a 33degree C increase which is the same as an increase by 33 K.
I really don’t know why I am bothering with his obvious stuff. I am in danger of using a sledge hammer to open a walnut
Accordingly I don’t think it is necessary to explain why Kelvin is not in everyday use but I will make an exception for Cohenite.
The latest forecast for Sydney is for a maximum temperature of 301 degrees Kelvin after an overnight minimum of 288 K. Instantly relatable to common experience and I will pass this onto granny so she knows what t to wear.
This is getting so stupid. If it gets even more stupid then Cohenite should call on Mack for some wise counsel. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
“I really don’t know why I am bothering with his obvious stuff.”
I’d make a suggestion but my indifference is paramount.
At least this time you didn’t default to the wabbit.
So, EMA stands; the GAT is a confection which is of no use in supporting alarmism which is about the EEB; an issue your superior mind has not addressed yet: too obvious?
Yep, overall sea ice is decreasing despite Antarctica increasing. I didn’t say the bipolar seesaw was symmetrical did I?
Do you have air and sea temperatures for the Antarctic?
It is amazing that exchanges with Cohenite tend to end in farce.
I think we have identified that that the EMA paper is, on several grounds, is best described as rubbish. The grounds have been identified by Mr Rabett and others , see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/does-a-global-temperature-exist/ and the 182 responses.
This ten year old paper has been consigned to the dust bin of history and not even the authors are willing to pen a response to the critics. It is left to poor souls like Cohenite to attempt to defend the nonsense, which is unfortunately well beyond him.
Alas, it is now abundantly clear that, despite Cohenite’s pretences, his methodology is to cut and paste material from one of his favourite web sites and add couple of sentences to pad it out. More often than not his comments indicate, either he hasn’t read what he has copied, or doesn’t comprehend it. This is clearly the case with respect to his lack of understanding of the basics of thermodynamics.
Finally, Cohenite’s last response above is suitably enigmatic .
“EEB” either is an acronym for “Earth’s Energy Budget” or stands for “End Early and Bugger off”.
If it is the former, then it’s off on a diversionary Gish Gallop ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish%20Gallop).
I will go with the latter.
“Do you have air and sea temperatures for the Antarctic?”
Yes in the back pocket of my shorts. Would you like to see them?
cohenite, the sunlight striking Earth is intercepted on its cross-sectional area, π R^2, where R is the mean radius. Each square meter of that area receives the Solar constant, S, but we reflect back a certain percentage, the albedo A. Thus power in is
Pin = S (1 – A) π R^2
Meanwhile, Earth radiates from its whole surface area, which is that of a sphere–4 π R^2. Its emission temperature creates radiation by the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth-power law. Power out is then:
Pout = 4 π R^2 σ Te^4
where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 5.670373 x 10^-8 W m^-2 K^-4.
Equating power in to power out (conservation of energy and all that), we have
S (1 – A) π R^2 = 4 π R^2 σ Te^4
The common terms (π R^2) drop out, leaving
S (1 – A) = 4 σ Te^4
So Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature is
Te = (S [1 – A] / [4 σ]) ^ 1/4
For a Solar constant of 1361.5 W m^-2, and an albedo of 0.3, T comes out at 255 K. The 33 K difference from the mean surface temperature is due to the greenhouse effect.
So a doubling of CO2 increases radiative forcing by 3.7 watts per square meter. To equal that in Solar forcing, S would have to vary by ~1%, which is a difference never seen in historical times.
Try varying S and see what happens to Te.
You’re welcome.
Well there you have it at last Cohers, Calculations from Confused Jane which comes up with a figure of 255K for the Earth ie. -18.5 deg C. This is presumbably an average so there would be temperatures even lower than this….but in any case with this figure , all the seas and water on the planet is frozen.
Funny, isn’t it….the last time I looked at the sea..it wasn’t frozen solid….but now I’m reassured by Confused Jane, that..don’t worry, it’s the ATMOSPHERE that is keeping us nice and warm at the pleasant temperatures we have here on Earth.
It’s a good job all these scientific EXPERTS have told us this….because here I was thinking it it was the SUN that melted all the ice.
No, hang on, maybe Confused Jane’s calculation is wrong. Maybe Confused Jane is a little more confused than she thinks.
Nah Jane.
Mack is right. According to Cohenite,, the answer is 528K (255C) or alternatively 397 K (255F).
Let me try and set Jane straight Mack.
Is that your own work Jane? Alternatively the average amount of solar radiation
received on Earth is:
Sin=(1-a)FoHr^2
Where a is albedo, Fo is the total solar radiative flux [w/m2] and Hr^2 is the cross-
section of Earth.
Energy radiated by Earth is:
Sout=eQ4Hr^2T^4
Where e is emissivity, Q the Stephan-Boltzman constant, 4Hr^2 the total area of
Earth and T the temperature in K (pay attention miker).
At equilibrium Sin=Sout.
Deriving we achieve:
(1-a)Fo=eQ4T^4
The average albedo is 0.297, solar irradiance 1366W/m2; assuming a blackbody
e=1 so we have:
(1-0.297)1366=5.67×10^-8(4)T^4
Which gives T=255K; so the above becomes 255-273 = -18C
With e = 0.612 the equation becomes:
(1-0.297)1366 = 0.612(5.67×10^-8)4T^4
Which gives T=288K – 273 =15C
The difference between the 2 temperatures [blackbody and real, that is with a
greenhouse atmosphere] is 15-(-18)=33C; the greenhouse temperature.
So with Earth reflecting 0.297 and emitting 0.612 =0.909 the amount of energy that
Earth absorbs is:
(1-0.909)1366=124W/m2. 124W/m2 has produced 33C. The sensitivity is therefore:
33/124=0.27K/W/m2
The radiative forcing for CO2 is:
(5.35)In(C/Co)W/m2 [from Table 3
http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf }
2XCO2=(5.35)In(2)=3.7W/m2 [the official IPCC forcing]
So, the temperature increase from 2XCO2 is:
(0.27)(3.7)=1C
Since CO2 has gone up by about 70% since 1900, we have about 0.3C warming left.
Are you watching miker?
Cohenite
I am mightily pleased you have learnt to use Kelvin instead of Celsius.
It is excellent news that you now know what was wrong with the calculations in Section 3.12 of McKittrick’s (EMA) paper.
Maybe as an encore you could do those same calculations in Kelvin and send them on to McKittrick.
Cohenite once again.
Just as I suspected another cut and paste job see –
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/there-is-no-empirical-evidence-to.html?showComment=1470783661934#c8891218917147862640.
There I was. I was so impressed that you could perform these calculations but the terms Sin and Sout seem so idiosyncratic. Must be plagiarised. Sure enough.
“There I was. I was so impressed that you could perform these calculations but the terms Sin and Sout seem so idiosyncratic. Must be plagiarised. Sure enough.”
Not plagiarised, referenced: Mr Cox from The Climate Sceptics blog is a big help to me when I have to deal with recalcitrant alarmists like you miker and he lets me use his posts. But the calculations are correct though aren’t they miker?
Great site, The Climate Sceptics Blog, don’t you agree miker?
After the implied criticism by Cohenite (is that your own work Jane? Alternatively …) he then proceeds to copy someone else’s work.
Additionally he then does not produce an alternative, but rather the same derivations as Jane with the exception it is almost unreadable (I did manage to decipher it) because of the lack of appropriate Greek symbols , π and σ. Probably Cox’s blog software could not handle the Greek symbols. Cohenite ,if you were going to copy from this material you could have, at least substituted the appropriate symbols or better still just copied Jane’s equations.
These are minor quibbles compared to the calculation at the conclusion of Cox’s/Cohenites’ comment.
The assumption that the earth’s emissivity is going to be constant while the concentration of greenhouse gases go from zero (e=1) to the current value (e=0.612) is nonsense. However it appears to be a matter of good luck that the value of 1 K obtained is not totally absurd.
The actual calculations with more detail are shown here -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model. This gives a figure of 1.2K without any feeback and 2.4K with water vapour feedback included.
Well, well; as I say The Climate Sceptics and I have an arrangement so you are all in a tizzy about that for no good reason miker.
In regard to π and σ, you knew what was meant so this is just usual alarmist mean spiritedness. As is the complaint about emission/albedo levels and when all is said and done recourse is made to Wiki. More specifically Miskolczi’s work shows that the OD is maintained as CO2 increases by decreases in atmospheric WV:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/the-oceans-clouds-and-cosmic-rays-drive-the-climate-not-co2/
WV feedback is another matter. Firstly there is no evidence WV levels are increasing as a result of the slight natural warming. Pan Evaporation actually confirms this by showing no increase:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/new-data-falsifies-basis-of-man-made.html
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00003.1
The other issue is WV a +ve feedback as alarmism requires: see page 243:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf
In any event clouds are a negative feedback:
Spencer, R.W., Braswell, W.D., Christy, J.R., Hnilo, J., 2007. Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007/GL029698
https://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/spencer-braswell-jgr-20101.pdf
Cohenite,
I started reading the material from just one of your links – http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00003.1, but I I got tired at page 347.
Maybe next time you could out do yourself and cut and paste all 13 volumes of ‘A la recherche du temps perdu’.
The point I am trying to make is, rather than just posting links , could you please, at least, outline the specific points you want make, provide relevant references, with the page numbers or appropriate references to tables and figures within.
Seriously this war of attrition via cut and paste and links may satisfy Cohenite’s masochistic tendencies to be on the wrong end of a game of whack a mole ( see – http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/whack-a-mole) , but it has become increasingly tiresome.
Rather than taking the inordinate amount of time attempting to demolish this compendium of material (maybe in my next life time) , I will just counter by providing one link. You can look up this site at https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php and read down the list until you find the appropriate entry. It will save every body the time and the effort. Additionally I suspect anyone who has the misfortune of reading these exchanges are probably bored sh..less anyway. I certainly am.
Finally, I just had a pleasant evening watching an amusing and poignant movie that made me think of you. When they make Climate Change the Musical, Cohenite you would be the prime candidate for the role of Florence Foster Jenkins. You, like her, have the admirable quality of persistence in the face of adversity and also like her, a total self belief in your own abilities, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Cohenite, again.
It is getting very late so my eyes glazed over when I clicked on the link with over 200 pages and missed your reference to. Page 234 which is the first page of an article by Miskolczi.
Roy Spencer has torn this article to shreds at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi’s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/.
Various other critics Nick Stokes, Van Dorland and Foster all have queued up to debunk whatever was left of poor Miskolczi’s reputation see the links at http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi.
Judith Curry has also recently joined in to rubbish Miskolczi’s latest paper see – https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/.
Cohenite, if you are still a firm believer in this guys work, just read these articles. If you are still a true believer after reading them, I wil attempt to explain their criticisms. After that you are on your own.
I don’t see why you have to be so patronising miker; you’re the alarmist. I’m just a citizen, making his way in the world.
Anyway, as you have linked, Miskolczi gets bad press; his 2007 paper was a stretch but his 2004 paper, which is always ignored by the alarmists because it was done when Miskolczi was still in the fold, working for NASA, is substantial:
http://owww.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol108_No4_01.pdf
I just want to talk about the undisputed facts Miskolczi found, given your extensive linking to Miskolczi’s critics I feel we should stick to the facts.
The first thing Miskolczi found was an unchanged optical density.
In his 2010 paper Miskolczi explored this idea further. This paper begins at page 243 here (I know this is tough miker but hang in there champ)
The OD is made up of two parts which are depicted in Figure 10 on page 258.
a. τA — is defined as “the total IR flux optical depth” [page 5 Miskolczi 2007]. This is a measure of the total amount of infra-red or long-wave radiation which is absorbed between the surface and the top of the atmosphere.
b. A — is the flux absorbance [page 3 Miskolczi 2010] and is a measure of what wavelengths of long-wave radiation are being absorbed and transmitted in the atmosphere by 11 greenhouse gases [page 7, Miskolczi 2004].
The OD is a proxy measure of the greenhouse effect. Alarmism says that more CO2 will increase the OD. Miskolczi showed that available empirical measurements of the OD are consistent with no change in 61 years. This means that even though CO2 has increased over the 61 years of measurement and increased the OD slightly, “variations in water vapor column amounts” [Figures 9 and 11, Miskolczi 2010] have decreased the OD by a similar amount.
This is the second fact from Miskolczi: a decline in SH.
Paltridge et al confirmed a decline in specific humidity:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Paltridge_01.pdf
Now miker, take your time; I’ve made it as simple as I can; that wasn’t too bad was it champ, given my manifest limitations.
Explain away.
Miker don’t worry about I will get this one. There is a simple graph here that shows why the SH changes. We know correlation is not causation so perhaps you just need to explian how CO2 can do this.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/humidity-ssn.png?w=691&h=481
See that strong correlation between sunspots and specific humidity?
Jane and cohenite
You both used a fixed albedo different to each other and the wiki figure of 30.6%(0.306). Did we forget ice albedo positive feed back and other changes? Remember that that the Antarctic reflecting surface area has been growing for the entire satellite period. Obviously it has grown somewhat since there were rain forests there too.
“The results indicated that the sea ice albedo increased slightly during the study period, at a rate of 0.314% per decade, over the Antarctic sea ice region. The sea ice albedos in the PO, the IO and the WS increased at rates of 2.599% per decade (confidence level 99.86%), 0.824% per decade and 0.413% per decade, respectively, and the steepest increase occurred in the PO. ”
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/6/064001
So please people STOP using albedo like it is a constant. The only constant is change.
“In this letter we investigate possible relationships between the cloud cover (CC) and the interplanetary electric field (IEF), which is modulated by the solar wind speed and the interplanetary magnetic field. We show that CC at mid–high latitudes systematically correlates with positive IEF, which has a clear energetic input into the atmosphere, but not with negative IEF, in general agreement with predictions of the global electric circuit (GEC)-related mechanism.”
Clouds blown by the solar wind
M Voiculescu1, I Usoskin2 and S Condurache-Bota1
Published 20 December 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 4
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045032
Jane says “So a doubling of CO2 increases radiative forcing by 3.7 watts per square meter. To equal that in Solar forcing, S would have to vary by ~1%, which is a difference never seen in historical times.
Try varying S and see what happens to Te.”
Jane try varying A and see what happens to your whole theory.
Cohenite, the paper you referred to by Paltridge et al. used radiosonde data to claim negative feedback for increases in water vapour. Dessler and Davis published a subsequent paper showing the exact opposite, using both radiosonde and satellite data. The Dessler paper is behind a pay wall, but a summary can be find again at skeptical science – https://www.skepticalscience.com/humidity-global-warming.htm.
Paltridge has commented on Dessler’s paper at Judith Curry’s site – https://judithcurry.com/2011/09/25/trends-in-tropospheric-humidity/.
In summary his response is that there is too much uncertainty in the data to be absolutely certain either way(see his final paragraph). Since 2011 Paltridge has gone quiet with regard to water vapour, but that may not be surprising as he is not a youngster any more.
Meanwhile the satellite data is showing a strong positive trend for water vapour, see about 2/3rds way down at http://www.remss.com/research/climate.
As a personal aside, reading about Garth Paltridge was interesting as he collaborated with Dr Martin Platt on a book on atmospheric physics in 1976. At that time, when I was still in my diapers , I was working under Martin Platt on atmospheric Lidar measurements at CSIRO Aspendale. Alas, this was the last time I worked in the area of atmospheric physics.
It is a small world and I note that the CSIRO division at Aspendale is being shut down as part of the government cuts to climate science research . End of an era.
With regard to Miskolczi ( 2004), as Roy Spencer states in his introduction of his demolition of his 2010 work “Since his latest work builds upon earlier work, here I will comment on his most recent paper” so Roy’s extensive clearly covers the earlier work.
Cohenite is there anything in Roy’s comments that suggests otherwise?
Cohenite I apologize if if sound condescending. I recognise this as a character flaw and my only excuse is that you make it so. difficult for me to do otherwise.
I am very aware of the limits of my expertise and sometimes I unfortunately exceed these boundaries. I just wish you could do the same and I would then be happy to tone down the level of condescension.
“So please people STOP using albedo like it is a constant. The only constant is change.”
And don’t forget, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Increasing albedo will decrease the temperature response to 2XCO2.
The 2XCO2 = 2% solar forcing comes from RC in the context of the THS:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
No doubt RC based their wild and wacky idea on Jimmy Hansen’s 1984 paper:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07600n.html
Jimmy says:
“Our 3-D global climate model yields a warming of ~4°C for either a 2 percent increase of So or doubled CO2″
The idea is absurd. CO2 George explains why:
“The point is that 341.5 W/m^2 of incident power from the Sun heats the surface to 287K (384.7 W/m^2 of radiated power) for a net gain of 384.7/341.5 = 1.1, while the IPCC, claim that 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental forcing from CO2 absorption causes a 3C rise in the surface temperature. If you add 3C to 287 and convert to power, the Earth’s surface emits 401.1 W/m^2, which is an increase of 16.4 W/m^2. This means that the IPCC claim of gain, relative to power from CO2 forcing, is 16.4/3.7 = 4.43, which is about 4x higher than solar forcing.”
By this reckoning 2XCO2 = an 8% increase in solar energy.”
Siliggy,
do you have a figure for the correlation coefficient for NCEP humidity versus sunspot number using the data shown? Does this number change when you use more recent data. Where does the NCEP dara come from? Is either of the curves smoothed? At what level of significance can you reject the null hypothesis i, e. Is this just a random correlation? Has the authors published this somewhere? If so can you provide a reference?
Paltridge did a response at Jo Nova’s as well; it is identical to what professor Curry published but has an interesting intro by Jo, who is no slouch:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/dessler-2010-how-to-call-vast-amounts-of-data-spurious/#comment-125086
Garth is not getting any younger.
2 other interesting papers about whether SH is declining are:
1 Pierce et al:
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/papers/Pierce_et_al_AIRS_vs_models_2006GL027060.pdf
This paper is also a bit long in the tooth but the last author is interesting.
2 A more recent paper showing a mixed bag with SH slightly increasing but RH decreasing is Isaac et al:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00003.1
Any suggestion atmospheric water is increasing must be considered in the context of a decline in evaporation:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169411007487
As to Miskolczi the 2 facts he presents are:
1 A constant OD
2 A decline SH
His critics don’t address those nor does Spencer consider his 2004 paper.
cohenite says
“So, the temperature increase from 2XCO2 is: (0.27)(3.7)=1C
Since CO2 has gone up by about 70% since 1900, we have about 0.3C warming left.
Are you watching miker?”
OK, so this is where his ‘reality’ is located. IN a world where a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere equals a global warming forming of 1C – this is cohenite’s and I suppose his like minded friends core belief that ECS = 1C for a doubling of CO2.
do i have that correct, this is what cohenite, siggly, bob etc believe yeah?
To show this cohenite provides the ’empirical evidence’ found in a few links and a bit of math to look somewhat ‘authoritative.’
MikeR points out it’s not. I guess anyone could do that if they wanted to check cohenites claims for ECS and the other sci-ency bits about spheres area, albedo, antarctic ice data tossed around like a garden salad.
Still I’m curious to know what it is that climate skeptics and deniers want to see happen.
typo sorry – global warming *forcing* of 1C
“OK, so this is where his ‘reality’ is located. IN a world where a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere equals a global warming forming of 1C”
Nope. I just used alarmism’s criteria and parameters to show even by alarmism’s standards the situation is not bad. In fact it’s great, as good as it gets. But its your world not mine. Because while I think the current climate is as good as it gets it’s nothing to do with humans.
Cohenite.
Yes, Jo Nova’s comments are, as always, “interesting “ . In this case her comments should be seen in the context of her preference for satellite derived global temperatures over temperature data sets that are derived by measurements from thousands of surface stations.
There are about 5000 surface stations that are used to generate global temperature. Similarly there are about 1300 radiosonde sites (http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/ois/volume-a/vola-home.htm) that are nearly all land based, with only a surprisingly low number of 15 ships, that launch radiosonde balloons . These ships are predominantly in the North Atlantic.
The radiosonde data are therefore highly weighted to the land are cannot be representative of the majority of the earth.
This is the likely reason why the data that includes satellite measurements differ from the radiosonde measurement that Paltridge used and why I suspect Paltridge (unlike Jo) sensibly lacks confidence in his claims which were based solely on radio-sonde data .
This a prime example of Jo Nova at work. Like any propagandist on either side of the debate, she will choose the data set that suits their current arguments and dismiss the other. With temperature it is the satellite data that is her preference and she (like Jennifer) disparages the surface data sets. In contrast, for water vapour, Jo will avoid using the satellite data and go with the more geographically limited radiosonde data.
Clearly consistency is not Jo Nova’s strong suit.
“I suspect Paltridge (unlike Jo) sensibly lacks confidence in his claims which were based solely on radio-sonde data .”
Can you point to where Garth expresses a lack of confidence in his claims?
The final sentences in Paltridge’s reply to Dessler at Judith Curry’s site , ” there is still a lot of work to be done to establish just what the observations are telling us. The issue of the magnitude and sign of long-term water vapour feedback is far from resolved.”.
Sounds a very sensible approach to me.
Miker. No do not have but hare are some more charts from other sources and info about the smoothing.
“Variation since 1960 of global sea surface temperature (HadSST3), observed sunspot number (Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC), and Specific atmospheric humidity (g/kg) at 300 mb altitude (Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA)). Base period: 1961-1990.”
http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm
“Update: The correlation looks even stronger with the sunspot numbers smoothed at the length of the Earth-Venus cycle, 96 months. It also looks strong at around 82 months, half the length of the Jupiter-Uranus synodic period which coincides with flooding events, as noted by Ulric Lyons in comments”
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/interesting-correlation-sunspots-vs-specific-humidity/