Renowden continually misquotes me.
I wrote about the summer low achieved by Arctic sea ice. He maligns me for saying the ice didn’t melt until winds pushed it away into warmer water.
Gareth, criticise me for giving voice to heresy; and by all means, fault my scholarship, my knowledge of climatic or arctic affairs; feel free to mock my “disconnection from reality”; I hope you even pull out a paper by Notz and Marotzke and share the authors’ speculation that, as is apparently obvious to the rest of you, “the most likely explanation for the linear trend [in sea ice decline] during the satellite era from 1979 onwards is the almost linear increase in CO2 concentration during that period.”
But I didn’t say it. NASA did.
So now please kindly redirect all that rude, inaccurate mockery to the proper quarter.
UPDATE 30 SEP
Renowden’s friend Rob Taylor, in comments below, cites one John Yackel in Science Daily. Yackel makes a couple of howlers.
First, he contradicts NASA and insists on talking about the summer Arctic ice “melt”. Obviously he didn’t get NASA’s memo explaining about the storm that shifted the sea ice before it melted.
Second, he asserts that, with the ice gone and the sea surface exposed to the air, “more moisture off the ocean’s surface” will “get into the atmosphere”, making for more violent storms.
Remarkable. Here’s a geographer who doesn’t know that the amount of water vapour in the air depends on the temperature. I learnt that in high school but somehow he missed it at university.
But he also apparently imagines that “the water vapor in the atmosphere makes for more violent storms” – it doesn’t need a higher temperature at all! Well, it’s a new concept, but I’m not sure how it works.
I think it’s nonsense.
Finally, I observe that Rob Taylor claims I’m wrong about something, but none of our friends from the dark side deny that Renowden disagrees with NASA. Renowden is wrong to call this record ice disappearance a “melt” and blame it on global warming and therefore on our considerable, unforgivable sins.
Views: 505
Gosh, Richard, where do you suppose the winds and warmer water get their increasing energy from?
Have you read today’s Herald article “Climate Change Warning” which mentions the loss of 50% of European glaciers since 1850?
Rather than continually bleating about being victimised by inconvenient truths, why can’t you just man up and admit you were wrong? Or is Granny Herald part of the global “warmist” conspiracy too?
“…where do you suppose the winds and warmer water get their increasing energy from?”
Not from CO2. Insolation (e.g. UV, SSN levels ) are primary sources and climate drivers. Cloudiness levels, ENSO and oceanic oscillations are secondary drivers.
Can’t find the “Climate Change Warning” article (are you sure it’s NZ Herald?) but this Bellamy/Barrett/de Freitas article states:-
Judith Currey gives credit to Mojib Latif, “One of the world’s top climate modellers” according to Fred Pearce for stepping outside the orthodoxy:-
This from JC’s post:-
‘Cool first, warm later’
Posted on September 22, 2012 | 624 Comments
by Judith Curry
From an article in the New Scientist by Fred Pearce, written in Sept 2009:
Some additional excerpts from the article:
>>>>>>>
http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/22/cool-first-warm-later/#more-9878
And so it is that CAGW fades into obsolescence.
Rob Taylor,
There’s no need for warmer water, for the oceans are always warm enough to melt ice. The winds need no more energy – they can already move the ice when they blow in the right place — unless you have evidence of increased speeds?
Continually bleating about being victimised? I do no such thing. This is surely your imagination speaking.
Wrong? What was I wrong about? Rob, you aren’t making any sense, just berating me to no purpose.
Notz and Marotzke – “the most likely explanation for the linear trend [in sea ice decline] during the satellite era from 1979 onwards is the almost linear increase in CO2 concentration during that period.”
Except it’s not a linear trend, there’s a pronounced inflexion in SIE thickness and area hence volume at 1997/98 (El Nino) as shown by Dr Wieslaw Maslowski in ‘Causes of Changes in Arctic Sea Ice’:-
Arctic Sea Ice: area, thickness, and volume trends 1979 – 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arctic_Sea_Ice_area_thickness_and_volume_trends.png
Link to Maslowski AMS 2006 seminar presentation:-
http://ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/May032006_Dr.WieslawMaslowski.pdf
From that presentation:-
Judith Currey laments the apparent oversight by recent papers of papers already in existence and knowledge already accumulated, link and quote here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-dispersed-by-storm-not-hot-air/#comment-120326
Notz and Marotzke is a prime example of that.
Then there’s the problem of “increase in CO2 concentration” being used as an attribution. Notz and Marotzke found CO2 concentration/SIE correlation of 0.85 and the global CO2 concentration/temperature correlation is 0.40 (HadCRUT3) and 0.44 (GISS). Compare this to Temperature v. PDO+AMO+Sunspot Integral R2 0.96.
But using CO2 concentration is spurious unless there’s a corresponding DLR increase – there isn’t. CO2 concentration cannot be the SIE driver because there’s no corresponding DLR increase in the Arctic (or anywhere else). See:-
‘Arctic Climate Variability and Trends from Satellite Observations’
Xuanji Wang, Jeffrey Key, Yinghui Liu, Charles Fowler, James Maslanik, and Mark Tschudi
2012
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amet/2012/505613/ref/
The GHG parameter is:-
LW↓srf, Downwelling longwave radiation at the surface (W/m2).
In the table on page 4, all the Arctic ocean and polar cap LW↓srf trends are negative i.e. no increasing DLR from CO2. Given that CO2 is only one component of DLR, the total makeup being water vapour+CO2+clouds+other GHGs, CO2 doesn’t make its presence felt and as Maslowski states (page 4 from link above):-
CO2 is a non-player – Gareth Renowden should read more science of substance than lightweight Notz and Marotzke.
Even a cursory glance at N&M suggested to me that N&M was a fairly lightweight piece of scient-activism given their complete absence of any mention of AMO attribution which is acknowledged at least to some degree in the peer-reviewed literature
I suspect that Gareth’s inclusion of N&M singularly (there’s screeds of other papers he could reference) was to give his post some “sciency” authenticity (and probably scient-activism as you say, pre-approved by some MMCC ‘authority’ no doubt), rather than an actual singling out of it as the definitive Arctic SIE paper which it certainly is not.
I can’t help but repeat (in the vein of Judith Curry), why are these papers still being churned out in ignorance of what has gone before?
I’ve been looking through the 2012 papers: Notz & Marotzke, Day et al and Wang et al that have been looked at here at CCG over the last few days and the common failing I see as compared to Maslowski’s 2006 AMS seminar presentation is that the recent papers do not just simply plot out SIE thickness, area and volume using monthlies. By not doing that they miss the big picture immediately. Day and Wang use September SIE only and N&M tie themselves in knots firstly with SIE in March and September [7], then August, September and October [8].
N&M is light on citations and doesn’t reference either of Judith Curry’s papers that she listed in her ‘Apportioning natural and forced components in the Arctic amplification’ post:-
* Recent Arctic sea ice variability: connections to the Arctic Oscillation and the ENSO (2004)
* Causes of the northern high-latitude land surface winter climate change (2007)
Neither does Day et al reference those papers. Wang et al doesn’t, instead references:-
# “Overview of arctic cloud and radiation characteristics,” Curry et al, (1996).
Of the 3, at least Wang et al doesn’t make an idiotic anthropogenic attribution. In fact, doesn’t even mention the word.
2012 papers:-
Notz & Marotzke http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1208/2012GL051094/
Day et al http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034011/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034011.pdf
Wang et al http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amet/2012/505613/ref/
2006 Maslowski AMS presentation
http://ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/May032006_Dr.WieslawMaslowski.pdf
Richard, cherry-picking random quotes from old papers is your modus operandi and your folly.
You are possibly the most deluded person on this site, and that is a high bar indeed!
Here is something for you to try to understand – not by a journalist like Jo Nova, or a failed meteorologist like Watts, but by an actual sea ice geophysicist and climatologist:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120924145143.htm
“…cherry-picking random quotes from old papers…”
Wang et al 2012 is an “old” paper?
Not sure what your article supports Rob, Yackel doesn’t make an anthropogenic attribution and he’s simply stating facts of the SIE condition – non of those under dispute here (except one, see below).
He doesn’t however, differentiate Arctic warming which is in a rising phase that’s merely tracking AMO, and global warming that although correlated with AMO (AMO/HadCRUT3 correlation R = 0.90) is not in a rising phase at present and more likely at change-of-phase peak because of other factors e.g. Temperature v. PDO+AMO+Sunspot Integral R = 0.96.
Richard, my hapless friend, do you really think anyone is impressed by you cutting & pasting from joke pseudoscience sites like Watts and Tallbloke?
Talk about the blind leading the blind…
My goodness, that was incisive critiquing Rob. Thanks, I now see my errors now that you’ve addressed all the issues I’ve raised in just that one short but erudite comment.
/Sarc.
And how can this paragon of scientific expertise say anything about the year-to-year change in ice extent over the last million years? Or are you simply taking his unsupported word on this issue? I, for one, don’t take anyone’s unsupported word, especially an expert.
As a side note Rob, I’m sure there are many other people reading your missives who are as tired as I am of having to sift any facts from your bile, invective and insult.
Perhaps Gareth Renowden and Rob Taylor could read some papers before they jump on their keyboards and contribute further to their own unwitting declarations of ignorance. And, yes, Rob, Auntie Horrid is definitely a part of the MSM which consistently refuses to print anything other than the sort of Climatism approved by President Obama in his current drive for re-election as POTUS. If you doubt this, ask yourselves why NZ has a self-imposed tax on energy that makes no sense other than purely political.
“Auntie Horrid is definitely a part of the MSM which consistently refuses to print anything other than the sort of Climatism approved by President Obama in his current drive for re-election as POTUS”
Have to disagree with this Alexander. NZ Herald do print opposing views e.g. this:-
‘David Bellamy and Jack Barrett: Carbon is the world’s best friend’
By Guest Columnists [Bellamy, Barrett and de Freitas]
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10392894
I’m particularly heartened by their exposure of the IPCC’s CO2 forcing fallacy:-
(8) Measurements also show that the infrared absorption spectra of all the greenhouse gases overlap to a certain extent; in consequence, their cumulative effect can never be realised. A cumulative effect that is already nearing saturation when no further heat will be trapped, thanks to the fact that the relationship between the concentration of any of the greenhouse gases and radiance/absorption is logarithmic.
I would add that the IPCC’s CO2 forcing parameter is oversimplified resulting in a straight line on a log-log graph. There’s negligible rise in CO2 path length curves of Leckner/Hottel after about 200 ppm:-
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png
Richard, Tallbloke (Roger Tattersall) at least has the honesty to admit that he is brain-damaged from a motorcycle accident.
What’s your excuse?
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/about/
PS: According to Google Scholar, Roger Tattersall has never published in a peer-reviewed journal on any subject.
What are you raving about now Rob? Roger runs a website that happens to be where you can access the graphic. If you peer closely at the graphic link you will see “eggert-co2.png”. That’s Professor John Eggert.
John Eggert goes very much better than peer-reviewed journals to compile the graphic Rob (unlike the IPCC). These are his references:-
i Schumann, Reinhardt, Metallurgical Engineering, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, 1952 (Hottel’s curves –>> note the year.)
ii Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves, available in electronic form from http://www.knovel.com)
iii US Standard Atmosphere (personal copy of PDF printed from internet, for barometric equation).
iv Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves, available in electronic form from http://www.knovel.com)
v http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ IPCC equation for “forcing”.
You will not find IPCC reference to those texts of the underpinning science of radiative heat transfer.
Sorry, Richard, I wasn’t aware that Auntie Horrid had printed any of those items you list, and good on her for so doing.
Most of this thread reminds one of that excellent advice – DNFTT!
Ah yes, John Eggert, a self-described “minerals processing engineer”…
I do find it passing strange, that leading climate researchers such as Schneider, Santer, Hansen and Mann are scorned by you lot, but you then fawn over any old mining engineer or geologist who, in his spare time, thinks he can disprove 150 years of actual science.
Strangely, these luminaries never publish in the peer-reviewed literature, but disseminate their gibberish via blogs where the faithful can go for a quick cut-and-paste of something that sounds sort-of “sciencey”.
There is a word for this – actually, two words…
The second is “delusion” and the first is “pathetic”.
As for Eggert’s “argument”, here is it debunked in simple terms:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/exponential-increase-CO2-warming.htm
And STILL you deny the science of radiative heat transfer Rob. That is:-
Schumann, Reinhardt, Metallurgical Engineering, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, 1952 (Hottel’s curves)
Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves)
SkS doesn’t “debunk” Eggert’s hypothesis at all. All the article does is parrot the IPCC’s CO2 forcing when you click through the ‘logarithmic relationship’ hotlink leading to this page:-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
This restates the IPCC’s simplified CO2 forcing formula dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), referencing Myhre 1998 as the source:-
http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf
That formula is what even luke-warmers like Christopher Monckton, Joanne Nova and David Evans subscribe to. It must be comforting to have them onside with you and SkS Rob.
Problem is, when we look through Myhre for the provenance of dF all that’s been done is a tweaking of the original dF = 6.3 ln(C/Co) from IPCC FAR 1990 Table 2,2. See Myhre Table 3. So now we go back to FAR WGI, 2 Radiative Forcing of Climate:-
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02.pdf
Where we first encounter the IPCC’s forcing expression:-
2.2.4 Relationship Between Radiative Forcing and
Concentration
ΔF = f(C0,C)
Then Table 2.2 where we discover that the expression is “Functional form from Wigley (1987), coefficient derived from Hansen et al (1988)”. Wigley (1987) is ‘Relative contributions of different trace gases to the greenhouse effect’ which Google Scholar doesn’t catalogue.
Vincent Gray takes up the story:-
Kiehl and Dickinson (1987) is ‘A study of the radiative effects of enhanced atmospheric CO2 and CH4 on early Earth surface temperatures’ (behind paywall):-
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1987/JD092iD03p02991.shtml
From the abstract we then find how the IPCC forcing expression was first derived:-
No recourse to Hottel’s curves available in the Schumann and Reinhardt text since 1953. Needless to say, the IPCC’s forcing expression has been found deficient (oversimplified and extended without scientific basis) over the last decade or so.
Myhre et al state in the abstract “The radiative forcing due to all the WMGG is caculated to 2.25 W.m2” and in 2 Models and Methods “In this study, radiative forcing, is calculated as the difference between irradiances in the pre-industrial and present day atmosphere due to change in the concentrations of WMGG as described in IPCC [1995]”. Pre-industrial forcing is zeroed at 1750.
Meanwhile in real-world Arctic 1982 – 2004, Wang et al state in 5. Radiation page 12 “Overall the annual mean trend in the all-wave cloud forcing is −0.211W/m2 per year with an SD of 0.053W/m2, indicating an increased cooling effect enforced by clouds on the surface ‘.
To put this in perspective, −0.211 W/m2 per year is −21.1 W/m2 per century. Compare that to the IPCC’s GHG forcing of 0.9 W/m2 per century.
I don’t deny any science Richard, I just don’t think you have a clue what you’re cutting and pasting about….
“I don’t deny any science”
But you ARE denying radiative heat transfer science Rob – that’s undeniable.
“I just don’t think you have a clue what you’re cutting and pasting about….”
Just because you’re unable to comprehend Rob, it does not follow (a non sequitur) that others are similarly unable.
Tell us again about the magic volcanoes, Richard, and your very own theory of thermodynamics…. do you hear voices too?
Rob, It would be really great if you found another passion in life, other than spending all day giving us content-free abuse
Have a nice day
I suspect that Rob fancies himself as a ‘Spoiler Troll’ Andy. That doesn’t require any intellectual effort to understand the issues.
It wouldn’t surprise me if he was a paid Greenpeace functionary or suchlike, complete with job description.
Woah, more killer comedy!
It might astonish anyone with a rather more rational perspective though, Dixie. That ‘job description’ would be a corker…
Ho ho ho ho ho.
Still, andy’s trolling rather less at Hot Topic since he spectacularly flunked Nuclear Power 101.
Flunked nuclear power 101? hilarious
The dog is dead Mr Taylor.
Leave the corpse that is the IPCC to (deservedly) follow that of the Club of Rome. The more you and your like pick at and promote the IPCC (Pachauri, Mann, Hansen et al) scab Mr Taylor, the more the sepsis is apparent.
The stench is becoming quite obnoxious.
It is truly a privilege to hang out with such great minds, whose vanity is only matched by their insouciance and ignorance.
Treadgold, who apparently has no idea of what powers storms (clue: latent heat and humidity), RC who has terminal logorrhea, Flipper who has no idea just how well the Club of Rome’s predictions are tracking, and Andy, who has taught me all that I know about blogging.
Dream on boys, for it will be a rude awakening, of that you can be sure…
and Andy, who has taught me all that I know about blogging.
The thought that I have taught you anything at all makes me feel physically sick.
Don’t stress Andy, I’m pretty sure you haven’t taught anybody anything around here.
No, and thanks for your sneering response Andrew W
However, unlike Taylor, I don’t refer to people as rent boys, rapists and child molesters and publish these claims alongside my full name and contact details as Taylor has done on Hot Topic
Furthermore, I don’t publicly celebrate the deaths of people that I disagree with on blogs, like Taylor did repeatedly on HT despite attempts by the moderator to shut him up
So Andrew W, have you got anything more to sneer at?
Maybe you’d feel more at home commenting on one of NZ’s “science” blogs where etiquette is a little more “relaxed”?
Gees, lighten up a bit Andy, like I said, try not to get too stressed out.
Yeah, Andy,
They’ll push and needle and poke and incinerate, but, I mean, don’t burn, dude.
Just let them push you, man, but, like, not over the edge or anything! Don’t hit back!
If you are going to mix metaphors I would respectfully suggest that you stop clutching at straws while ignoring the elephant in the room with a smoking gun. 🙂
“…the elephant in the room with a smoking gun”
Which is what exactly?
In climate terms, the smoking gun is in the hand of the IPCC having shot themselves in the foot with the CMIP5 results.
And the elephant is AR5 – already dead.
That video you keep linking to. I do not think it means what you think it means…
Thanks guys, you’ve quite made my evening! 😉
So Mr Taylor, you believe (well, imply) that the Club of Rome’s predictions are on track.
At the risk of going off topic (or are you, Mr Taylor, now the topic) your assertion reminded me of a recernt analysis of the Club’s record.
To see the full text go to
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2012/08/19/the-past-future-tense/
The following is a taste to whet your appetite, Mr Taylor”
” The modern disaster cycle began in 1972, when “when we were warned (by computer models developed at MIT) that we were doomed. We were supposed to be pretty much extinct by now, or at least miserable. We are neither. So, what went wrong?” Will asks.
That year begat “The Limits to Growth,” a book from the Club of Rome, which called itself “a project on the predicament of mankind.” It sold 12 million copies, staggered the New York Times (“one of the most important documents of our age”) and argued that economic growth was doomed by intractable scarcities.
” The modelers examined 19 commodities and said that 12 would be gone long before now — aluminum, copper, gold, lead, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin, tungsten and zinc …
” Technological innovations have replaced mercury in batteries, dental fillings and thermometers; mercury consumption is down 98 percent, and its price was down 90 percent by 2000. Since 1970, when gold reserves were estimated at 10,980 tons, 81,410 tons have been mined, and estimated reserves are 51,000 tons. Since 1970, when known reserves of copper were 280 million tons, about 400 million tons have been produced globally, and reserves are estimated at almost 700 million tons. Aluminum consumption has increased 16-fold since 1950, the world has consumed four times the 1950 known reserves, and known reserves could sustain current consumption for 177 years. Potential U.S. gas resources have doubled in the past six years. And so on.
” The modelers missed something — human ingenuity in discovering, extracting and innovating.
” They missed a lot else. What went wrong was the mistaken application ceteris paribus — the idea that initial assumptions would not change over time. The environmentalists took man out of the equation, discounting both the effects of his genius and the equally limitless possibilities of his stupidity. The result is that the predicted future looked nothing like the actual past as seen in hindsight.
” George Will flips through the other doomsday predictions and compares it to the results. A “population bomb” was going to overpopulate Europe, according to Paul Erlich. In actuality the Europeans are having to import people to make up for the lack of a replacement workforce. And so forth and so on. Time after time the environmentalists called out a result like a wannabee Babe Ruth. Time after time they struck out, their credibility saved only by the media’s inexplicable tendency to give them one more turn at bat.”
Now that fellow Erlich. He would be the same Erlich who promotes the AGW/CC scam, would he not?
And, Mr Taylor, if you are not now clear on how inaccurate the doomcasters have been read
The Ultimate Resource 2
by Julian L Simon (with an appreciation by Milton Friedman) ISBN 0-691-00381-5
Rob Taylor,
You evince such a readiness to disrespect your audience one could imagine it your first instinct. But even that gives way, in the search for ridicule, to the necessity for deceit. For you savage my meaning beyond recognition to say I don’t know what powers storms.
John Yackel’s comment was to the effect, not that storms might be created, but that they would become more violent, and not from increase in heat energy but from an increase in water vapour at the same temperature. Any lack of understanding is clearly yours. Not least because you share Yackel’s view that exposing the water makes for more evaporation, which leads to stronger storms. Mind quantifying that? Mind giving a reference for it? Most storms are born in warmer regions. What percentage are born inside the arctic circles?
Oh, I’d better warn you that your continual off-topic ad hominem assaults will result in your banishment. Answering the odd question that might drift your way, like those here, would count in your favour.
The post itself was ad hominem, so one shouldn’t be too surprised at the comments following in the same vein. But time is almost up before comments will be closed on this. Life’s too short and there’s much to be learned elsewhere, elsewhen, elsewhat.
RT, when you are in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging… in what follows, you have made an primary school error, by conflating temperature and heat, then, despite my helpful hint above, exponentiated the error by claiming that you know more than a professional in the field (Yackel).
FYI, more water vapour at the same temperature = more heat. This is called the latent heat of vapourisation, and is released to power storms when the vapour recondenses.
Clearly, you have forgotten your schoolboy science, or never understood it in the first place. Equally risible is the lack of awareness of the other Richard, who claims to be an expert in thermodynamics!
Guys, this is too easy – like shooting ducks on water – so, please, stick to your day jobs!
“FYI, more water vapour at the same temperature = more heat”
You’re forgetting pressure (as does Gareth Renowden) in the Clapyron – Clausius relation:-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Phase-diag2.svg/300px-Phase-diag2.svg.png
Also “…same temperature = more heat” ?
Total heat – (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity equal to the internal energy of a system plus the product of its volume and pressure;
Yadda, yadda, yadda – more irrelevant “sciency” stuff from this clown who doesn’t even understand the basics, such as the difference between heat and temperature!
Rob, I think you are reading off psychometric charts used in air conditioning system design but they are at standard pressure of 101.325 kPa. The atmosphere is not at standard pressure however.
Thank you, Rob, I believe I made a mistake. But you compound your insincerity by calling anything you say “helpful”.
Yackel said “the water vapour in the atmosphere makes for more violent storms” as though there was no wv before. And he’s the expert?
But don’t expect me to lie down just yet. Because that’s hardly significant – I mean, dangerous storms just from this little effect? Be reasonable! You still haven’t shown a human hand in this. The wind blows the ice into the warm water, it melts… so what?
By avoiding my questions you also haven’t quantified the effect, and that would show his warning to be exaggerated. I don’t believe Yackel is correct in alerting us to stronger storms from the disappearance over a few weeks of some sea ice.
Frankly, nor can I quite agree that Yackel is correct in saying removing the ice “gets” more wv into the atmosphere, when the temperature has not risen yet to enable more to be absorbed. It just doesn’t make sense, when the air’s capacity for wv is proportional to temperature.
Thanks RT, I hadn’t thought of this line of reasoning when it comes to refuting arguments that the atmosphere can’t heat the ocean because DWR only causes evaporation, obviously if the air is saturated the energy must go into heating the oceans if there’s already high humidity.
He said it, I didn’t. Are you claiming a minor gas in the frigid polar air heats the water to evaporation?
RT
For heavens’ sake, RT, stop embarrassing yourself, and do an elementary physics! Or read your grandkids’ school science notes.
FYI, evaporation, a statistical mechanical process, occurs at all temperatures from all liquids.
(Cue for more cut & pasted irrelevancy from Dick)
That’s not what I meant.
He said it, I didn’t. Are you claiming a minor gas in the frigid polar air heats the water to evaporation?
Sorry, this is a bit of a tangent, one of the memes from “sceptics” has been that the air can’t warm the ocean, because downwelling IR only penetrates a micron (or so) and thus only causes evapouration, but as has been pointed out, if the air is saturated that evapourated water will quickly return to the ocean surface, thus I’d argue, redeposting the heat energy.
I see. Thanks.
“….evapourated water will quickly return to the ocean surface, thus I’d argue, redeposting the heat energy”
Andrew, the process is firstly, evaporation at the ocean surface (cools the ocean surface) which absorbs heat by latent heat of evaporation (endothermic) and is transported to an altitude in the troposphere.
Secondly, If that water vapor condenses back to a liquid (precipitates out), the latent energy absorbed during evaporation is released as sensible heat in the troposphere(exothermic).
This sequence is the ocean => troposphere latent heat flux in the earth’s energy budget.
There is no “redeposting” of heat energy at the surface therefore.
“…..obviously if the air is saturated…”
Hardly likely at low Arctic temperatures.
“….the energy must go into heating the oceans….”
No, the energy goes to the troposphere by exothermic release of sensible heat.
Richard C (NZ) says:
October 1, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Andrew, the process is firstly, evaporation at the ocean surface (cools the ocean surface) which absorbs heat by latent heat of evaporation (endothermic) and is transported to an altitude in the troposphere.
In the case of evaporation caused through the introduction of IR radiation, rather than evaporation as a result of low water vapour pressure above the liquid, there’s no reason to expect the process to reduce the temperature of he water.
Secondly, If that water vapor condenses back to a liquid (precipitates out), the latent energy absorbed during evaporation is released as sensible heat in the troposphere(exothermic).
In a warmer atmosphere you get warmer rainfall, the rain in Singapore is warmer than the rain in Southland.
Richard C (NZ) says:
October 1, 2012 at 12:34 pm
“…..obviously if the air is saturated…”
Hardly likely at low Arctic temperatures.
Actually just as likely, with lower temperatures, as you know, the absolute humidity declines with temperature.
http://www.tis-gdv.de/tis_e/misc/klima.htm
No, the energy goes to the troposphere by exothermic release of sensible heat.
I agree that the latent heat ends up in the atmosphere in the case of precipitation, but when the phase change is the result of condensation directly onto the ocean surface (or anyother surface) it seems to me that warming of that surface is inevitable.
“In the case of evaporation caused through the introduction of IR radiation…..there’s no reason to expect the process to reduce the temperature of he water.”
DLR reduces the temperature of the skin by evaporation (along with other energy leaving the surface, radiatively and conductively) hence the term cool-skin. See “The total cooling at the interface Q” page 2 ‘Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature’, Fairall (1996):-
ftp://ftp.etl.noaa.gov/users/cfairall/wcrp_wgsf/computer_programs/cor3_0/95JC03190.pdf
Hl is latent heat of evaporation. That heat is transported to the troposphere (as a flux) as per energy budget diagrams and there’s no heat “redeposited” via precipitation. Even Kiehl and Trenberth shows this (revised since as TF&K):-
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif
“In a warmer atmosphere you get warmer rainfall, the rain in Singapore is warmer than the rain in Southland.”
We’re talking about the Arctic Andrew. See ‘Humidity in the Arctic’:-
In the Arctic, the prevalent air mass is characterized by low temperatures and low moisture content. The continental air of the subarctic in winter is significantly colder and dryer than arctic marine air. Steam fog which occurs when cold air moves out over a warm water surface, causing moisture to evaporate into the air near the surface, is common in arctic regions. A typical value of relative humidity at the surface is 50 to 60 percent.
http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/factors/humidity.html
Relative humidity is 70% – 80% at Singapore.
http://www.guidemesingapore.com/relocation/introduction/climate-in-singapore
“…but when the phase change is the result of condensation directly onto the ocean surface (or any other surface) it seems to me that warming of that surface is inevitable.”
There’s no phase change when precipitation falls to the ocean. Precipitation is liquid, ocean is liquid. The WV (gas) => precipitation (liquid) phase change of condensation releases latent heat to the atmosphere, see ‘Condensation’:-
Condensation is the phase change of water vapor into a liquid. During the condensation process, water molecules lose the 600 cal/gm of latent heat that were added during the evaporation process. When latent heat is released it is converted into sensible heat which warms the surrounding air.
http://www4.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/atmospheric_moisture/condensation_process.html
In short, rain doesn’t heat the ocean Andrew.
Re “….condensation directly onto the ocean surface (or any other surface)”
What you seem to be alluding to here is humid air in direct contact with the ocean surface. For condensation to occur in that case, the ocean surface must be colder than the saturation temperature of the ambient air. If that was the situation, the enthalpy of the vapour reduces to the state of the liquid by condensation and energy is transferred to the ambient air – not to the water. See ‘Condensation on External Surfaces’:-
http://www.wlv.com/products/databook/db3/data/db3ch7.pdf
Andrew re “….condensation directly onto the ocean surface (or any other surface)”
And,
“For condensation to occur in that case, the ocean surface must be colder than the saturation temperature of the ambient air”
Beaufort Sea Ocean Surface Temp vs Surface Air Temp
http://www.arm.gov/science/highlights/images/R00262_2.jpg
Not much chance of air condensation on THAT ocean surface
Richard, stop digging the hole. The sea ice extent was already well below the previous record low in 2007 when the storm occurred in early August.
http://earthsky.org/earth/powerful-summer-storm-in-arctic-reduces-sea-ice-even-more
No – I have questions!
So what if the sea ice was depleted? Yackel isn’t giving a weather report, he’s trying to alarm us and make us sell our SUVs. Stay with the programme! I’m saying there’s no cause for that, the sky isn’t falling, the world isn’t ending!!!
“The sea ice extent was already well below the previous record low in 2007 when the storm occurred in early August”
And the attribution for that SIE was already well determined as oceanic forcing back in 2006.
Both 2007 and 2012 SIEs are well below late 1990s levels, the downturn occurring at the 97/98 El Nino i.e. nothing anthropogenic.
Simon:
I don’t think so.
Nope.
Not true.
The article that Simon links to states that the sea ice extent appears to be heading toward a new record low. On August 1, ice extent was already below levels recorded for the same date in 2007
So at the time of the article, there was no absolute record low. It just appeared to be heading that way (according to the author)
… and he was correct. Keep digging.
Andy:
The author of the article is completely wrong. According to IMS, NORSEX and IARC-JAXA, on August 1, the 2012 sea ice extent was higher than 2007.
Simon stated “The sea ice extent was already well below the previous record low in 2007 when the storm occurred in early August.” This was also entirely incorrect. It was not below the record low, it wasn’t even below the equivalent 2007 extent at the time.
We see here how hysterical alarmists conflate their own nonsense. Person A (the article author) states that the sea ice extent was below the levels recorded on the same date in 2007. He is wrong, of course, but people like Simon never check, they just believe it.
Then Person B (Simon) goes off stating that the sea ice extent in early August was already below the 2007 record low, which occurred later in September 2007.
Of course they’re all wrong, but it certainly is entertaining.
The storm occurred around August 8. The extent was already below the 2007 level when it occurred. Why are you even trying to dispute this? My advice is that if you wish to maintain your world view, just ignore the Arctic sea ice extent until it freezes over (you can even claim a recovery if you want) and then hope that this doesn’t occur again next year.
Actually I don’t really care if the Arctic sea ice recovers or continues to decline. What baffles me is those that claim that this is “caused by” CO2 DLR because there is a correlation, without coming up with a plausible physical mechanism
I expect I could also find a correlation between bankers bonuses, the EU debt mountain and Arctic Sea Ice too. It isn’t science, it is astrology
Joseph Fourier proposed a plausible physical mechanism in 1824. That’s science Andy.
Would you care to fill us in with that theory and how it is consistent with the flat-lining of global mean temps for the last 15 years and the record high Antarctic sea ice we have recently seen?
No, lets talk about the increase of global mean temps over the last 50 years and the record low global sea ice extent that we have recently seen.
Look at the big picture Andy, not some subset that suits your purposes.
IPCC Chapter 11 WGI
Simon:
You mean the increase of global mean temps over the last 150 years? Why cherry-pick a short period when looking at the “big picture”?
I presume you’re talking about the slow, steady warming that began at the end of the LIA, long before humans could have influenced anything, and is still well short of the warm peaks in the MWP, the RWP and the Minoan WP.
The slow warming that stopped around the year 2000, over a decade ago? Just when it should have been accelerating?
The slow warming that has in fact reversed itself over the last decade, so we now have statistically significant cooling going on?
Seems the big picture is not nearly as fear-inducing as some would have us believe.
I am just trying to understand this science thing. I’m not sure what the hypothesis is and what would falsify it,so we haven’t really got past first base in my view
We’ve had record cold winters in the UK when we were told snow “was a thing of the past”, flooding in Australia when we were told we would have drought, hurricane activity has declined when were told it would increase.
Somehow, all these events get folded back into the “climate change” basket when it is 180 degrees of the projection, and we are supposed to keep paying these guys research grants to do what, exactly?
“…lets talk about the increase of global mean temps over the last 50 years and the record low global sea ice extent that we have recently seen”
What? And deny the science attributing natural SIE cause – I don’t think so.
BTW, what’s the (anti)correlation (R) between global mean temps and SIE?
And what’s the correlation between global mean temps and aGHG emissions?
And what’s the correlation between global mean temps and DLR?
And what’s the correlation between global mean temps and Alaska temps
And what’s the science (citations) linking aGHG emissions to SIE?
That’s if you REALLY want to talk about those issues Simon.
“…and then hope that this doesn’t occur again next year”
Why would we do that after finding the natural oceanic forcing attribution, correlations of SIE/ENSO/AMO etc?
Wouldn’t we just reasonably expect the Arctic SIE situation to follow these instead of suddenly reverting to pre 1997/98 levels, storm or no storm?
Simon says:
Once again, because it wasn’t.
IMS shows 2012 sea ice extent greater than 2007 on Aug 8.
NORSEX shows 2012 sea ice extent greater than 2007 on Aug 8.
IARC-JAXA shows 2012 sea ice extent greater than 2007 on Aug 8.
I concede that it depends on what measure you look at, IARC-JAXA seems to suggest 2012 < 2007. There is not much in it. There is not much in it.
That doesn't mean that a single storm caused the record melt. And it did melt, contrary to what Richard T seems to be saying.
It actually does mean it. The reason you don’t understand it is that you have the wrong notion of the processes at work.
This isn’t about huge ice shelves melting quietly in the afternoon sun. There was an enormous Arctic cyclone in early August, and it broke up the floating ice and the extreme winds dispersed the broken ice and drove it South, out of the region. The satellites measure area with at least 15% ice in their Extent metric, so obviously this broken up ice didn’t register.
What didn’t happen was that an enhanced greenhouse effect driven by 0.04% of the atmosphere caused the ice to “melt”.
RT:
Because, RT, shrinking the area of the ice barrier increases the area of ocean surface in contact with the atmosphere, enabling evaporation to take place, exactly as Yackel states.
NB: Evaporation is a surface phenomenon.
Hint: Think of putting a plastic sheet over silage or a garden bed to retain moisture. Now take it away…
So, a transient, small-scale phenomenon. Not worth mentioning, certainly unworthy of anxiety.
A “surface phenomenon” – as far as the water’s concerned, but the wv enters the body of the air, so the temperature must support it, or it goes right back to liquid. Are you saying that the atmosphere’s capacity to contain wv is not proportional to temperature?
D’oh!
Richard, you are in the unfortunate position of blogging on, say, Russian literature, without actually knowing any Russian…
Your tactic is to rely on other “fake Russian” blogs for endlessly regurgitated pidgin nonsense. What a waste of your time, and ours!
If your goal is truly to understand, rather than merely defend your ignorance, then here’s something that may help:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/a-short-introduction-to-climate-change/
Oh, how devastating! I shall never speak in public again!
Look, you may prefer to speak only to trumpet your unsurpassed knowledge, but I confess that the existence of questions is the greatest reason to speak. What could possibly go wrong?
Now, unless you fancy supporting your quite stupendous put-down by explaining more precisely what in me you’re criticising, answer the question about the capacity of the air to hold some flippin’ moisture!
And no thanks, I won’t go to that HT link for my re-education.
Rob, Yackel doesn’t make an anthropogenic attribution – despite your yammering.
Try this, then:
http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/u/basicconcepts.htm
This may be more useful:-
Enthalpy of Moist and Humid Air
The enthalpy of moist and humid air consist of sensible heat and latent heat
Moist air is a mixture of dry air and water vapor. In atmospheric air, water vapor content varies from 0 to 3% by mass. The enthalpy of moist and humid air includes the
* enthalpy of the dry air – the sensible heat – and
* the enthalpy of the evaporated water – the latent heat
Specific enthalpy – h – (J/kg, Btu/lb) of moist air is defined as the total enthalpy (J, Btu) of the dry air and the water vapor mixture – per unit mass (kg, lb) of moist air.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html
All of which in these expressions is at CONSTANT pressure:-
Specific Enthalpy of Dry Air – Sensible Heat
Assuming constant pressure conditions the specific enthalpy of dry air can be expressed as:
ha = cpa t (2)
where
cpa = specific heat capacity of air at constant pressure (kJ/kgoC, kWs/kgK, Btu/lboF)
t = air temperature (oC, oF)
Specific Enthalpy of Water Vapor – Latent Heat
Assuming constant pressure conditions the specific enthalpy of water vapor can be expressed as:
hw = cpw t + hwe (3)
where
cpw = specific heat of water vapor at constant pressure (kJ/kgoC, kWs/kgK)
t = water vapor temperature (oC)
hwe = evaporation heat of water at 0oC (kJ/kg)
Rob then holds temperature (t) constant as well as pressure (cp) in order to develop his non-atmospheric condition.
It’s interesting reading the comments from HT about this thread
An amazing piece of psychological projection if I ever saw one
“The non-science” – Hmmm
Let’s see Gareth’s “science” prop again (my emphasis):-
Apparently, it’s not so obvious to Gareth (and Macro) that “most likely” is a somewhat subjective assessment. Also not so obvious to Gareth (and Macro) is that without a corresponding DLR increase, that assessment is void. We here at “non-science” CCG took a look at some other science papers for corroboration (or not) and quickly found Wang et al 2012 that finds no DLR increase in the Arctic. Even if there was a DLR increase, the aGHG component must be separated from the other DLR components: clouds, water vapour and natural GHGs – not an easy task.
Also quickly found was the 2006 oceanic forcing attribution. There’s some scathing comments at Judith Curry’s about this negligence found in recent papers under her ‘Apportioning natural and forced components in the Arctic amplification’ post in the very first thread:-
The “rest of us” then, turns out to be a clique at Hot Topic.
Re “Even if there was a DLR increase, the aGHG component must be separated from the other DLR components: clouds, water vapour and natural GHGs – not an easy task”
First the DLR:-
Figure 8. Annual averages of the downwelling longwave fluxes (W m–2) from 1980 to 2004 for the 60°–90°N region as obtained from TOVS retrievals by Francis (1997).
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/3/2/024004/Full/6828608.jpg
From ‘Aerosol climate effects and air quality impacts from 1980 to 2030’, Menom et al 2008
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/3/2/024004/fulltext/
Next the separation (DLF = DLR):-
‘Changes in the fabric of the Arctic’s greenhouse blanket’ [spring only (MAM) 1979–2005]
Jennifer A Francis and Elias Hunter
2007
http://media.cigionline.org/geoeng/2007%20-%20Francis%20and%20Hunter%20-%20Changes%20in%20Arctic%27s%20Greenhouse%20blanket.pdf
Table 1. Linear decadal trends in atmospheric and surface parameters for six Arctic seas during spring (MAM) derived from satellite sounder retrievals from 1979 to 2005.
Parameter (units dec−1) Barents Kara Laptev E. Siberian Chukchi Beaufort
DLF (W m−2) 6.4 6.4 5.8 8.2 8.7 5.7
Cloud frac. (%) 4.0 3.0 2.9 7.2 5.7 6.5
Cld. base ht. (mb) 16.0 31.0 30.0 43.0 48.0 49.0
LWP/IWP (g m−2) 0.24 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.26 0.24
Precip. water (mm) 0.09 0.14 0.17 0.25 0.30 0.23
Surface temp. (K) 0.42 0.62 0.41 1.08 1.35 0.85
1000–700 hPa temp. (K) 0.43 0.44 0.38 0.94 1.25 0.84
From Conclusions:-
Because passive satellite radiances
cannot directly retrieve parameters such as cloud-base height,
liquid water path, and cloud phase below cloud top—all of
which are important drivers of DLF [DLR]—this analysis is clearly
not a definitive attribution of change in the surface radiation
balance. Arctic change is dramatic and rapid, however, thus it
is important to obtain a first-order understanding of the causes
for the change using information available today. New active
satellite sensors, additional data from the International Polar
Year field campaigns, and improved models should provide an
opportunity to refine this assessment.
The accumulation of contributions to DLF change based
on the factors considered here—cloud fraction, cloud-base
height, liquid/ice water path, precipitable water, surface skin
temperature, and lower-tropospheric temperature—captures
most of the total retrieved trend in DLF. We can conclude,
therefore, that the observed DLF trend is driven by changes
in these six variables
The only GHG get a look in is PW, other GHGs and therefore aGHGs don’t feature at all.
Also,
Fig. 3.17. Daily average surface irradiance (W m-2) observations and sky cover (cloudiness in tenths of total sky), for Barrow, Alaska, 1994. [See LONGWAVE DOWNWARD, SKY COVER]
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/publications/annrpt23/fig3_17.gif
From 3.2. SOLAR AND THERMAL ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION
3.2.9. BRW [Barrow] SURFACE RADIATION AND METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/publications/annrpt23/chapter3_2.htm
No doubt there will be alarm raised over the Francis and Hunter air temperature trends but for those of us more inclined to the view that the energy flow is ocean => air, here’s Arctic Ocean SST Anomalies 1981 – 2009:-
http://i31.tinypic.com/nv8l8k.png
If we take the average DLR per decade trend for the 6 Arctic seas as 6.9 W.m2 1979 to 2005 (2.7 decades), we can compare that to the supposed CO2 forcing using the IPCC expression:
dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co),
1979 336.78 Co
2005 379.80 C
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
dF = 5.35 ln(379.80 /336.78)
dF = 0.6 W.m2
0.6/2.7 = 0.2 W.m2/decade
6.9 W.m2/decade observed average Arctic Ocean DLR
0.2 W.m2/decade calculated CO2 forcing using IPCC expression
Even if we were to accept the IPCC CO2 forcing expression as valid, CO2 forcing only contributes 2.9% (0.029) of the measured average Arctic Ocean DLR.
We then have to separate that 0.029 CO2 contribution into a natural : anthropogenic ratio of course.
Hardly worth the effort.
Using a combination of Skeptical Science post and meteoLCD post referencing Salby and Spencer, the ratio seems to be about 96.2 : 3.8 (natural : anthropogenic).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/the-part-of-natural-co2-emissions-dynamite-conference-by-prof-murray-salby/
So that reduces the 0.029 total CO2 contribution to 0.001 anthropogenic (0.029*0.038) and the forcing to 0.0002 W.m2 (0.001*0.2) .
6.9 W.m2/decade observed average Arctic Ocean DLR
0.0002 W.m2/decade anthropogenic CO2 forcing (0.00003 or 0.003%)
Well, that’s CO2 off the hook.
September Panics and Smurphy’s Law
A layman’s view of the strange period of history we are living through
Guest post by Caleb Shaw
Snippets:-
“I used to like the September Panic because I often could hijack a thread by bringing up the subject of Vikings”
“The September Panic also entertained me because I used to learn about all sorts of things I didn’t know about”
“The fact the replacing waters can be warmer leads to discussions about the northernmost branches of the Gulf Stream, and how these branches meander north and south. This in turn leads to talk of the unpredictable nature of meandering, the further downstream you move from the original point where the meandering starts, and this, (if you are lucky,) will lead you to Chaos Theory and Strange Attractors”
“In conclusion, the September Panic can be a source of fascinating thought, providing you are willing to drift like a berg and wind up miles off topic”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/01/september-panics-and-smurphys-law/#more-71734
5 stars, a thoroughly enjoyable read.
More,
Strangely, this concept has now vanished among some who formerly wore the tag, “Liberal.” Gone is their desire for “diversity,” replaced with a fawning regard for the “consensus.” The very same people who sneered at convention when young are now guilty of being the very thing they sneered at: Blindly conventional.
In a way this is a normal part of maturing. Churchill stated something like, “Those who were not Liberal when young had no heart; those who do not become Conservative when older have no brain.”
J B Williamson says:
October 1, 2012 at 12:54 am
Just to be pedantic…
“Those who were not Liberal when young had no heart; those who do not become Conservative when older have no brain.”
I believe the phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): “Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.” It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): “Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.”
It is unlikely to have been Churchill since he went from being a conservative to a liberal later in life.
Great quote though:-)
Julian Braggins says:
October 1, 2012 at 2:04 am
[…]
Also, just to be pedantic, Churchill was most definitely a Conservative later in life, I was there under his Conservative governments 1940-45 and 1951-55.
Some people are complaining (or celebrating) that they have been banned from this blog.
Is this true?
Sorry about the delay in replying, Andy, I’ve been busy. Yes, Rob Taylor wore out his welcome. But only him, nobody else. Richard Christie got the flick a while ago. They’re the only people banned from the CCG in about eight years of publishing. Strictly speaking, neither of them is banned, just placed on moderation.
I should say that Rob Taylor was clearly warned several times that he risked banishment and at the end I even suggested to him that answering my questions would be a smarter option than continuing his abuse of us. But he declined, so I kicked him in ze butt.
Thanks. I guess that puts them in the same position as myself and Richard C as we are both on permanent moderation at HT.
Time out, look at moi look at moi (for fans of Kath and Kim)
Sehr gut. Vielen Dank
Mir ein Vergnügen.
I see that was your 500th comment. We should celebrate with eine kleine bier.
or perhaps “une formidable” as they say in France
No “kleine ” for me please
I like to Hide de “kleine “
Except perhaps for all those de kleine bubbles?? Huh? Yawohl?
Heh, heh!
Should ve hav a bitta bier or just a bitter beer? Huh?
Ziss is such fun, nein?
Ein Bier bitte. Usual place? Tomorrow night?
I have come back to this conversation after a couple of days doing better things. To find that it is still going beggars rational belief.
On the one hand there are, perhaps two, or is it three, members /followers of the HT Flat Earth Society. On the other there are those who are serious in their analysis and simplicity of presentation .
I’m just a simple soul, but blessed of a good education, real world experience and a questioning mind. But I was reminded in the middle of last night, as one often is when mulling issues in need of resolution, of the attitude of Mr Taylor and his two or three supporters and the public enmity between Mantell and Owen.
It is amazing that Owen’s ego and the destructive passion he brought to their “debate” related to creatures long dead. (Did not Darwin finally “bury” Owen?)
Are we now seeing something similar in respect of AGW et al? Perhaps Owen’s ghost is resting on your shoulder Mr Taylor!
Yes, well, people keep saying things, one thing leads to another, and before you know it, there’s a real conversation going on!
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Richard, you surprise me.
The short story:Gidion Mantel (well, actually his wife, but she couldn’t publish) circa 1800.
joined to dots that resulted in the identification of pre-historic animal life.
Owen, who had worked with Mantel as a “lab assistant”, stole the research and named the creatures dinosaurs. Owen also sought a proprietal right to all pre-historic sakeletal remains.
Owen sought to have Mantel banished from the Riyal Society aND wriote the most (repoirtedly) ad hominem critque of Mantel seen in UK to that time.
But Owen’s “scientific” claims were eventually “proven” false. But for some 30 yearfs he sought to destroy Mantel beiore the latter’s deatrh. He poersisted when Mantel was in the grave.. Darwin’s work proved Owen was a crock.
All that is some distance remived from matters climatic (or is it?), but the point of all this is that the vitriol and misguided passion demonstrated by the likes of Mr Taylor is reminiscent of the standard of “conversation” between Mantel and Owen.
Fast forward to 2012, and Jones, Mann, Hansen et al (the infamous IPCC 70 scientists) appear, to a simple soul looking on, like Owen. They are also likely, I suggest, to be so regarded when these conversations are taking place in 2112.
Tried to correct the literals above. But the EDIT did not work. Apols.
Hope the gist is not lost in translation.
Not at all. The historical perspective is interesting. You are right – it will be interesting to look back on this period a few decades out.
Indeed it will, Andy, indeed it will…
Yes, you have seven minutes after pressing Submit Comment to finalise any changes. No matter. Thanks for the story. When you spell out the details, it certainly rings a bell. When I follow closely what some of the climate scientists in the alarmist camp actually say, I get the strong impression of hedging. They want to fall in with the consensus while giving their relatives a chance of saying in a hundred years: no, he was never an alarmist on climate change. Others of them don’t seem to care and simply tell us we’re doomed.
If you look at what climate scientists are saying, very few are saying we are doomed. It is the NGOs and media that are beating it all up into a frenzy
Yes. This is Jim Renwick in the last few months:
They are few, but they are both clever and influential and give the NGOs, etc., all the motivation they need.
Jim would be one of the most knowledgeable people about climate in the country and he is openly admitting that we don’t know how it will turn out. People who think they can describe the climate with a simple set of equations are kidding themselves. An alternative popular skeptic meme is that because the climate is complex we will never understand it so we shouldn’t bother trying and just keep on doing what we are doing. I would argue the precautionary principle that we should be careful and hedge our bets. Humans are twiddling the knobs of a complex non-linear system and there may (or may not if there is some negative feedback loop) be consequences, particularly to less adaptable flora and fauna.
Yes I would agree with all that, but the other side of the coin is that we are playing a very dangerous game with our economies by imposing heavy penalties on fossil fuels and moving to immature technologies that have no guarantee of working.
So it’s a balancing act. The cost/benefit never comes into it (apart from the dubious Stern report)
Simon:
The strong form of the precautionary principle (which is what you’re applying) is designed to stop all activity immediately, for all time, since one cannot say that any action you take on anything has no negative consequences, since it’s very difficult to prove a negative in this form. But since the burden of proof is on those taking the action, it means they can never progress.
From Wikipedia:
In the weak form, the issue of plausibility comes to the fore. Applying this to AGW, we are safe, as to date there is no plausibility in the hypothesis (see OHC, sea level deceleration, no polar amplification in the south, no hot-spot, temperature stasis over past 15 years, etc.).
This means that the burden of proof for taking the action (ie: mitigating AGW) must prove that the action (stopping use of fossil fuels) has no negative consequences (such as mass poverty and misery for billions of people over the next few hundred years).
This will be difficult to do, but you’re welcome to try.
>”An alternative popular skeptic meme is that because the climate is complex we will never understand it so we shouldn’t bother trying and just keep on doing what we are doing”
I think you’ll find that is a popular warmist meme projected onto sceptics.
There are at least 2 empirical models based on natural cycles that adequately mimic the last century or so and better than the IPCC models. But the validation of any of those models is the test of time. Right now we have a choice for the next decade:
1. Warmer – IPCC (except one AR5 ensemble model run), currently invalid.
2. No change – Scafetta and one IPCC AR5 model run, currently valid.
3. Cooler – Pangburn, currently invalid
Given the Temperature/PDO+AMO+Sunspot Integral correlation is 0.96, PDO and sunspots are in cool phases and the polynomial trend of HadSST2 is now in a cooling phase, Dan Pangburn’s equation is looking like challenging Scafetta.
More reading on the Precautionary Principle:
http://reason.com/archives/1999/04/01/precautionary-tale
of which we are a part.
This is a what I don’t understand about the modern environmental movement. There seems to be so much self-hatred and anti-human sentiment involved, I just don’t know why they bother to keep on living.
Pingback: Prat watch #7.5: No, you’re not entitled to your opinion
Is that all Renowden has? He muddies the facts and omits some of what I say to give a misleading impression, and that’s it? Talk about dishonest! I have duties right now, but I’ll be back later.
RT, before you launch into yet another glorification of the virtues of ignorance, you may like to sit back, engage your neurons, and watch this 10-minute video on climate feedbacks.
WARNING: Learning may occur
vimeo.com/37141607
Nice pictures. Interesting historical footage, but where was the bit about climate feedbacks?
Basically, content-free propaganda
Looks like there was some problem with editing the post, and its gone up twice – the second link is the correct one, but the Svalbard video is good, too.
Here’s the feedbacks link again:
http://vimeo.com/1709110
Since I watched the Svalbard video, here are some comments.
There was an interesting suggestion that warming started on Svalbard in the early 20th Century, and that some people though it might have been caused by the munitions fired in the world wars
There was a coal mine set on fire, left to burn for decades. I am not sure of the relevance of this, except that it is *bad*. Maybe some of the soot from the coal burning resulted in some glacial melt?
The video claimed that Arctic polar bear populations are in decline
I thought the opposite was true.
There was mention of the global cooling scare, then the global warming scare, the “consensus” and an allusion to Hansen without mentioning his name
There was some moralising about how future generations would see us.
Re polar bears, Andy:
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/what-the-experts-say/expert-q-and-a/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, chief scientist with Polar Bears International and USGS polar bear project leader for 30 years.
Q: Why all the fuss about polar bears? Aren’t their populations increasing: in fact, booming?
A: One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.*
One Russian extrapolation presented in 1956 suggested a number of 5,000 to 8,000, but that figure was never accepted by scientists. The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. Even now, about half of our population estimates are only educated guesses. Back then, the best we had over most of the polar bear’s range were uneducated guesses. Polar bear science has come a long way since then.
We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. Some populations were not being hunted back then (or were hunted very little) and those were probably unaffected by these three actions.
Back then, the sea ice was solid and not noticeably in retreat. With stable habitat, polar bears were a renewable resource that could be harvested on a sustainable basis.
But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. Polar bear habitat is disappearing due to global warming. Even the most careful on-the-ground management doesn’t matter if polar bears don’t have the required habitat.
Polar bears depend on the sea ice surface for catching their prey. A shorter duration of ice cover over their productive hunting areas means less opportunity to hunt. A reduction in sea ice has been statistically linked to reduced stature and weight in polar bears and to lower survival rates of cubs. So, it doesn’t really matter that hunting is now largely under control or that we know a lot about other impacts people might have on bears. Without habitat, polar bears will disappear no matter what else we do. If a farmer has 100 cows out in a pasture, and every year he goes out and paves over some of his pasture, pretty soon he won’t have enough habitat to support 100 cows. And, each time he paves over a little more land, his remaining land will hold fewer cattle. There may be some short-term enhancements of the remaining habitat that will forestall the inevitable. But, when his whole pasture is paved there will be no cows! Declining habitat now and the assurance it will decline in the future is why polar bears were listed as a threatened species. Discussions about how many bears may have lived in the past before and after hunting quotas have no bearing on this new situation.
Planetary physics require the world to warm as greenhouse gas concentrations rise, so without greenhouse gas mitigation, the ice will continue to melt. For an animal dependent on sea ice to survive, the prospects are not good. As the ice decline continues, the plight of the polar bear only can worsen.
That has to be a “Quote of the week” candidate
So just to be clear here, even though Polar Bear populations are not on the decline, this is “irrelevant” because what happened in the past is irrelevant.
Because habitat is decreasing because of “global warming”, we can assume that at some stage in the future Polar Bear populations will decline
Therefore we can say Polar Bear populations are declining by extrapolation out to a hypothetical period in the future when Polar Bear populations are actually declining.
The future is relevant, the past is irrelevant, even though we know quite a lot about the past and very little about the future.
Hmm, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than now, and for longer, yet we still have polar bears with us.
Of course, all that happened in the past, so it’s irrelevant.
The main problem I have with this Polar Bear argument is that there are around 20,000 bears alive. Their habitat is spread around the very large area we know as “The Arctic” which includes parts of Canada, Russia, Norway etc.
It seems we would have to remove a very large part of this habitat for it to impact a population of 20,000, which I would have thought would migrate to where the food is
RT, before you launch into yet another glorification of the virtues of ignorance, you may like to sit back, engage some neurons, and watch this 10-minute video on climate feedbacks.
WARNING: Learning may occur
http://vimeo.com/1709110
We know about the Arctic ocean ice/albedo feedback that brought about the SIE decline thanks to Dr Maslowski in 2006 Rob, set off by the ’98 El Nino – nothing anthropogenic.
Whatever random concatenation of denialist psuedoscience you “know” today is of little interest to me, RC; save it for your therapist.
We’ve long ago figured out that you have “little interest” in evaluating evidence of climate change cause, natural vs anthropogenic Rob – that’s been self evident.
Well your movie shows the theory Rob, but what actual evidence do you have that these positive feedbacks are occurring? So far the theory is failing dismally due to a lack of evidence.
There is no tropospheric hot spot to show high level atmospheric water vapour which is needed to prove positive feedback, and low level water vapour more than likely has a negative feedback effect. This lack of upper level water vapour and it’s associated positive feedback mechanism is reflected in the failure of the models to accurately predict the future temperature rises.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-flat.jpg
The movie has lots of ‘ifs’, ‘coulds’, and ‘potential runaway greenhouse’, but lacks any empirical evidence to back it up. The real empirical evidence points to the fact that there is no positive feedback from water vapour, therefore AGW has only a minor effect on the climate.
Prove the tropospheric hot spot and maybe people will listen to you, or alternatively, explain how the temperature can rise beyond 1.2C for every doubling of atmospheric CO2 without positive feedback from water vapour. Otherwise the possibility of your movie becoming reality is extremely remote, and there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for catastrophic AGW beyond a mild warming, a warming that is actually more beneficial than harmful.
Magoo, it is truly risible that you claim to be the arbiter of what scientific evidence is, or is not available, yet can only quote a journalist to support your claims.
Do you have any scientific training yourself, or are you just a gullible parrot? What scientific research can you provide to back up your extraordinary claims?
I suggest that you try to educate yourself, if you dare; start with an introductory climate text, or the following links:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm
SkS asks:-
Their answer is from the um..er..shuffle..cough..no grab bag:-
Just “more or less”:-
Actually less:-
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUTrop.png
Actually Rob, the hot spot graph is from the US Climate Change Science Program’s Synthesis & Assessment Report 1.1 2006, chapter 5, page 116.
The graphs of the models are from McKitrick, Ross R., Stephen McIntyre and Chad Herman (2010) “Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series” in press at Atmospheric Science Letters. Yet to be debunked as far as I know.
Those two papers back up my claims. I don’t know why you’re mentioning a journalist for, the fact that Jo Nova mentions them on her website doesn’t mean she wrote them.
I’m well aware of skepticalscience’s articles on the matter. I also notice that he never mentions the peer-reviewed papers that debunk every one of his papers on the issue, I’ve always wondered why. What Cook is doing is sidetracking the issue into a warming upper troposphere/cooling stratosphere issue which is beside the point – it’s much simpler than that.
The tropospheric hotspot should be proof of positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour, regardless of the ‘fingerprint’ argument. The tropospheric hot spot does not exist therefore evidence of positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour doesn’t exist either.
Since you insist on scientific research I assume you can provide some to backup your claims of positive feedback from water vapour. Avoid the papers John Cook at skepticalscience uses on the matter though, they’re all debunked (he should really mention that to his readers).
One other thing Rob, there’s no need to get nasty or rude about it, I’m just the messenger. If you have a problem with the empirical data or those who supply it in peer reviewed articles then I suggest you take it up with them. It’s hardly my fault the water vapour feedback theory has no evidence to back it up.
Temperature change in the upper troposphere 1948 – 2006
http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/upper-troposphere.jpg?w=500&h=307
The atmosphere above 400 hPa (the “hotspot” zone) is not storing warmth.
Magoo, you’re a pleasure to read – clarity and restraint exemplified. Thanks.
I find it amusing that AGW deniers usually dismiss climate modelling out of hand, EXCEPT for that reported in AR4 that indicated a tropospheric hot spot, which they seize upon with squeals of glee, claiming it to be the “smoking gun” that somehow invalidates 150 years of scientific observation and experiment.
Which it is does not.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
Here are the basics:
1) Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824).
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus has the capacity to warm the planet (Tyndall, 1858).
3) By burning fossil fuels, humans activities are increasing the greenhouse gas concentration of the Earth (Arrhenius, 1896).
4) Increased greenhouse gas concentrations lead to more heat being trapped, warming the planet further (Arrhenius, 1896).
So, guys, where is the research that contradicts these 19th century results? I’m happy to wait….
So Rob, which among those 19th-century papers conducts their experiments on the earth’s atmosphere as a whole?
You did claim “150 years of scientific observation and experiment”, didn’t you? So where is the observational evidence?
And why did you exclude Arrhenius (1906), by the way? It updates 1896.
I note the quick move on your part to try to divert attention away from the lack of the hot-spot. And it’s not “deniers” who predicted the existence of the hot-spot, Rob, it was the IPCC. Are you wanting to cherry-pick which IPCC predictions you’d like to examine, based purely on their actual outcome?
None of that research makes any statement about positive feedbacks
A good number of sceptics agree with most of the above. It is the positive feedback argument that leads to high climate sensitivity to CO2 and therefore to dangerous warming
Nobody disputes your points 1 to 4 Rob, but where is proof of the water vapour feedback?
The temperature can only rise 1.2C (maximum) per doubling of total atmospheric CO2 (not just man’s). The current total atmospheric levels are somewhere around 397 parts per million (ppm) from memory, & to raise the temp by 1.2C the levels will need to rise to 794ppm. After this, for it to rise another 1.2C it will need to rise to 1588ppm, etc.
CO2 has a diminishing ability to absorb infra red as it’s concentrations rise, and is a weak greenhouse gas as a result. The majority of warming is supposed to be through positive feedbacks which are supposed to amplify the warming by a factor of approximately 3 times, most of which is supposed to be due to water vapour which is a strong greenhouse gas.
It doesn’t matter what the cause of the hot spot is, whether it is natural, man’s fault, a volcano, or whatever, the fact that it doesn’t exist means there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour. Without the water vapour positive feedback there is no AGW. You need to show the tropospheric hot spot or evidence of positive water vapour feedback for AGW to be valid, otherwise it’s so small that it’s barely noticeable.
That’s why McKitrick et al’s graph below shows the failure of the models. The warming of the CO2 isn’t being amplified by water vapour positive feedback, something that is reinforced by the failure of 2 satellites and millions of radiosondes to find the hotspot.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-flat.jpg
>”Nobody disputes your points 1 to 4 Rob”
I do Magoo. Remember that the debate spectrum is (as I see it), Warmist (CO2 forcing + positive feedback on temperature) – Lukewarmer (CO2 forcing, indeterminant feedback on temperature) – Heretic (negligible CO2 forcing, negative feedback on temperature). I’m firmly in the heretic camp and I find the lukewarmer stance more closely aligned with warmists than heretics.
The 19th century endeavours that Rob cites in 1 to 4 have no bearing on present day radiative heat transfer physics. In terms of CO2, that has been developed by Hottell and Leckner from which we know (or should) that CO2 forcing is all but exhausted by about 200 ppm.
At last, a clear exposition of a valid point; thankyou, Mr. Magoo, perhaps you’d like to visit Hot Topic sometime?
Re climate sensitivity, the lower bound is observationally constrained by several independent lines of evidence, as per:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/ice-age-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity/
As I’m sure you know, a low climate sensitivity disposes of the MWP; I’d be interested in your views on that as well.
I didn’t know. Does that work without circular reasoning that CO2 is a major driver of climate?
SkS – “How sensitive is our climate?”
Using IPCC CO2 forcing for the 21st century:
dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
2000 369.52 Co
2011 391.57 C
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
dF = 5.35 ln(391.57/369.52 )
dF = 0.3 C
Climate sensitivity (from SkS)
dT = λ*dF where dT = 0, λ is climate sensitivity and dF is 0.3 C
0 = λ*0.3
λ = 0
Climate sensitivity to CO2 is 0 this century according to the IPCC CO2 forcing expression. CO2 may not be a forcing of course. Me, I think it’s natural variability doing the forcing.
Correction.
dF = 5.35 ln(391.57/369.52 )
dF = 0.3 C
Should be: dF = 0.3 [W.m2]
Hi Rob. The reason I avoided Richard C’s points was due to the fact that you’d use them to avoid confronting the water vapour positive feedback issue. I’m sure Richard might very well be right, but it’s a distraction from the real issue of AGW theory failing without the water vapour amplification.
The issue is nothing other than what evidence there is for positive feedback from water vapour. Why is this the only relevant issue? Because without it there is no AGW. You can’t claim AGW without addressing this problem because it’s the major part of the AGW theory – CO2 is just the minor contributor.
As for Hot Topic, I prefer discussions with manners thank you.
Yes, Magoo, I understood the issue that you raised, and have provided two links that review the evidence for climate feedbacks that act to constrain the lower bound for climate sensitivity to at least 1.5 C for a doubling of CO2.
Here they are again:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/ice-age-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity/
Of course, we need to distinguish between the fast-feedback sensitivity and the long-term “Earth-system” sensitivity, which paleoclimate studies show is higher than the short-term value.
From that paleo evidence, we do indeed appear to be heading toward an ice-free world unless we can draw down atmospheric CO2 before the feedbacks become self-sustaining (if they are not already).
So, what do you now think of the evidence for positive feedbacks? I do not see any support there for the common denialist position that net positive feedbacks are negligible!
The SkS link that Rob provides has a link to Forster and Gregory (2006) which is broken (404).
This is unfortunate as this is apparently one of the few papers on climate sensitivity that relies on empirical evidence rather than from models
Furthermore, the F&G sensitivity values were amplified by the IPCC (over and above the original paper’s values) by using some Bayesian “techniques”. Nic Lewis presented this information on Judith Curry’s blog a while back
This is discussed here amongst other places
Thus the integrated assessment model (PAGE09 IAM) is distorted from the outset.
Thanks for this BH link Andy, I hadn’t caught up with this.
Rob, what you’ve given is theory as to what they think the feedbacks should be and why they think it should be that way. In the case of water vapour there is no evidence whatsoever to back up their theory which is why it is wrong. John Cook says the following:
‘If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?’
Cook’s trying to say that it has to be positive feedback from water vapour otherwise we’d still be in the ice age. Empirical evidence proves him wrong in the current circumstances due to a missing hot spot – it isn’t water vapour feedback and the science proves it conclusively. An assumption has been made and it’s been proven wrong, otherwise you’d have to ignore the empirical evidence of 2 satellites, over 30,000,000 radiosondes, and the temperature records that reflect their findings, in preference of baseless speculation for a theory that doesn’t fit the observed reality.
“….where is the research that contradicts these 19th century results?”
It’s the “results” that are the problem in the first place Rob so there’s not much point looking for contra research. Dr Matthias Kleespies explains:-
“Tyndall thought he had measured absorption when he experimented with different gases (among them carbon dioxide and air freed from carbon dioxide) but had apparently only measured opacity which, in contrast to absorption, still includes a measure of reflected radiation. Other scientists, like Arrhenius, appear to have misunderstood Tyndall and also Fourier and additionally relied on inappropriate data sets to develop their theory”
And,
“According to [Timothy] Casey, Arrhenius had misquoted Fourier, “who maintained that closed spaces such as hotboxes (and by extension greenhouses) retained their heat by cutting off circulation with the cooler atmosphere.” Perhaps it is thus that it took almost 100 years for another scientist to “rediscover” Fourier’s findings and interpretations. In 1909, Robert W. Wood performed a very simple yet clear-cut experiment to determine why a real greenhouse made of glass is warmer than its surroundings. Wood asked himself: “Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere?””
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
Consulting Geologist
First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13
Revision 5 ISO: 2011-Dec-07
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
I would point out that radiative heat transfer science (what you deny remember Rob) has moved on since 1896 (alert Gareth too), you have to deal with this Rob:-
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png
And even if the IPCC curve is assumed to be valid, there’s no corroboration from observed DLR.
>”1) Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824)”
Fast forward to 2010 [Warning: Nahleisms]:-
‘Total emissivity of carbon dioxide and Its effect on tropospheric temperature’
Didactic Article
By Nasif Nahle
May 12, 2010
Abstract:
By applying generally accepted algorithms on radiative heat transfer, verified through experimentation by Hottel(1), Leckner(2) and other contemporary scientists and engineers(3)(4)(5), I have found that carbon dioxide molecules posses a low total emissivity at the current density of CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://www.biocab.org/ECO2.pdf
Quoting page 10:-
The change of temperature caused by the CO2 at its current concentration in the atmosphere, with the temperature of the air at 308 K:
To obtain the change of temperature caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere at its current concentration we must apply the following formula:
ΔT = Q / m (Cp)
ΔT = Change of temperature
Q = Amount of thermal energy in transit from the surface to the air
m = mass of carbon dioxide per cubic meter (taken from its current density which is 0.00069 Kg/m3)
Cp = Heat Capacity of carbon dioxide
Known values:
Q = 0.28 J (from the formula to obtain the energy flux)
m = 0.00069 Kg
Cp = 871 J/Kg K at 1 atm and 308 K.
Introducing magnitudes:
ΔT = Q / m (Cp)
ΔT = 0.28 J / 0.00069 Kg (871 J/Kg K) = 0.46 K [or 0.46 °C]
# # #
In English, the contribution CO2 makes to temperature at 308 K is 0.46 K
I think Nasif has an error on page 11, “ca. 4 K” should be ca [0.]4 K or 0.33 K (by eye), so that the reduction is from 35 K to 34.57 K – not 35 to 31.
CO2 is a refrigerant and is making a comeback in refrigeration, hence (quoting Nahle) “the conclusion is that carbon dioxide operates like a coolant in the atmosphere” and the graph on page 12.
See ‘CO2 Refrigeration Systems’:-
http://www.coldsystemsllc.com/co2-refrigeration.html
Too bad, RC, even your own “side” aren’t interested in your raves – you need to either publish, or shut up.
[mockery removed – RT]
Once again Rob doesn’t answer any questions or engage in intelligent conversation, but merely insults people, and tries to divert attention away from the missing hot-spot.
“you need….publish”
No I don’t “need” to publish. There’s already a body of publications (that you’re denying Rob) and it’s just a matter of applying that work to atmospheric conditions. Climate science makes no recourse to that body of established science, needless to say the IPCC have led govts around the world on a merry dance that’s distorting economics based on fallacy.
8 of those publications are listed here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/09/renowdens-foot-again-finds-his-mouth/#comment-122822
I’m guessing Gareth Renowden is oblivious to those publications since he subscribes to the “160 years of science” (his words) that you’ve presented (except for anything from 1954 onwards). You might like to alert him Rob – then he can deny them too.
“…where is the research that contradicts these 19th century results?”
Here
Nahle’s references:-
1. Hottel, H. C. Radiant Heat Transmission-3rd Edition. 1954. McGraw-Hill, NY.
2. Leckner, B. The Spectral and Total Emissivity of Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide. Combustion and Flame. Volume 17; Issue 1; August 1971, Pages 37-44.
3. Manrique, José Ángel V. Transferencia de Calor. 2002. Oxford University Press. England.
4. Modest, Michael F. Radiative Heat Transfer-Second Edition. 2003. Elsevier Science, USA and Academic Press, UK.
5. Pitts, Donald and Sissom, Leighton. Heat Transfer. 1998. McGraw-Hill, NY.
6. Chilingar; G. V., Khilyuk, L. F.; Sorokhtin, O. G. Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects; Volume 30, Issue: 1 January 2008; pages 1 – 9.
Eggert’s references:-
i Schumann, Reinhardt, Metallurgical Engineering, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, 1952 (Hottel’s curves)
ii Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves)
You just have to look Rob.
Have you actually read any of these references Richard? If so perhaps you would consider sharing the relevant parts.
>”Have you actually read any of these references Richard?”
No I haven’t (but I do have other heat transfer texts than those listed i.e. it’s a huge field) and neither has anyone at the IPCC (or if they have they haven’t let on) but the likes of Eggert and Nahle have. Viskanta and Mengo referenced what was available in 1987, hence:-
RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER IN COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
R. VISKANTA and M. P. MENGO, 1987
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/un/ipcc-science/#comment-117639
Abstract
An adequate treatment of thermal radiation heat transfer is essential to a mathematical model of the combustion process or to a design of a combustion system. This paper reviews the fundamentals of radiation heat transfer and some recent progress in its modeling in combustion systems. Topics covered include radiative properties of combustion products and their modeling and methods of solving the radiative transfer equations. Examples of sample combustion systems in which radiation has been accounted for in the analysis are presented. In several technologically important, practical combustion systems coupling of radiation to other modes of heat transfer is discussed. Research needs are identified and potentially promising research topics are also suggested.
Quoting:-
“An in-depth review of the world literature on the thermal radiation properties of gaseous combustion products (H20, CO2, CO, SO2, NO and N20 ) has recently been prepared. 4″
4. BLOKH, A. G., Heat TransJer in Steam Boiler Furnaces, Energoatomizdat, Leningrad (1984) (in Russian) (to be published by Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington, D.C.).
“Detailed reviews of radiation heat transfer in pulverized coal-fired furnaces are available. 4″272″299 Radiation heat transfer in furnaces is due to gaseous and particulate contributions. Emissivity data for the major emitting gaseous species CO2 and H20 are generally adequate. 4.64″
64. SAROFIM, A. F. and HOTTEL, H. C., Heat Transfer– 1978, Vol. 6, pp. 199-217, Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington, D.C. 11978).
“The expressions for the total emissivity and absorptivity of a gas in terms of the weighted sum of gray gases are useful especially for the zonal method of analysis of radiative transfer.
There are several curve-fitted expressions available in the literature for use in computer codes. Some of them are given in terms of polynomials 48- 50 and the others are expressed in terms of the weighted sum-of-gray gases. 51~-54″
48. LECKNER, B., Combust. Flame 19, 33 (1972).
49. MODAK, A. T., Fire Res. I, 339 11979).
50. STEWARD, F R. and KOCAEFE, Y. S., Heat TronsJer– 1986, C. L. Tien, V. P. Carey, and J. K. Ferrell (Eds), Vol. 2, pp. 735-740, Hemisphere Publishing Corp.,Washington, D.C. (1986).
51. TAYLOR, P. B. and FOSTER, P. J., Int. J. Heat Mass TransJer 17, 1591 11974).
52. SMrm, T. F., SHEN, Z. F. and FRIEDMAN, J. N., J. Heat Transfer 104. 602 (1982[
53. FARAG, I. H., Heat Transfer 1982, U. Grigull, E. Hahne, K. Stephan and J. Straub (Eds), VoL 2. pp. 489-492. Hemisphere, Washington, D.C. (1982).
54. COPALLE, A. and VERVlSCH, P., Combust. Flame 49. 101 11983).
# # #
That’s in addition to the 8 that you’ve asked if I’ve read and no I haven’t read any of these either.
Now Nick, don’t you think it would have been a good idea for the IPCC to have reviewed “the fundamentals of radiation heat transfer” and made “an in-depth review of the world literature on the thermal radiation properties of gaseous combustion products (H20, CO2, ….)” and kept pace with developments over successive years – 1990 onwards – so that their assessment reports would have a basis in state-of-the-art radiative heat transfer science?
>”…perhaps you would consider sharing the relevant parts”
Not from the texts but this paper is has some relevant parts (for the time being):-
EVALUATION OF EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS FOR H20-C02-N2/AIR MIXTURES AND COUPLING WITH SOLUTION METHODS OF THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION
N. Lallemant*, A. Sayret and R. Weber
1996
http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/users/papers/engr/ernesto/brazw/Project/Other/Research/Soot/Lallemant_EmissivityCorrelations.pdf
3. CORRELATIONS FOR PREDICTING THE TOTAL EMISSIVITY AND ABSORPTIVITY OF
COMBUSTION GASES
Emissivity correlations are usually limited to calculations of the CO, and H20 total emissivity. Mathematically, these models appear either in the form of the weighted sum of gray gases model (WSGGM)4-‘5 or in the form of polynomials.‘-3 Existing WSGGM are somewhat less general than the polynomial correlations since coefficients for the WSGGM have to be recalculated for each H20/ CO1 partial pressure ratio. Polynomial correlations such as those of Leckner2 and Modak3 do not feature such shortcomings; they involve many more fitted coefficients (e.g. 48 for each species in Modak’s model) but retain all the generality required to model total emissivity of gas mixtures. Both types of correlations are accurate enough and simple to use in engineering calculations. However, they are often limited to total emissivity calculations in volumes of gas with a mean beam length greater than 1 cm. This section surveys the total emissivity correlations presented in Table 2. Only the models which have been widely applied in CFD modeling of flames and engineering combustion problems are described.
3.2. Polynomial Approximations
The two most well-known and general total emissivity correlations using polynomials are those developed by L.eckne2 and Modak.3 Prior to these publications, Hadvig’ derived polynomial expressions to calculate the total emissivity of HzO-CO2 gas mixtures for pW/pC = 1 and pW/pC = 2. However, in view of the limited range of applicability of this model, it is excluded from the assessment in Section 4.
4. ASSESSMENT OF THE ACCURACY OF SEVERAL TOTAL EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS (HOMOGENOUS CALCULATIONS)
4.1. Generalities
In this section, the exponential wide band model (EWBM)25,26 is used to provide benchmark data to validate the total emissivity models developed by Johnson6 Leckner,2 Taylor and Foster,’ Modak,3 Smith et a1.,13 Coppale and Vervish14 and Steward and Kocaefe” (see Table 2).
# # #
Note that the Leckner and Modak models are simplifications but that the IPCC curve is in effect, a simplification of a simplification.
The question now is: how do the models implement RT if not by Leckner or Modak models (because they don’t)? I saw this by a GP Alldredge responding to John Eggert:-
“The one thing they [the models] cannot do in the clear sky parts of their models is do the line-by-line integrations, because those are too compute-intensitive for climate model runs; they must rely on doing the line-by-line integrations offline, and then building look-up tables or parametric interpolating functions to represent the line-by-line effects during the model runs”
Also, a GCM group can out-source their RT to an external RT module (RTM) specialist e.g. AER. An RTM undergoes extensive V&V e.g. AER’s RRTMG v Observations here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-28767
The problem then is: what do the GCM modelers do once the faithfully V&V’d RTM is integrated? Ans: they distort RT by IPCC imposed RCP forcing scenarios:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-29104
But the NCAR CAM model for example has a ramping facility (you’ll have to follow your nose through the NCAR CAM links above to the manuals) and I presume others do to. Basically they have a sliding scale to “ramp” up or down in their parameter settings. I’m wondering if the one CMIP5 group that has managed to mimic 21st century absolute temperature and trajectory has ramped GHGs down to 0 i.e. effectively negating the RCP scenarios and relying on the veracity of their RTM.
Clive Best had the old GISS Model II running on his PC and there’s also a low-cost EdGCM package that approximates the model that runs on a PC too. Best:-
“I have installed the model on a MAC mini running OS10.6.8 with a 2.4Ghz Core2 processor and 2 Gbytes of memory. The full model simulation took 33 hours to complete, generated over 2 Gbytes of output”
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=3669
The interesting part though – for the purposes of this pursuit – is this:-
“Radiative transfer through the atmosphere uses profiles for clouds/water vapor, CO2 etc. and a model for ocean and land albedo is included. Much of this is summarised nicely in a (Masters) thesis I found on the Internet by Melissa Kelly”
2. A Survey of Climate Sensitivity and Response Rates in EdGCM, Mellisa Kelly, Dickinson College, Carlisle PA
http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?cluster=891358878928738105&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
It’s the “profiles” for CO2 that are critical – how are they derived, what are they, and how are they applied?
Kelly page 5:-
——————
In order to reduce the complexity of the climate system enough that it can be simulated on a computer, global climate models divide the Earth into a three-dimensional grid scheme and iterate numeric calculations over each grid cell (Ananthaswamy 2011). The input variables in the system are sorted into two categories: parameters and forcings.
Parameters are non-dynamic input variables, such as land cover and topography, which are specified within the program and serve as boundary conditions for the grid cell. Some dynamic processes are often approximated by parameterization if the grid resolution in the model is too low to properly calculate them.”
“Forcings, by contrast, are time-variable input variables which are allowed to change throughout the course of a simulation. Solar radiation is the Earth’s primary forcing, but atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and orbital variations also play essential roles. Output variables are the quantities computed using the program’s underlying equations. These include surface air temperature, sea surface temperature, net radiation, planetary albedo, cloud cover, precipitation, evaporation, and many more which researchers would want to track changes in over the course of a simulation.”
———————
The essential part with respect to forcings being: “Output variables are the quantities computed using the program’s underlying equations”
GISS base the veracity of models on pre-21st century performance and say:-
“Some atmosphere-ocean models [Lucarini and Russell, 2002] are able to reproduce the spatial pattern of climate change over the past 40 years by changing greenhouse gases only”
Problem is: that reproduction no linger holds good in the 21st century (and didn’t around the 1940s either). The quote is from the intro of GISS information sheet:-
‘4×3 ATMOSPHERE-OCEAN MODEL FORMULATION’
http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/DOC4X3/ATMOC4X3.TXT
Unfortunately, 13. Radiation, tells us nothing of Kelly’s “underlying equations”. We can however, infer a great deal from EdGCM in Kelly’s appendix:-
b. Table of Global Average Responses (Changes from Baseline) for Equilibrium
Perturbation Experiments [page 46], and,
c. Tables of Latitudinal Average Responses [page 47 – 48].
From b:-
Perturbation, Surface Air Temperature (deg C)
+1 ppm 0.03 C
+5 ppm 0.15 C
+10 ppm 0.27 C
+50 ppm 1.17 C
We can check if EdGCM (and Models II & E) conforms to the IPCC CO2 forcing expression:
dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) and Co 369.52 2000 in W.m2 at tropopause (with EdGCM implied CS λ)
+1 ppm 0.014 W.m2 (λ 2.14)
+5 ppm 0.07 W.m2 (λ 2.14)
+10 ppm 0.14 W.m2 (λ 1.93)
+50 ppm 0.68 W.m2 (λ 1.72)
From 2000 to 2011 there was a 22 ppm CO2 rise (391.57 – 369.52) but no rise in temperature vs EdGCM’s approx 0.67 C for the same period. Kelly tells us the underlying code is the same for EdGCM and Model II and that EdGCM is more sensitive (yields greater temperature) than the new GISS Model E (far better resolution). The respective sensitivities are (2xCO2, e.g. +369.52 ppm from 369.52 at 2000 = 739 ppm) from Kelly:-
EdGCM CS (λ) +5.18°C
GISS E CS (λ) +2.7°C
EdGCM obviously doesn’t conform to dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) because CS (λ) is reducing from 2.14 as concentration approaches 2xCO2 rather than increasing towards 5.18. This divergence and non-conformance will be similar in Model E I suspect.
From this we can deduce that Model E would probably yield a 2011 temperature of about 0.35 C above 2000 levels on average ignoring other forcings (as GISS implies is possible above). This hasn’t happened therefore the GISS model rationale is flawed beginning with the equations that convert CO2 concentration to forcing.
From 2000 to 2011 the Model E “underlying equations” yield, on average, an effective CO2-to-temperature forcing factor of 0.016 (0.35/22 but for 2011 only). This factor, although not constant, represents the “ramping” in the model (I think) and the variation of the factor is due to “steps” (I think). If that ramping were set to 0 for period 2000 – 2011, the model would probably mimic the 0C rise. Any steps in that period would have to be set to 0 too.
But then the CO2 spin-up data to 2000 would have to be replaced with an appropriate forcing too. What would that be I wonder?
Samoht (Thomas) has made an appearance at #7 (my emphasis):-
Samoht doesn’t deign to grace us with his presence here anymore – I’m sad. But if he does, I have a long memory.
but then the main post starts with
so I’d hardly expect a polite thread.
A weak response, Magoo – you merely repeat your original claim, which shows you have either not read, or not understood, the scientific evidence for a lower bound to climate sensitivity.
Which, I guess, explains why you prefer this intellectual backwater, where “truthiness” reigns supreme.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/417670/august-09-2012/who-s-honoring-me-now—-psychonomic-bulletin—review
Ok Rob. No evidence for positive feedback from water vapour? Nobody else has been able to do so either so it was no surprise.
No hot spot = no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour = no AGW (no cause therefore no effect). Avoiding the issue by substituting the broader subject of climate sensitivity in the place of evidence for WV positive feedback shows that you have no evidence. How can people believe in AGW theory when there’s no evidence for the biggest part of it? That is why those who believe in AGW avoid this issue like the plague.
I won’t be back for a while as I have two major papers that I need to complete and will be too busy. In the meantime perhaps you’d like to consider the issue of what evidence there is for water vapour positive feedback alone, and why the broader subject of theoretical climate sensitivity is not a viable substitute for the issue. Find evidence of the hot spot or water vapour positive feedback – without them all the articles in the world on climate sensitivity are nothing but speculative guesses, as are the corresponding failed climate models.
BS, Magoo; climate sensitivity parametrises net forcing, including feedbacks, and is constrained by several independent lines of evidence, which I have provided references to.
Rather than deal with those, you seek refuge in the short-term noise in the system, ignoring the increasingly clear long-term signal, then do a runner… most impressive!
As for Bob’s invocation of the LIA, what, pray, is the net forcing behind the “rebound”?
Or does it just, like, um, you know, kinda happen, man…?
>”As for Bob’s invocation of the LIA, what, pray, is the net forcing behind the “rebound”?”
A 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity (including 50% rise in UV) since the Maunder minimum (IPCC 0.12 W/m2).
‘Reconstruction of solar spectral irradiance since the Maunder minimum’
Krivova, Vieira and Solanki, 2010
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/j317.pdf
—– the Maunder minimum was in the 17th century!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/
Rob Taylor:
This is a very typical response from Rob. He himself doesn’t understand his own scientific claims, merely parroting John Cook (a cartoonist) and Real Climate (an activist site).
How about you discuss the actual science, Rob, as laid out in real scientific papers? That is what everybody else is doing, or hadn’t you noticed?
As a matter of fact, Bob, no, I had not noticed any such thing. I do see, however, frequent recourse to the hoary old catechisms of the Church of Denial, such as the “missing hot spot disproves AGW” and the “Arctic ice loss was caused by a storm”.
Strangely – given the spirit of scientific enquiry that you say pervades this site – none of you seem interested in what powered that storm, which is the same thing that is causing the ice to melt – warmer sea water in the Arctic.
Perhaps this will help you get up to speed:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2011/01/27/warming-north-atlantic-water-tied-heating-arctic-according-new-study
But you can help me with one thing, Bob; has NZCSET paid NIWA’s $100 K + legal costs yet? Or will you be hiding behind the skirts of your “charitable status”?
So we see waters in the Arctic have risen over the last 150 years. This is no surprise to anyone, since this has been measured everywhere due to the recovery from the LIA.
However, nowhere is any observational evidence submitted that Arctic storms have been growing stronger as a result. It is also unlikely to be unprecedented if true, as we know the Arctic was as warm in the 1930/40s (Howat 2007), and also in the MWP, the RWP and the Minoan WP.
Try again.
I don’t know. You’ll have to ask them.
>”The team believes that the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent are tied to the enhanced heat transfer from the North Atlantic Ocean”
And where did the NA Ocean heat originate?
‘Coupled Response of Global Climate to Solar Cycle Forcing’
Yafang Zhong
2005
http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/resources/publications/pdfs/CCR_917.pdf
Page 14:-
“Meanwhile in North Pacific, the solar signals propagate along the subtropical gyre. Negative anomalies emerge with Kuroshio extension at lag 25-year (fig. 13c). They start
to travel northeastward, and turn southward at lag 30-year (fig. 13d) after bumping onto the eastern boundary. ”
The “solar signals” originate from cycles described page 4:-
“The appreciable role of solar forcing is most clear in upper 450-meter ocean heat content in case of Gleissberg cycle. The correlation between Gleissberg cycle and HC450 is high up to .6, in other word, 36% of total variance is attributable to solar forcing. This fairly high correlation is a hint for a plausible role of slow solar variations in ocean-atmosphere coupled system.”
Hence,
THE SOLAR WOLF-GLEISSBERG CYCLE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE EARTH
Shahinaz M. Yousef
2000
http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
From the abstract:-
“The Solar Wolf-Gleissberg cycle stimulate solar forcing on terrestrial phenomena’s as evident from the pattern of Global temperature (both air and ocean temperatures). Solar Wolf- Gleissberg periodicity is marked in a wide range of terrestrial evidences since millions of years and is still at work. It is found that climatic fluctuations are induced at the turning points of such cycles.”
Fig 13: a) Eleven yr. running means of the annual sunspot number (i.e Wolf-Gleissberg cycle) and mean global mean sea surface temperature shown as departures from the 1951-80) average in units of 0.01k (lower light curve). Heavy curves are least squares 7th degree polynomial fits to the data. b) Same as (a) for the three major basins ( after Reid 2000).
Note the striking control of the solar Wolf- Gleissberg cycle on SST of major oceans as well as global mean SST.
Fig 14 : The effect of Wolf- Gleissberg cycle (continuous line)on the modulation of El Nino frequency(broken line) for more than 300 years.
The solar cycles are the explanation of recent ocean heat accumulation AND the explanation of El Nino modulation, a large amplitude occurrence of which set off the recent Arctic SIE decline.
Also, Lean TSI vs SST, TSI advanced 10 yrs
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/fig4-ra.jpg
No-one can make correlations anywhere like the above using CO2 concentration AND the anthropogenic component of DLR Rob. And before you can even START talking about causation mechanisms, you must have the correlations. You (of AGW) don’t have those correlations Rob, we (of natural cycles) do.
>”Perhaps this will help you get up to speed:”
The title of the article is: ‘Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study’ January 27, 2011
“up to speed”? “new study”? This is OLD news, just search Google Scholar:-
arctic+atmosphere+temperature+warming+north+atlantic+ocean
1st page returned,
‘Arctic warming – Evolution and Spreading of the 1990s warm event in the Nordic Seas and the Arctic Ocean’
Karcher et al 2003 http://epic.awi.de/4807/
“The focus of the work presented here is on the temperature rise which occurred in the Atlantic layer of the Arctic Ocean in the early 1990s.The model favorably reproduces the development and subsequent propagation of temperature anomalies in the water of Atlantic origin in the Northwest European Shelf area and along the Norwegian coast. These anomalies propagate into the Arctic Ocean via the Barents Sea and the Fram Strait”
“Intensified boundary currents during the high NAO state in the first half of the 1990s significantly influence amplitude and speed of the temperature anomalies inside the Arctic Ocean”
# # #
What new advance of any import was made by Spielhagen et al and reported in 2011 that the work of Karcher et al in 2003 had not already provided?
Example of RealClimate advocacy when threatened by actual science:
So when they can’t answer the questions, they delete the questions.