Global warming making oceans ‘sick’, scientists warn
Global warming is making the oceans sicker than ever before, spreading disease among animals and humans and threatening food security across the planet, a major scientific report said on Monday.
The report lists several consequences of warming they claim are “absolutely massive.” The scientists say we are “making the oceans sick,” “drastically altering the rhythm of life” and “changing the seasons in the ocean.” Yet when we examine the observed warming, these claims are shown to be ridiculous. How can we trust scientists when they make statements like this on the slenderest evidence:
the hotter oceans have killed off coral reefs at an unprecedented rate, reducing fish species by eliminating their habitats.
Earlier this year some bleached coral prompted claims that 93% of the Great Barrier Reef were damaged. But just two weeks ago teams of divers surveyed 300 km of the worst-hit portions of the reef and reported:
Everywhere we have been we have found healthy reefs.
No more than perhaps 7% had been damaged. The Great Barrier Reef was in fine condition, recovering nicely from an entirely natural bleaching event. Maybe a few coral reefs elsewhere have experienced a similar event.
So I don’t believe these claims of apocalyptic damage to the oceans. This graph of ocean temperatures over 35 years shows insignificant warming of just 0.15 °C. The same as 0.42 °C over a century. Not nearly enough for the dramatic changes claimed in this report. The normal diurnal range of surface temperatures can be over 5 °C, which makes 0.15 °C less than trivial.
Since 1980, ocean surface temperatures have risen about 0.15 °C. Note an exaggerated vertical scale gives the appearance of rapid rise.
Also in the report:
It documents evidence of jellyfish, seabirds and plankton shifting toward the cooler poles by up to 10 degrees latitude.
But ten degrees of latitude is only about 1100 km — completely insignificant for many marine species. Some penguins range over territory 6000 km wide and they can travel up to 15,000 km in six months. They’ll all be back when summer is over. Huge numbers of fish and other creatures follow the warmth, not the cold.
Anyway, if movements like these are real and turn out to be permanent, they weren’t caused by the sea water warming, because it hasn’t warmed, which means we didn’t cause it, which means this is all perfectly natural.
Views: 163
Presumably these rapidly warming oceans will give rise to accelerating sea levels, at some point in the future….
Funny how reports that all the oceans are cooling at present especially the Atlantic
I had friends from London stay after Christmas; Queen Mary stopped in Australia on return trip. Caught up with them recently. The Great Barrier trip was a waste of time; reef dead. As per scientists’ reports.
But Joanna Nova has found someone who saw something.
Should have gone to Specsavers?
Or trying to save a dying business?
“The Great Barrier trip was a waste of time; reef dead. As per scientists’ reports.”
The entire Great Barrier Reef is dead? I missed that bit of news.
Look , i just found this article in Teh Grauniad that has pictures of healthy and dead coral.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/18/great-barrier-reef-tourist-plea-coral-bleaching
Ah, Andy, so you admit a fair proportion of the reef is dead already. No reason to suppose it won’t get worse with increasing temperatures and acidification. Unless of course the problem is imaginary and only those completely ignored by the global scientific community can see the “truth”.
Where did I say the entire reef was all dead? The 25% killed this year, as stated in the Guardian article, may mean large patches in some areas or smaller patches everywhere.
Certainly the photo you kindly provided hardly showed a great expanse of colour. Did it.
Which agrees with the personal account I was given recently.
Your friends claimed that it was a waste of time. Apparently 75% of the Great Barrier Reef that is healthy is a “waste of time”
Your friends seem to have pretty high standards
As it happens I don’t believe the 25% figure. I don’t really believe much that comes from The Guardian, and research into the Reef has been overrun by activists that are funded by Greenpeace.
It’s a shame when you don’t trust most people, but that is the world we live in today
Dennis, I learnt, while working in the UK for some years, that no serious, well-educated individuals took anything Grauniad environmental or science columnists wrote as being worth the ink and paper used: some of their columnists appear to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic, such as George Monbiot, who is now promoting the eating of roadkill to ‘save the planet’.
But if you wish to believe them, that’s okay in a world that believes in free speech, just do not expect rational people to accept such nonsense.
Mind you, the Grauniad sport pages are quite good and I still read that section frequently.
Alexander K. Reference to The Guardian was made by Andy, not me.
As far as the opinions from my friends are concerned, it was unsolicited and in a discussion about sight-seeing, nothing to do with climate change. Personally I would say a coral reef that was 25% bleached would be as repulsive as a body 25% covered in tattoos. But I accept you lot are blinkered.
I can’t comment on the Barrier Reef. I have heard that these bleaching events come and go and may be to do with localised warming. There is also concern about runoff from land into the sea, perhaps due to fertilisers
it seems a little implausible that bleaching is caused by “climate change”, but then again, “climate change” causes everything, or so the experts tell us
This article on “extreme far right” Breitbart by “extreme climate denier” James Delingpole paints a different picture
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/25/shock-study-australias-great-barrier-reef-just-fine/
Condition of The World Heritage Area of the Great Barrier Reef has been monitored since 1993.
Check out the condition of sections of the Reef here
http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/monitoring/reef/latest-surveys.html#Latest surveys
Overall summary of latest survey
http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/media/latest-releases/-/asset_publisher/8Kfw/content/the-facts-on-great-barrier-reef-coral-mortality?inheritRedirect=false&redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aims.gov.au%2Fdocs%2Fmedia%2Flatest-releases%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_8Kfw%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D1
Asking the tourism industry to make an assessment will likely lead to a biased result.
Mass bleaching events were unheard of prior to the 1982-83 El Niño. Bleaching occurs when the under stress corals expel the algae that live in their tissues. They can recover provided as the stress period is not too long. We don’t know yet how much of the stressed coral will recover from this episode.
@Simon
“Mass bleaching events were unheard of prior to the 1982-83 El Nino.”
I wouldn’t believe everything you read in the popular press.
Mass bleaching (expulsion of zooxanthellae) is a natural response of coral reefs to disturbance.
Check out these pre-1980 papers
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17816975
http://hl-128-171-57-22.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/409/1/v36n1-61-63.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/07/the-great-barrier-reef-a-catastrophe-laid-bare
“Australia’s natural wonder is in mortal danger. Bleaching caused by climate change has killed almost a quarter of its coral this year and many scientists believe it could be too late for the rest. Using exclusive photographs and new data, a Guardian special report investigates how the reef has been devastated – and what can be done to save it”
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/great-barrier-reef-queensland-australia-coral-bleaching-complete-ecosystem
“Depleting fish populations and corals that are still bleaching in the winter paint a bleak picture for parts of the Great Barrier Reef, which is undergoing a “complete ecosystem collapse,” scientists say. For a week, Coral Watch chief investigator Justin Marshall surveyed the reefs around Lizard Island in Queensland, according to the Guardian. He said many of the fish species commonly spotted around the coral had completely disappeared.”
Maybe if I stick my head up my rrrs I can copy Sergeant Schultz: “I see nuffing”.
Dennis,
The IPCC shows there hasn’t been any substantial global warming for an extended period (see links below), so your assertion that coral bleaching is the result of AGW is a complete & utter disconnect from empirical reality:
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
There is the 2015-2016 El Nino heat spike, but you are aware that an El Nino is a short term naturally occurring WEATHER event aren’t you?
You already have your ‘head up [your] rrrs’, which is exactly why you fail to observe the empirical evidence from multiple sources presented in the IPCC AR5 at the links above, although I have to say your attempts at avoiding the empirical reality in a public forum truly are a source of much hilarity though. Coral bleaching from global warming – ROFLMAO!!
Overlay the observed temperatures post 2013 onto those charts Mr Magoo.
Can you explain why the temperatures of successive El Nino’s are progressively higher than the previous event? Can you explain why El Nino’s prior to 1982 did not cause observable mass coral bleaching events?
Simon,
Regarding the observed temperatures post 2013 – that’s called an El Nino you ninny, a naturally occurring WEATHER event, not evidence of AGW. Don’t you know the difference between an El Nino and AGW?
If an El Nino is evidence of anthropogenic global warming, is a La Nina evidence of anthropogenic global cooling? No.
Each El Nino is not ‘progressively higher’ than the last, that’s a blatant mistruth if ever I’ve heard one, but let’s follow through with the point that the current El Nino is warmer than the last – it wouldn’t have something to do with the global temperature rising ever since the last ice age would it?
Looking at the following graph from the IPCC – where is your evidence that the temperature of any El Nino event is a result of AGW?
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg
Unless you can prove that the temperature of an El Nino is the result of AGW, then you can’t state that any coral bleaching is a result of AGW. Again, look at the graph from the IPCC above – no warming since at least the 1998 El Nino.
Magoo. What assertions did I make? I know better than to argue with anyone who denies Earth is retaining more energy with more CO2.
You’re not worth bothering about, buddy.
Why have temperatures supposedly been rising from the last ice age? The climate should be cooling if the sole driver was Milankovitch cycles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#/media/File:MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCoresRecaptioned.png
Lets look at global mean surface (land+ocean) temperatures rather than satellite lower troposphere proxies.
2016 Temps > 1998 > 1982. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
El Nino + AGW increases the probability of heat induced mass bleaching events. I doubt you’ll find a single scientist who would deny that.
I don’t recall Magoo denying that more CO2 means more energy being retained. Maybe Dennis could find the bit where he did, or maybe Dennis is too busy insulting all and sundry and showing off his complete lack of understanding of any of the issues around feedbacks etc.
and why have temperatures been rising since the Little Ice Age, around 300 years ago? Surely this isn’t all due to industrial civilisation?
Simon,
You can hardly say “supposedly” Dennis, since the ice age has been vanquished. But I guess you’re right, and it has been cooling.
Dennis,
I never denied the ‘Earth is retaining more energy with more CO2’, in fact it’s commonly accepted that it warms at the rate of approximately 1.2C per doubling of total (not just man’s) atmospheric CO2, & you won’t see me arguing against it. Shame the water vapour feedback isn’t doing what the models predicted.
Regarding the assertion you make is when you quote the paper – ‘Bleaching caused BY CLIMATE CHANGE has killed almost a quarter of its coral this year’. The IPCC graph shows there hasn’t been any warming for an extended time period, so to say any bleaching is due to climate change is complete rubbish – an El Nino is not long term climate change but a short term natural weather phenomenon.
Simon,
Sorry, I meant temperatures have been rising since the little ice age, not ice age.
The IPCC graph I gave IS using ground based temperature datasets, not the satellite datasets – NASA’s GISS dataset included. The 4 datasets are as follows, quoted from the UPCC AR5 graph:
‘(Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit gridded surface temperature data set 4 (HadCRUT4), European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) interim re-analysis of the global atmosphere and surface conditions (ERA-Interim), Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)) for the period 1986–2012 (black lines).’
Source: (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
You want to know what the really funny thing about your NASA graph is Simon? The GISS temperature dataset you link to has been butchered with so many ‘adjustments’ that the 1998 super El Nino has all but disappeared, which is truly hysterical. So tell me Simon, was there a giant El Nino in 1998 (the 2nd biggest ever recorded) or not, and if so why isn’t it in the GISS graph?
Below is the NOAA record of El Nino’s from 1950-2016, & if anything the rate of increase from 1982-2016 is slower amongst the strong El Nino’s than between 1957-1982 – i.e. the rate of warming is slowing, not accelerating. Hardly surprising when you look at the IPCC graph I link to that shows no warming after 1998:
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
You say ‘El Nino + AGW increases the probability of heat induced mass bleaching events.’
What AGW, there hasn’t been any warming for around 20 years?
If GISS has been ‘butchered’ how come the Hadley CRU, the Japanese Met Association and Berkley Earth produce almost the same results from unadjusted data? Your conspiracy theories hold no water.
Today’s XKCD cartoon is very topical. Let’s put these ‘natural’ changes in earth’s temperature into context.
http://xkcd.com/1732/
The claim that there has been no warming in twenty years is ridiculous. The evidence is all around us from multiple sources. Don’t concentrate solely upon irradiance measures of the troposphere, we live on the planet’s surface.
“The claim that there has been no warming in twenty years is ridiculous”
How much warming has there been then, in degrees C, with error bars?
“Your conspiracy theories hold no water.”
Of course anyone who dares to question authority in any shape or form is a “conspiracy theorist”
Take for example, those crazy right wing nutters who were questioning Hillary Clinton’s health for the last 2 months or more. Utterly absurd of course, she is in perfect health. Falling over at the 9/11 ceremony is perfectly normal and anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is obviously sexist, racist, Islamophobic, homophobic and probably one of those “deplorable” Trump supporters.
Greenhouse gases warm Earth, from -18C to +15C. CO2 is an important GHG. Since the Industrial Revolution, man’s emissions have increased atmospheric level of CO2 from 280 to 400ppm: 40%.
40%. So we would expect Earth to retain more energy. It does. Observed. Measured. Increased surface temperatures, most markedly in the Arctic. Increased ocean temperatures, but the oceans are a big heat sink. Increased ice melting; net loss.
The past shows when the CO2 level is high, so is the sea level. The ice sheets may form slowly as the temperature drops but the ice sheets may collapse unpredictably when the temperature rises.
Sorry, but that’s the way it is.
Be bold and be brave. So one day you may see the truth.
“The past shows when the CO2 level is high, so is the sea level. ”
Cargo-cult science
Be bold and be brave. So one day you may see the truth.
Where exactly is the “boldness” and “bravery” involved in unquestioningly accepting government funded BS, like for example Christchurch City Council’s projection that sea levels will be 40cm higher in 50 years and 100cm higher in 100 years?
“Bravery” seems to include suspending all critical thinking skills and accepting mathematically and scientifically implausible scenarios
Don’t worry, Andy, you’ll be dead. But Homo sapiens will see substantial SLR. Maybe 20 metres at this rate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=88&&n=1856
Keep shooting from the hip, Andy. That way you’ll miss your feet.
Plod on.
Dennis, Dennis, Dennis – Nobody is disputing your obsession for the warming abilities of CO2, everyone agrees. Have you read this in Box 8.1 from the IPCC AR4 about feedbacks?
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html
‘Rather, it is the response of tropospheric water vapour to warming itself – the water vapour feedback – that matters for climate change. In GCMs [global climate models], water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback (see Section 8.6.2.3): alone, it ROUGHLY DOUBLES the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases).’
The IPCC also says in that same box 8.1 that the upper troposphere should warm faster than the surface as evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, i.e. a tropospheric hotspot. The empirical evidence from ALL datasets in the IPCC’s AR5 show that the exact opposite has been happening (table 2.8, page 197, chapter 2, working group I, AR5):
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
CO2 is capable of warming a maximum of 1.2C per doubling of TOTAL (not just man’s) atmospheric CO2, and water vapour feedback is supposed to double the temperature rise attributable to CO2. Empirical evidence from ALL TEMPERATURE DATASETS in the IPCC AR5, both satellite and radiosonde, show that this isn’t happening. Sorry, but that means that any resulting warming from CO2 is minimal which is why all the computer models have failed when compared to the empirical data in the AR5. They are the undisputed facts from the IPCC – you don’t think perhaps the IPCC are in the pay of ‘big oil’ do you?
According to my calculations, in order to achieve 40cm after 50 years and 100cm after 100 years, SLR will have to use this formula:
s = 6t + 0.04t^2 where t in years ans s = sea level height in mm
This is obviously wrong because the initial SLR would have to be over 3 times the current rate, not to mention the acceleration that is completely missing from the current trends.
This is basic NZCEA maths, but Dennis knows better because The Scientists have a model that assumes that we will burn 4 times the world’s coal by 2100 and the population of Nigeria will reach 1.5 billion by 2100, and there will be no technological progress for 100 years
This model, called RCP8.5 is not designed for public policy but The Scientists and The Council have decided to use it anyway
Yes I will be dead, but the charred remains of my corpse will still have more critical thinking skills that Dennis currently possesses
Dennis
>”So we would expect Earth to retain more energy. It does. Observed. Measured.”
Yes Dennis. Except the earth is NOT retaining energy according to IPCC GHG radiative forcing (RF) theory.
This is becoming an increasingly embarrassing and monumental problem for the IPCC Dennis, and why the likes of Naish and Renwick are now claiming ““93% of the heat from human kind’s global warming………….. has gone into the sea”. Which is contrary to the IPCC who imply only about 25% has gone into the sea. A physical impossibility either way (see below).
AR5 had total theoretical effective forcing (ERF) including GHGs aerosols and solar at TOA of 2.33 W.m-2 (and increasing). The CO2 component of that was 1.83 in AR5 now 1.9 @ 400ppm and increasing. But the actual earths energy imbalance at TOA, as cited by the IPCC in AR5, was only 0.6 W.m-2 2000-2010 and trendless.
So GHG forcing theory is generating a humongous excess of energy in the earth system that the IPCC has to sink SOMEWHERE i.e. they have to account for the excess energy – where did it go?
According to the IPCC’s Technical Summary TFE.4-1 (b) “inferred” values (see below), between 16.7% and 75% of JUST their excess GHG-only energy of 1200 ZetaJoules (NOTE the incredible uncertainty- they don’t bother with their “highly precise” satellite measurements of OLR, they “infer” instead) was simply radiated to space i.e. their radiative forcing theory is totally ineffective for that amount – that theoretical heat was NOT retained:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b)
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
Their theoretical energy they say was retained in the atmosphere is so minimal as to be negligible. Hence their (physically impossible – see below) anthropogenic ocean warming attribution. That’s this energy:
0-2000m Global Ocean Heat Content
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
About 300 ZetaJoules of OHC accumulation – only 25% of their 1200 ZJ of excess GHG “forcing”. Most of the rest just dissipated to space apparently, if TFE.4-1 (b) is anything to go by.
The IPCC’s own cited earth’s surface energy budget (see below) AND their ocean observations (AR5 Chapter 3) AND the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics AND the physics of the AO interface ALL preclude the possibility of an “air-sea” flux into the ocean that the IPCC only “expects” (no evidence).
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
[Standard rebuttal to IPCC forcing theory]
Andy. You didn’t have time to read much I linked to. That’s why you know so little. I know it’s difficult. Even I find it painfully slow, and I’m trying to learn.
The past tells us that when CO2 is high then so is the sea level. We know CO2 is a powerful forcing, enough to explain ice melting. Even a halfwit can see that the formation of ice sheets and the breaking up of ice sheets are different phenomena. I remind you ice does not have to melt to raise the sea level.
NZCEA maths…
Gee, no wonder the Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society … just don’t see where they’re wrong!
Richard C (NZ). I thought you couldn’t stand the heat and had left the kitchen?
Look, I’m not going to discuss the greenhouse effect or warming the oceans with you. It’s obvious to me and if it’s not obvious to you then nothing can be done to help you.
Simon
>”The climate should be cooling if the sole driver was Milankovitch cycles”
“Sole driver”? Huh? Where did you find THAT strawman Simon?
Are you not aware that the IPCC includes TOA solar forcing (TSI) in their RF paradigm however deficient their implementation may be?
Are you not aware that the IPCC admits they have neglected natural variation e.g. multidecadal oceanic oscillation?
More importantly, that the IPCC explicitly dismiss ‘surface forcing’ including surface solar radiation (SSR), which is by far the greatest forcing on multidecadal timescales, because it doesn’t fit their RF paradigm. Think in the order of up to a net 12 W.m-2 SSR in the 20th century beginning 1920.
The earth’s energy imbalance is only around 0.6 W.m-2 at TOA (IPCC). This is easily just a small solar forcing in the tropics where ocean heat accumulation is in the order of 24 W.m-2.
The earth’s thermal inertia (lag), predominantly in the oceanic heat sink, is in the order of a couple of decades from several estimates (“10-100 years” – Trenberth). Therefore, solar change that began in the mid 2000s (PMOD) should show up as an atmospheric temperature response in the mid 2020s.
That is when to expect cooling Simom. We’ve had the warming, maybe another decade or so of elevated temperature to go yet but the energy input to the system is slowly reducing.
Less energy into a system can only mean one eventuality after thermal lag is accounted for. And it is NOT continued warming. That is thermodynamically impossible unless you invoke perpetuum mobile as the IPCC does.
Gee, no wonder the Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society … just don’t see where they’re wrong!
Where do these august bodies predict 0.4m of SLR by 2065 and 1.0m by 2115?
References?
I’ve provided a second order polynomial fit to these points. Maybe you can provide an alternative
Dennis
>”I’m not going to discuss the greenhouse effect or warming the oceans with you”
Heh? Problematic isn’t Dennis?
The ENHANCED “greenhouse effect” hypothesis MUST have anthro ocean warming attribution to stay alive. But the IPCC’s own assessment precludes it (not to mention Laws of Physics, AO physics, etc).
The IPCC’s massive problem is not going away Dennis no matter how inconvenient the discussion is for you. It is blowing out year by year now.
Great comedy too now Naish and Renwick are at such extraordinary odds with the IPCC.
Simon,
You say the Hadley CRU, the Japanese Met Association and Berkley Earth produce almost the same results from unadjusted data as the GISS, in an attempt to justify GISS adjusting the data so much the 1998 El Nino has all but disappeared – let’s just have a look at the datasets you mention then shall we:
HadCrut3 unadjusted: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl
Japanese Met Assoc.: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
BEST: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best
ALL of those temperature datasets show a strong El Nino in 1998 – Nasa’s GISS shows almost no El Nino in 1998. In other words, contrary to what you say, none of them agree with the GISS dataset.
Consider this Simon – if you have to lie to justify your point, then your point is untenable. Please don’t lie to me again as I will always double check what you claim & will catch you out out every time. I know you feel you need to lie in lieu of data supporting your case, but it just exposes you as dishonest when you get caught out and undermines what little credibility you have.
Dennis
>”Homo sapiens will see substantial SLR. Maybe 20 metres at this rate. [Link to SkS below]”
Wow, scary. But on what basis?
I don’t think Rob Painting’s narrative is indisputable doctrine Dennis, but he does get some of it right.
Dispute #1 – “Carbon dioxide is the most significant of the greenhouses gases, gases that trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere”
According to IPCC TS TFE.4-1 (a) and (b) linked upthread, atmospheric heat is negligible. The bulk of theoretical GhG forced heat has simply radiated to space.
Dispute #2 – “As a result the temperature of the planet’s surface and ocean is largely dependent upon the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
Except the IPCC’s surface energy budget linked upthread precludes this. There is no net heat flux into the surface except solar. This exempts GHG forcing of ocean heat in particular. Net LWIR at surface is OLR.
Agreement #1 – “The oceans are the Earth’s largest heat reservoir and, in comparison to the atmosphere, they respond very slowly to warming because of their immense mass, vast heat capacity, and the length of time it takes for heat to be transported down to the deep ocean.”
This is fundamental thermodynamics from Rob Painting. But what he doesn’t elucidate is that his implied “warming” by aGHG attribution is no more than an ASSUMPTION, which is where the dispute arises.
Anthro ocean warming is no more than IPCC speculation. They explicitly state “expected” but without physical evidence. Hence the dispute.
In the IPCC’s surface energy budget (see upthread), surface “warming” can only be by solar input.
For chuckles.
GISS L-OTI Zonal Means – August update compared to July.
July 2016
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSSTv4_1200km_Anom7_2016_2016_1951_1980_100__180_90_0__2_/amaps_zonal.png
August 2016
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSSTv4_1200km_Anom8_2016_2016_1951_1980_100__180_90_0__2_/amaps_zonal.png
Richard, I thought you had left in disgust.
Magoo, I am not lying. You, like your namesake, are simply short-sighted.
Last weeks XKCD is also topical: http://xkcd.com/1731/
woodfortrees.org is not up-to-date.
All of these datasets are showing that 2016 temps > 1998 > 1982 despite 1998 being a bigger El Nino event.
Richard’s rash prediction of a guaranteed La Nina in 2017 is looking unlikely too…
Simon,
GISS shows 4 dates after 1998 that are higher than 1998, the other 3 datasets don’t – i.e. GISS has almost adjusted the 1998 El Nino out of existence, duh. According to GISS 1998 is the 5th highest temperature, which is truly laughable. Try looking at the graph next time:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Now Simon, tell me, is it true that 1998 is the 5th highest temperature recorded? No? Then why do you quote such a pathetic dataset & why do you continue to say it’s the same as the other datasets?
Hey Simon, check this out:
http://xkcd.com/1731/
HadCRUT4 has 1998 being lower than 2005,2010,2014,2015, and 2016.
JMA has 1998 behind 2014,2015, and 2016. Of course there are uncertainties around these numbers.
Are these ‘pathetic’ datasets too?
Nevertheless, that wasn’t my argument. My contention is that 2016 surface temps > 1998 > 1982 despite 1998 being the bigger El Nino event. You still haven’t explained how this can be so.
The IPCC provides advice for deciding policy based on a literature review by experts. It is comprehensive, conservative and out of date.
More GHGs more heat more warming more ice melting and more ice lost. That is settled science.
The IPCC does not predict how the ice sheets will collapse and when the sea level will rise accordingly. Some good work has been done. But nobody knows.
Just as if Andy drove on the wrong side of the road, nobody could say how and when he would met his end. The only thing we know for sure is he would ignore warnings and try to persuade us the road code was wrong.
Simon,
You say – ‘HadCRUT4 has 1998 being lower than 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2016. JMA has 1998 behind 2014,2015, and 2016.’
There you go with the lies again. Here are the temperature datasets:
HadCRUT4: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl
HadCRUT3 (because you wanted ‘same results from unadjusted data’): http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl
JMA: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
You, Simon, are what’s known as a blatant liar. Unbelievable. What a BS artist.
Simon
>”Richard’s rash prediction of a guaranteed La Nina in 2017 is looking unlikely too…”
I made no such “guarantee” Simon. But keep making stuff up, as you do.
But a La Nina is certainly not out of the question:
Only another 0.2 ONI over 5 overlapping 3 months (7 months) required for a La Nina to be declared. That’s not until at least January 2017. And CPC criteria are exceeded now except for forecast (Niño 3.4 -0.7ºC currently). Neutral right now, which is to be expected.
Your prognosis is somewhat premature Simon. Come back January 2017.
Dennis,
If the IPCC says ‘More GHGs more heat more warming … That is settled science’, then how do you explain the graph from the IPCC AR5 below that shows no warming from at least 1998 after record CO2 emissions?
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg
Hmmm, that’s strange, maybe it has something to do with feedbacks. Funny, if it’s ‘settled science’ then how come the empirical evidence from multiple sources doesn’t back it up. Maybe both the empirical evidence and the IPCC are in the pay of ‘big oil’.
Dennis, I was really looking for something a little more quantitative
Maybe it’s possible that one metre sea level rises are possible, but current trends make that look unlikely on one hundred year timescales
Anyway, I just downloaded an app which tells me my house is 750m above sea level, so I’m probably OK
Simon,
You say ‘My contention is that 2016 surface temps > 1998 > 1982 despite 1998 being the bigger El Nino event. You still haven’t explained how this can be so.’
Well what does that prove? There has been no warming trend in the last 20 years, are you trying to say that 3 El Nino’s which are natural weather events prove anthropogenic global warming during this time? I don’t think so.
The way we’re going, 20 metre SLR is not only possible, it’s almost certain. Takes time. Maybe a long time.
CO2 is driving the warming and our CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time.
Simon
>”My contention is…..”
Your personal condition for what?
Apart from your personal condition being only relevant to you, your condition is NOT the IPCC’s condition (criteria) for climate change of any sort – natural, anthropogenic, or a combination of both.
Climate change is defined in terms of the earth’s energy budget at TOA – not surface El Nino’s. There has been NO climate change, by definition, this century.
>”…..that 2016 surface temps > 1998 > 1982 despite 1998 being the bigger El Nino event”
So what? El Nino’s are noise in the system Simon. And 1998 had totally different characteristics to 2016.
2016 was a Northern Hemisphere ONLY event (see GISTEMP NH/SH split).
1998 was evenly distributed between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres so of course the 2016 event will exhibit as a greater spike (as it did). ALL of the oceanic heat release was concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere PLUS an Arctic spike on top of that.
A skew like that bumps up the completely meaningless globally averaged surface temperature (GMST). Take a look at the July vs August Zonal Means upthread Simon. The much vaunted Artic warming is GONE in just one month. El NIno warming is GONE i.e. GHGs did not “trap” the heat.
Replaced in August by a spike in Antarctica. That’s NOT “global warming” Simon. Even if it was it is irrelevant to climate change criteria.
Dennis N Horne on September 13, 2016 at 5:43 pm [waving hands like Marcel Marceau, ignoring all science presented including IPCCs]
>”The way we’re going, 20 metre SLR is not only possible, it’s almost certain. Takes time. Maybe a long time. CO2 is driving the warming and our CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time.”
Guessing based on speculation built on assumption.
Richard C (NZ) What you need is more imagination and fewer delusions.
Dennis
>”The IPCC provides advice for deciding policy based on a literature review by experts”
Except in the case of their AR5 anthro ocean warming attribution (critical to keep their theory alive), there was NO literature to review. None is cited to support their attribution.
And their observations did NOT support their “expected” mechanism.
But they made their attribution anyway by opinion only – no science, no literature, no observational evidence. None required for the IPCC.
Just an opinioned assumption is adequate, apparently.
That is NOT scientific assessment Dennis. It is politically motivated and driven scientific fraud.
Richard C (NZ). [IPCC] ” … NOT scientific assessment … politically motivated and driven scientific fraud.”
Take it easy, buddy.
We are all deeply flawed. If you need to believe that to face the day…
Magoo on September 13, 2016 at 5:20 pm said: You, Simon, are what’s known as a blatant liar. Unbelievable. What a BS artist.
So why do you keep quoting data that confirms everything I said?
My daughter bough home a book today from school called ‘The Magic School Bus and the Climate Challenge’. I find it curious that primary school students understand the greenhouse effect whereas many of you do not.
Provable scientific fraud Dennis. But deny that at your leisure. It’s your prerogative.
“Intentional misrepresentation” – describes IPCC anthro ocean warming attribution succinctly.
>”I find it curious that primary school students understand the greenhouse effect whereas many of you do not.”
I understand it Simon. It is a redundant concept invoked to explain the already explained temperature profile from surface to TOA without recourse to a radiative greenhouse effect. And the entire profile is Impossible to derive from radiative greenhouse effect theory anyway.
I also understand the notion of a cold to hot heat flux violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (among other physics violations in respect to climate). Since when have primary school students been examined in those laws?
What frame of physics reference do primary school students have to evaluate the validity, or otherwise, of what they are being told about greenhouse effects?
I’m inclined to think none at that age.
Are those same primary school students taught the Standard Atmosphere Model of temperature compiled for the space race?
I doubt it.
Simon is happy that his daughter is being indoctrinated
How wonderful
Simon
Do those primary school students know the property differences between IR-A/B in the solar spectrum and IR-C in the terrestrial spectrum?
Does your daughter know?
Do you?
Do those primary school students know the heating effect differences between IR-A/B in the solar spectrum and IR-C in the terrestrial spectrum?
Does your daughter know?
Do you?
Climate science does not distinguish between IR-A/B properties and heating effects and IR-C properties and heating effects.
Do you think that is a valid approach in terms of radiation-material interaction and energy transfer?
Would an approach that makes the distinction make any difference in terms of say, IPCC anthropogenic ocean warming attribution?
Simon
>”My daughter bough home a book today from school called ‘The Magic School Bus and the Climate Challenge’. I find it curious that primary school students understand the greenhouse effect whereas many of you do not.”
What are they understanding? The course work is internally contradictory.
Their heat definition is sound:
Fine so far. Heat is an energy TRANSFER process.
But now the internal contradiction:
Suddenly, the TRANSFER process becomes a TRAPPING process. They contradict themselves. What starts out sound degenerates into pseudoscience.
pseudoscience – a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
Simon,
Alright, let’s go through it step by step so you can comprehend it. You say the following:
‘HadCRUT4 has 1998 being lower than 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2016. JMA has 1998 behind 2014,2015, and 2016.’
HadCRUT4: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl
HadCRUT4 shows only 2 years warmer than 1998 (2010 & 2016) – so why aren’t 2005, 2014 and 2015 higher as you say?
HadCRUT3: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl
HadCRUT3 (unadjusted) shows no higher temperature than 1998, so why aren’t 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 higher as you say?
JMA: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
JMA shows only 2016 warmer than 1998, so why aren’t 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 warmer as you say?
I stand by my statement, you are a blatant liar Simon, repeatedly so as well. If you expect people to believe such blatant lies that are so obviously disproven, you’re an imbecile as well.
>”The Magic School Bus and the Climate Challenge – Vocabulary Word List Greenhouse Effect: When heat-trapping gases act like the glass in a greenhouse and make the earth warmer”
The enclosed glass space of a greenhouse simply eliminates convection.
Open the doors at each end and you have the beginnings of a convective atmosphere and atmospheric circulation:
There is none of this “large-scale movement of air” in a greenhouse. The application of a non-convective greenhouse to the atmosphere is a misconception and misnomer.
>”The enclosed glass space of a greenhouse simply eliminates convection.”
And advection. From Wiki:
Convection is heat transfer by mass motion of a fluid such as air or water when the heated fluid is caused to move away from the source of heat, carrying energy with it. Convection above a hot surface occurs because hot air expands, becomes less dense, and rises (see Ideal Gas Law).
Advection – the transfer of heat or matter by the flow of a fluid, especially horizontally in the atmosphere or the sea.
Magoo: “I stand by my statement, you are a blatant liar Simon, repeatedly so as well. If you expect people to believe such blatant lies that are so obviously disproven, you’re an imbecile as well.”
Do I hear the discord and disharmony of cognitive dissonance?
More GHGs = more energy lingering = higher temperatures + loss of ice.
Predicted. Observed. Measured.
Richard C (NZ). Ah, found your level at last. Arguing school girl science.
If there is no greenhouse effect, that is absorption and reradiation by GHGs, how do you account for the downwelling radiation longer than 4 micrometres when the radiation from the Sun is (essentially all) shorter than 4?
Predicted. Observed. Measured.
Dennis
>”Richard C (NZ). Ah, found your level at last. Arguing school girl science.”
Actually this is Simon’s daughter’s level, which he seems to think is entirely valid so his level too apparently. Turns out to be internally contradictory psuedoscience mixed with sound science as above.
>”greenhouse effect, that is absorption and reradiation by GHGs,”
You have just described energy TRANSFER Dennis, exactly how the “school girl science” above describes heat as a process of TRANSFER. This part is thermodynamically sound at least.
>”how do you account for the downwelling radiation longer than 4 micrometres when the radiation from the Sun is (essentially all) shorter than 4?”
Energy TRANSFER Dennis as per sound “school girl science”. NOT energy TRAPPING as per “school girl [psuedo]science”.
What you omit to mention is that the NET radiative flux is outgoing (OLR) i.e. surface COOLING.
You also omit to mention that at lower altitudes there is about a billion times more chance that a CO2 molecule will TRANSFER absorbed radiative energy by collision with both IR absorbing and non-IR absorbing molecules than there is of TRANSFER by re-radiation simply because the density of molecules is so much greater. Have you ever observed a shimmering heat haze rising from a hot surface on a hot day Dennis? You are not observing radiation because that is a speed-of-light process.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is by definition a COOLANT Dennis. Refrigerant code R744. The radiative heat TRANSFER process by a CO2 molecule is as follows:
1) Initial state. Ambient energy level at ambient temperature and pressure i.e. molecular excitation due to location in the atmospheric column whether lower troposphere or upper thermosphere (more on this below) or any level in between and all the other parameters including solar energy input to the system.
2) Interception of a ray of radiation.
3) Excitation above ambient level (heating occurs)
4) TRANSFER of the excess energy either by collision with either non-IR absorbing or IR absorbing molecules, or TRANSFER by radiation. (cooling occurs)
5) Final state. Return to ambient energy level in 1).
There is no TRAPPING at any stage (interception is NOT “trapping”).
>”Predicted. Observed. Measured.”
Except interpretations differ. The sound scientific interpretation is heat TRANSFER. The psuedoscientific interpretation is heat TRAPPING.
>”whether lower troposphere or upper thermosphere”
The greatest energy TRANSFER by far in the atmosphere occurs in the thermosphere when CO2 and NO2 TRANSFER coronal mass ejection (CME) energy out space. There is no heat TRAPPING..
Richard C (NZ). Just tell me in one sentence what I asked:
If the radiation from the Sun is all <4 micron what is the substantial downwelling LWR (340.3 w/m^2) if it's not the greenhouse effect?
Predicted. Observed. Measured
>”More GHGs = more energy lingering = higher temperatures”
Rubbish Dennis. Radiation is a speed-of-light TRANSFER. Re-radiation is all over in milliseconds. Collision is an instantaneous process and by far the greater molecular heat TRANSFER process at lower altitudes. And don’t forget convection and advection of the air mass and latent heat transfer.
A refrigerator using CO2 as a coolant is 100% CO2 refrigerant. No heat “lingers”, on the contrary, the energy TRANSFER process is highly efficient at high CO2 levels.
Higher atmospheric temperature is a sun => ocean => troposphere process i.e. that is the flow path of heat TRANSFER. An El Nino is a an ocean => troposphere heat TRANSFER resulting in a tropospheric temperature spike i.e. “higher temperatures”. Greenhouse gasses TRANSFER that heat, they don’t “trap” it. The source of the heat was solar energy as is ALL ocean => troposphere heat TRANSFER (other than geo heat).
The 2016 El Nino heat in the troposphere is GONE – dissipated to space. No “lingering” whatsoever.
The spike last month was in the Antarctic. See GISTEMP Zonal Means upthread.
Dennis
>”Richard C (NZ). Just tell me in one sentence what I asked: If the radiation from the Sun is all <4 micron what is the substantial downwelling LWR (340.3 w/m^2) if it's not the greenhouse effect?"
One sentence? Good grief.
Solar energy is the surface heating agent Dennis. This is the distinction between radiation-matter interaction and heating effect of IR-A/B in the solar spectrum and IR-C in the terrestrial spectrum. Climate science doesn't make the distinction. They ASSUME the properties are identical – they certainly are not. Energy-per-photon in IR-A/B is in units of electron Volts (eV) but IR-C is in MILLI electron Volts (meV). The heating effect is orders of magnitude greater in IR-A/B than in IR-C. The heating effect of IR-C is negligible to non-existent.
The downwelling IR-C (DLR, LWdown) is not "substantial". It is NOT a heating agent Dennis. It is LESS than OLR at the surface. There is NO heat TRANSFER from cold troposphere to warm surface in accordance with the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The NET effect of IR-C at the surface is COOLING Dennis. Here's the 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
345.6 W.m-2 LWdown
398.0 W.m-2 LWup
-52.4 W,m-2 Net LWup
The IR-C radiative heat flux at the surface is OLR i.e. IR-C is a surface COOLING agent.
>”Solar energy is the surface heating agent Dennis”
In the tropics, sub-surface ocean heat accumulation is in the order of 24 W.m-2.
This is solar power – not “greenhouse effect”.
Richard C (NZ).
The downwelling SWR (4 micron) is from the greenhouse gases: the greenhouse effect. There is no substantial overlap.
Earth surface temperature is +15C.
Without the greenhouse effect the temperature would be -18C.
I know this goes against your convictions, held as deeply and fervently as any religious belief, but that’s standard physics. It’s not disputed by even the side-lined contrarians Lindzen, Curry, Christy and Spencer.
You seem like a decent chap. I’m sorry I can’t help you understand where you are wrong. Have you tried the chaps at Victoria? Renwick, Naish, Frame?
“Without the greenhouse effect the temperature would be -18C.”
Is there any way of proving this? It seems like a conjecture rather than proven science
Bugger, I tried to edit that post but another comment was posted. Never mind.
The downwelling LWR (>4 micron) is from the greenhouse gases: the greenhouse effect. The radiation from the Sun is SWR (<4 micron). There is no substantial overlap.
No, Andy. It cannot be explained to you, you have proved that.
Please don’t worry your pretty head about it.
Dennis Horne resorts to his usual childish troll behaviour.
Why don’t you go back to Hot Topic and comment there? It might be more your kind of level, and they need some traffic
Dennis
>”The downwelling LWR (>4 micron) is from the greenhouse gases: the greenhouse effect. The radiation from the Sun is SWR (4 micron SWR is the surface heating agent Dennis.
The “greenhouse effect” is NOT a surface heating agent as explained previously which you apparently didn’t read or if you did you didn’t comprehend.
There is NO net LW radiative heat flux into the surface. How many times do I have to repeat this Dennis?
Therefore, there is NO radiative heat TRANSFER into the surface other than solar. How many times do I have to repeat this Dennis?
The NET effect of IR-C (<4 micron) is outgoing longwave radiation (-52.4 W.m-2) i.e. surface COOLING.
Oceanographers are only interested in Net LWIR (Rnl). Read the definitive paper Fairall et al (1996) Dennis. They don't give a toss about DLR vs OLR. They are only interested in Rnl because that tells them whether LW radiation is warming or cooling the surface. Rnl predominantly COOLS the surface.
Dennis
>“Without the greenhouse effect the temperature would be -18C.”
What would the surface temperature be without the entire atmosphere Dennis?
We’re talking an air column 120,000 kms deep here.
What determines the temperature ABOVE the troposphere i.e. ABOVE the “greenhouse effect?
Dennis
>”I’m sorry I can’t help you understand where you are wrong. Have you tried the chaps at Victoria? Renwick, Naish, Frame?”
Heh. Naish and Renwick who can’t get there story straight with the IPCC. The IPCC TS has 25% of theoretical anthro energy going into the ocean. Naish and Renwick say 93%.
Both IPCC and Naish and Renwick make attribution by speculation.
Neither Naish and Renwick are qualified applied heat specialists.
No I don’t think I’ll be trying Naish and Renwick Dennis.
Dave Frame on the other hand has a PhD in Physics and Bachelor’s degree in Philosophy and Physics. I wonder if that included a thermodynamics stream? If so then yes, I certainly would like to talk to him about the processes upthread. Particularly in respect to the Laws of Thermodynamics if he was examined in them.
If not, Dave would just be another thermodynamically illiterate climate scientist like Naish and Renwick.
Dennis,
You say “More GHGs = more energy lingering = higher temperatures + loss of ice. Predicted. Observed. Measured.’
Well let’s have a look at the IPCC AR5 to see if the predictions are observed:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg
‘Predicted’, yes, ‘observed’, no – all the climate models have failed according to the IPCC. Now that’s truly hilarious!!
Now, what were you saying about cognitive dissonance again? ROFLMAO!!
Richard C (NZ).
The downwelling LWR (>4 micron) is heat from the greenhouse gases. Greenhouse effect. PREDICTED. OBSERVED. MEASURED.
REAL.
Earth surface is measured +15C. Without the GHE, Earth surface is calculated -18C.
If you are saying the effect of the GHGs is cooling the surface, why then is the temperature not less than -18C?
Magoo.
Temperatures up, ice lost. Predicted. Observed, Measured.
Oops! Can’t have that… Is it the models. Is it a conspiracy.
Or is it just being wrong and unable to accept it. Hmm.
“Earth surface is measured +15C. Without the GHE, Earth surface is calculated -18C.”
which is a conjecture, not a proven theory
Dennis,
Sorry Dennis, the IPCC shows the temperature hasn’t been up for around the past 20 years, so I don’t know where you’re getting your ‘temperatures up’ from – ignorance, dishonesty, fantasy, or cognitive dissonance?
Perhaps you’re just wrong and can’t accept it, it is the data from 4 temperature datasets after all – hey, maybe the datasets are in the conspiracy with the IPCC & ‘big oil’ as well. Maybe Elvis is controlling the temperatures from the ancient aliens mothership in Area 51. ROFLMAO!
‘Temperatures up’ – that’s hilarious, you’re getting funnier every comment! You’re like the the village idiot choking on a chicken bone.
>”I wonder if that included a thermodynamics stream?”
David Frame, MSc (1993)
David completed an MSc in Astronomy in 1993. His thesis was entitled A photometric and spectroscopic analysis of the southern extremely hydrogen deficient binary stars . He then completed a PhD in Atmospheric, Ionospheric and Space Physics here at Canterbury, still within the department, and went to work for the Treasury for two years. He then went on to become a Project Manager for climateprediction.net at the University of Oxford in the UK. He is the author of the satirical novel Light Speed.
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/astronomy/research_studs.shtml
LIGHT SPEED by David Frame (Quoin Press, 1996)
The blurb: Who killed the lovely Claire Bartlett, New Zealand’s youngest, prettiest, greenest Member of Parliament? Was it Rufus Trout, MP for Nowhere in Particular and thwarted lover; Dale Thomas, fiscally correct crusader, or one of the many other characters who swarmed around the Golden Girl of Greendom?
http://kiwicrime.blogspot.co.nz/2014/08/forgotten-kiwi-crime-light-speed-by.html
Atmospheric physics – Department of Physics and Astronomy and Centre for Atmospheric Research at the University of Canterbury.
Our research interests can broadly be summarized:
# the dynamics of the tropospehere and stratosphere (Dr. Adrian McDonald)
# the structure and dynamics of the mesosphere and lower thermosphere using meteor radar techniques (Professor Jack Baggaley)
# the orbital characteristics of meteors and planetary astronomy (Professor Jack Baggaley, Dr David Galligan)
climate modelling (Dr. Adrian McDonald and Dr Steve George)
# Radio wave propagation and scattering in the atmosphere (Dr. Adrian McDonald)
# remote sensing and in-situ sampling of atmospheric aerosol and the role of aerosol in climate.
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/atmospheric.shtml
# # #
No applied heat or thermodynamics stream that I can see.
What was his grounding in physics? Was it just UE level physics? Has he even done an introduction to thermodynamics beyond UE physics in first or second year University?
Dennis
>”The downwelling LWR (>4 micron) is heat from the greenhouse gases. Greenhouse effect. PREDICTED. OBSERVED. MEASURED. REAL.”
Yes it is observed, neasured and real radiation. But is NOT real power Dennis. Any Electrical specialist will tell you the difference between REAL and APPARENT power, same with radiative power. Solar radiative power is REAL power and therefore a surface heating agent.Terrestrial radiative power is only APPARENT and therefore NOT a surface heating agent. On the contrary, Terrestrial radiation (Net DLR/OLR) is a surface COOLING agent.
The earth’s surface energy budget proves this Dennis.
Climate science does NOT make the distinction between REAL and APPARENT radiative power.
>”Earth surface is measured +15C. Without the GHE, Earth surface is calculated -18C.”
Again, what would the temperature be without the ENTIRE atmosphere?
Again, what determines the temperature ABOVE the troposphere i.e. ABOVE the “greenhouse effect?
>”If you are saying the effect of the GHGs is cooling the surface,”
Your comprehension is abysmal Dennis. I have NEVER said that. I am saying that yes, there is measured DLR, no, DLR is not a surface heating agent. The latter is demonstrable (e..g. negligible water penetration) and in accordance with the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the earth’s surface energy budget.
My statements re surface cooling are that the NET effect of IR-C (Rnl) is surface cooling. I made no connection between that and any APPARENT “greenhouse effect”.
>”why then is the temperature not less than -18C?”
The surface temperature, and the temperature profile from surface right up to TOA is NOT determined by any “greenhouse effect” Dennis. How can a “greenhouse effect” determine the temperature of the thermosphere or ionisphere?
Firstly, the temperature profile of the entire atmosphere (surface to TOA) is here:
US Standard Atmosphere Model & Observations Prove Maxwell’s Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is Correct & Falsifies CAGW
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.html
Secondly, the “greenhouse equation” derived from Maxwell’s Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory which gives the entire temperature profile above is here:
The Greenhouse Equation
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/the-greenhouse-equation.html
Where:
T = temperature at height (s) meters above the surface, thus at the surface s = 0
s = height in meters above the surface to calculate the temperature T, thus at the surface s=0
S = the solar constant = 1367 W/m2, derivation here
ε = emissivity = 1 assuming Sun and Earth are blackbodies
σ = the Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.6704 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4
g = gravitational acceleration = 9.8 m/s^2
m = average molar mass of the atmosphere = 29g/mole = 0.029kg/mole
α = albedo = 0.3 for earth
C = Cp = the heat capacity of the atmosphere at constant pressure, ~ 1.5077 average for Earth
P = surface pressure in the unit atmospheres, defined as = 1 atmosphere for latitude of Paris
R = universal gas constant = 8.3145 J/mol K
e = the base of the natural logarithm, approximately equal to 2.71828
There is no recourse to any radiative “greenhouse effect” Dennis. It is a redundant concept.
The atmosphere’s temperature profile was compiled by the US Air Force Labs for the space race first around 1963.
Poor Mr Magoo, short-sighted as always:
JMA: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
Five Warmest Years (Anomalies) 1st. 2015 (+0.42°C), 2nd. 2014 (+0.27°C), 3rd. 1998 (+0.22°C), 4th. 2013, 2010 (+0.20°C)
HadCRUT4: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
Would you like to retract your accusations?
Richard C (NZ):
[DLR] “Yes it is observed, neasured and real radiation. But is NOT real power Dennis. Any Electrical specialist will tell you the difference between REAL and APPARENT power, same with radiative power. Solar radiative power is REAL power and therefore a surface heating agent.Terrestrial radiative power is only APPARENT and therefore NOT a surface heating agent. On the contrary, Terrestrial radiation (Net DLR/OLR) is a surface COOLING agent.
“The earth’s surface energy budget proves this
“I am saying that yes, there is measured DLR, no, DLR is not a surface heating agent”
Shorter than 4 micron radiation is real power and heats; longer then 4 micron it’s not real power but cools. There we have it in a nut shell.
Dennis
>”Shorter than 4 micron radiation is real power and heats; longer then 4 micron it’s not real power but cools. There we have it in a nut shell.”
Not quite there yet Dennis but almost.
>””Shorter than 4 micron radiation is real power and heats”
Not quite but close.
CIE division scheme
The International Commission on Illumination (CIE) recommended the division of infrared radiation into the following three bands:
[14]Abbreviation Wavelength Frequency
IR-A 700 nm – 1400 nm (0.7 µm – 1.4 µm) 215 THz – 430 THz
IR-B 1400 nm – 3000 nm (1.4 µm – 3 µm) 100 THz – 215 THz
IR-C 3000 nm – 1 mm (3 µm – 1000 µm) 300 GHz – 100 T
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#CIE_division_scheme
Electromagnetic spectrum (EM)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
IR-A/B is the band 0.7 micons to 3 (or 4 including overlap) microns wavelength (WL). Shorter than 0.7 microns WL is Visible (0.75 elsewhere), shorter still UV. Shorter than 0.7 is not a radiative heating agent on earth’s surface materials, water in particular.
Look at “Energy” in the EM table.
1 μm WL: 1.24 eV Energy
10 μm WL: 124 meV Energy
1 μm WL radiation has 10 times the energy to that of 10 μm WL radiation. The shorter the WL the higher the heating temperature (see article below). 10 μm WL radiation is never going to heat water the way 1 μm WL radiation does.
The properties of IR-A/B and water are such that the effect of radiation-matter interaction at that wavelength is that the radiation is a heating agent (see radiation-matter “tuning” below).
Case study: The human body.
UV-B only penetrates the dermis layer of the skin. Therefore UV-B is NOT a heating agent of the human body.
UV-A only penetrates the dermis and epidermis layer of the skin. Therefore UV-B is NOT a radiative heating agent of the human body.
IR-C only penetrates a maximum of about 100 microns into water (about the thickness of a human hair). Most effective at 10 microns. The human body is predominantly water. Therefore IR-C is NOT a radiative heating agent of the human body.
IR-A/B penetrates the dermis and epidermis layers of the skin and further into muscle tissue and bone. Therefore IR-A/B is the radiative heating agent of the human body. Same with the ocean. IR-A/B is most effective at about 1m depth.
>”longer then 4 micron it’s not real power”
Correct, in terms of radiation-matter heating effect on earth’s surface materials mainly water (but see below). IR-C does NOT have the properties required to be a surface heating agent. It’s there and can be measured but it is only APPARENT power, it is not power that does work (e.g. as a surface matter heating agent) i.e. REAL power.
This is why no-one is silly enough to try harnessing IR-C power as is done with IR-A/B with solar power collectors. This is even though there is plenty of measured downwelling IR-C.
>”longer then 4 micron it’s not real power ………. but cools”
Still haven’t got it Dennis.
Heat TRANSFER is the NET flux of radiation whether SW or LW. Some SW solar is reflected at surface so does not contribute to surface heating.
The NET longwave radiative flux (Rnl) at the surface is outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) i.e. a surface COOLING flux and surface to air and space energy TRANSFER.
There is NO net LW radiative flux into the surface therefore no LW surface heating. Even when there is a net DLR flux, the radiation (IR-C) cannot heat the surface matter (water predominantly) because the properties of both IR-C and water prohibit it in interaction.
To achieve IR-C heating (or any radiative heating – see UV above) there has to be the right radiation-matter “tuning”. That does NOT exist in the case of IR-C and water. See article:
‘Introduction to Infrared Process Heating’
“Basically, any product has its own inherent reaction to infrared. This is called “heat absorption factor”. Each type of material can be categorized in a certain wavelength.”
http://www.cassosolartechnologies.com/how-infrared-works.cfm
If you haven’t got radiation-matter “tuning” with the particular materials you want to heat you will be wasting your money trying to heat it with whatever radiation wavelength, let alone IR-C.
Turns out that water is”tuned” to IR-A/B but not IR-C.
Dennis
>”why then is the temperature not less than -18C?”
The 33C difference was already fully explained by 1958 without recourse to any “greenhouse effect” (see last link below).
‘Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases’ November 23, 2014
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html
‘Derivation of the effective radiating height & entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases’
November 27, 2014
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/derivation-of-effective-radiating.html
The purpose of the recent series of physical proofs is to demonstrate that the greenhouse effect theory is entirely explained by the force of gravity, i.e. “gravity forcing” upon the mass of the atmosphere, rather than “radiative forcing” from greenhouse gases. This alternative “gravity forcing theory” of the greenhouse effect will be demonstrated to be completely independent of greenhouse gas radiative forcing, and compatible with all physical laws and millions of observations, as opposed to the radiative forcing theory.
We will use the ideal gas law, 1st law of thermodynamics, Newton’s second law of motion (F = ma), and well-known barometric formulae in this derivation to very accurately determine Earth’s surface temperature, the height in the atmosphere at which the effective equilibrium temperature of Earth with the Sun is located, and show that this height is located as expected at the center of mass of the atmosphere on Earth and Titan.
We will show that the mass/pressure greenhouse effect theory can also be used to accurately determine the temperatures at any height in the troposphere from the surface to the tropopause, and compute the mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse effect to be 33.15C, the same as determined from radiative climate models and the conventional radiative greenhouse effect theory.
Hence,
‘The Greenhouse Equation’
November 28, 2014
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/the-greenhouse-equation.html
These derivations are confirmed (corroborated) by the US work done for the space race:
‘US Standard Atmosphere Model & Observations Prove Maxwell’s Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is Correct & Falsifies CAGW’
December 4, 2014
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.html
>”The 1958 first edition of the US Standard Atmosphere was followed by revisions”
I challenge you Dennis, to produce an observationally verified “greenhouse effect” or “radiative forcing” based temperature profile of the earth’s atmosphere from surface to TOA that conforms with the US Standard Atmosphere Model (which is verified).
>”If you haven’t got radiation-matter “tuning” with the particular materials you want to heat you will be wasting your money trying to heat it with whatever radiation wavelength, let alone IR-C.”
Example
Castool Superoven
The efficiency of a radiant oven depends on type of materials heated and radiation wavelength generated. A properly designed die oven considers the properties of die and radiation wavelength all together.
Die is usually made of H13 hot work tool steel with polished surface. Figure 4 shows the absorption behavior of H13 steel. It has peak absorption for thermal radiation at narrow range 2 – 2.5 um for almost 95%.
The two grey bands represent air absorption wavelength. Heat will be absorbed by the air inside the die oven – the efficiency will be low [1].
Figure 4
http://www.castool.com/sites/default/files/Figure%20missing%20copy_0.jpg
Figure
The thermal radiation in Castool’s Superoven has the peak radiation tuned to maximum absorption for H13 to provide better radiation heat transfer (See appendix 1 for more information)
http://www.castool.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_large/public/figure_5-5.png?itok=vrcR77Jn
A closer look at the absorbed thermal radiation energy on metal surface reveals the energy is absorbed at a very thin layer near the surface, around 0.1 μm (See Appendix 2 for more information).
This phenomenon dictates what is the best way to increase the Die temperature without over heating the surface. The heat transfer within the H13 die is controlled by thermal conduction of the metal itself.
The best way to heat the die is using all the available surface area. Superoven uses 4 sides heating to take advantage of all surface area on the die. The die is encased in high temperature surface layer.
Then the heat is conducted to the core of the die by conduction. After all larger die has more surface area, the time it takes to heat up a larger dies is essentially the same compare to smaller dies.
[See heating diagrams at bottom of article]
http://www.castool.com/blog/2013/11/thermal-vs-infrared-radiation
# # #
>”The thermal radiation in Castool’s Superoven has the peak radiation tuned to maximum absorption for H13 to provide better radiation heat transfer”
This is radiation-matter “tuning”.
>”A closer look at the absorbed thermal radiation energy on metal surface reveals the energy is absorbed at a very thin layer near the surface, around 0.1 μm (See Appendix 2 for more information)”
2 – 2.5 μm is within the solar IR-B spectral range but the metal only absorbs to 0.1 μm.
Compare to water absorption at 2 – 2.5 μm wavelength:
Spectral penetration of water – Hale & Querry (1973)
http://omlc.org/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif
Penetration and absorption of water is most effective at 100 μm to 1 mm at 2 – 2.5 μm wavelength (IR-B is 1.4 to 3 μm).
Most effective at 1 mm to 10 m depth at 0.7 μm to 1.4 μm wavelength (IR-A range). Therefore, IR-A is a better water heating agent than is IR-B.
Richard C (NZ).
Just because you can offer an explanation for a phenomenon doesn’t mean it explains it.
Leaving to one side your explanation of how Earth reaches +15C from -18C, we know CO2 and other greenhouses gases absorb and re-radiate energy; heat. So where have you hidden it?
Dennis
>”Leaving to one side your explanation of how Earth reaches +15C from -18C”
Why leave to one side Dennis? Is it a bit too inconvenient for you?
It is NOT my explanation Dennis. The entire temperature profile of the atmosphere is fully explained, physically, without recourse to any radiative “greenhouse effect”. The US Standard Atmosphere Model, first version 1958, models the temperature profile without recourse to any “greenhouse effect”.
Give credit to the US Air Force Labs for that – not me, Norman Sissenwine in particular. And credit to The Hockey Schtick for the derivations above based on Maxwell’s theory:
James Clerk Maxwell FRS FRSE (13 June 1831 – 5 November 1879) was a Scottish[2][3] scientist in the field of mathematical physics.[4] His most notable achievement was to formulate the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, bringing together for the first time electricity, magnetism, and light as manifestations of the same phenomenon. Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism have been called the “second great unification in physics”[5] after the first one realised by Isaac Newton. With the publication of A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field in 1865, Maxwell demonstrated that electric and magnetic fields travel through space as waves moving at the speed of light. Maxwell proposed that light is an undulation in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.[6] The unification of light and electrical phenomena led to the prediction of the existence of radio waves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
>”we know CO2 and other greenhouses gases absorb and re-radiate energy; heat.”
Yes, we know. Radiative heat TRANSFER as you describe Dennis. CO2 is a passive radiative heat TRANSFER medium. A coolant by definition, refrigerant code R744.
>”So where have you hidden it [re-radiated heat]?”
Huh? Hidden what heat? I’ve presented the earth’s energy budget in my first comment in this thread (link below), all heat accounted for.
I haven’t hidden any heat Dennis, that’s the IPCC’s massive problem. Their theory generates a massive energy excess that they have to “hide” SOMEWHERE. I covered this extensively in my first comment in this thread. Go back up here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/09/latest-sick-oceans-report-absurd/comment-page-1/#comment-1512822
Start all over again Dennis, try to comprehend or you will be in an infinite loop when you get down to here again.
Pay special attention to IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b).
From that comment:
Naish and Renwick contradict this Dennis. They say 93% of theoretical anthro-forced energy went into the ocean – not 25%.
BTW, 1200 ZetaJoules is 1,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules that the IPCC have to account for. Highly problematic in view of TFE.4-1 (b).
‘IR radiator types and the optimisation of infrared radiation in [industrial] application’ – IBT.InfraBioTech GmbH
Application of infrared radiation
IR radiator types and the optimisation of infrared radiation in application
Medium-wave radiation is especially well absorbed by water. Therefore, it is particularly suitable for drying of water-based lacquers, for plastics processing or also for other heating and drying processes. In food industry it is applied in baking as well as in drying and desiccation of food stuff.
https://www.infrabiotech.de/en/about-infrared.html
Infrared radiators
IBT offers a variety of infrared products for industrial thermal processes. Our product portfolio includes formats of mini emitters up to modules or even entire plant solutions. Unique is, that our product lines are covering the entire wavelength spectrum from the range IR-A to IR-C, independent of the manufacturer.
[Links]
Industrial plants
Plastics and Composites Materials
Coating drying
Passenger compartment warming
Baking & Foodstuff Drying
Infrared Construction Drying
https://www.infrabiotech.de/en/products.html
STIR®-Technology
Our high efficient STIR®-radiators generate a dark infrared. Their energy is absorbed by the respective irradiated good in an accurately defined wavelength range. This range lies between 2-10 µm. [IR-B/C]
Power densities are possible at the irradiated surface between 2-40 kW/m²
https://www.infrabiotech.de/en/stir-technology.html
# # #
That’s 2000 – 40,000 W.m-2 i.e. less than 2000 W.m-2 not much use industrially in the IR-B/C 2-10 µm range.
I went to the dentist today. He uses UV for curing the filling composite. Plenty of industrial applications:
UV curing
UV curing is a speed curing process in which high intensity ultraviolet light is used to create a photochemical reaction that instantly cures inks, adhesives and coatings. UV Curing is adaptable to printing, coating, decorating, stereolithography and assembling of a variety of products and materials owing to some of its key attributes, it is: a low temperature process, a high speed process, and a solventless process—cure is by polymerization rather than by evaporation. [1] Originally introduced in the 1960s this technology has streamlined and increased automation in many industries in the manufacturing sector.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UV_curing
Dennis
>”Richard C (NZ). Just because you can offer an explanation for a phenomenon doesn’t mean it explains it.”
Heh.
Are you seriously suggesting Dennis, that the following is NOT a physical “explanation”?
The Greenhouse Equation
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/the-greenhouse-equation.html
Where:
T = temperature at height (s) meters above the surface, thus at the surface s = 0
s = height in meters above the surface to calculate the temperature T, thus at the surface s=0
S = the solar constant = 1367 W/m2, derivation here
ε = emissivity = 1 assuming Sun and Earth are blackbodies
σ = the Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.6704 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4
g = gravitational acceleration = 9.8 m/s^2
m = average molar mass of the atmosphere = 29g/mole = 0.029kg/mole
α = albedo = 0.3 for earth
C = Cp = the heat capacity of the atmosphere at constant pressure, ~ 1.5077 average for Earth
P = surface pressure in the unit atmospheres, defined as = 1 atmosphere for latitude of Paris
R = universal gas constant = 8.3145 J/mol K
e = the base of the natural logarithm, approximately equal to 2.71828
I bit difficult to deny Dennis, I would have thought. How do you go about denying it? What’s your tactic, apart from ”Leaving to one side your explanation of how Earth reaches +15C from -18C” ?
Or is that the only denial tactic you have in this case?
Richard C (NZ). I’m sure Andy and Maggy Wassilieff are mightily impressed.
I’m left wondering: temperatures up, ice lost with increased CO2.
And why Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry don’t endorse your explanation.
Well, not really.
Dennis
>”I’m left wondering: ………….. why Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry don’t endorse your explanation.”
Who cares that climate scientists don’t (or even know about it)? You appear to Dennis but I certainly don’t. Because………
NASA endorses it Dennis:
NASA and NOAA and the US Air Force, and altogether 30 U.S. organizations representing government, industry, research institutions, and universities:
And the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
U.S. Standard Atmosphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Standard_Atmosphere
International Standard Atmosphere
“To allow modeling conditions below mean sea level, the troposphere actually extends to about −610 meters (−2,000 ft), where the temperature is 19 °C (66 °F), pressure is 108,900 pascals (15.79 psi), and density is 1.2985 kilograms per cubic meter (0.08106 lb/cu ft).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere
ICAO Standard Atmosphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere#ICAO_Standard_Atmosphere
And the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL):
NRLMSISE-00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRLMSISE-00
# # #
This work is larger and older than climate science Dennis. The first US version above (1958) was completed 17 years after James Hansen was born (1941). his first climate science paper (for earth) was ‘Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide’ Hansen et al (1981).
The space race was conducted without recourse to any “greenhouse effect” Dennis. It is a redundant concept that cannot produce a verified temperature model for the entire atmosphere anyway.
Why explain in tiny part (surface only) what is explained in entirety (610m below surface to TOA) ?
>”It [“greenhouse effect”] is a redundant concept that cannot produce a verified temperature model for the entire atmosphere anyway.”
The “greenhouse equation” upthread calculates the verified temperature profile (red) of the US Standard Atmosphere here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
Impossible by radiative “greenhouse effect” theory.
Climate science cannot produce the verified atmosphere’s temperature profile that Maxwell’s Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ produces
Correction
>”NASA endorses it Dennis: Earth Atmosphere Model”
NASA endorses (publishes) the U.S. Standard Atmosphere Model.
NASA’s Earth Atmosphere Model is a different model to the U.S. Standard Atmosphere Model published by NASA, NOAA, and US Air Force.
NASA’s Earth Atmosphere Model is curve fitted to empirical observations. The U.S. Standard Atmosphere Model is from physical principles and verified by empirical observations.
U.S. Standard Atmosphere – Methodology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Standard_Atmosphere#Methodology
Richard C (NZ): “Who cares that climate scientists don’t (or even know about it)? ” [your explanation.]
Who cares? That’s very bold. What are your qualifications?
Slightly off topic but Vic Crone, mayoral candidate for Auckland, has been “slammed” by James Renwick for her “backward thinking” on climate change
http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/84253036/Auckland-mayoral-candidate-Vic-Crones-climate-change-view-backward
Clearly unfit for the office, we need a man of integrity and family values like Len Brown
From the article on Stuff
I think we can all agree that climate change is “influenced by” human activity to some degree, even if it just by land use changes.
Dennis
Again, it is NOT “my” explanation.
Starts with Maxwell’s Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’
James Clerk Maxwell FRS FRSE (13 June 1831 – 5 November 1879) was a Scottish[2][3] scientist in the field of mathematical physics.[4] His most notable achievement was to formulate the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, bringing together for the first time electricity, magnetism, and light as manifestations of the same phenomenon. Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism have been called the “second great unification in physics”[5] after the first one realised by Isaac Newton. With the publication of A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field in 1865, Maxwell demonstrated that electric and magnetic fields travel through space as waves moving at the speed of light. Maxwell proposed that light is an undulation in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.[6] The unification of light and electrical phenomena led to the prediction of the existence of radio waves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
Picked up by NASA and NOAA and the US Air Force, and altogether 30 U.S. organizations representing government, industry, research institutions, and universities including the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL).
And the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
My qualifications? In terms of heat, more than Dave Frame from what I can see. Introductory thermodynamics (incl. intensive labs) as required for Engineering Science (electricity and heat) for which the prerequisite was Physics II. Eng Science was the prerequisite for Applied Heat but I didn’t do that paper because it wasn’t my zone at the time. The fundamentals have been enough for what little application I’ve ever done and one of the required texts for Eng Science was Applied Heat anyway.
Applied Heat; An Introduction to Thermodynamics – Roger Kinsky,
http://www.paperworx.com.au/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=6104&keyword=Energy,&searchby=keyword&offset=0&fs=1
Required text for The University of Southern Queensland Bachelor of Engineering
Thermodynamics MEC 2101
http://www.usq.edu.au/course/specification/2005/MEC2101-S1-2005-40461.pdf
TOPICS
Description Weighting (%)
1. Basic concepts 5.00
2. Properties 10.00
3. Energy Transfer 10.00
4. First Law 15.00
5. Second Law 10.00
6. Entropy 10.00
7. IC Engines 10.00
8. Steam Power 10.00
9. Refrigeration 10.00
10. Air conditioning 10.00
Dennis
Did you spot this upthread?
International Standard Atmosphere
Graph
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Comparison_International_Standard_Atmosphere_space_diving.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere
# # #
Troposphere 610m below MSL: +19 °C irrespective of GHE.
Tropopause 11,000m above MSL: −56.5 °C irrespective of GHE.
Stratopause 47,000m above MSL: −2.5 °C irrespective of GHE.
Mesopause 84,852m above MSL: −86.28 °C irrespective of GHE.
How do you reconcile all these conditions Dennis, including yours?
Richard C (NZ). Honest answer. Thanks. I wish you all the best.
‘Global climate models and the laws of physics’
http://judithcurry.com/2016/09/13/global-climate-models-and-the-laws-of-physics
Whew!
>”Starts with Maxwell’s Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’
James Clerk MaxwellE (13 June 1831 – 5 November 1879)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
And in the other corner:
Arrhenius’ greenhouse law
Svante August Arrhenius (19 February 1859 – 2 October 1927)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
‘The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.’
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.) Consulting Geologist
Abstract
This article explores the “Greenhouse Effect” in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The “Greenhouse Effect” is defined by Arrhenius’ (1896) modification of Pouillet’s backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius’ incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The “Greenhouse Effect” is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the “Greenhouse Effect” has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier’s Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius’ Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth’s surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”, which rests on the “Greenhouse Effect”, also has no real foundation.
1.0 Introduction: What on Earth Is the “Greenhouse Effect”?
Confusion and Lack of Thermodynamic Definition
2.0 How the “Greenhouse Effect” Is Built upon Arrhenius’ Legacy of Error: Misattribution, Misunderstanding, and Energy Creation
2.1 Misattribution versus What Fourier Really Found
2.2 Aethereal Misunderstanding versus Subatomic Heat Transfer
2.3 Obfuscated Energy Creation versus “Kirchhoff’s Law”
3.0 Elementary Physics versus the “Greenhouse Effect”
3.1 The Physics of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide
3.2 Extending the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation to Incidence of Radiation
3.3 Returning to Wood’s Experiment to Test Pouillet’s Backradiation Hypothesis & Arrhenius’ Greenhouse Effect
3.4 Is the “Greenhouse Effect” Really Necessary?
4.0 Conclusion: a Greenhouse with neither Frame nor Foundation Cannot Stand
In the frame of physics, a “greenhouse effect” as such, can only be used to describe a mechanism by which heat accumulates in an isolated pocket of gas that is unable to mix with the main body of gas. The elimination of convection within the troposphere by stratification, and the consequent temperature rise at the surface, presents us with a natural, if not hypothetical, example of a “greenhouse mechanism” in the frame of physics. Pseudoscience, popular misconception and political misuse of the term “greenhouse effect” have given it quite a different and unrelated meaning.
Bibliography
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
Casey in 3.4
What is demonstrated in the above examples, is the fact that surface temperature and the temperature in a greenhouse can be explained without resorting to the extraneous entity called the “Greenhouse Effect”. This is significant in light of Ockham’s Razor, which states:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
This reads in English as:
Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.
Although the terminology may seem unfamiliar in light of 20th century usage, if we look at the words for what they mean we can, nonetheless, understand this statement. This suggests, in modern palance, that it is simply not valid to hypothesise beyond what is strictly necessary to explain the material evidence we possess. A hypothesis that does go beyond the support of material evidence violates this principle in that the evidence is already explained by a simpler theory. This is one of the most fundamental and definitive principles of science.
# # #
Does anyone ever read in “Greenhouse Effect” blurb that it is a theory explaining in small part what has already been explained in entirety?
Richard, I suggest that you should head down to your local primary school and sit in on a Magic Bus discussion. I realise that the concepts are difficult for you to understand but hopefully you will get there with the support of your peers.
As the class discusses, prompt the kids to correct misconceptions about heat=temperature. To prepare them, emphasize these facts:
1.Temperature is a number.
2.This number measures the moving particles that make up heat.
3.Heat is a process.
4.This process is an energy transfer. It is an exchange between sources and sinks—energy origins and energy destinations. It involves an interaction of moving energy being transferred.
All aboard the Magic School Bus!
Today, children, we will learn how your evil parents and the evil bus company are causing the planet to melt and all the puppies and kittens to cry in the streets.
There is no hope and it’s all mummy and daddy’s fault.
Martyn Martin Bradbury breaks the news:
** VIC CRONE IS A CLIMATE DENIER **
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/09/15/vic-crone-is-a-climate-denier/
Burn the witch!
Simon, the Magic Bus course work (see upthread and below) is internally contradictory.
Sound science terms (molecular heat TRANSFER) vs pseudoscience terms (molecular heat TRAPPING).
CO2 absorption and re-emission cannot be both TRANSFER and TRAPPING. These terms are mutually exclusive. The term must be one or the other, it cannot be both.
The valid term they use is TRANSFER. That’s their definition of heat Simon. You quote it yourself:
This is sound science. There is no need to contradict it with pseudoscience. But they do,
Massive undertaking. 5 pages of double column references, 243 pages:
US Standard Atmosphere 1976
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770009539.pdf
Surprising content too. Table 1 temperature begins page 65 pdf at 5000m below MSL.
(-ve)5000m 47.500 C
0m 15.000 C
2300m 0.050 C
1000000m 726.85 C
Figure 12 page 34 gives collision frequency, reproduced from other source here:
Collision frequency as a function of geometric altitude [per second]
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m465/m465f024.jpg
From: Meteo 465/565 — Middle Atmospheric Meteorology/Physics of the Upper Atmosphere (really The Middle Atmosphere) — Spring. 2003
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m465/m465s03.htm
Near surface, between 10^9 and 10^10 collisions per second for all molecules including non-IR absorbing e.g. nitrogen, oxygen In other words, non-radiative energy transfer when there is a differential. About a billion times more chance of transfer by collision near surface than transfer by radiation (info from other source).
And no recourse to any “greenhouse effect” whatsoever.
James Renwick has a PhD in Atmospheric Science, David Wratt a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. These guys MUST know about this work, that effectively makes the “greenhouse effect” redundant.
Why not a peep out of either of them?