I should think that when enough time has passed, the current leaders of the free world – but especially the scientists who advise them – will be remembered in the history books as rather deceitful. That after a few hundred years of a period of Enlightenment there was a transition back to a period of ignorance. This must especially be the case when it comes to how they explain that energy moves in the atmosphere, especially heat.
It doesn’t matter whether I am referring to the right or left of politics, they are choosing to be political rather than thoughtful. Of course there are always exceptions, and I have particularly enjoyed recent email exchanges with Christopher Game.
It doesn’t matter whether they are referring to convection or some other method of energy transfer, the modern scientist, especially the consensus scientist, but also for example, Peter Ridd, usually insist on referring to it as heat.
After Will Happer visited Australia last year and gave his lectures about ‘integrity in science and attacks on carbon dioxide’ at the invitation of the Institute of Public Affairs, I was curious to know where he sourced the key charts that he showed, specifically charts about expected radiant energy loss from Earth at different wavelengths. There was no attribution, and Happer was vague when I emailed him. For sure the charts had been redrawn, but from where was he sourcing the essence of this narrative and these numbers.
Eventually I found versions of key charts in a book by one of his colleagues from Princeton University, S. George Philander.
There is a chart on page 113 of this same book (Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming) that Happer didn’t show in his presentation that purports to show ‘heat that Earth radiates to space’ as relatively constant never mind the latitude.
I have been thinking about this issue of where most radiant energy is lost, from which latitudes and how.
It is my understanding that an altitude of about 5 kilometres the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that ‘heat’ can be radiated freely to space irrespective of the latitude.
I also understand that at this altitude the temperature is rather cold, that it will be well below zero degrees Celsius, which begs the question of why it is referred to as heat loss at all. I guess all of this is in keeping with the underlying paradigm that is about average temperatures and overheating.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
How is there an ‘average’ temperature or precipitation assessed when the Dry Cycles – (and the default, Wet/Normal periods between them,) only repeat once every 81 years?
This, along with the also cyclical and orbital rise and fall of volcanic activity?
There can be no valid temperature or precipitation ‘averages,’ with all the variable climatic influences in play at any one time, on the land, in the oceans and in the atmosphere.
The BoM spouting constant ‘record’ heat warnings, without any valid data base, is blatant Misinformation/Disinformation – and a con-job.
I’m told the CO2 molecule doesn’t know if its radiating heat “up or down”. Energy will be lost from the top of the atmosphere regardless.
Much more “knowledge” about climate change is written and talked about than is actually known.
“The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), founded in 1943, describes itself as “an independent, non-profit public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom.”1
The IPA has campaigned heavily against Australia’s carbon price legislation. IPA researchers and associates have a high media presence and appear daily as guests on both public and commercial radio and television in Australia. IPA staff also write regular columns for Australian newspapers and online media.
In 2018, DeSmog confirmed mining magnate and climate change denier Gina Rinehart was a key funder of the IPA, giving significant donations through her company Hancock Prospecting Proprietary Ltd (HPPL).2
The think tank has been one of the largest promoters of climate science denial in Australia, sponsoring a number of speaking tours and books, while its fellows have challenged the legitmacy of climate change science and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
https://www.desmog.com/institute-public-affairs/
Water, in all of is changing states is abundant. CO2 is a trace.
Water, in all of its self-correcting states and the abundance of water and how water is influenced by the solar energy and lack of solar energy, water is the dominant influence in weather and climate.
Climate is the long term change in weather, weather reports and forecasts are all about water, that means climate change is real, and climate change is all about changes in water distribution, including water on the surface, water vapor, water drops, ice, rain and snow and hail, etc., sequestered ice on land, ice thawing and reflecting.
Climate change is about water change!
Water is the dominant influence in modulating the solar energy, weather and climate.
The solar energy from the sun follows the same patterns with some small relative changes.
What happens in our weather depends on the abundance and states of water.
What happens in climate change depends on the changes in the abundance of water and changes in the states of water.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/sector.php?sat=G16§or=sp
Look at the GOES data, measuring energy radiated out. There is one chart for CO2 and many charts for H2O.
There is even a chart for Lightning, I suspect that might even be significant.
It is a reasonable idea to calculate the energy radiated away from Earth using GOES data. I suspect they have tried that and found it did not support their agendas. Just a guess on my part.
Thanks Karen.
And I’ve been concerned through Scott Hargreaves recent promotion of nuclear, and his puff pieces lauding ARC who promote Bjorn Lomborg suggesting we all subscribe to climate change being ‘manmade’, that the IPA could be moving away from this core job of carrying the torch when it comes to climate change research.
My work through the IPA is entirely funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation, including my many papers on the opportunity to use AI for better seasonal rainfall forecasts. Then there are my blog pieces explaining how important an historically accurate historical temperature reconstruction is for these forecasts.
AI works because the natural cycles exist and dominate, and can be modelled. It is important to not input remodelled data.
It is indeed important that the IPA’s new ED not be dragged off course but continue to allow myself and others to speak truth to power when it comes to climate science.
This was written:
I should think that when enough time has passed, the current leaders of the free world – but especially the scientists who advise them – will be remembered in the history books as rather deceitful.
That will depend a lot on who controls the Media. The winners control the history books and sometimes the evil people are in control. The free world is not currently free.
Karen Klemp seems to be concerned that Gina Rhinehart, a great philanthropic Australian, supports IPA research into climate change. Why?? Surely all research is useful. I suspect some people just won’t accept the “consensus science” is still unproven.
Hi, Karen Klemp. Referring to your post in which you write: “The IPA has campaigned heavily against Australia’s carbon price legislation.”
Yes the IPA does a great job, trying to alert Australians that man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming is a scam that does great damage to our economy and welfare. The scam is perhaps the most effective and harmful piece of agitprop that has ever been perpetrated. It is largely the work the Marxist world government WEF, using the UN and its IPCC as agents.
Hi, Barbara Sheppard. Referring to your comment of 15 October 2024 at 9:33 am in which you write “the “consensus science” is still unproven.”
It is good that you are sceptical. But I would say that you are too even-handed. I think that that the reasoning presented by Will Happer (as for example in the above YouTube) definitely disproves the narrative of harmful or even detectable man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming. It’s no longer “unproven”.
Karen Klemp seems a bit derivative in her critique of the IPA. Frankly anyone still tossing out the “climate denier” canard is only labeling them self as a reactionary bigot.
Karen wrote:
In 2018, DeSmog confirmed mining magnate and climate change denier Gina Rinehart was a key funder of the IPA
DeSmog promotes consensus climate theory. That means that DeSmog promotes that ultimate climate change knowledge has been achieved and no research should be supported that might prove ultimate knowledge consensus to be wrong, no research should be supported to increase our knowledge of anything we do not already consider consensus.
That is wrong, consensus science should always be challenged and when research is funded that questions consensus science it should be supported and rewarded and celebrated.
Climate Science is in a really bad place because consensus prevents any new knowledge to be researched or considered. Proper science demands that everything be constantly challenged. Consensus Climate Science is a destroyer of all proper climate science, a destroyer of all science of any kind!
I will be watching for responses to this.
In history, consensus has been challenged and changed.
Without this, we could be living consensus from a hundred or a thousand years ago or some other time in history that we now know to be wrong. Consensus can be helpful sometimes but enforced consensus is evil all the time, it is always put in place by some in power who do not yet know everything, and by people who will not discuss and debate with any who disagree.
Karen Klemp mentions ‘Climate Change Deniers’ in her comment above.
In over 70 years I have yet to meet a single Climate Change Denier- not one! I have, however, met quite a number of people who are ‘sceptical’ about the science, and models, surrounding the current Climate …..* (I was going to write *debate or discussions* but this would be untrue. There just isn’t any debate or discussion at Scientist level!
IF Climate Scientists who are claiming a Crisis or Emergency are so confident of their facts why not participate in an open TV Debate (which John Stossel tried to organise)? With their substantial data and records they would, surely, knock the sceptics of anthropogenic climate change out of the park(?) Or not?
What’s the saying ‘truth dies in the shadows’!
Responding to ‘Joe Hoggins says October 24, 2024 at 7:41 pm’.
In my opinion, there is little room for doubt or mere scepticism: the hypothesis of man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming is pure scam.
There are several lines of reasoning proposed for the hypothesis.
One: historical data might suggest it.
Two: the AOGCMs provide mathematico-physical argument for it.
Three: the celebrated ‘forcing-and-feedback formalism with positive feedback through amplification by water vapour radiative effects’ might support it.
Ad One: I think that Ian Plimer and Javier Vinós have knocked that on the head.
Ad Two: a reasonable look at the mathematical and data bases of the AOGCMs knock them on their heads.
Ad Three: at first sight, this remains as a perhaps plausible calculation. It remains the best that the warmists have. Without it, they have nothing left.
The examination of the ‘forcing and feedback formalism’ soon reveals that, as a mathematical model, it is riven with incurable flaws, and cannot be relied upon for anything.
There remains the idea that some proper mathematical formalism might allow ‘amplification through positive feedback’. From a mathematical viewpoint, it is a matter of what may be called ‘dynamical stability’. The relevant mathematical theory is that of ordinary differential equations. The problem is complicated by the many time scales that show up in the long-term climate problem. The initial warming perturbation caused by added CO2 is practically instantaneous, since it works primarily through radiative transfer. In principle, feedback is either positive or negative. In a nutshell, the ‘positive feedback’ hypothesis says that the climate system is dynamically unstable; the negative feedback hypothesis says that it is dynamically stable.
Looking at the climate system’s response, we see negative feedback responses to cooling perturbations from recently observed volcanic eruptions. That is an adequate test of stability, which is the same for warming and cooling perturbations. It settles the matter on recently observable time scales: observations show that it is negative. The climate system has negative feedback: too bad for the positive feedback story.
One might quibble that we haven’t yet seen the whole of the previously unobservable effects of a warming perturbation though large volcanic water vapour injection into the atmosphere: we are still waiting to see the end of the effects of the15 January 2022 Hunga Tonga Hunga Ha’apai eruption. It hasn’t shown a positive feedback effect yet, and seems to be showing negative feedback, in that the warming hasn’t been explosive, as it would already have been if the positive feedback hypothesis were valid. We shall see.
That leaves nothing observed or calculated so far for the thesis of man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming, and fair observations against it.
I am addressing only the thesis of man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming. The interesting general problem of how the climate system works remains a matter for investigation. My above remarks leave that problem untouched.
Energy, Heat, is written about and discussed. Energy stored in water is discussed.
What is not discussed is “ice”. We form ice in our freezers and use it for cooling later and even at a different place. The IR out happens when the ice is formed. The cooling from that IR out happens later when the ice thaws. That is not discussed, not written about, not even considered. It has been said and written that the freezing and thawing of ice happens inside the greenhouse and can be ignored.
The freezing and thawing of ice cannot be ignored because the most forming and sequestering of ice occurs in polar regions and cold places when oceans are warmest and most thawed while the most thawing and cooling from thawing and reflecting ice occurs in coldest times and the polar oceans are frozen and cannot maintain the mass of ice on land. The building of ice on land and the loss of ice on land occur years apart.
Ice is piled deep on land in warmest times. Ice spreads and causes cooler while the mass of ice is still growing. Cooling allows the polar oceans to freeze and slows the building of ice on land as the spreading increases the thawing of ice. Ice spreads and thins and depletes and finally retreats.
People try to explain ice ages as a result of temperature change, but ice ages are caused by the thawing and reflecting of ice and warm times are caused by the lack of thawing and reflecting of ice. It snows more in warmest times and more ice causes colder. It snows least in coldest times and lack of ice causes warmer.
So, if ice was thawing during the long cold ice ages, why was sea level still going down. Well, oceans were still evaporating and rain and snow was still falling on the great ice sheets, but due to the massive weight of ice still in and around the Arctic, land was depressed and melt water flowed into the Arctic Ocean and was trapped there until the end of the great ice ages.
Greenland ice core records show really cold temperatures that were interrupted in periods of warmer, still cold temperatures. The really cold times were when the Arctic was totally frozen over, the warmer interruptions were when surges of meltwater entered the Arctic. These warmer surges were about the same temperature as the Antarctic Ice core temperatures that always had liquid water flowing around beyond the sea ice. The coldest Greenland ice core temperatures were likely from ice that sublimated and not from water that evaporated.
There are massive masses of water that is ice on land. Massive IR out was needed to form that ice. There is massive cooling by thawing of ice. It does not happen at the same time. This must be considered, understood and taken into account.
Alex Pope
Responding to ‘Herman A (Alex) Pope says October 27, 2024 at 3:47 am’.
Good point.
When ice moves, it is one limb of a cycle of circulatory energy transport, a process of circulatory convection. Alongside freezing immediately due to infrared emission, a comparable phenomenon is evaporation immediately due to absorption of solar radiation, which is reported to occur without heating of the water, I don’t know how much.
For a convective circulation with changes of state, one can think of one locus as supplying energy, and the reverse locus as dissipating energy. Each change of state involves latent and sensible energy transfers.
For example, when seawater in a warmer place (at sea level) evaporates, it supplies latent energy of evaporation to the atmosphere, with sensible cooling of surrounding seawater (and, reportedly, by direct conversion of solar radiation into internal energy of moist air). The warm moist air then travels to a cooler place (at high altitude), where it imposes sensible heating on its surroundings, or is cooled by radiation to outer space, and deposits latent energy of condensation. The cooled water and air then fall so as to cool the warmer lower altitude by sensible cooling. The ice falls to where it absorbs latent energy of fusion, sensibly cooling the warmer lower altitude.
You observe another example. In a cold (polar) place, water freezes into ice by radiating (to outer space) latent energy of condensation. The ice then moves to a warmer place, where it absorbs latent energy of fusion through sensible cooling of its surroundings. In colourful language, one might think of the traveling ice as transporting ‘coolth’! The warmed water closes the cycle by traveling back to the cold (polar) place.
The mechanical movements are partly accounted for by water currents driven by wind. This mechanical effect is sometimes described by calling the atmosphere ‘the working body of a heat engine’, driven by solar radiation, with infrared waste, and eventual cooling of the eventual frictive heat. I don’t understand why the ‘engine’ works in that sense. Is it eventually due to gravity acting on haline density difference? If so, is it really an ‘engine’? Or just another mode of dissipation by natural circulatory convection?
Ice maters, ice is important. ice must be studied and understood.
Christopher Game wrote: The warm moist air then travels to a cooler place (at high altitude), where it imposes sensible heating on its surroundings,
The water vapor cools as the pressure decreases, the energy is radiated out as the water vapor changes to water or ice. The water vapor does not lose energy until it changes state, it changes state as it loses energy.
As to water circulation, ocean currents, warm water flows into polar regions in surface or near surface currents, the warm currents of turbulent salt-water are chilled by some evaporation but mostly by ice pushed into the turbulent salt-water from massive ice on land. That cold water flows back to the tropics in deep ocean currents where it is forced up to be heated again. The land ice that cools the ocean currents is rebuilt in warmer times and is depleted in colder times. The thermostat setting is the temperature that sea ice thaws and forms. The control for the ice machines is the sea ice that prevents evaporation when present and allows evaporation and snowfall when the sea ice is absent.
Christopher Game wrote:
In colourful language, one might think of the traveling ice as transporting ‘coolth’!
Yes, we use freezers to change water to ice. We transport the ice to promote cooling by thawing ice, at some place distant in location and different in time.
The climate system does that, it sequesters much ice in cold places in warm times with much IR out then. The deep, heavy, massive ice flows and spreads and causes much cooling years after the ice was sequestered. Climate Dynamic Energy Balance will NEVER be understood if ICE is not included in the analysis and understanding. Climate energy balance is dynamic, Static energy balance is violated all the time.
Every complex system has internal parts with mass and spring rates and damping and different frequencies as the composite system and as the external forcing, with storage of positive and negative energy. The Earth Climate systems store positive energy in water and transports that water, in all its changing states and uses that energy later in a different location. The Earth Climate systems store negative energy in water, in the state of ice, and transports that water, in the state of ice, uses that energy for cooling, later in a different location.
If you do not trust the Alarmist Scare Stories, quit trusting their Static Energy Balance Theory that does not include Cooling By Massive Thawing of Polar Ice.
Responding to “Herman A (Alex) Pope says October 29, 2024 at 6:54 am”.
A nice string of comments !!
I have never trusted their Static Energy Balance Theory. I have referred to it only in order to observe that it is the main, or only nearly plausible, support for their myth, and to show that it is misconceived or nonsensical in many ways. Consequently, they have no plausible support.
It’s important to remember that the overall process operates on many widely spread time scales. The ice that you emphasize is about a middle time scale.
As for the set point of the dynamical system: good point. It seems that there are two parallel set points. The ice temperature of 0°C and the tropical ocean temperature of 27°C. A near coincidence that the average temperature of the earth is said to be 15°C. We live on a watery planet. There is stability because of these two set points, about both of which there is negative feedback. Stablity precludes amplification due to “positive feedback”.
Christopher Game,
Thanks for your reply.
Over fifty million years the climate cooled as land movement blocked the tropical ocean currents from flowing near the equator and forced them more and more into polar regions. That promoted more and more evaporation and snowfall and sequestering of ice and more cooling by more ice cooling by ice thawing and reflecting. Coldest times were times with more ice extent, warmest times were times with less ice extent. This a factor for cause, not just result, for warming.
In warmer times polar sea ice is removed and evaporation and snowfall and sequestering of ice increases until more ice spreads and causes colder.
In colder times polar sea ice prevents evaporation and snowfall and ice flows and spreads and depletes until it retreats and causes warmer.
This is documented in the ice core records, if they are properly studied and understood.
One other point, turbulent salt water and ice chill to colder than 0°C, that is how the hand crank ice cream makers work. The polar ice pushed into the turbulent salt water chills the ocean currents to below freezing and that is what forms sea ice. Sea ice grows from below due to water chilled to below freezing. Sea ice is formed or removed depending on how much land ice is pushed into the turbulent salt water currents.
Climate Consensus was formed and set in stone, many years before enough was even known. Climate Consensus is not any kind of science, honest science requires that it be constantly and fiercely questioned.
Responding to ‘Herman A (Alex) Pope says October 29, 2024 at 6:22 pm’
Interesting considerations. This is educational for me.
Perhaps I should guess the cold set point at ?? −2°C ?? Your estimate?
Indeed, being a religion, the Climate Consensus is not any kind of science. It is perhaps enough for proper science just to constantly and soberly question? Ferocity comes into it when religion is mistaken for science.
?? −2°C ?? Your estimate
The temperature of the chilled salt water varies depending on the salt and the turbulence.
The water entering polar oceans from the tropics is always warm enough to remove sea ice, when land ice is pushed onto and into the turbulent currents the salt-water thaws ice fast enough to lower the temperature to below freezing, the temperature depends on the condition at the time. When cold enough sea ice builds ice layers on the bottom of the ice layer, when not cold enough ice layers are removed.
When there is enough land ice pushed in, sea ice forms and stops the evaporation, when there is not enough land ice pushed in, sea ice is removed and evaporation, snowfall and ice rebuilding occurs. This is a very stable dynamic process.
Milankovitch alternates heating the different hemispheres. When the sun heats the north more, more ice is built in the north to counter it, when the sun heats the south more, less ice is built in the north because less is needed. There is no stable midpoint, this is dynamic stability, there are alternating cycles of more than enough ice alternating with less than enough ice.
Responding to ‘Herman A (Alex) Pope says October 30, 2024 at 2:18 am’
Thank you. You are being precise in observing that there is a kind of cyclic stability, not a stable nodal centre. Perhaps even a kind of ‘limit cycle’? But still, perhaps a rough estimate of the unstable ‘centre’ of the cycle?
A question that interests me. It is insisted that the winds partly drive the grand cyclic oceanic currents, kinetic energy flowing from atmosphere to sea, making the atmosphere more or less fit the definition of a ‘heat engine’, at least to a small extent. I suppose that the consequent motion of the seawater will be dissipated to heat by friction. By definition, this constituent part of the motion is not driven by gravity and density difference. Another constituent part is driven by gravity and density difference, salt being left in the water when sea ice is formed, as well as the remaining water being colder and denser. I forget the detail of the density maximum of the unfrozen water just above freezing? Is it true that the gravity/density driver and the wind driver work neatly together? Why and how? I read that it isn’t fully understood how much tropics-to-polar energy transport is atmospheric/oceanic?
you wrote:
I read that it isn’t fully understood how much tropics-to-polar energy transport is atmospheric/oceanic?
I look at the relative Mass of the Ocean compared to the Mass of the Atmosphere. The energy carried by the atmosphere is carried in the water vapor and clouds and that can precipitate out and be replenished by more evaporation. Storms dump precipitation and gather more water vapor from evaporation. A storm can go from a tropical ocean all the way to Canada, all the way it is dumping precipitation and picking more energy up from the ocean. Fifty million years ago, climate was warmer because energy was not transported to polar regions. If warm ocean currents don’t go, atmosphere cannot suck energy out of the oceans. Atmosphere energy is fed by ocean evaporation. Streaming storms originate over evaporating oceans.
Responding to ‘Herman A (Alex) Pope says October 30, 2024 at 6:21 am’
Thank for your comment.
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/state-of-the-climate