Wave takes dog, owner yells global warming
The beach at St Clair, Dunedin, in a bit of breeze. Photo ODT
On Monday came a story of blatant disregard of nature’s power. A woman walks a small dog on a beach pounded by violent waves. A large wave swamps them and the dog is swept away.
Source: ‘Rogue wave’ sweeps dog from owner – Otago Daily Times
Passers-by watched in horror as a “rogue wave” surged up to engulf a woman and her dog walking on a Dunedin beach yesterday.
More rogue owner than rogue wave
“What the hell is that woman doing on the beach?” exclaimed a local resident. Then, sadly, the little dog was gone. Its owner had been heedless of the raging ocean.
But by Tuesday she had been tracked down and interviewed. Clearly too embarrassed to admit to negligence, she blamed climate change for the sad loss of her dog. Of all the diverse ills blamed on global warming past or planned, losing little dogs to the raging sea is the least credible.
Then the newspaper seeks comments from professors of earth science—following the practice of ringing the Met Office to confirm that it’s raining. The professors prove reluctant to directly contradict the woman’s stupid claim of global warming and instead make haste to corroborate it. Which turns an implausible claim into an unscientific, if heart-breaking, headline (you heard it here first):
Global warming kills your little dog too
A Jack Russell terrier swept under big waves near St Clair was a victim of rising tides and climate change, her owner says.
Dog-owner and daughter, consumed by sorrow, but newly recruited as special ambassadors for global warming. They hold a treasured photo of their missing dog Ali, who is thought to have been swept away near St Clair Beach on Sunday. Photo ODT – Peter McIntosh
Source: Swamped dog ‘victim of climate change’ | Otago Daily Times Online News
Opinion formed from scientific observation
“I’d never seen waves like this before; everything’s intensifying. I think we’ve all been quite blasé about global warming. People don’t like to say it’s happening, but it is,” said the upset owner. There’s clearly no question of guilt, then, just global warming.
Cue first professor (geography, University of Otago), Mike Hilton, who was reluctant to give unqualified approval to the lady’s feeble-minded suggestion but seems to sympathise with it. He said the waves had been “unusually high” at St Clair and St Kilda Beaches in recent days, due to low air pressure, an especially high tide and widely-spaced waves.
He said those conditions created a “perfect storm” for erosion, thus successfully linking Monday’s sea conditions off Dunedin, rightly or wrongly, with one of the most horrific climate-related movies of the last 20 years—an association that was surely intended, though this was not the first erosion event there, as he admits.
Professor Hilton said the sea was “up to half a metre higher than it should’ve been,” a curious assessment, for it was what it was, and who is he to say what it should have been? He does not directly assert that ‘climate change’ caused the higher waves, but given the context he definitely suggests it—and then leaves the question hanging. Good to see another impartial academic talking up the threat of postulated man-made global warming without making such explicit forecasts or giving such explicit causes that he might later be brought to task over them. Clever him.
Air cannot heat underlying water
Next he actually mentions climate change, saying rising sea level as a result of climate change was one part of the picture, but not the whole picture.
Of course it’s not the whole picture, because at about 1.8 mm PER YEAR, or 180 mm (7 inches) PER CENTURY, you tend to overlook the effect of climate change when the waves are over 2 metres, not to mention the simple fact that none of that 180 mm is caused by anthropogenic global warming, dangerous or otherwise, because SCIENCE KNOWS OF NO MECHANISM whereby OUR ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS CAN, BY RADIATION ALONE, significantly WARM THE OCEAN. Sorry for shouting.
He said the “spring high tides” were now bigger than they were 100 years ago. “Not much higher – only 20cm or 30cm higher – but that can make a difference,” he said. Perhaps it can, but not to the dog. Ordinary storm, ordinary dog, distracted owner. Nothing to do with spring tides or global warming.
“So, there’s some element of climate change in what we experienced over the weekend.” Yes, well, “some” doesn’t scare us, professor, since the central, nay the entire question of climate scepticism is “how much”. It’s not about the possibilities, it’s about the magnitude. Anything is possible, but tell us how big it will be. You’re not telling lies, but you’re just not telling the whole truth, mate.
In the future, “the climate change element to these events is going to get bigger and bigger,” he said. Let’s all hope it finally gets big enough that we can detect a human influence. Then perhaps our scientists will stop making outrageous suggestions and instead talk plainly.
“But most of it is just a coincidence.” That’s good, I commend him for that; now maybe a few people might stop connecting every single weather event with ‘climate change’.
SREX – tropical cyclone frequency will decline
Now let’s visit VUW to check in with James Renwick.
Victoria University of Wellington professor of physical geography James Renwick told Radio NZ that extreme weather events posed a risk to New Zealand’s coast. Well, they always did and they always will—though I note that the IPCC’s report on extreme weather events, SREX (pdf, 19.5 MB), gives no reason to suspect more frequent storms here or anywhere. It expresses confidence in “a reduction in the numbers of mid-latitude storms” and does not think tropical cyclone activity will increase—in fact it considers that global tropical cyclone frequency will decline.
Of course, this is James’s field, so he knows this. I wonder why he didn’t mention it? Too technical or too revealing?
“We’re a long, narrow country with a lot of coast and a lot of people live near the coast … and if one thing is for sure, it’s that sea levels are rising.”
Hey, that’s true! The country is long and narrow, many of us do live on the coast and the sea level is still rising. We can’t fault the professor on that, eh?
Mutely imparts falsehoods
He goes on: “It does pose a very serious problem. Over time we do have to look at moving back from the present coastline because the coastline is going to move inland – that’s the reality.”
Thus he hides the truth, he deceives, he exaggerates and he mutely imparts falsehoods. We’re left undeniably with the impression that the problem of sea level rise is serious and imminent, the move inland is imminent and because it’s our doing we could prevent it—when nothing could be further from the truth.
Sea levels are rising slowly, but from natural, not human causes, because our minute emissions of gas cannot warm the ocean, and for 20 years there has been no global warming from any cause; it’s reasonable to suppose that total human emissions have some influence on the temperature of the air, but so far that influence has not been quantified and scientific opinion on its likely magnitude varies widely. The IPCC waffles ambiguously about an “air-sea energy flux” to attribute some ocean warming to our emissions but cites no science to explain a mechanism. Observations so far show that substantial oceanic heating is accomplished only by the sun, geothermal activity and nothing else.
Prof Renwick uses the expression ‘over time’; I wonder what sort of period he means? One analysis concludes that the period over which a rise of about 180 mm per century could become a “very serious problem” varies enormously according to location but might be as soon as 200 to 400 years from now (Treadgold, R., 2015, personal communication). At least that gives us plenty of time to worry, even if not to act.
Wicked witches? More like wicked scientists. Pretend for a moment that we’re your students, Mike and James, and that we’re prepared to learn: speak plainly.
Views: 403
Hard to believe people can be that stupid but that’s what indoctrination does I suppose. A young boy was swept away by a large wave at MtM in summer but not a word about climate change. A dog, a silly owner, and it’s different apparently.
Conflation of wave height and tide height with SLR at the current natural rate (or any rate) is bizarre. What does it matter to the wind or the moon what the level of the sea is?
And for more indoctrination the pope’s 192 page encyclical is a doozy:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.pdf
My first brief skim I see eco-socialism, neo-paganism (or just Catholism’s roots?), , “ecological conversion”, Marxism without the industry (hammer and sickle without the hammer), and a bastardization of the bible to boot.
Morano has this at Climate Depot:
‘Pope turns lobbyist?! Urges prayers for passage of UN climate treaty! Tells faithful ‘to ask God for a positive outcome’ for Paris UN agreement’
Pope Francis: ‘We believers cannot fail to ask God for a positive outcome to the present discussions, so that future generations will not have to suffer the effects of our ill-advised delays.’
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano comment: “No matter how nuanced and faithful to Catholic teachings this encyclical attempts to be, this passage where the Pope urges Catholics to ‘ask God for a positive outcome’ to the current UN global warming treaty process, will overpower every other message. The Pope is clearly endorsing a specific UN political climate treaty and essentially declaring he is on a mission from God to support a UN climate treaty. He even conjures up the comical concept of climate ‘tipping points’.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06/18/pope-urges-prayers-for-un-climate-treaty-tells-faithful-to-to-ask-god-for-a-positive-outcome-to-the-present-discussions-of-the-un/
On the Pope thing, as I mentioned previously, that we could expect the usual suspects that spend their time mocking Christianity to be all over the Pope on this one.
And I see that both Greenpeace NZ and the Green Party NZ (The latter the political wing of the former) are waxing lyrical about the Papal statements on Facebook.
Who needs scientists when you have the main Earth Rep for Big G behind your cause?
I do feel sorry for the dog though.
>”waxing lyrical about the Papal statements”
Well yes, much of it is mumbo jumbo, “poetic” apparently, so lyrical is appropriate. And very little on climate change and what is is just opinion, it’s already been pointed out that it doesn’t even reference the IPCC reports.
But if it is predicated on belief that Jesus is the son of God as Roman Catholicism is (I think) and you don’t believe that then the whole thing is moot. This criteria escapes the Gaia faithful but they’re gung ho anyway..
And if one doesn’t accept the Pope as spiritual authority and then only of Christianity (many Christians don’t, let alone other faiths) then the whole thing is moot also. The encyclical tries very hard to be inclusive of all humanity and even “creatures”, contrary to the predicate above, but no acceptance of spiritual authority, no acceptance of the encyclical required. It’s not even hard-and-fast doctrine for Catholics.
Same if one doesn’t give a hoot about the Popes scientific credentials, he’s not a climate expert (who is?), he’s just regurgitating the agit prop he’s been prompted with by activist scientists (think Schellenhuber, Oreskes). Again the whole thing is moot, no acceptance required.
I think (but I’ll have to read more) It’s because the encyclical defers much to biblical “example” rather than doctrinal theology (some of that too) and spends much print on more paganistic veins and language that it appeals to the greens. This was why Roman Catholicism never really separated from old world mysticism (check out the Papal symbolism and icons for proof of that). They didn’t want to lose that constituency. Looks like it was a successful strategy, albeit worldly and non-spiritual. Not sure that the master planner (think “new heaven and new earth”) would agree with it though.
Hopefully there is a dog heaven.
OMG! You think there might not be?
>”But if it is predicated on belief that ……..”
Pope Francis: ‘We believers…….[see Morano quote above]
I rest my case. This is not an encyclical for non-Roman Catholic non-believers. A non-believer at Greenpeace/Green Party cannot just pick the bits out that suit them. If they don’t believe in God then it’s not for them, they can’t adopt it even though the language is beguiling and some of it appeals to them.
Even Roman Catholics will have different views on it.
And non-RC believers can skip the encyclical and make their own mind up from their own frame of reference which just happens to include the bible (not the RC version though). The strictly rational mind skips both documents of course.
“The strictly rational mind skips both documents of course.”
Does it? Let me be slightly provocative: What explanation does the “rational mind” (whatever that might be) provide for the presence of the universe? It seems to me that the cause of the universe does not lie within the material parts of the universe and is, at least so far, self-evidently undetectable. If that’s not an oxymoron. Therefore, rational mind or not, a cause must be sought beyond the senses, beyond the instruments and beyond the usual level of thinking. This is not, however, so far away: bear in mind that any description of law, for example, lies in a realm of thought and reason beyond the senses.
I’ve just realised that I should before too long start another thread for this or stand convicted of off-topic discussion!
If heaven is carpeted in wind turbines then I’ll opt for hell, thanks
Andy,
Just in case your heavenly remark is in response to my metaphysics (it’s hard to tell), I should point out there are robust, long-standing explanations of causal influences that don’t need the moral shoring of either heaven or hell.
*** To clarify, because I didn’t mean to disagree with anything said here: there are robust, long-standing explanations of causal influences that don’t need the moral shoring of either heaven or hell, yet are spiritual or religious in tone. ***
Just remind any of the eco-zealots that are fawning over the Pope that the same people criticise Roy Spencer for his Christian views.
Yes, the brotherly even-handedness is inspiring. At least, it could be.
Did I make heavenly remarks? My cheesecake is to die for, but not sure about any remarks.
Heh. When you opted for hell, I thought the remark heavenly. Cheesecake? Please send immediately.
>”OMG! You think there might not be?”
Oops, apologies for introducing a shadow of doubt. The hope still stands though.
97% of dog owners think that dog heaven exists.
Shh! I’m reading Delingpole on the end of Western Civ.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/15/caroline-criado-perez-and-the-death-of-western-civilization/
>”the “rational mind” (whatever that might be) ”
In terms of the Enlightenment (1650–1800), it’s this:
Skepticism
Another undercurrent that threatened the prevailing principles of the Enlightenment was skepticism. Skeptics questioned whether human society could really be perfected through the use of reason and denied the ability of rational thought to reveal universal truths. Their philosophies revolved around the idea that the perceived world is relative to the beholder and, as such, no one can be sure whether any truths actually exist.
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/enlightenment/summary.html
In other words the rational mind is restricted by human reason (“the usual level of thinking”). The Pope does a lot of rationalizing in the encyclical, to the extent of rationalizing God’s idea of how his world creation should turn out. That doesn’t reconcile at all well with the prophecies of Revelation unfortunately.
So if the rational mind wishes to introduce some “godliness” into plans for the world, even the Papal view, then it better be careful what it wishes for given the God in biblical Revelation. Obviously not the scenario the green or rational mind would prefer.
The legacy of the Enlightenment from the Sparknotes summary above and linked again:
The Enlightenment developed through a snowball effect: small advances triggered larger ones, and before Europe and the world knew it, almost two centuries of philosophizing and innovation had ensued. These studies generally began in the fields of earth science and astronomy, as notables such as Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei took the old, beloved “truths” of Aristotle and disproved them. Thinkers such as René Descartes and Francis Bacon revised the scientific method, setting the stage for Isaac Newton and his landmark discoveries in physics.
From these discoveries emerged a system for observing the world and making testable hypotheses based on those observations.
At the same time, however, scientists faced ever-increasing scorn and skepticism from people in the religious community, who felt threatened by science and its attempts to explain matters of faith.
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/enlightenment/summary.html
# # #
Climate science does not follow this method but I suspect the Vatican is very comfortable with that because the RC church is not threatened by this politically driven “science” as it was then, on the contrary, it’s an opportunity. Hence the encyclical entwining of RC theology with green ideology – it is not incompatible if it can be made to merge by Papal decree.
The Enlightenment was something that rose out of the long Dark Ages which were dominated by religion.
I’m very much fascinated by the Enlightenment. At the same time, I respect those that hold religious views and support them, even though I am of a more secular disposition myself.
Despite the decline of today’s organised religion, I don’t see the rise of a new Enlightenment, or a resurgence of the old one. In fact quite the opposite, we seem to be heading towards a new Dark Ages, driven by the irrational secular religion of environmentalism and identity politics.
The Enlightenment fascinates me too Andy. Not least the breaking of the RC shackles, although the theological shift had started with Luther and the Reformation some 200 years earlier than the scientific
And as you say there doesn’t seem to be a resurgence either religiously or secularly. The biblical description of the religious (Christian) malaise is a prophesied “falling away” and on those grounds, to be expected. No explanation for the secular-scientific except post-modernism perhaps. Worse, the anti-capitalist religious and secular are now hand in hand on a course for eco-socialism as you allude a little. This being an amalgamation of two parallel resurgences and actually a rejection of the notion of God as originally (esp Marxism below).
Not everything that came out of the Enlightenment was good, just the opposite. The French Revolution went badly, from Sparknotes above:
The End of the Enlightenment
“What ultimately and abruptly killed the Enlightenment, however, was the French Revolution [1789 until 1799]. Begun with the best intentions by French citizens inspired by Enlightenment thought, the revolution attempted to implement orderly representative assemblies but quickly degraded into chaos and violence. Many people cited the Enlightenment-induced breakdown of norms as the root cause of the instability and saw the violence as proof that the masses could not be trusted to govern themselves. Nonetheless, the discoveries and theories of the Enlightenment philosophers continued to influence Western society for centuries.”
Best intentions and unintended consequences.
The Communist Manifesto issued by Marx in 1848 had its underpinnings in the French Revolution. From Wiki:
“It also briefly features their [Marx and Engels] ideas for how the capitalist society of the time would eventually be replaced by socialism, and then finally communism.”
Well, that’s basically what Figueres, Oreskes, et al are saying along with the equivalent of the “orderly representative assemblies” of the French Revolution which is global eco government by technocrats. And now maybe the Pope too but I’ll have to read the encyclical in detail. That’s the impression but I might have got that wrong it’s such wordy screed. He is supporting the UN unreservedly, that’s a fact.
But the UN’s “transformative” agenda doesn’t seem enlightened to me, more like a new Dark Ages as you suggest Andy.
Oreskes writes,
“The loss of pet cats and dogs garnered particular attention among wealthy Westerners, but what was anomalous in 2023 soon became the new normal. A shadow of ignorance and denial had fallen over people who considered themselves children of the Enlightenment.”
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2014/09/doomed-kittens-puppies/
It all started on the beach at St Clair with the first dog to pay with its life. Destined for sainthood, canonized by Pope Francis even. This is no ordinary dog. It all fits:
Saint Clare, a follower of Saint Francis of Assisi http://www.marypages.com/ClareAssisi.htm
See?
‘The Return of Catholic Anti-Modernism’
Written by R. R. Reno, First Things on 18 June 2015.
Commentators are sure to make the false claim that Pope Francis has aligned the Church with modern science. They’ll say this because he endorses climate change. But that’s a superficial reading of Laudato Si. In this encyclical, Francis expresses strikingly anti-scientific, anti-technological, and anti-progressive sentiments. In fact, this is perhaps the most anti-modern encyclical since the Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX’s haughty 1864 dismissal of the conceits of the modern era.
Interesting perspective>>>>>>>
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-return-of-catholic-anti-modernism.html
The Pope issues an encyclical against air-conditioning?
Andrew Bolt Blog
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/pope_rants_against_airconditioning/
It is hard to read an encyclical with such passages as a religious document.
But worse is that it contains so much emotional and apocalyptic claptrap of the kind we’d expect in a fundraising pamphlet from Greenpeace but not in a papal encyclical:
“The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor.”
A “sickness evident in the soil”? And in “all forms of life”? The earth “laid waste”? Seriously?
Maybe the new religion of warmo-catholicism needs some new icons
The Blessed Birdchoppers
The Holy Hockey Stick.
And the Awesome Al-Gore-ithms in our Climate Models
>”Air cannot heat underlying water”
Thomas at HT has an interesting lecture to Andy:
Thomas June 20, 2015 at 10:14 pm
Yes Andy the source of the energy heating the oceans (and the rest of the Earth) is the Sun.
However, the equilibrium temperature reached by the oceans is a function with a strong dependency on the IR radiation exchange balance between the ocean surface and the atmosphere and also the temperature of the atmosphere above the oceans with which the oceans are exchanging IR energy. As De Lange tells us, about 40% of the outgoing heat fux of the oceans is the IR exchange between itself and the atmosphere. Water has an emissivity in the IR bands of close to 1. And if you know your Physics you will know that the absorptivity is equal to the emissivity. Water is a close to perfect absorber of IR.
Now if you alter the atmospheric IR properties or its temperature you will alter the equilibrium temperature that the oceans will end up with. A bit like if you were to alter the IR properties of your greenhouse glazing or install double glazing you will alter the equilibrium temp of your greenhouse without any need to modify the insolation. Comprehendo?
We are adding GHG into the atmosphere – a 40% increase of CO2 over postindustrial levels with a century is probably unprecedented in its rate in the geological record. As a result the Earth and certainly the Oceans are getting warmer.
So yes, we are currently warming the oceans by way of altering the IR energy exchange balance between the Ocean surface and the Atmosphere through warming the Atmosphere due to changes in the IR properties of the Atmosphere.
De Lange stated that this is not affecting the ocean temperatures. He behaves like these armchair climate guys who keep telling themselves that the temperature of a colder surface (Atmosphere) cannot effect the temperature of a warmer surface (Ocean) it is exchanging IR radiation with! If you have a problem with that last statement then pick up a physics textbook before posting on the matter and get caught with your pants at your ankles….
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nzs-paris-emissions-commitments-should-be-40-by-2030-and-100-or-more-by-2050/#comment-46410
Thomas thinks there’s a longwave IR “balance” at the AO interface – there isn’t.
There’s a large total energy imbalance in the tropics where there is more total energy ingress than egress but more longwave IR egress than ingress.
Earlier Thomas quotes De Lange, (2003):
“The oceans derive almost all of their thermal energy from the sun, and none from infrared radiation in the atmosphere.”
And,
“On average oceans lose 53% as latent heat due to evaporation, 41% as infrared emissions, and 6% by conduction to the atmosphere.”
This roughly corresponds to the global average figures of Trenberth et al. (2009), see Figure 1:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200904/trenberth.cfm
80 + 63 + 17 = 160 W.m-2. 80 is 50%, 63 is 39%, and 17 is 10.6%.
The net OLR – DLR is OLR of 63 W.m-2 i.e. “none from [longwave] infrared radiation” as per De Lange and Trenberth et al.
Thomas, oddly, disagrees with these total energy flow estimates and fixates on radiation:
“Fair to assume he has not much of an idea at all about radiation energy exchange otherwise the complete contradiction of his first statement and the one above might have dawned on him. Hint: Kirchhoff Laws… (for those with some interest in Physics..)”
There is no contradiction. The first is ingress (shortwave radiation), the second is egress (latent heat of evaporation, longwave radiation, and sensible heat).
Thomas goes on,
“The IR properties of the atmosphere and the GHG concentrations of the same are a vital component of defining the net radiation balance between the ocean surface and the atmosphere above and thereby the equilibrium temperature of the ocean surface. In other words, rising GHG will result in a shift to warmer surface temps. ”
No Thomas, the “vital component” is the overwhelming globally averaged 161 W.m-2 shortwave solar ingress (DSR). In the tropics in excess of 24 W.m-2 energy accumulation which must be dissipated elsewhere.
And there is no “net radiation balance” at the AO interface anywhere on the planet except maybe in some very rare where situations DSR equals OLR (where OLR is OLR – DLR). The ocean is on average about 3 C warmer then the air above it but the solar/temperature variation is huge from equator to poles hence the energy accumulation in the tropics and dissipation towards the poles.
As for equilibrium, that is a matter of centuries if no change occurs to input but the sun is not constant in the long-term and the surface solar radiation (SSR) certainly isn’t in the short-term i.e. the ocean surface temperature is never actually in equilibrium; it is constantly seeking equilibrium but the conditions keep changing.
Thomas is confusing a fictitious radiation balance at the AO interface with total energy budget – and he’s a physics teacher?
[Thomas] – “Water is a close to perfect absorber of IR”
A, B, or C IR? And to what depth?
Downwelling IR is IR-A/B in the solar range (DSR) and IR-C in the atmospheric range (DLR). And energy absorption is rather different across the ranges, as is the energy:
‘Optical Absorption of Water Compendium’
“The data is surprisingly consistent. Plot a couple for yourself, or you can just look at (Segelstein) or (Hale and Querry) or (Wieliczka).” [hotlinks]
http://omlc.org/spectra/water/abs/index.html
IR-A/B does work (heating agent, energy-per-photon in eV), IR-C doesn’t (net IR-C is a cooling agent, energy-per-photon in meV)). Respective effective penetration 1m vs 10 microns, maximum about 19m vs 100 microns. Net IR-C is OLR because the water is already energized to a level above DLR energization.
Absorbance is one thing, heating or cooling is another.
Thomas:
“Fair to assume he [De Lange] has not much of an idea at all about radiation energy exchange otherwise the complete contradiction of his first statement and the one above might have dawned on him. Hint: Kirchhoff Laws… (for those with some interest in Physics..)”
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nzs-paris-emissions-commitments-should-be-40-by-2030-and-100-or-more-by-2050/#comment-46399
Kirchoff’s laws are an application of the law of conservation of energy (energy in = energy out) to electrical circuits.:
http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/kirchoffs-laws-and-potential-dividers/revise-it/kirchoffs-first-and-second-laws
Not applicable to the AO interface where energy is not conserved at any latitude.
Law of conservation of energy
The law of conservation of energy is one of the basic laws of physics and therefore governs the microscopic motion of individual atoms in a chemical reaction. The law of conservation energy states:
“In a closed system, i.e., a system that isolated from its surroundings, the total energy of the system is conserved. ”
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_2/node4.html
The AO interface is not a closed system. Some energy flows horizontally and vertically from the interface in the tropics away from the region i.e. energy in does not equal energy out, it’s an open system
Thomas doesn’t know what he is talking about.
RC – thanks for the links. I didn’t really want to continue discussions on this at HT in case I got caught with “my pants down” as Thomas put it.
Perish the thought
>”Perish the thought”
Yes, very wise. Take your time. Took me a while to work out the critical error that produced the rest of his errors; his inappropriate application of the law of conservation of energy to the AO interface.
Not the first time I’ve seen a warmy do this so he’s not alone. Willis Eschenbach hasn’t grasped the AO energy budget yet either, he can’t understand that DLR is not a heating agent because he sees all that (apparent) radiative longwave energy directed down to the surface so assumes it must produce heat – not so, it’s already heated so the net radiative flow is in the other direction. Roy Spencer similar. And Thomas apparently:
“He [De Lange] behaves like these armchair climate guys who keep telling themselves that the temperature of a colder surface (Atmosphere) cannot effect the temperature of a warmer surface (Ocean) it is exchanging IR radiation with! If you have a problem with that last statement then pick up a physics textbook before posting on the matter and get caught with your pants at your ankles….”
There’s no heating effect, the net effect of the IR-C “exchange” (actually just egress minus ingress) is OLR cooling as per Trenberth et al, Fairall et al, De Lange, anyone.
Perhaps Thomas could quote the relevant passages from “a physics textbook” or in-situ observational literature that supports him and refutes all those above and more?
Hopefully with his pants on (perish the thought, again)
Remember too that even if we make a hypothetical assumption that atmospheric IR-C (DLR) does have a heating effect on the ocean surface (it doesn’t), the change in the CO2 component of DLR is a miniscule,and negligible, 0.2 W.m-2 per decade as found observationally by Berkeley Labs in-situ at Oklahoma and Alaska:
‘First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface’
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Thomas is nuts if he thinks by that 0.2 W.m-2/decade “we are currently warming the oceans by way of altering the IR energy exchange balance between the Ocean surface and the Atmosphere through warming the Atmosphere due to changes in the IR properties of the Atmosphere”
There is no IR “exchange balance”, it’s net OLR, less in the tropics, more elsewhere, global average 63 W.m-2 depending on several factors of which the greatest is solar.
Solar input at TOA dropped about 0.2 W.m-2 just around 2006/7 alone (PMOD).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod
Surface solar (SSR) has changed +10 W.m-2/decade in some regions in recent decades, 50 times CO2 change except SSR is real heating power, DLR isn’t. El Nino is solar-fueled, Trenberth et al (2002) states this as Bob Tisdale points out:
‘ClimateProgress’s Joe Romm Is Promoting a Skeptical View of Global Warming: El Niño-Caused Steps’
[Trenberth et al] – “Relatively clear skies in the central and eastern tropical Pacific allow solar radiation to enter the ocean”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/19/climateprogresss-joe-romm-is-promoting-a-skeptical-view-of-global-warming-el-nino-caused-steps/
Effectively just SSR change. CO2 has nothing on this.
>”net OLR, less in the tropics, more elsewhere, global average 63 W.m-2″
Fairall et al (1996) have Rnl -57.1 in the tropical west Pacific, see Table 5 page 12 pdf:
ftp://ftp1.esrl.noaa.gov/users/cfairall/wcrp_wgsf/computer_programs/cor3_0/95JC03190.pdf
What it is now in the same location who knows? Might be -56.7 (wow, scary) as a result of 0.2 W.m-2/decade CO2 change but only observation would confirm it. Then there’s the other major factors of the Fairall budget:
Rns 191.5 (SSR)
Hl 103.3 (latent)
Hs 7.7 (sensible)
What changes to those over 2 decades?
Back to the original post, the latest deluge will no doubt be attributed to human sinfulness, especially with the Pope’s backing.
My old home town of Fairlie is under snow and lost power for a couple of days. There are even flurries of snow in ChCh this morning.
“My old home town of Fairlie is under snow and lost power for a couple of days.”
A couple of days! That would cause rioting in parts of Auckland. Does everyone in the South Island have generators tucked away in the basement? How do they survive without broadband?
RC,
I’m still working my way through your treatises as time allows. It’s impressive work.
Does everyone in the South Island have generators tucked away in the basement? How do they survive without broadband?
I have a generator down there in storage and used it quite a lot over the last couple of years. Wind and snow brings down the overhead power lines quite a bit.
I was able to work with the generator and the phone/internet generally kept on working.
It’s tough being on the front line of “climate change”.
On Backbenchers TV the other day there was a segment on “climate change”.
The scientific illiteracy of the public, the presenters and the politicians (bar one, who was honestly stating that the science isn’t settled) was on full display
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=183&v=70uzd3EPT90
>”What changes to those over 2 decades?”
“Those” were Fairall et al’s western tropical Pacific averages from 1996:
Rns +191.5 (SSR)
Rnl -57.1 (net longwave radiation)
Hl -103.3 (latent)
Hs -7.7 (sensible)
I have not yet been able to find a study of changes over time but I’ll keep looking. But for perspective, here is an undated Session Paper that has changes for a change in 1 C temperature (from some conference I suppose):
Clouds, Radiation, and the Diurnal Cycle of Sea Surface Temperature in the Tropical Western Pacific
P. J. Webster, C. A. Clayson, and J. A. Curry
https://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf05/extended_abs/webster_pj.pdf
TOGA COARE IOP occurred from November 1992 through February 1993 [3-4 months note] in the Western Pacific region bordered by 10N, 10S, 140E and 180W. Oceanographic and meteorological data were gathered from ships, buoys, aircraft, and satellites.
Table 1. Changes in surface heat flux components associated with a 1 C change in SST for average conditions during the TOGA COARE IOP.
Component (W.m-2)
Upwelling Longwave 6.3
Sensible Heat 2.4
Latent Heat 18.7
Table 2. Average values of surface parameters and fluxes measured by the R/V Moana Wave
during the TOGA COARE IOP (surface flux is positive into the ocean).
Parameter Average Min Max
SST, 1 cm ( ) 29.1 25.7 31.5
Wind speed, surface ( ) 4.9 0.1 15.9
Peak insolation ( ) 732.9 180.0 958.0
Longwave , down ( ) 413.0 370.0 441.0
Latent heat flux ( ) -115.6 -7.0 -347.0
Sensible heat flux ( ) -10.3 8.0 -69.0
Note that at times when the air is warmer than the sea surface there is actually an 8 W.m-2 sensible heat transfer from the air to the sea (air => sea). So in this case the air does actually contribute to total ocean heating in addition to solar (the air helps to heat the water). Obviously not the norm of course given the -10.3 average which is sea-to-air (sea => air) and maximum sea-to-air of -69
I suspect the data above is why the IPCC was not able to identify any anthro-GHG “air-sea fluxes” in AR5 Chapter 3 Observations: Ocean that were responsible for their posited anthro ocean warming mechanism. Particularly when Berkeley Labs found 0.2 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing” at Oklahoma and Alaska PER DECADE. That 0.2 is in amongst fluctuation of Longwave down (DLR) of 413.0 average, 370.0 minimum, 441.0 maximum, 71 W.m-2 range over 3-4 MONTHS. The average really doesn’t tell us a much but the fluctuation certainly does.
Richard T, do you remember having a ding-dong argument with me over the word “most” in respect to diurnal sea surface and sub-surface heat exiting to atmosphere and space the same day (obviously much does)?
I took exception saying we should refer to the literature to see just how much residual heat (from the sun) stays below the surface and how and in what direction it is then distributed but in particular consider the variable heat storage in the sub-surface. I produced a paper that documented all this and it had excellent and simple diagrams showing what was going on below the surface skin (a lot). I tried to retrieve it again but couldn’t find it on the net – I was sad.
But I tried searching CCG. I couldn’t remember what thread this “discussion” took place unfortunately. We (or at least I) used to be able to search posts and comments using Search Climate Conversation at top of blog. Now it just searches posts. So I searched CCG from outside the blog and managed to find the comment thread, and the paper, in this post at this comment:
‘IPCC created and controlled by activists’
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/comment-page-2/#comment-196596 (May 5, 2013 at 3:24 pm)
Unfortunately the comment is now on page 2 so the link is useless even though the external search returned page 2. The comment is headed:
>”If, in respect to the tropical ocean say, “warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface” or ““most of the energy rises to the surface that very day” ”
This was what the argument was over but the paper I’m referring to is linked 5 paragraphs down and it is this:
Cronin and McPhaden (1997), ‘The upper ocean heat balance in the western equatorial Pacific warm pool during September-December 1992′
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/cron1713.shtml
Cronin and McPhaden show heat budget diagrams in Figures 10a,b (top) and 10c,d (bottom). [click to enlarge or see figures linked directly below]
Figure 10. Box diagrams of the heat balance (equations (2a) and (2b)) for (a) the pre-wind burst period from September 19 to October 17, 1992, (b) the wind burst period from October 18 to November 12, 1992, (c) the post-wind burst period from November 13 to December 7, 1992, and (d) the beginning of the December wind burst from December 8 to 17, 1992. The mean wind speed during each period is listed, and the mean layer depth is indicated in the boxes. As discussed in the text, although we generally interpret the residual in terms of entrainment mixing, during the post-wind burst period the residual is positive and therefore cannot represent mixing. Instead, we believe that during this period it may represent horizontal advection of a sharp temperature front.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/images/fig10a.gif [Fig 10a,b]
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/images/fig10b.gif [Fig 10c,d]
Difficult to interpret the values but the system boxes show the effect of a “wind burst” on subsurface heat storage, horizontal advection (heat transport), and active layer depth over a 3 month period. Little of the change in heat would occur if most of the diurnal subsurface energy ingress mixed down to 68m (Fig 10b), rose to the surface the same day.
Much more at the original comment.
Point being now (original argument now passed) is that this is a very valuable illustration of solar heating of the ocean in the tropics and what happens to the residual diurnal heat that stays below the surface and where it goes. Anyone, like Thomas, saying GHG forcing is warming the ocean hasn’t got a clue when heat is considered here in these diagrams down to 68m depth. Look at all the different values for Q, Qrf is the flux due to rain BTW.
There was a lot going on in that old argument and lots of literature, not just this paper (obviously there are piles of other papers on this topic too that we haven’t looked at). You have no idea how glad I am that I was able to go back to these ones though and the above in particular. Hopefully I’ll be able to remember how in the future (“Wicked Witch” would be an easy search to start with too – perhaps easiest).
And so much for the idea of Thomas’s that he can apply the law of conservation of energy to the AO interface as if it were a closed system – it obviously is not closed given those Cronin and McPhaden diagrams. This is the critical point of this comment.
‘do you remember having a ding-dong argument with me over the word “most”‘
Yes, but not the detail. A pity the search doesn’t work as well now I’ve turned off nested comments. You’re a tiger once you get going on a topic, I’ll say that. But this is most interesting; as you know, I harp on about our emissions not warming the sea. I think you’re finding that that is still correct.
I get the sense (before I’ve properly studied all your comments) that less heat stays in the water than is radiated to the atmosphere and space. Is that right?
>”I get the sense (before I’ve properly studied all your comments) that less heat stays in the water than is radiated to the atmosphere and space. Is that right?”
Short answer: no
Long answer: good question but remember that these studies are of the tropical zone (western Pacific). Completely different elsewhere, around NZ say. And heat storage below the surface in the tropics varies greatly with wind speed at the surface. Generally perhaps your statement may hold (I really don’t know) but there certainly are exceptions (see below).
The key to seeing this demonstrated is in the heat budget diagrams of Cronin and McPhaden above. The heat storage in each sub-surface box varies by huge amounts depending on surface wind speeds. Fairall et al introduce a “compensating depth” concept and a table where for specific wind speeds at the surface there is a specific depth where heating is exactly offset by cooling (heating occurs below this depth too of course). When there is no wind the compensating depth is deepest, when wind strengthens the compensating depth is shallowest i.e. the sun fights a losing battle against the wind.
Now take a look at the diagrams (values in W.m-2):
(a) Qstorage 32, Qlw -49
(b) Qstorage -116, Qlw -44
(c) Qstorage 93, Qlw -51
(d) Qstorage -0, Qlw -48
Lots of variation. In the case of (b) more heat leaves storage than is radiated from the surface. In (c) more heat goes to storage than is radiated from the surface (a massive exception to the generality).
Then there are all the other fluxes into and out of the storage box. The diagrams again:
(a) and (b) http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/images/fig10a.gif
(c) and (d) http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/images/fig10b.gif
The whole effect of sub-surface storage (accumulation) and subsequent horizontal transport (dissipation) can be seen in a Nth – Sth transect of the Pacific (not actual temp, but near enough, see full caption at WUWT post linked below):
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/pacific-temperature-transect-150w.jpg
From:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/06/where-in-the-world-is-argo/
First note that the heating occurs either side of the equator at about 20N and 20S because this is where the path of the sun turns at the tropical extremities.
Second note that the heat dissipation (heating effect) is confined to about 60N – 60S and down to about 1200m depth.
Third note that because the combined fluxes to the atmosphere are greater than the heat moving below the surface there is considerably more heat moving towards the poles in the atmosphere (think cyclones and hurricanes) than in the ocean, see:
Meridional Energy Transport by Atmosphere and Ocean – see Figure 1.12 (d) from Fasullo and Trenberth (2008)
http://www.goes-r.gov/users/comet/tropical/textbook_2nd_edition/navmenu.php_tab_2_page_4.3.0.htm
Fourth note THE BIG THING. This is solar heating of the ENTIRE ocean from the TROPICS ONLY.
CO2 “forcing” is uniform (0.2 W.m-2/decade say) over the entire surface of the planet but changes to ocean heating only occur in the tropics due to solar change, cloudiness change, El Ninos and whatever. The tiny CO2 effect (if it exists – it doesn’t) in the tropical zone is completely overwhelmed by these natural factors in terms of ocean heating.
Bottom line: ocean heating is a solar-tropical phenomenon – it is not planet-wide.
>”CO2 “forcing” is uniform (0.2 W.m-2/decade say [as found at Oklahoma and Alaska by Berkeley labs[)”
The IPCC’s “forcing” concept is in respect to 1750. If we were to look at per decade CO2 change from say 1990 then the change is more like 0.4 W.m-2/decade by now in 2015 from 1990. We can work this out from dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) where Co is CO2 in 1990 and C is CO2 in 2015. The Berkeley Labs graph (see upthread) shows the two CO2 change curves, one is actual measured change over the period of study, the other is the change when converted to the “forcing” concept in respect to 1750.
But whether 0.2 or 0.4 per decade makes no difference, all other things considered.
The recent solar change of around 0.3 W.m-2 in 2006/7 is a lot less when expressed as a “forcing” in respect to 1750 for example. Solar levels where lower in the 1600s than they were at 1750 though.
I much prefer to look at actual change over period of study than to adopt the IPCC’s concept (actually I think it’s bogus).
>”heating occurs either side of the equator at about 20N and 20S because this is where the path of the sun turns at the tropical extremities.”
‘The Sun and the Seasons’ – The Sun from Different Latitudes
[see diagram] – “The Arctic and Antarctic Circles mark the maximum reach of the sun’s rays at the solstices. The Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn mark the locations where the rays of the noon sun are perpendicular to the ground at the solstices”
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/SunAndSeasons.html
Our winter solstice was on Sunday 21st just gone so the sun was circling the NH Tropic of Cancer and over the transition either side of solstice it is still close to that latitude for some time.
The sun will now move from Cancer to Capricorn latitudes with less time spent at the equator (just a crossing of it) than at and near Cancer and Capricorn.
Hence more ocean heat at 20N or 20S than at the equator.
Getting back to the subject of the silly woman who blamed global warming for her wee dog being washed out to sea by a ‘rogue wave’ (TM), her stupidity made me quite angry. Allowing an uncontrolled wee dog to wander about on such a wave-beaten beach shows her lack of the ability to think rational;ly. Which is probably why she blames ‘global warming’ – not sure she would be on very firm ground with her neighbours, considering the weather in that area over the last couple of weeks.
I became very familiar with snow and cold while working in London. Can’t say snow has much going for it once the picuresque element has deoarted, especially when snow, trodden to thick grey ice on footpaths is left there due to locals being wary of being sued if someone falls and hurts themselves on a pavement that a shopkeeper dared to clear.
I watched one of my neighbours demolish the front of her 1-day-old VW Golf by sliding down the very slight incline out of our gated housing estate and bouncing off a passing bus. The laws of physics don’t tolerate the unwary!
>”The Berkeley Labs graph (see upthread) shows the two CO2 change curves, one is actual measured change over the period of study, the other is the change when converted to the “forcing” concept in respect to 1750.”
No I’m wrong. The graphs are on a video in this page:
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Caption:
“These graphs show carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at two locations on the Earth’s surface. The first graph shows CO2 radiative forcing measurements obtained at a research facility in Oklahoma. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (blue) increased from 2000 to the end of 2010, so did surface radiative forcing due to CO2 (orange), and both quantities have upward trends. This means the Earth absorbed more energy from solar radiation than it emitted as heat back to space. The seasonal fluctuations are caused by plant-based photosynthetic activity. The second graph shows similar upward trends at a research facility on the North Slope of Alaska. (Credit: Berkeley Lab)”
The 0.2 W.m-2/decade “forcing” change is actually for the decade 2000 – 2010 in respect to the 2000 start. It is not in respect to the IPCC’s 1750 as I thought. Here lies the problems with the term “forcing”, is it in IPCC terms or not? in this case not. So the empirical forcing is about half the theoretical from df = 5.35 ln(C/Co). So much for theory.
>”the Earth absorbed more energy from solar radiation than it emitted as heat back to space”
This does not necessarily follow from the graphs. The measure of radiation (not heat) emitted back to space is OLR at TOA, not a small intermediate step in the process. And an instantaneous energy in to energy out comparison neglects the planetary heat sink (the ocean mostly). The energy out to equalize energy in, in accordance with conservation of energy, occurs over time, not instantaneously.
The statement may be essentially true (if confirmed at TOA) but any imbalance is due to, and very much complicated by, the oceanic heat sink. CO2 is just a bit player.
>”So the empirical forcing is about half the theoretical from df = 5.35 ln(C/Co). So much for theory.”
Better check this too.
Globally averaged marine surface annual mean data
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_gl.txt
Co 2000: 368.85
C 2010: 388.58
dF = 5.35 ln(388.58 /368.85)
dF = 0.28 W.m-2/decade for the decade 2000 – 2010
So I’m wrong again (bad day). The empirical CO2 forcing is 70% of the theoretical (0.2/0.28) – not 50%.
But I’m still right about “so much for theory”. The empirical should correspond to the theoretical but it doesn’t.
[Berkeley Labs article] >”the Earth absorbed more energy from solar radiation than it emitted as heat back to space” [due to CO2 forcing]
[Me] >”The statement may be essentially true (if confirmed at TOA)”
Let’s see:
‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’
Graeme L. Stephens1*, Juilin Li1, Martin Wild2, Carol Anne Clayson3, Norman Loeb4, Seiji Kato4, Tristan L’Ecuyer5, Paul W. Stackhouse Jr4, Matthew Lebsock1 and Timothy Andrews6 (2012)
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/prwaylen/GEO2200%20Readings/Readings/Radiation%20balance/An%20update%20on%20Earth%27s%20energy%20balance%20in%20light%20of%20latest%20global%20observations.pdf
The global annual mean energy balance
The current revised depiction of the global annual mean energy balance for the decade 2000–2010 is provided in Fig. B1.
TOA imbalance: 0.6±0.4 W.m-2
Surface imbalance: 0.6±17 W.m-2
“The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm–2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Fig. 2b). The uncertainty is also approximately an order of magnitude larger than the current estimates of the net surface energy imbalance of 0.6 ±0.4 Wm–2 inferred from the rise in OHC13,14.”
Huge uncertainty at the surface, ±17 W.m-2 i.e. a range of 34 W.m-2.
Fig 2b is just model analysis.
# # #
Interpretation: they imply there was a CONSTANT annual TOA imbalance of 0.6±0.4 W.m-2 ON AVERAGE i.e. NOT AN INCREASING imbalance 2000 – 2010 but the same imbalance throughout.
Problematic if over exactly the same period, Berkeley Labs found AN INCREASING CO2 FORCING of 0.2 W.m-2/decade.
Make that:
[Me] >”The statement may be essentially true (if confirmed at TOA)” [but CO2 is just a bit player]
TOA imbalance confirmed by observations above.
Unfortunately for CO2 centrics it’s a constant average – can’t be due to increasing CO2 forcing.
>”Interpretation: they imply there was a CONSTANT annual TOA imbalance of 0.6±0.4 W.m-2 ON AVERAGE i.e. NOT AN INCREASING imbalance 2000 – 2010 but the same imbalance throughout.
Problematic if over exactly the same period, Berkeley Labs found AN INCREASING CO2 FORCING of 0.2 W.m-2/decade.”
Another 2012 paper confirms the lack of net TOA imbalance increase 2001 – 2010:
‘Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty’
Norman G. Loeb, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson, Richard P. Allan, David R. Doelling, Takmeng Wong, Brian J. Soden & Graeme L. Stephens (2012)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1375.html
“We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.”
>”Steadily accumulating”
This means a CONSTANT flat rate (no increase). The time series is Figure 3. From “At a glance – Figures”:
Click “View all figures” => “Figures index” => “Figure 3 Full size figure and legend”
Figure 3: Comparison of net TOA flux and upper-ocean heating rates.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/fig_tab/ngeo1375_F3.html
The black satellite data line (Net TOA flux) is trendless. There is no evidence whatsoever of CO2 “forcing” of 0.2 W.m-2/decade at TOA. Ocean heat sub-surface storage accumulation cannot be attributed to CO2 forcing given the disparity of trends and magnitudes.
I have no idea what all the fuss is about whether atmosphere or ocean heat in terms of CO2 forcing. There’s no CO2-heat correlation at all in the above data.
>”There is no evidence whatsoever of CO2 “forcing” of 0.2 W.m-2/decade at TOA.”
Stephens et al (2012):
“the average imbalance is 0.6 = 340.2 − 239.7 − 99.9 Wm–2”
“This small imbalance is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux. The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ±4 Wm–2”
“Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change”
# # #
This at a time when the highest human CO2 emissions in the industrial era are considered a major problem. A problem for which the evidence of it cannot be observed because it is so small.
I now despair for Victoria University. When I, and my children for that matter, attended it still had some credibility. To make James Renwick a Professor and, if the preview of his inaugural public lecture is to be believed, use that platform for an alarmist rant, is beyond belief.
Sorry, too disgusted to provide the link.
Hemi,
Yes, that’s disappointing. It is certain to be an alarmist rant, since he’s not about to stop believing in the emergency he’s built a career on.
It’s here at the VUW website.
This TV3 piece gives an idea how cold it is right now in the Mackenzie
I must be insane building a house down there!
http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/twizel-residents-brave-freezing-fog-2015062418?ref=video#axzz3dy1Ul7uc
Apparently a Dutch advocacy group has won a class action against the Dutch government to force it to reduce emissions by 25%
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/netherlands-loses-landmark-global-warming-case-ordered-to-cut-emissions/
This was done on “human rights” grounds.
i.e it is my “right” to have the government make everything more expensive, to have industrial wind parks spring up everywhere, and make my life generally more miserable, on the pretext that these futile gestures will have any effect on global climate
one => won in above comment