The oil industry copied the tactics [of] the tobacco industry. Engender mistrust in the science and scientists by lying.
What a devilishly clever piece of logic. It cannot fail, can it? The one fly in its little pot of ointment is that sceptical doubts about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) don’t arise from suspicion of science or scientists, they arise from observation and reasoning.
For example, why is there no cogent description of a process by which radiative atmospheric effects substantially heat the ocean? This is not an emanation from my creative imagination, there really and actually is no description of it. If there is, please tell me where to find it. Without it, global warming cannot be dangerous.
Why do some scientists assert that human activities MUST have contributed to warming ONLY BECAUSE they have found no other cause of warming? It’s not a scientific approach to pick a cause, any cause, just because you haven’t found one.
Why do scientists tell us that global mean surface temperature has been rising abnormally, when there’s been no significant warming, according to the satellite studies, for about 20 years?
It’s tiresome being constantly lectured on the imaginary causes of our doubts.
I presume people like Dennis are happy that the atmosphere heats the ocean, so I’d be interested in how you imagine it happens. It’s not a minor point, because it’s the only way that sea level might be raised by our emissions, and sea level rise is the biggest threat posed by the global warming threat.
It’s very strange that science so far is silent on the mechanism.
It’s beyond strange that the IPCC is silent on this; in fact, it encroaches upon the fraudulent.
Views: 141
Dennis’ comment was specifically aimed at Climategate
There are claims that the hacks/leaks were Russian in origin. No one knows.
There is no evidence that the oil industry were involved in Climategate.
Most of the evidence comes from the emails themselves. Since no one has ever claimed these are anything other than genuine, I fail to see where the lying comes in
>”It’s tiresome being constantly lectured on the imaginary causes of our doubts.”
Apparently we all think vicariously, via Exxon. Strange, but I’ve never been aware of that process going on in my mind. Must be subliminal – naughty Exxon.
Climate Change Dispatch follows all the #ExxonKnew shenanigans. They carry the latest from Washington Examiner:
Thing is: The AG’s don’t yet have a case against Exxon. A lot of pretense of a case but no actual case- just a beat up.
Yes, quite so. Perhaps I should have said this explicitly. It seems so brazenly wrong to me it goes almost without saying that the allegation of lying is preposterous.
>”It’s very strange that science so far is silent on the [anthro ocean warming] mechanism.”
To be fair, they do have speculation – they “expect” “air-sea fluxes” to be the mechanism. No scientific evidence such as observations so far, but, after 25 years and 5 assessment reports they do have speculation.
>”It’s beyond strange that the IPCC is silent on this; in fact, it encroaches upon the fraudulent.”
Scientific fraud not in that they have no direct evidence (let alone solid evidence) or a documented mechanism, but that they have gone ahead and made anthropogenic attribution WITHOUT evidence. We looked at this aspect previously, here it is again:
The IPCC did not omit the observation data, they disclose that they could not find said “air-sea fluxes” in Chapter 3 and therefore cannot provide data. So it is the data they could not find that “conflicts” “with [IPCC] scientist’s [actual] interpretation” which is anthropogenic attribution.
This has now become all important given the statement by James Renwick, Tim Naish, and Royal Society NZ in their Ten by Ten: Climate Change series:
‘Ten things you didn’t know about climate change’
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/81885264/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-climate-change
By implication:
And ,as previously shown, the anthro ocean warming attribution MUST be made by the IPCC in order to invoke ocean heat “storage” as a sink for a massive excess of theoretical GHG forcing at TOA and keep their Man-Made Climate Change theory alive.
You can see this in the AR5 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (b):
TS TFE.4-1
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg
Without an anthro ocean warming attribution the IPCC are sunk.
>”Without an anthro ocean warming attribution the IPCC are sunk.”
But physically impossible by the IPCC’s own cited energy budget at the surface:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
The only net flux down at the surface is SW solar. Just more evidence of scientific fraud by the IPCC.
Who needs Exxon to deduce this for us? I doubt Exxon even know anything about it or spend time on it. If they did know they’d be suing the IPCC authors (but the UN can’t be sued).
>”Just more evidence of scientific fraud by the IPCC”
The second scientific fraud, after their anthro ocean warming attribution, in respect to TFE.4 Figure 1 (b) is their assumption of increased OLR (“radiation response” in b) due to increasing GHGs. They only “infer” OLR from GMST (i.e. they make up stuff) instead of using the, as they put it, “highly precise”satellite measurements of OLR. Those measurements contradict their assumption.
Their OLR assumption implies a relationship between Net TOA Flux, TSI, OLR, and GMST. None exists.
Previously detailed with graphs in the thread – ‘NZ about to ratify Paris agreement – will they ask our opinion?’ here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/08/nz-about-to-ratify-paris-agreement-will-they-ask-our-opinion/comment-page-1/#comment-1508531
>‘Ten things you didn’t know about climate change’ [Renwick, Naish, Royal Society, Victoria University]
Also in the NZ Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11669116
Overt scientific fraud.
RC,
Hmm, another version of “Ten rings to rule them all.” I missed this proclamation. It demands a stern rejoinder.
Royal Society have a web page on Ten by Ten but they don’t provide the article as per NZ Herald:
Ten by Ten: Climate Change
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/events/ten-by-ten/ten-by-ten-climate-change/
At least it is not as nasty as 10:10.
Richard Treadgold.
While I am flattered to be the centre of attention, I do not flatter myself I could teach you any science. You don’t understand how the greenhouse effect warms the surface. Well, it’s a pity, but there you are. So much time invested and so little learned.
However. Tell me. What do you think the ‘climategate’ emails showed?
You seem to be under the impression that the existence of the greenhouse effect implies dangerous AGW, when the theory relies on positive water vapour feedback to provide the necessary high climate sensitivity
The evidence for any anthropogenic influence on water vapour is pretty sparse
“What did the climategate emails show”
Jeez that was 2009
Haven’t we been over this a thousand times
?
We’re onto Hillary’s emails now
good stuff in there too
Dennis
>“What did the climategate emails show” ?
Might help to read a few Dennis. Here’s a selection of Climategate 2.0, from The Air Vent. One of the first receptors of the 1.0 emails:
/// The IPCC Process ///
/// Communicating Climate Change ///
/// The Medieval Warm Period ///
/// The Settled Science ///
/// Communicating Climate Change ///
/// The Medieval Warm Period ///
/// The Urban Heat Effect ///
/// Temperature Reconstructions ///
/// Science and Religion ///
/// The Cause ///
/// Freedom of Information ///
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/
# # #
A couple of my personal favourites:
Wils
Wilson
I’m sure you will be very interested in “The Cause” section Dennis. That’s your specialty isn’t it?
Dennis
>”You don’t understand how the greenhouse effect warms the surface”
OK, here’s the earth’s surface energy budget:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
How does “the greenhouse effect” warm the surface Dennis?
Please explain, so we can all understand.
Dennis
>”Please explain, so we can all understand.”
Explain In respect to the surface energy budget. In terms of power (Watts – how much?) and actual energy transfer (Joules – how much?).
Remember, the IPCC’s radiative forcing paradigm (RF) is in respect to the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy balance – NOT the surface.
Dennis
>”You don’t understand how the greenhouse effect warms the surface”
While we’re waiting for your explanation as per above terms, we already have the earth’s standard surface temperature established without recourse to the “greenhouse effect”:
‘Climate change professor in heated row over Arctic ice caps’
Professor Peter Wadhams was accused of “crying wolf” by one academic, after saying North Pole ice will disappear by September.
Pushing his earlier prediction back by a year, he said “the Arctic ice may well disappear…for September of this year”. However, last week the NSIDC issued a statement which said that “it is unlikely that Arctic sea ice extent this September will fall below the record minimum set in 2012.”
http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10586
Not even a record minimum likely, let alone ice free.
Richard Betts, UK Met Office Hadley Center:
Stephen Henry Schneider (deceased), ex Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University:
>”we are not just scientists but human beings as well” – Prof Wadhams appears to be more fallible human being, less objective scientist.
Dennis,
I’ve never said this. Please explain what you mean. It certainly warms the atmosphere a little, although the magnitude is disputed. I question the warming of the ocean, is that what you mean by surface? The Climategate emails are off the topic, notwithstanding Richard C’s excellent responses to you.
Climategate 2.0
[Wilson] >”if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs. […] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models…..”
In NCAR’s CAM5 model and previous versions e.g. CAM3 below, “weighting” is either “Ramped” or “Fixed’. “Ramping” is done by adjusting sliders by either percentage or factor.
I raked over this in 2010 back in ‘Open Threads as required’ (page 1 of comments):
This is in addition to initial parameterization e.g. TSI (solar) and RCP (greenhouse gasses).
Enables “tweaking”.
Dennis
>”While we’re waiting for your explanation as per above terms, we already have the earth’s standard surface temperature established without recourse to the “greenhouse effect”:”
Not just surface but the standard temperature at every altitude of the atmosphere right up to TOA.
Impossible by “greenhouse effect” approach.
RT
>”It [the radiative “greenhouse effect”] certainly warms the atmosphere a little, although the magnitude is disputed”
How? Greenhouse gasses are energy TRANSFER gasses. CO2 is a coolant by definition, refrigerant code R744.
And warms? Or modulates? Water (H2O) is the weather modulator, either gas (WV) or liquid (clouds), certainly on a diurnal basis:
Dry clear sky: Hotter by day, colder by night (Sahara)
Humid clear sky: Cooler by day, warmer by night (Singapore)
But we are talking in terms of climate.
The standard temperature of the atmosphere is determined by molecular constituency and solar energy input. Trace gasses are neglected because inclusion makes no difference to the temperature at a level beyond negligible.
Table 7a-1: Average composition of the atmosphere up to an altitude of 25 km.
Gas Name, Chemical Formula, Percent Volume
Nitrogen N2 78.08%
Oxygen O2 20.95%
*Water H2O 0 to 4%
Argon Ar 0.93%
[Constituents below this level are neglected]
*Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
Neon Ne 0.0018%
Helium He 0.0005%
*Methane CH4 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
*Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
*Ozone O3 0.000004%
* variable gases
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
Actual climate temperature differs from standard temperature only due to long-term and short-term heat fluxes from the surface (think major El Nino heat flux in the latter). A major short-term El Nino heat flux is not “trapped” in the troposphere. Similarly, long-term fluxes from the surface, predominantly from the ocean (Sensible, Latent, Radiation, caused by SSR and TSI change and OHC rise) are not “trapped” either. Some surface radiation is intercepted and re-emitted (transferred), but not “trapped”.
If surface heat, ocean being the major surface heat sink, rises over time then heat loss from the ocean alters the troposphere’s standard temperature. Surface air temperature basically just tracks sea temperature in the Southern Hemisphere. Land has more effect in the Northern Hemisphere hence the distortion to GMST.
Question: what heats the ocean?
This is the US$90 trillion question.
>”Water (H2O) is the weather modulator”
Not the only factor obviously. Wind, pressure, seasons too. But beside the point.
RC,
Ok, so Arrhenius got it wrong to the extent that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere at all? So water vapour done it? It worries me a great deal that so few people hold that CO2 warms nothing, yet so many people hold the reverse.
$90 trillion question? I’ve told you a million times, Richard, don’t exaggerate.
>”Your doubts about climate change are created by the lying oil industry”
According to the Warmist creed.
I actually have more than just doubt, I’m as sure as I will ever be. But not thanks to the oil industry. I’ve gained exactly nothing from that avenue.
Credit due to NASA, US Air Force Labs, IPCC report data, introduction to and examination in thermodynamics and heat transfer and critiquing in law and legal issues, big pictures laid out by likes of The Hockey Schtick and PSI, an engaged brain and fully functioning BS indicator, and so on.
RT
>”so Arrhenius got it wrong to the extent that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere at all?
Absorption coefficients do not automatically equate to “warming” in terms of temperature but Arrhenius made the leap and subsequently Plass, Callendar, Tyndall and others (see Callendar’s “fakery” below at first link) hence squabbling over the effect of a doubling of CO2:
‘The Errors of Arrhenius’
http://www.applet-magic.com/arrhenius.htm
‘Why Tyndall’s experiment did not “prove” the [Arrhenius] theory of anthropogenic global warming’
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2015/10/why-tyndalls-experiment-did-not-prove.html
The leap to GHG “warming” is simply miss-attribution of changes and ignoring the standard atmosphere model and the physics that determines it.
>”So water vapour done it?”
I didn’t say that. I said this:
There is only one energy source to the system (excepting geo) and that is solar input. The system is this (predominantly):
Sun => Ocean => Atmosphere(+Space)
The “greenhouse effect” version is this:
Sun => Ocean => Atmosphere(+Space) => Ocean => Atmosphere(+Space) => Ocean => [Repeat…..]
That is absurd.
RT >”$90 trillion question? I’ve told you a million times, Richard, don’t exaggerate.”
Heh.
That’s the “transition” and “transformation” needed over the next 13 and a half years apparently (I exaggerate not, I tell you a million times):
http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/2014/09/report-reducing-climate-change-need-curtail-economic-growth/
# # #
Given the modern global economy is built on debt, a “structural transformation” certainly is impending but for reasons other than UN intervention. That means investment of any form becomes problematic, let alone finding $90 trill. The future has already been bought. Paying for it is another story. Ask China or the US or the EU about this.
Oil companies and producing countries are finding the going tough at oil current prices (To say the least – think Socialist Venezuela and company bankruptcies).
‘Scotland North Sea oil revenues collapse by nearly 100% to re-ignite independence debate’
Scotland’s public sector spends £12,800 per person, but collects just £10,000 per person
“The nationalists’ case for independence has been swallowed up by a £14bn black hole.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/scotland-north-sea-oil-97-per-cent-148bn-budget-deficit-scottish-independence-nicola-sturgeon-a7207756.html
Fortunately Scotland has already begun the low carbon transition to wind farms, oh wait……..
Scottish wind farm projects ‘put at risk by Government subsidy cuts’
Study says the move has had a ‘significant impact on investor confidence’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scottish-wind-farm-projects-put-at-risk-by-government-subsidy-cuts-10500429.html
Not going so well without oil revenues.
>”The “greenhouse effect” version is this:
Sun => Ocean => Atmosphere(+Space) => Ocean => Atmosphere(+Space) => Ocean => [Repeat…..]”
I am not making this up. Plenty of animations and diagrams showing that repetition on the net. This for example:
The Greenhouse Effect
http://www.sciencequiz.net/lcchemistry/atmospheric/images/xgreenhouse1b.gif.pagespeed.ic.A2Av5woKvx.png
That repetition is bogus to start with because it neglects the net effect of DLR/OLR which is OLR. However, the scare is an “enhanced” greenhouse effect as in this animation from the Australian Department of Environment and Energy:
Enhanced greenhouse effect – Animation
https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/greenhouse-effect
Step 1: Solar radiation reaches the Earth’s atmosphere – some of this is reflected back into space.
Step 2: The rest of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the land and the oceans, heating the Earth.
Step 3: Heat radiates from Earth towards space.
Step 4: Some of this heat is trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, keeping the Earth warm enough to sustain life.
Step 5: Human activities such as burning fossil fuels, agriculture and land clearing are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.
Step 6: This is trapping extra heat, and causing the Earth’s temperature to rise.
# # #
Step 4 is dead wrong. The ambient temperature at any altitude (not just surface) is determined by air mass, gravity, pressure, solar input and several other factors – none of them being “heat trapped by greenhouse gases” in the troposphere (see Standard Atmosphere Model upthread).
Thus Step 5 and 6 are dead wrong also.
“Your doubts about climate change are created by the lying oil industry”
AUGUST 25, 2016 10:24 PM \ 26 COMMENTS \ BY RICHARD TREADGOLD
“Dennis commented here: The oil industry copied the tactics [of] the tobacco industry. Engender mistrust in the science and scientists by lying.”
[Treadgold] What a devilishly clever piece of logic. It cannot fail, can it?
It is a simple statement of fact. It can fail if it is wrong. The thing is, it isn’t wrong.
——————————————————————————————————————
“Richard Treadgold. on August 27, 2016 at 11:39 am said:
Dennis, I question the warming of the ocean, is that what you mean by surface? The Climategate emails are off the topic,”
About 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by ocean. I thought you’d know that.
What was the climategate beat-up then, if not to ” Engender mistrust in the science and scientists by lying.”
CO2 is causing global warming and climate change. The evidence is clear and the science incontrovertible. In the past when CO2 has been high, so have sea levels. With our GHG emissions we have already locked in several metres of sea level rise.
Don’t know when, but it’s certainly going to become very obvious within the lifetime of a well built house.
Now, Richard C (NZ) can tap dance on the head of a pin and Richard Treadgold can wriggle all he likes, but that is the fact of the matter.
Of course, if you can’t accept the science, the best thing to do, for peace of mind, is to denier it.
>”The “greenhouse effect” version is this:
Sun => Ocean => Atmosphere(+Space) => Ocean => Atmosphere(+Space) => Ocean => [Repeat…..]”
>”I am not making this up. Plenty of animations and diagrams showing that repetition on the net.”
Actually it is even sillier in the example given:
The Greenhouse Effect
http://www.sciencequiz.net/lcchemistry/atmospheric/images/xgreenhouse1b.gif.pagespeed.ic.A2Av5woKvx.png
That system is:
Sun => Surface => Troposphere => Surface => Troposphere => Surface => [Repeat…..]”
Dennis,
If you really believe that anthropogenic global warming is a problem then how do you explain the following graph from the IPCC (Figure TS.14, page 87, Technical Summary, Working Group I, IPCC AR5 report):
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
Or if you can’t be bothered waiting for the AR5 to load:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg
Are the IPCC working for ‘big oil’?
Of course that also means there is no such thing as a ‘scientific consensus’ too, doesn’t it?
Dennis
You’ve studiously avoided ALL the issues upthread and requests for an explanation of how “greenhouse effect” heats the surface except for ocean warming attribution of which you say:
“About 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by ocean. I thought you’d know that.”
We know that Dennis. The question is: HOW is the ocean warmed?
IPCC make an anthro attribution without scientific backup. Renwick and Naish are peddling the “83% of the heat from human fossil fuel emissions” has gone into the ocean meme.
Provably false as upthread. The ocean is where the debate is now Dennis.
>”CO2 is causing global warming and climate change. The evidence is clear and the science incontrovertible. In the past when CO2 has been high, so have sea levels. With our GHG emissions we have already locked in several metres of sea level rise.”
Circular reasoning from a false premise. Argument from Authority. Miss-attribution. Can you get any worse Dennis?
Dennis
>”Richard C (NZ) can tap dance on the head of a pin ……”
Heh, out of your depth Dennis
>”Of course, if you can’t accept the science, the best thing to do, for peace of mind, is to denier it”
Denier it?
I have accepted the science Dennis. Go back upthread and see I have., The science proves the IPCC attribution is wrong.
You are the denier here Dennis. You CANNOT and WILL NOT address the issues raised because all you’ve got is a “tap dance on the head of a pin” rejoinder.
You’ve got nothing Dennis. You’re an empty vessel.
Should be – ““[93%] of the heat from human fossil fuel emissions” has gone into the oceans
The question looked clear to me, “is that what you mean by surface?” But never mind. Onward.
Let us assume the greenhouse effect means Earth is warmer than it would otherwise be. (This is settled science, but hey, everyone is entitled to his own opinion and facts, isn’t he?)
So, what is the difference between the GHE warming a body of water and an area of clay?
Dennis
>[You] “The oil industry copied the tactics [of] the tobacco industry. Engender mistrust in the science and scientists by lying.”
[You] >”It is a simple statement of fact. It can fail if it is wrong. The thing is, it isn’t wrong.”
It is NOT fact, it is unproven allegation. The US AGs have no case. There is no case proceeding to the US courts against Exxon for example.
But let’s say it is fact (it isn’t but let’s) – so what?
My position is this (from upthread):
I would add here, also thanks to the internet and the information age and especially access to observation data.
I remember a (female – not old white male) comment when Climategate was breaking but the MSM were not reporting it:
Without the internet and freedom of speech I would never have unraveled the bogosity of the AGW/MMCC scare with the ease I did, Same for many others but the oil industry has had no influence on me whatsoever. The Left cannot stand this freedom of information, hence attempts to shut down dissent by any means.
I cannot even start to think where and by what document(s) or media the oil industry MIGHT have influenced me, even subliminally.
Any ideas Dennis?
Hi Dennis
I’m not sure where you are at with the so-called “climate debate” but I will give you the benefit of doubt that you haven’t heard the “canonical sceptic argument”.
This is, that the basic blackbody warming due to a doubling of CO2 is 1.2 degrees C. Anything above and below that depends on positive or negative feedbacks, for example from water vapour and cloud cover.
Also, the CO2 AGW theory assumes a logarithmic effect. i.e more CO2 has logarithmically less forcing effect
The “dangerous” warming thesis depends on overall positive feedbacks
We can argue about energy imbalance and whether the CO2 greenhouse gas theory is correct or not, but the above summary is the nutshell. Some argue about details but unless feedbacks are positive, then AGW is basically a non-problem
Richatd C (NZ). “I cannot even start to think where and by what document(s) or media the oil industry MIGHT have influenced me, even subliminally. Any ideas Dennis?”
Yes. There are about 7 billion people on Earth and you are just one of them.
It’s not all about you, Richard C (NZ)
In fact, you are irrelevant. A crank.
Ah Dennis, Dennis, Dennis, resorting to name calling is a sure sign you’ve lost the argument. Now, back to the empirical evidence – what does the following graph from the IPCC tell you? (Figure TS.14, page 87, Technical Summary, Working Group I, IPCC AR5 report):
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
Or if you can’t be bothered waiting for the AR5 to load:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg
Don’t run away again now, show us how this graph proves AGW so we can all be as informed as you.
In fact, you are irrelevant. A crank.
We are all irrelevant Dennis
If you died tomorrow in a car crash and you had been slowly burned to death, having experienced a slow and excruciating end, there may be some members of your family that may shed some tears for a few days
Your pointless and worthless existence has no more merit than any of the rest of us.
Dennis
>”The question looked clear to me, “is that what you mean by surface?”
You obviously didn’t comprehend the comment Dennis. There were TWO elements:
The first “warming” question [1] is in respect to the ocean i.e. How, exactly, do GHG emissions warm the ocean as the IPCC asserts by unsupported attribution and Naish and Renwick are promulgating?
This has become the US$90 trillion question Dennis because the IPCC case collapses without an ocean warming attribution (see upthread).
The second question [2] was just to clarify what you mean by “surface”. You seem to concur that the ocean surface is the relevant surface given its greater relative area – [You] “About 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by ocean”. Also most relevant because the ocean is the earth’s greatest heat sink by far, land is negligible.
So we seem to be on the same page, the argument now is in respect ocean warming because that is 93% of the anthro attribution to earth’s system warming by GHGs according to Naish and Renwick..
>”Let us assume the greenhouse effect means Earth is warmer than it would otherwise be. (This is settled science, but hey, everyone is entitled to his own opinion and facts, isn’t he?)
No it is NOT “settled science” Dennis. You have been shown upthread that it is a redundant proposition. Just the presence of the entire atmospheric air mass determines the temperature at surface or anywhere right up to TOA and that the standard atmosphere was modeled in 1976 without recourse to the “greenhouse effect” (see upthread). Without that air mass we wouldn’t be here irrespective of how the air mass (and other non-GHG parameters) determines temperature. Without the air mass you have what the moon has. With the air mass we have ambient temperature because – IT’S THERE. There is no need to invoke a “greenhouse effect” to further explain what is already explained. And a “greenhouse effect” does NOT explain temperature right up to TOA.
>”So, what is the difference between the GHE warming a body of water and an area of clay?”
Firstly your premise is false, there is no GHG warming at the surface – water or land. Here’s the earth’s surface energy budget (AGAIN):
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
The net effect of LW at the surface is cooling (OLR).
Secondly, (given NO net downward GHG flux the following is of no consequence except to complete your humiliation Dennis), radiative penetration of water has been researched extensively by medical laser physics in particular since the 1970s. From which we have safe and successful laser eye surgery for example. If you are going to point a laser at someone’s eye then is probably a good idea to know what the radiation-water action will be.
They found only a maximum penetration of water in the LWIR spectrum (4 – 100 microns) was only about 100 microns and most effective at 10 microns. 100 microns is about the thickness of a human hair. Oceanography papers adopt 10 microns.
By comparison, the solar SW heating effect has been measured down to 19m in the tropics depending on surface conditions (e.g. wind speed). Most effective penetration is about 1m.
LW penetration of Land (“clay”) is even less. Good luck trying to find literature on this because, frankly, no-one cares. But still the net effect of LW is the same (OLR) for land (clay) as it is for water.
Radiative cooling by surface OLR is how they made ice in India Dennis. Read about that here:
Radiative cooling
“In India before the invention of artificial refrigeration technology, ice making by nocturnal cooling was common. The apparatus consisted of a shallow ceramic tray with a thin layer of water, placed outdoors with a clear exposure to the night sky. The bottom and sides were insulated with a thick layer of hay. On a clear night the water would lose heat by radiation upwards. Provided the air was calm and not too far above freezing, heat gain from the surrounding air by convection would be low enough to allow the water to freeze by dawn”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling
Irrelevant? Indeed.
What is relevant in science it the balance of informed opinion. With climate science, it is strong:
A widespread and profound consensus. That:
CO2 is causing global warming and climate change, to our detriment.
The rest is humbug.
Richard C (NZ)
The greenhouse effect raises the temperature of Earth from, say, -18 to +14; 33C
It does this by slowing cooling.
Of the surface. Solid or water.
The rest is humbug.
Climategate was a beat-up by a lying oil lobby to engender mistrust of scientists and disbelief in the science.
It worked.
Otherwise, why would people not believe the science from the Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society … preferring instead to believe the business-as-usual merchants?
Dennis
>”In fact, you are irrelevant. A crank.”
If you are going to resort to Argument by Ad Hominem Dennis then you should know it is an argument fallacy:
But carry on regardless if you want Dennis, your prerogative.
BTW, you’re going to have to come up with something better than “irrelevant” and “crank”. Those aren’t winners in a losing Ad Hominem-based Argument by Fallacy Dennis, not against me anyway.
Andy can attest to this too.
Dennis,
You say ‘A widespread and profound consensus … CO2 is causing global warming and climate change, to our detriment.’
So where is the consensus and global warming in the IPCC graph? (Figure TS.14, page 87, Technical Summary, Working Group I, IPCC AR5 report):
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
Or if you can’t be bothered waiting for the AR5 to load:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg
Come now, show us all the overwhelming evidence, we’re all waiting. Perhaps you think the IPCC are in the pay of ‘big oil’, or maybe Elvis is sending telepathic messages from the alien mothership in Area 51 to corrupt the science?
You are quite entertaining though, in a humorous sort of way, I’ll give you that, especially when you call people ‘cranks’ – it’s very funny.
Now run away again, before the big, bad IPCC graph gets you & eats you all up. ROFLMAO!
Climategate was a beat-up by a lying oil lobby to engender mistrust of scientists and disbelief in the science.
The evidence for this is what, exactly?
Dennis
>”Climategate was a beat-up by a lying oil lobby to engender mistrust of scientists and disbelief in the science.”
You have no proof of this Dennis. No-one else has even made the connection. Actually it was the Climategaters wanting to be in the pay of big oil:
‘Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support’
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
>”No-one else has even made the connection.”
Looks like a Guardianista did in comments under the article linked below (can’t be bothered delving in for details):
“Big Oil coined the term climategate over nothing”
‘Climategate’ had only fleeting effect on global warming scepticism
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/20/climategate-longterm-level-climate-change-scepticism
Didn’t work apparently, contrary to Dennis – “It worked”.
The term Climategate was coined by James Delingpole on 20th November 2009 but Bulldust beat him to it at WUWT:
[Booker] A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” (Note: Delingpole reports via email he got it from WUWT, commenter Bulldust coined the phrase at 3:52PM PST Nov 19th [hotlink] – Anthony)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/telegraphs-booker-on-the-climategate-scandal/
Are you telling me that accusing the scientists of being corrupt, telling lies and organising a cover-up didn’t make people suspicious and less inclined to believe the scientists and accept the science?
What was the purpose of the beat-up then?
The false accusations, the lies from the oil lobby?
Run, run, run as fast as you can,
You’ll never catch me I’m the Dennis Horne man.
He trusted the fox to help his plan,
And that was the end of the Dennis Horne man.
Hey Dennis … BOO!!:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg
Dennis
>It [Climategate] worked. Otherwise, why would people not believe the science from the Royal Society…….”
That would be this:
Not believing that has nothing to do with Climategate Dennis. There’s no reason to believe it because the IPCC’s own surface energy budget precludes it and the IPCC has no observational evidence or documented mechanism to support the assertion and attribution except for speculation. See AR5 WGI SOD Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional, 10.4.1 Ocean Temperature and Heat Content, page 32, line 20:
And so, as with all Warmy rebuttals, we go round and round with you Dennis and right back up to RT’s post and the first comment that addresses this in the comment thread.
Richard C (NZ) on August 26, 2016 at 10:49 am said:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/08/your-doubts-about-climate-change-are-created-by-the-lying-oil-industry/comment-page-1/#comment-1509050
It’s much like the “greenhouse effect” diagram upthread – repeat over and over and over again.
Dennis
>”Are you telling me that accusing the scientists of being corrupt, telling lies and organising a cover-up didn’t make people suspicious and less inclined to believe the scientists and accept the science?”
The Climategate emails were, and still are, the self-evident revelation and confirmation of what had been suspected – a figurative gold mine. There is no need to make allegations, the Climategators indict themselves.
>”What was the purpose of the beat-up then?”
There was no “purpose” Dennis. The emails ended up in the public domain, scrutiny ensued, controversy arose because the emails provided the evidence.
>”The false accusations, the lies from the oil lobby?”
Again, the email revelations were self-evident. The oil lobby had no involvement in Climategate although the CRU Climategaters were chasing big oil money (see upthread). There is no proven case against the oil lobby. No case is proceeding to court.
>”The Climategate emails were, and still are, the self-evident revelation and confirmation of what had been suspected – a figurative gold mine. There is no need to make allegations, the Climategators indict themselves.”
>”Again, the email revelations were self-evident.”
Even The Guardian could see this:
‘Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
Features Chris de Freitas, Auckland University.
Not the only Climategate controversy of course.
>”Not the only Climategate controversy of course.”
THE CLIMATEGATE EMAILS
by John Costella
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf
Foreword
The Climategate emails expose to our view a world that was previously hidden from virtually everyone.
This formerly hidden world was made up of a very few players. But they controlled those critical Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) processes involving the temperature records from the past, and the official interpretation of current temperature data. They exerted previously unrecognized influence on the “peer review” process for papers seeking publication in the officially recognised climate science literature from which the IPCC was supposed to rely exclusively in order to draw its conclusions.
The Climategate emails demonstrate that these people had no regard for the traditions and assumptions which had developed over centuries and which provided the foundations of Western science. At the very core of this tradition is respect for truth and honesty in reporting data and results; and a recognition that all the data, and all the steps required to reach a result, had to be available to the scientific world at large.
There are two issues which now have to be addressed. The first is the damage which has been done to the standing of science as an intellectual discipline on which our civilisation depends. The second is the status of the IPCC, since that institution is the source of scientific authority on which prime ministers and other political leaders rely to legitimise their statements about global warming.
The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Panel (UNEP) in 1988. From the very beginning its brief was to report on mankind’s influence on climate change.
The IPCC has published four assessment reports, in 1991, 1996, 2001, and in 2007. Every successive report has upped the ante, both in the confidence of their predictions of increasing global temperatures and rising sea-levels, and in the surety that mankind is responsible for continued warming.
The Climategate emails originate from the University of East Anglia’s, Climatic Research Unit, (CRU) founded by climatology pioneer Hubert Lamb. Tom Wigley, who was born and educated in Adelaide, was Director of the CRU until 1993 and was succeeded by Phil Jones, who is one of two lead players in this story.
The other lead player is Mike Mann, from Penn State University. Mike Mann leapt from relative obscurity to international fame with his “hockey stick”, a graph of global temperatures from 1000 AD to the present, which was the showpiece at the launching of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report in Shanghai in January 2001. The hockey stick became a corporate logo for the IPCC , but because it rubbed out the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from the historical record, it was subjected to a US congressional inquiry. Eventually it was shown that random data fed into the algorithms used by Mann to produce his hockey stick from bristle cone pine tree ring data, also yielded hockey stick results.
In this annotated edition of the Climategate emails, John Costella shows us how a very small cabal of climate scientists, based at the University of East Anglia and at Penn State University, were able to control the temperature record fed into the IPCC reports and which comprised the foundation on which the whole global warming structure was based. The only data base which they could not influence was the satellite measured temperature data which John Christy and Roy Spencer, from the University of Alabama, had established from 1979 on.
That this was a real conspiracy is beyond argument. The word “conspiracy” is used by the players themselves. In any conspiracy there is a tight inner core and then successive rings of collaborators, who accept the leadership of the central core.
The hero who emerges from these emails is Steve McIntyre, a Canadian ex-geologist and mining analyst, who with remarkable patience and courtesy kept on asking for the data and the computer programmes upon which the various IPCC pronouncements were based. He has performed a great service for the world, which one day will surely be recognised.
The other hero, so far unknown, is the whistle-blower who realised the implications of what was going on and was able to place all these emails on an obscure Russian website.
John Costella has done a great service in making these emails intelligible to us all. The Lavoisier Group is grateful to him for allowing us to publish his work. The cost of this publication was met through donations from the Lavoisier Group’s member and friends and on behalf of the Board I thank them for their generous support.
Hugh Morgan
Melbourne
March 2010
So the beat-up continues. Lies, lies, damn lies.
Scientists exonerated by several inquiries.
Of course science suffered. Reputations do suffer when lies are spread. That’s why the liars spread lies.
So people won’t believe the scientists, who keep saying:
CO2 is causing warming and climate change.
Dennis
>”What is relevant in science it the balance of informed opinion. With climate science, it is strong: widespread and profound consensus. That: CO2 is causing global warming and climate change, to our detriment.”
Back to “consensus” again Dennis. Science is not a democracy. Miss-attribution on the other hand, is, apparently.
Classic concession Dennis.
So, you agree. There is no net heating flux down except solar SW. No GHG ocean heating. Just an insulation effect according to you in this latest statement of yours. This puts you offside with Naish, Renwick, the Royal Society, and the IPCC Dennis (see below).
But first the 33 C difference. The temperature of the entire atmosphere, including surface, is already established without recourse to a “greenhouse effect” i.e. it is a redundant proposition (as I’ve already explained – over and over). The 33C difference was explained, as upthread, by Maxwell’s Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ and the US Standard Atmosphere Model:
Back to your insulation effect Dennis. It contradicts the IPCC. They say there is an “energy inflow” to ocean “storage” in AR5 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (b) below which, along with the other factors, balances the accumulated GHG forcing at TOA in Figure 1 (a). Not an insulation effect.
TS TFE.4-1 (a) (b)
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg
Without this GHG-forced “energy inflow” to the ocean the IPCC’s case, and the entire Man-Made Climate Change theory, is a bust. Sunk. Falsified. You Dennis, agree the “energy inflow” doesn’t exist.
An insulation effect is NOT an “energy inflow” as you’ve conceded yourself Dennis (“slowing cooling”). You contradict the IPCC. Their speculated mechanism for their “energy inflow” to the ocean due to GHG forcing is this:
This is their “energy inflow” mechanism they are speculating, NOT your insulation mechanism Dennis. But great that you finally agree there is no net heating flux down except solar SW, therefore no GHG ocean heating contrary to IPCC speculation.
Took a while but you conceded eventually and now disagree, as I do, with the IPCC Dennis.
Dennis
>”Back to your insulation effect Dennis. It contradicts the IPCC. They say there is an “energy inflow” to ocean “storage” in AR5 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (b) ………”
Naish and Renwick quantify the IPCC’s GHG-forced “energy inflow” to the ocean:
Anthropogenically-sourced heat flow “into the ocean” is a heat transfer flux from atmosphere to ocean Dennis, NOT an insulation effect.
An insulation effect acts on heat flow from ocean to atmosphere i.e. “slowing cooling” as you put it.
Richard C (NZ)
What is it with you? What on Earth goes on in your head?
What energy do you think Renwick and Naish are talking about?
For heaven’s sake man, even school children understand the principle of the greenhouse effect: Insulation.
Dennis
>”What energy do you think Renwick and Naish are talking about?”
This is the “energy” Naish and Renwick are talking about Dennis (in their own words):
Same energy the IPCC says is an “energy inflow” into the. ocean. It amounts to over 200 ZetaJoules. The IPCC have to sink their excess GHG energy SOMEWHERE to keep their theory alive.Their total excess is now in the order of about 2000 ZetaJoules. They say the bulk has gone to space i.e. GHG forcing was totally ineffective in that case. And the bulk of the residual has gone into the surface, predominantly the ocean.
That energy into the surface is a heat flow Dennis, a heat flux, a heat TRANSFER. Same heat flux the IPCC speculate (but could not find):
That is NOT “insulation” Dennis. Naish, Renwick, and the IPCC are describing a heating agent:
Heating agent: Causes heat flow INTO an object.
Insulator: Slows heat flow OUT OF an object.
You describe an insulator Dennis (“slowing cooling”), You are offside, Naish, Renwick, and the IPCC are describing a heating agent.
>”For heaven’s sake man, even school children understand the principle of the greenhouse effect: Insulation.”
Well yes, that is the common misconception Dennis because it seems reasonable. But it is not the view of the IPCC and climate scientists. Stefan Rahmstorf at Real Climate for example:
Highly problematic of course but Rahmstorf is describing a heating agent – NOT an insulator.
Your “insulation” concept falls into the Skeptical Science camp Dennis, offside with the IPCC. You can read about the respective positions in this series of articles:
Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 1 – Skeptical Science Offside
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart1SkepticalScienceOffside.pdf
Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 2 – The Improbable IPCC Mechanism
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart2TheImprobableIPCCMechanism.pdf
Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 3 – Rahmstorf Schmittner and Nuccitelli
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart3RahmstorfSchmittnerandNuccitelli.pdf
Dennis,
Climategate beatup? Are you saying the released emails weren’t genuine? Nobody in the world claims those emails were anything but what they purport to be. It is the scientists talking among themselves. The criticism (the “beatup”) arises only after people read them and they are aghast.
Richard C makes many good points; the latest you really must answer:
Do you not understand that if you claim the greenhouse effect is only to insulate, you cannot also claim that heat energy arises “from humankind’s use of fossil fuels”? You don’t get two bites at the cherry. That is to say, the greenhouse effect might raise the temperature of the atmosphere a little, but there’s no “extra” heat that somehow goes back down into the ocean. So the greenhouse effect will not significantly warm the ocean, and if the ocean does not significantly warm, how could you claim its level will rise dangerously?
From memory, up to about 0.3 °C since 1950 is what the IPCC claims might have been caused by human activities. I know of no mechanism that would transfer any significant part of that heat to the ocean, but if there was, it would have a vanishingly trivial effect on ocean heat content or temperature.
Alternatively, one could say that, presuming such a mechanism exists, then 93% of that heat energy going into the ocean would similarly have a vanishingly trivial effect on ocean temperature.
All our previous questions hang over this thread like the sword of Damocles, ignored by you at your peril. You stick your fingers in your ears and steadfastly chant the warmist slogans.
On and on without listening. it would seem. Start answering. Your efforts so far have been no more than glib.
One last thing. You say:
Yet I had been discussing the ocean. If you had read even a little about this, you would know about the effects at different depths of different wavelengths, and you would not refer to the ocean as a surface. Still, if you would kindly explain, or point to an explanation, I would be grateful indeed to understand the process of warming by atmospheric radiative effects. From (of course) the products of our emissions, not solar rays.
Cheers.
Dennis
You also have to distinguish between a greenhouse effect (however you explain it) and an ENHANCED greenhouse effect.
The Man-Made Climate Change scare (ex AGW) is an “ENHANCED” greenhouse effect as in this animation from the Australian Department of Environment and Energy (from upthread):
Enhanced greenhouse effect – Animation
https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/greenhouse-effect
Sure, the atmosphere makes earth livable in every respect including warmth however you explain the temperature effect, otherwise same as the moon.
But climate scientists like Naish and Renwick are saying the bulk (93%) of human-caused ENHANCED greenhouse effect is now in the ocean. The IPCC do not actually state this “93%” factor. If you look at AR5 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b) below it is obviously not 93% in the IPCC’s case:
TS TFE.4-1 (a) (b)
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg
The whole fallacious humans-heating-the ocean meme has entered a new and absurd phase with this “Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….from humankind’s use of fossil fuels has gone into the ocean” story.
It conflicts with and contradicts the IPCC story for starters.
>”Naish and Renwick are saying the bulk (93%) of human-caused ENHANCED greenhouse effect is now in the ocean. The IPCC do not actually state this “93%” factor. If you look at AR5 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b) below it is obviously not 93% in the IPCC’s case”
For period 1970 – 2011.
In TS TFE.4-1 (a):
Theoretical GHG forcing is 1200 ZetaJoules. 93% of 1200 is 1116 ZetaJoules.
In TS TFE.4-1 (b):
Storage (ocean, land, atmosphere, and ice) is almost 300 ZetaJoules.
Measured ocean heat storage in the 0 – 2000m layer was 250 ZetaJoules
0-2000m Ocean Heat Content
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
Obviously storage in the atmosphere is a minor component of total storage given ocean is 83.3% of the total (250/300).
The IPCC then, have ocean storage at 20.8% of theoretical GHG forcing (250/1200) over the 1970 – 2011 period. Naish and Renwick say 93%. in 2016.
For period 1970 – 2016.
The percentage has only increased to 21.4% at 2016 because theoretical GHG forcing is around 1400 ZetaJoules 1970 – 2016 and ocean heat storage is 300 ZetaJoules (300/1400 = 21.4%).
For period 1950 – 2016.
Going back to 1950 and assuming total GHG forcing from TS TFE.4-1 (a) at say 1850 ZetaJoules and ocean storage at the measured 300 ZetaJoules (same as 1970), the percentage is only 16.2% (300/1850 = 16.2%).
Naish and Renwick are wildly at odds with IPCC and OHC values, 93% vs 16.2%.
Worth noting too that for period 1970 – 2011 in TS TFE.4-1 (b), between 200 and 900 ZetaJoules has simply dissipated to space by “radiative response”.
In other words, between 16.7% and 75% of total theoretical GHG-forced energy is out of the earth’s system i.e. completely ineffective even within the IPCC’s paradigm and values (200/1200 and 900/1200).
That’s a 700 ZetaJoule range of energy dissipation that the IPCC can’t make their mind up on because they only “infer” “radiative response” (OLR) instead of deferring to “highly precise” satellite measurements.
700 ZJ is 58% (700/1200) of their total theoretical GHG-forced energy that the IPCC cannot tie down.
Andreas Schmittner, associate professor of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University and paper author on climate sensitivity concurs with Naish and Renwick but contradicts Dennis:
Schmittner is however, along with Naish and Renwick, also at odds with the IPCC where most (16.7% – 75%) of that theoretical heat has simply dissipated to space according to their assessment. Less than 20% has been absorbed by the oceans since 1950 if the IPCC are to be believed (I don’t).
I am travelling again at present and busy.
The ‘climategate’ emails were genuine but the interpretation and subsequent refusal to accept the perfectly valid explanations given by the scientists were, and are continuing to be, a beatup. Clearly you people still think they’re a”goctcha”.
The result of the greenhouse effect is to warm the surface. The energy trapped ends up in the oceans because that is the main heat sink. (You know that “heat” eventually moves from hotter to colder). That does NOT mean that energy arising in one form is the energy that moves. That is, it arises in one form and moves in another. For example, you can heat the end of a rod with radiation and the other end gets hot by conduction. Similarly, a body of water can be heated with short wave radiation and its cooling slowed by maintaining the surface at a higher temperature with long wave radiation.
Anyway, the greatest scientists in the world can’t get past your mental block. Its solid. But hey, it’s been fun. A bit like arguing with homeopaths and other alternative health cranks. In the end you just walk away.
Nice that you are travelling Dennis
I hope you are not using any products from the lying Oil Industy that you despise so much
Anyone who thinks that the Climategate emails showed no wrong doing or misdemeanours is probably the kind of morally and intellectually bankrupt cretin that would vote for Hillary Clinton
Thank you, Andy, for proving my point. You think the inquiries into ‘climategate’ must ALL be part of a cover-up.
And yes, I’m using lots and lots of JetA1. Why? What has that got to do with the science or the lying?
You really should give up speaking out aloud, Andy, you’re beginning to look more and more like that witless bullshitting imbecile Donald Drumpf.
Presumably Dennis, you think it is quite normal for a Secretary of State to keep state secrets on a private email, to have a $200 million dollar fund funded by doing dodgy deals with tyrants and despots, and to be under investigation by the FBI whilst running for President
Of course, this is entirely normal, just as conspiring to get “sceptics” fired from journal editor roles, telling your colleagues to delete emails that might incriminate them, and refusing to release data and code from your research
I do feel sorry for our children that our society is rotting from the core, celebrated by our media everyday
Do enjoy you travels and your typing Dennis
Dennis
>”a body of water can be heated with short wave radiation and its cooling slowed by maintaining the surface at a higher temperature with long wave radiation.
DLR in isolation does not “maintain” surface temperature Dennis. It is just one factor in the surface energy budget (see below). Solar SW maintains surface temperature. Without it there is no surface heat – Period.
LWdown (DLR) is 345.6 W.m-2 on global average. Total energy up is 533 W.m-2. In other words, the “insulation” effect of DLR is a lot less than the energy escaping (187.4 less).
Now your trio.
>”The result of the greenhouse effect is to warm the surface. The energy trapped ends up in the oceans because that is the main heat sink. (You know that “heat” eventually moves from hotter to colder).”
Heh, you even manage to mangle gobbledegook Dennis. Lets take this one sentence at a time:
>”The result of the greenhouse effect is to warm the surface”
You said it was an insulation effect Dennis. The sun heats the surface I think you will agree i.e. the energy is already in the surface in an insulation effect. But there are 3 means of energy egress from the surface – Latent (Hl), Sensible (Hs), and Radiation (Rnl). In the earth’s energy budget at the surface all of these 3 are negative i.e. cooling fluxes, energy leaving the surface (egress):
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
-88.0 W.m-2 – Latent heat (Hl)
-52.4 W.m-2 – Net LW radiation (Rnl)
-24.0 W.m-2 – Sensible heat (Hs)
With -23 SW up adds to -187.4 W.m-2.
In the west tropical Pacific sub-surface energy accumulation is in the order of 24 W.m-2 i.e. more energy is going in than coming out (ingress). In the Southern Ocean more energy is going out than coming in, around -10 W.m-2. The global average is 0.6 W.m-2 into the surface i.e. more solar SW in than Hl + Rnl + Hs out.
What you are saying by an insulation effect Dennis, is that energy that has already LEFT the surface (Hl+Hs+Rnl) returns (as DLR, LWdown) to inhibit egress by all 3 means (Hl, Rnl, Hs). But DLR is overwhelmed just by OLR Dennis (398 vs 345.6) . The net effect of LW radiation is OLR i.e. cooling (-52.4 W.m-2 on global average). Most cooling occurs towards the poles where there is less solar ingress. In other words, there is no uniform insulation effect. Just more solar ingress in the tropics less towards the poles, less surface egress in the tropics more towards the poles. Any insulation effect of DLR is overwhelmed by the total of the egress factors.
DLR is 345.6 W.m-2 on global average (see Figure 1 above). Only around 6 – 8 W.m-2 of that is attributable to CO2. An ENHANCED greenhouse effect is a negligible change in DLR attributable to GHGs. Total decadal DLR change is in the order of 10 W.m-2 decadally positive or negative. CO2 for example, is only about 2% of DLR as above. Decadal change in CO2 (fractions of a W.m-2) is a negligible change in total DLR compared to what total DLR is doing.
Hence an ENHANCED greenhouse effect is a negligible change in the overall surface heat budget.
The temperature of the entire atmosphere profile from surface to TOA is already established without recourse to the greenhouse effect Dennis (see Standard Atmosphere Model upthread). In other words, invoking the greenhouse to explain surface temperature (ONLY) is a redundant proposition.
>”The energy trapped ends up in the oceans because that is the main heat sink.”
Now you are contradicting yourself Dennis. This is a heat transfer statement, but you say “insulation” previously. Insulation is NOT heat transfer.
It is this supposed heat transfer that the controversy Dennis. The IPCC, Royal Society, Naish and Renwick, have some explaining to do because their stories are unsupported by any science and their stories differ radically. Their attribution is merely speculation. Their mechanism is not evident in the surface energy budget.
And your non sequitur is non sense Dennis. Yes, the ocean is the main heat sink but it does not necessarily follow that heat is transferred from the troposphere to the ocean just because the ocean is the main heat sink. Besides, you’re saying “insulation”. Insulation is NOT heat transfer Dennis.
Look at the earth’s surface energy budget above Dennis. There is NO heat transfer from air to surface other than solar.
>”You know that “heat” eventually moves from hotter to colder”
Yes, in accordance with the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Glad you agree Dennis. The statement is:
The AGW notion (of IPCC, Naish, Renwick et al) of a massive heat transfer from troposphere to ocean is a violation of the Clausious statement above.
There is no heat transfer from troposphere to ocean. That is confirmed by the earth’s energy budget above. So you do grasp what I’ve been trying to explain to you after all Dennis. This is fantastic progress.
Great that you now agree with us Dennis. A very refreshing turnabout in your 3rd sentence of the trio.
Dennis
>”It is this supposed heat transfer that [is] the controversy Dennis. The IPCC, Royal Society, Naish and Renwick, have some explaining to do because their stories are unsupported by any science and their stories differ radically. Their attribution is merely speculation. Their mechanism is not evident in the surface energy budget.”
>”The AGW notion (of IPCC, Naish, Renwick et al) of a massive heat transfer from troposphere to ocean is a violation of the Clausious statement above.”
Suggest you move on to the next post Dennis. Deals with the ethics and (il)legalities of the above in respect to Naish and Renwick’s Ten by Ten: Climate Change series run by the Royal Society.
Naish and Renwick understand the science.
Science backed by the Royal Society. Here is the history of the Royal Society:
https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
Something of a tradition and reputation, wouldn’t you say.
But you know better.
Fine.
Naish and Tenwick understand the science
We know this by virtue of the existence of a scientific body on their her side of the planet
The RS motto is “Nullius in Verba” which means approximately “take no ones word for it”
Dennis
>”Naish and Renwick understand the science.”
They understand by their understanding of the IPCC’s unsupported SPECULATION in respect to ocean warming attribution. Except their “93%” is wildly at odds with IPCC information so they don’t even understand the IPCC’s version of the story.
The speculation is undeniable Dennis, but go ahead – deny anyway.
>”Science backed by the Royal Society”
Ah yes, that’s were it goes badly wrong for the Royal Society Dennis, both ethically and legally.
Go to the next post now Dennis.
When I say the “Royal Society” I mean the Royal Society.
Nothing is going wrong for the Royal Society.
The Royal Society has joined with the US National Academy of Sciences to promote the truth:
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
More facts here:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Dennis:
Have the Royal Society or NASA explained the discrepancy between the failed computer models and the actual temperature measurements that are published in the IPCC AR5 report? No? One of the 4 temperature datasets used to prove the models wrong is from NASA as well (Figure TS.14, page 87, Technical Summary, Working Group I, IPCC AR5 report):
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
Or if you can’t be bothered waiting for the AR5 to load:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg
Funny how NASA goes on about global warming when their own dataset published by the IPCC shows that the computer models are a complete failure. You & NASA can spout whatever ridiculous alarmist rubbish you like, but when the empirical evidence from multiple temperature datasets (including NASA’s) proves the models undeniably wrong, you have absolutely nothing to support your argument except unfounded speculation.
Now Dennis has gone travelling, I can reveal that I am pleased that I didn’t react in print to his nonsense.
The entire argument that Dennis has raised reminds me that arguing with an idiot takes you down to the idiot’s preferred level.
I am too old to bother,
Thumbs up to that, Alexander. Though Dennis might be back. Richard C actually said he was leaving.
Global mean surface temperature has been detected by satellites as rising over the decades:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png/1280px-Satellite_Temperatures.png
You’re just flat-out lying about it.
What else are you lying about?
Hello Dolly, thanks for commenting on this post, even after all these years.
First, you’re quite correct that the satellites have detected warming. I said there had been no significant warming, according to the satellite studies, for about 20 years, which is true.
But the excellent Wikipedia graph you link to, showing three global temperature datasets, shows the trend from 1982 to only 2005. So it starts 38 years ago and ends 15 years ago — it is fairly stale. When I wrote this post in 2016, the records showed that since about 1996 (almost 20 years earlier) there had been no significant warming.
The UAH dataset you refer to indicates warming of 0.163 °C/decade, or 1.6 °C/century, which is moderate warming, not a bit dangerous, so you fume at a trifle.
Dolly, I am sceptical, as I clearly said, about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW), not warming within natural limits. Read all my 1200+ posts and you’ll not find a single lie.
It’s clear you visit here with your discourteous and incorrect slander simply to pick a fight. You would be well advised to make much better preparation than this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2019/trend:1999/plot/rss-land/from:1999/to:2019/trend:1999
Looks significant to me. If it does fail a significance test, it is because you have chosen an insufficiently long time period.
1.6 °C/century is almost unprecedented in the paleoclimatic record, you probably have to go back to the PETM 55 million years ago.
Dangerous anthropogenic global warming is generally assumed to be greater than 3°C above pre-industrial levels, which at the current rate we will hit around the turn of the century.
Read all my 1200+ posts and you’ll not find a single lie.
LOL. Let’s call them factual inaccuracies then.