Auckland mayoral candidate Vic Crone
During an interview a few days ago, Auckland mayoral candidate Vic Crone would not say if she believed the earth was warming due to man-made pollution, saying only: “Gosh, that’s a very contentious debate.”
Dr James Renwick, a professor of physical geography at Victoria University of Wellington, has slammed Crone’s statement. “The climate is changing and it is due to human activity and that is very clear from all sorts of lines of evidence,” he said. “To say that it’s very contentious suggests a real lack of understanding of the area.” The evidence showed that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming, Renwick said. “To try and say that we’re not sure is very backward thinking.” [emphasis added]
But that’s just not the case. The IPCC make no such categorical statements and official reports are actually soaked in uncertainty. It seems Professor Renwick’s certitude is at odds with the science. Still, perhaps NIWA states things more confidently. So I searched the NIWA web site in an attempt to corroborate this no-nonsense, activist-oriented doctrine that is convinced we cause all or most climate change. I typed ‘climate change evidence anthropogenic’ in the search box and got ten results. But none supported Renwick’s brusque response to Miss Crone. These are the NIWA articles the search returned:
- Understanding past changes in the Southern Ocean
- Climate change, global warming and greenhouse gases
- Greenhouse gases and climate sensitivity – insights from ice cores
- Climate Change
- IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007)
- New Zealand in a warming world
- Global climate models
- Our Far South events
- NIWA says greenhouse gas methane is on the rise again
- The WMO/UNEP 2002 ozone assessment: a New Zealand perspective
I should say there were no surprises here, and NIWA make it no easier to understand anthropogenic climate change since 2009 (when we challenged the national temperature data published on their web site), they make it more difficult. All these articles confuse the reader seeking the cause of human climate change, apparently presenting material only to obscure the lack of evidence. They are, in the legal terminology, prolix.
No. 1 Understanding past changes in the Southern Ocean
Not relevant. Learning about natural climate change so we can recognise anthropogenic climate change when (and if) it occurs.
No. 2 Climate change, global warming and greenhouse gases
Some relevance. An interesting summary but fails to explain how humanity is the cause of global warming and thus of climate change, although it comes close [my emphasis]:
Have greenhouse gas emissions caused global temperatures to rise?
-
Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase in the atmosphere. This is due largely to human activities, mostly fossil fuel use, land-use change, and agriculture. About 47% of the warming effect of greenhouse gas increases over the last 100 years is due to carbon dioxide.
-
The second most important greenhouse gas produced by human activities is methane, which accounts for about 35% of the increased warming over the past 100 years (this is an important aspect of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, since sheep and cows produce methane).
-
Warming by greenhouse gases is offset in some regions by cooling due to small airborne particles generated by burning fuel. These are concentrated around areas of industrial activity in the Northern Hemisphere and in developing countries. (The cooling effect of aerosols over the New Zealand region is expected to be small).
-
Global mean surface temperature increased by 0.74°C between 1906 and 2005, a change which is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate. Much of the 1.8±0.5 mm yr-1 average global sea level rise between 1961 and 2003 may be related to the rise in global temperature.
These are oily words in weasel expressions shaped in the manner of scientific conclusions but in fact only invitations to draw our own. But NIWA is openly uncertain: the expressions “due largely to human activities”, “about 47% of the warming … is due to carbon dioxide”, “unlikely to be entirely natural” and “a discernible human influence” are incompatible with Renwick’s inflated assertions that it is due [implying ALL due] to human activity.
His most outrageous claim was human influence was the dominant cause of global warming. He used this unscientific statement to belittle Vic Crone’s “lack of understanding”, but I’m curious to know the data that justifies the extraordinary statement.
These public documents don’t corroborate Renwick’s overblown certainty. He says disparagingly: “To say that we’re not sure is very backward thinking.” But an examination of the scientific sources shows our mayoral candidate is absolutely correct to express doubt. The only reason for Renwick to disparage this is that he disagrees with it. Which is no justification for presenting that disagreement as scientific fact.
No. 3 Greenhouse gases and climate sensitivity – insights from ice cores
Not relevant. Ice core research.
No. 4 Climate change
Not relevant. Though it claims that “most” of the increase in temperature since 1950 was due to the increase in our emissions of carbon dioxide, and that came from “a vast array of evidence” and “physics”, it goes on simply to describe the consequences of climate change.
No. 5 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
Not relevant. There are 14 references to increased emissions of the accursed substances carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), their change over time and their respective contributions to radiative forcing, and two references to aerosols and albedo citing tiny negative radiative contributions. There’s one reference to “new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” But there’s no mention of what that evidence might be.
No. 6 New Zealand in a warming world
Not relevant. Looks at the consequences of warming.
No. 7 Global climate models
Not relevant. Looks at the skill of models. Aptly, it asks “How Well do Models Simulate Observed Features of the Climate?” (exactly what we wanted to know). It says the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (Gates, 1992) was to document the performance of GCMs in simulating the contemporary climate. Perfect! But inaptly, it gives us no results at all, saying very weakly that this has all been described at the First AMIP Scientific Conference (AMIP, 1995), and that “results have also been reported extensively in the open literature and in IPCC assessments.” So we’re on our own. When I have a little free time…
No. 8 Our Far South events
Not relevant. A glorious photographic celebration of NIWA research.
No. 9 NIWA says greenhouse gas methane is on the rise again
Not relevant. Describes our methane emissions and claims that methane affects temperature, but doesn’t describe how.
NIWA’s web page mentions methane (CH4) because farmed livestock, especially cattle and sheep, produce large quantities of it. What NIWA doesn’t say is that livestock are part of a cycle; when the herd or flock size is stable, there’s no change in the climate forcing from their methane. That’s before considering the inflated CO2 equivalence assigned to CH4. Methane is measured in parts per billion by volume (ppbv) because there’s so little of it in the atmosphere. Right now its concentration is about 1850 parts per billion, which is only 1.85 parts per million. So atmospheric methane, at 4,300,000,000,000 kg (4.3 billion tonnes) has less mass than a 500th part of the atmospheric mass of carbon dioxide (2.3 × 1012 (2,300 billion) tonnes). It is indeed far-fetched to imagine the tiny mass of methane having any thermal influence on the 5,150,000,000,000,000,000 kg (5.15 quadrillion tonnes) of the whole atmosphere. [12:00 noon 19 Sep 2016 – corrected conversion error; recalculated methane’s fraction of atmospheric carbon dioxide using mass, not volume. Thanks, Robin. – RT]
In the last 28 years CH4 has risen from 1675 ppbv to 1850 ppbv, or about 10%. This graph, though it ends in 2009, illustrates the strong increase in atmospheric methane since industrialisation began. Notice that the vertical axis doesn’t begin at 0, it begins at 600, which exaggerates the recent increase. Also, given the infinitesimal amount of atmospheric methane, you could double it a few times more without the climate noticing.
No. 10 The WMO/UNEP 2002 ozone assessment: a New Zealand perspective
Not relevant. Ozone is weird.
NIWA make it hard on their web site to find the link between human activities or emissions and global warming or climate change. It’s as though they don’t want to reveal the details, because the details are doubtful.
But this is a matter that requires substantial public resources. Fighting climate change requires, apparently, decades of effort, many millions of expenditure and deep changes to our industrial infrastructure.
It really is not too much to expect that our publicly-funded scientists will be open with us. What’s it to be, James?
Views: 354
>”P.S. You won’t get much of a response from the climate scientists. They have a policy of not engaging [….yada….yada….]”
So this:
Ten by Ten: Climate Change
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/events/ten-by-ten/ten-by-ten-climate-change/
is a one way dialogue contrary to definition – “an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue”. No engagement will entered into. James Renwick can preach from his Royal Society pulpit and no dissent will be allowed. Only the most superficial response will be deigned (as in this thread).
Except the actual climate is the final arbiter – not climate scientists. And if there isn’t some radical warming between now and 2020 their theory will be shot to pieces. It already is at TOA.
Scientists will engage with other scientists in the scientific process. Some with the public to inform and educate. They do not need, for any reason, to argue the toss with cranks. It’s unproductive and a waste of time.
And it’s not a question of everyone being or thinking the same. It’s that if the science is deemed incontrovertible by every scientific institution and society on the planet then you need to have extraordinary evidence to counter it.
All the “sceptics” have done is produce a lot of rubbish. It’s all been debunked more often than a sailor’s squeeze.
We’ve already seen radical warming. How much more do you want?
But don’t worry, there’s plenty more coming, even if we hold CO2 at the present level.
But you’d rather die that admit you’re wrong.
Spencer – “the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2)………”
Good grief. We all know DLR can be measured and is a radiative parameter. We know DLR is more than CO2 and WV radiating and in fact CO2 is a minor component (2%). We know the AIR mass radiates at T^4 in accordance with S-B. We know diurnal solar power drives the diurnal AIR temperature cycle and therefore the DLR cycle which is simply a fluctuation about the base T^4 radiation of AIR of which 99% is nitrogen and oxygen.
We know there was never any recourse to a radiative “greenhouse effect” to establish the entire atmospheric temperature profile.
We also know OLR can be measured. We know OLR is greater than DLR. And we know the difference is the radiative heat flux from surface up. We know there is no heat flux down, and that would be a violation of the Second Law anyway. There is no net LW heat flux into the surface. That’s solar SW.
>”……….that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist;”
What numbskull reasoning. Why isolate DLR but not OLR? OLR cannot be ignored any less than DLR. The entire AIR mass cannot be ignored either (apart from its necessity for life). It would lead to VERY cold nights too if it didn’t exist, about -173 C.
>”We’ve already seen radical warming. How much more do you want?”
Duh.
“And if there isn’t some radical warming between now and 2020 their theory will be shot to pieces. It already is at TOA”
The climate models demand it Dennis, The UK Met Office demands it:
Decadal forecast – [5 yr] Forecast issued in January 2016
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
Figure 3: Observed (black, from Met Office Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted (blue) global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1981-2010.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/q/o/fig3_dp2015_fcst_global_t.png
>”the science is deemed incontrovertible”
Heh.
Dennis,
‘Secondly, not finding a “hotspot” does not show the theory wrong; perhaps the theory or the understanding incomplete.’
Now you’re getting it Dennis!! CO2 warms a MAXIMUM of 1.2C per doubling of total (i.e. not just man’s) atmospheric CO2, but half the predicted warming is missing due to the empirically proven fact from multiple sources that positive feedback from water vapour is a non event, which is why all the climate models have failed as well – cause & effect.
Without a positive feedback from water vapour, AGW simply isn’t a problem because CO2 as a greenhouse gas is too weak to cause any real damage on it’s own. I don’t doubt AGW as a result of CO2 exists, it’s just so weak that it’s not worth worrying about.
All you have to do is compare the theory to the observations, and the empirical observations have falsified the theory. It’s not difficult at all.
Dennis – ‘We’ve already seen radical warming. How much more do you want?
But don’t worry, there’s plenty more coming, even if we hold CO2 at the present level.
But you’d rather die that admit you’re wrong.’
ROFLMAO!!! The histrionics are hilarious, you don’t spend your weekends in a sandwich board ranting “The end is nigh, repent” on street corners do you Dennis? ‘Radical warming’ – BAHAHAHA, that’s a good one! And you accuse others of being cranks.
A 40% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Earth has retained enough “extra” energy to drive mean global temperature up 1C in a few years and melted a significant amount of ice. That’s a radical change in climate. The difference between ice sheets covering Europe/America and dinosaurs living on Antarctica is … how many degrees?
Earth has not reached a steady state yet. Has it. So there’s more warming to come. Isn’t there.
And there’s more CO2 to come. Isn’t there. Lots. So more warming. Isn’t there. Lots.
Water vapour is a non-event? That’s a new one. WV reckoned to contribute 50%; CO2 20%. You know what, I’ll go with the science, not wishful thinking.
Explaining science settled by overwhelming evidence is rational.
Someone who defends crackpot explanations … is a crank.
Richard C (NZ)
Without the greenhouses gases the International Standard Atmosphere would be quite different. For a start water on land would be ice and not much water vapour in the air. Oceans ice and slush maybe.
But you could still be able to construct a Standard Atmosphere, a “new” ISA.
The “ISA” you witter on about does NOT explain why Earth is at +15 not -18. It describes what happens at a given energy level.
THAT’S ALL!
ROFLMAO
There was an old denier called Magoo
Who was missing a screw or two
CO2 is inconsequential!
Water vapour incidental!
His grey matter was magpie poo
There was an old denier Treadgold
Who welcomed into the fold
Every crank in creation
Offering us salvation
With ideas running hot and cold
Dennis, you claim that the Earths temp will increase by 1 deg C “in a few years”
It has taken over 100 years to get 0.85 degrees C of warming
How much is “a few years” then?
>”A 40% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Earth has retained enough “extra” energy to drive…….”
Non sequitur.
Theoretical anthropogenic radiative forcing (RF) generates several 100s of ZetaJoules MORE energy than was actually retained. the atmosphere is negligible in this respect. The IPCC’s anthro ocean warming attribution-by-speculation being outright scientific fraud.
Solar SSR accounts for the “extra” energy in the ocean. There hasn’t been any “extra” now since March 2013.
BTW Dennis.
Did “greenhouse” gasses “trap” the El Nino heat?
RSS
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015
At the anomalies, 2015.5 0.72, 2016.08 1.32 and 2016.42 0.8, the amount of heat that represents can be determined by:
Q = m•C•ΔT:
Measuring the Quantity of Heat
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-2/Measuring-the-Quantity-of-Heat
Obviously the only change was ΔT. So Q increased from 2015.5 to 2016.08 but then decreased from 2016.08 to 2016.42.
It is readily apparent that the heat Q at 2016.08 was not “trapped” in the troposphere but dissipated freely to space. If not space where did it go? It came from the ocean, it didn’t go back there.
Where did the El Nino heat go Dennis?
Dennis
>”Without the greenhouses gases the International Standard Atmosphere would be quite different.”
No it wouldn’t Dennis. Trace gasses are negligible. Only CO2 is required for perfect closure. Radaitive properties are of no account in the Std Atm.
>”But you could still be able to construct a Standard Atmosphere, a “new” ISA.”
Huh? What organization around the world is doing that Dennis? It is completely unnecessary. If you want to see what a small change in temperature at any altitude (e.g. weather, climate) makes to the other outputs then you just “offset”:
INPUT
Altitude
Temperature offset*
(*Temperature deviation from 1976 standard atmosphere (off-standard atmosphere).
OUTPUT
Temperature:
Pressure:
Density:
Speed of sound:
Dynamic viscosity
1976 Standard Atmosphere Calculator
http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/
>”The “ISA” you witter on about does NOT explain why Earth is at +15 not -18.>
So what? It doesn’t have to Dennis. Std Atm establishes the surface temperature at 15.000 C irrespective of radiative transfer – Period.
The entire earth’s AIR mass explains why the earth does not have the moon’s temperature.
How does “GHE” explain the 188 K difference between an earth’s surface without an AIR mass assumed to be as the moon on dark side (100.15 K) and the surface temperature with an AIR mass (288.15 K) ?
And,
How does “GHE” explain the 85 K difference between an earth’s surface without an AIR mass assumed to be as the moon on sun side (373.15 K) and the surface temperature with an AIR mass (288.15 K) ?
Feel free to change 288.15 K up (day) and down (night), and the 188 and 85 K differences as appropriate.
Kenneth Richard has done a posting on De Freitas, C. R., Dedekind, M. O., & Brill, B. E. (2015). A reanalysis of long-term surface air temperature trends in New Zealand. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 20 (4), 399-410.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/29/2015-paper-finds-new-zealand-warmer-in-1860s-contaminated-data-falsely-warms-last-century-by-325/#sthash.t9xB706Y.dpbs
Dennis
>”Earth has not reached a steady state yet. Has it.”
Loeb et al disagree:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg
There was a “steady” 0.6 W.m-2 imbalance with fluctuations 2000 -2010. The latest Nino will be another fluctuation. El Nino’s actually close up the imbalance (see graph).
Point is: there has been no INCREASING imbalance that IPCC RF theory demands with increasing GHG forcing.
Therefore, by IPCC definition, no climate change this century.
Maggy
>”De Freitas, C. R., Dedekind, M. O., & Brill, B. E. (2015)”
Started out as the NZCSC’s ‘Statistical Audit’ report reviewed by 3 independent professional statisticians. Critical evidence in NZCSET v NIWA.
Totally ignored by Judge Geoffrey Venning.
Now it’s in the peer-reviewed literature. NZCSC vindicated. NZ law (administered by Venning) is an ass.
There was an old denier Richard C
Whose brain was grown on a tree
Half-baked with seasoning
It dislodged its reasoning
No wonder he was all at sea
Dennis
>”The “ISA” you witter on about does NOT explain why Earth is at +15 not -18.>
>”So what? It doesn’t have to Dennis. Std Atm establishes the surface temperature at 15.000 C irrespective of radiative transfer – Period.”
Besides……
‘Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases’
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html
“So what? It doesn’t have to Dennis. Std Atm establishes the surface temperature at 15.000 C irrespective of radiative transfer – Period.”
Bunkum and humbug. ISA purports to do no such thing. It is a description of the atmosphere as found.
Dennis,
The IPCC’s AR5 shows the lower troposphere warming faster than the upper troposphere, the opposite of what was supposed to happen to prove positive feedback from water vapour – all temperature datasets agree.
‘Rather, it is the response of tropospheric water vapour to warming itself – the water vapour feedback – that matters for climate change. In GCMs, 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).’
and:
‘the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere. In addition, GCMs find enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere, due to changes in the lapse rate (see Section 9.4.4).’
Source: Box 8.1, AR4 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html
The IPCC states that water vapour should double the effects of CO2. Guess what happens when there’s no positive feedback from water vapour? Half the predicted warming doesn’t exist, which is why the climate models have failed.
Cause and effect dear boy, it really is quite simple. Would you like me to provide the empirical evidence from the AR5 showing the lower troposphere warming faster than the upper troposphere as well?
Dennis thinks that CO2 is going to do all the warming by itself, which is truly hilarious.
There was an old denier called Maggy
Whose references were really daggy
Knowing shit from clay
Was not her way
So all her acorns grew tall and scraggy
Now, now Dennis, name calling is no substitute for empirical evidence from the IPCC. Didn’t you know that?
Magoo on September 30, 2016 at 12:45 am said:
“but half the predicted warming is missing due to the empirically proven fact from multiple sources that positive feedback from water vapour is a non event”
You said it, buddy.
Funny how people treat the IPCC as a bible except when it reaches its conclusions.
Names? I’m only here to mock, old cock.
There was a guy called Dennis
He was a bit of a menace
He played us for fools
Thinking we were tools
To him it’s just a game of Tennis
Dennis,
Here’s the empirical evidence from the AR5 – all temperature datasets agree, lower troposphere is warming faster than the upper troposphere, the opposite of that predicted:
Box 2.8, page 197, AR5, WGI:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
Funny how the IPCC conclusions don’t agree with the empirical evidence. Now Dennis, dear boy, which is more correct, the 100% consensus of empirical evidence from multiple independent sources & methods, or unfounded speculation by the IPCC that is falsified by the empirical data. It really is a no brainer, even you should be able to understand it.
@Dennis Horne
You might be able to locate an interview I gave on RNZ (to Sharon Crosbie) c 1980-81 that indicates otherwise.
@Richard C
Thanks for the refs a couple of days ago.
Yes, I know the history of the de Freitas paper.
As Dennis Horne well knows, my interest in climate change in NZ revived when NIWA made a fuss about the Salinger thesis. My husband and I presented our Ph.D theses at Victoria around the same time that Salinger did. When we were contacted by VUW library some 20 or so years later to see if we would consent to having our theses digitised and put online, we readily agreed. I assume this is standard practice nowadays.
I’ve never been able to figure out why Salinger insisted his thesis remained on closed reserve.
My view is that all research (by staff & Grad students) conducted at NZ universities should be in the public domain, and be free and accessible.
Magoo
If you’re asking me which interpretation of the evidence and explanations I prefer, yours or
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Dennis L. Hartmann (USA), Albert M.G. Klein Tank (Netherlands), Matilde Rusticucci (Argentina)
Lead Authors:
Lisa V. Alexander (Australia), Stefan Brönnimann (Switzerland), Yassine Abdul-Rahman Charabi
(Oman), Frank J. Dentener (EU/Netherlands), Edward J. Dlugokencky (USA), David R. Easterling
(USA), Alexey Kaplan (USA), Brian J. Soden (USA), Peter W. Thorne (USA/Norway/UK), Martin
Wild (Switzerland), Panmao Zhai (China)
Contributing Authors:
Robert Adler (USA), Richard Allan (UK), Robert Allan (UK), Donald Blake (USA), Owen Cooper
(USA), Aiguo Dai (USA), Robert Davis (USA), Sean Davis (USA), Markus Donat (Australia), Vitali
Fioletov (Canada), Erich Fischer (Switzerland), Leopold Haimberger (Austria), Ben Ho (USA),
John Kennedy (UK), Elizabeth Kent (UK), Stefan Kinne (Germany), James Kossin (USA), Norman
Loeb (USA), Carl Mears (USA), Christopher Merchant (UK), Steve Montzka (USA), Colin Morice
(UK), Cathrine Lund Myhre (Norway), Joel Norris (USA), David Parker (UK), Bill Randel (USA),
Andreas Richter (Germany), Matthew Rigby (UK), Ben Santer (USA), Dian Seidel (USA), Tom
Smith (USA), David Stephenson (UK), Ryan Teuling (Netherlands), Junhong Wang (USA),
Xiaolan Wang (Canada), Ray Weiss (USA), Kate Willett (UK), Simon Wood (UK)
Review Editors:
Jim Hurrell (USA), Jose Marengo (Brazil), Fredolin Tangang (Malaysia), Pedro Viterbo (Portugal)
then it’s a no-brainer.
Ben Santer and Carl Mears know what they’re talking about for a start, whereas you just pick nits. It’s obvious the surface and ocean temperatures are up and why. But I’ll try to understand what it is that’s bothering you.
Just a list of names
What actually is the point of that?
Maggy Wassilieff
So this is driven by some lack of compliance to your personal rule about digitising old forgotten theses. Well, maybe not all ignored. Salinger’s might have been “chosen” by the powerful lobby driving the business-as-usual burning of fossil fuels. Especially as “Salinger” appears in Nature. And we know what a bunch of lying rrrs holes the lobbyists are – look at “Climategate” beat-up.
Richard C (NZ) is spouting complete nonsense. [So, refute it or ignore it; your constant whining about it is irritating and does no good. – RT] That you can’t see that means you’re in over your head in crank poo.
Dennis, give us one piece of evidence that the fossil fuel lobbyists were involved in Climategate. Any one will do
Do you also believe that Israel is responsible for 9/11?
Just asking
Dennis dear boy,
I’m not asking you to believe my personal interpretation because I don’t have one, I’m just pointing out the empirical evidence from all sources presented in the IPCC AR5 that contradicts what the IPCC says should be evidence of positive feedback from water vapour. That and the failed models, also presented in the IPCC.
Your list of names from the IPCC is very impressive, which leads me to wonder why you reject the empirical evidence they present in the AR5, or their definition of why the upper troposphere is supposed to warm faster than the lower troposphere/surface as evidence of positive feedback from water vapour. Don’t you believe what they say? Which part do you reject, the IPCC’s empirical evidence or their definition of evidence?
It really is a no-brainer for even the least of discerning minds Dennis. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
>”And there’s more CO2 to come. Isn’t there. Lots. So more warming. Isn’t there. Lots.”
Yes, lots. Lots and lots of warming. Lots.
But only in the CO2-forced climate models.
De Freitas, C. R., Dedekind, M. O., & Brill, B. E. (2015)
Same in Australia. The mid to late 1800s measurements are recorded but BOM ignores them for ACORN-SAT. They show the climate regime was similar to now with a cool period in between as in NZ.
BOM then compiles a series from 1910 similar to NZ and adjusts the early raw data beyond all recognition.
Hence:
Never mind the cooling since the late 1800s as in NZ.
All evidence requires interpretation. Yours is different from the authors I listed, who wrote the chapter. You put great value on your interpretation; I don’t.
It is clear to me looking at the data that the globe is warming. It is clear to me that the science explains why.
You say the models are wrong, in the sense they are useless. That is simply not true. But in any case it’s irrelevant. We know from history what happens when the CO2 goes up – to where it is now … and climbing.
It doesn’t matter about specific predictions about what water vapour does or doesn’t or will or won’t. We know it’s a powerful amplifying feedback. Despite what you say then deny. (Without even noticing – now that’s cognitive dissonance functioning perfectly!)
Now you can knit all the bulls wool you like, with a carefully constructed periphery of bits and pieces you’ve nit-picked, but the fact remains your interpretation of the significance of your “finding” makes you are an outlier. And I ignore outliers, especially out-and-outliers.
Richard C (NZ) on September 30, 2016 at 9:09 am said:
‘Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases’
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html
Stop being so gullible Richard. Use critical reasoning. Become a Sceptic.
The sleight of hand that the hockeyschtick author pulls here is to take the estimated effective surface temperature and then applies that temperature to a point halfway up the troposphere.
How can you know so much and yet understand so little? You are being mislead by charlatans. There are none so foolish as those who want to believe.
There are some equations in the HS article that need some understanding.
No we don’t
why are you here then?
Simon
>[THS] “…take[s] the estimated effective surface temperature and then applies that temperature to a point halfway up the troposphere”
Baloney. He does no such thing Simon. You are confusing some “effective surface temperature” (whatever that is) with ERL.
Step 1: Derivation of the dry adiabatic lapse rate from the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and ideal gas law:
Step 2: Determine the height at the center of mass of the atmosphere [and ERL]
Step 3: Determine the surface temperature
For Earth, surface pressure is 1 bar, so the ERL is located where the pressure ~0.5 bar, which is near the middle of the ~10 km high troposphere at ~5km. The average lapse rate on Earth is 6.5C/km, intermediate between the 10C/km dry adiabatic lapse rate and the 5C/km wet adiabatic lapse rate, since the atmosphere on average is intermediate between dry and saturated with water vapor.
Plugging the average 6.5C/km lapse rate and 5km height of the ERL into our equation (6) above gives
T = -18 – (6.5 × (h – 5))
Using this equation we can perfectly reproduce the temperature at any height in the troposphere as shown in Fig 1. At the surface, h = 0, thus temperature at the surface Ts is calculated as
Ts = -18 – (6.5 × (0 – 5))
Ts = -18 + 32.5
Ts = 14.5°C or 288°K
which is the same as determined by satellite observations and is ~33C above the equilibrium temperature with the Sun.
Thus, we have determined the entire 33C greenhouse effect, the surface temperature, and the temperature of the troposphere at any height, entirely on the basis of the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law, without use of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, nor the concentrations of greenhouse gases, nor the emission/absorption spectra of greenhouse gases at any point in this derivation, demonstrating that the entire 33C greenhouse effect is dependent upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases
# # #
QED
Simon
>”the estimated effective surface temperature”
Effective temperature corresponding to the effective radiating level (ERL) of the earth is NOT at the surface of the earth. You have made a completely erroneous assumption Simon, and projected your error onto THS.
Effective temperature
“The effective temperature of a body such as a star or planet is the temperature of a black body that would emit the same total amount of electromagnetic radiation.[1] Effective temperature is often used as an estimate of a body’s surface temperature when the body’s emissivity curve (as a function of wavelength) is not known.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
Firstly, this isn’t relevant to earth anyway. The emissivity is known.
Secondly, THS determines the “equilibrium temperature” and ERL of earth which is NOT at surface:
In future, please don’t blatantly and erroneously miss-represent another’s work.
>”The equilibrium temperature of Earth with the Sun is commonly assumed to be 255K or -18C as calculated here.[hotlink]”
Effective Temperature of the Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law#Effective_Temperature_of_the_Earth
Effective Temperature: of Earth: 255 K (-18.15 °C)
Surface Temperature of Earth: 288 K (15 °C)
Not to be confused as per Simon.
Maggy Wassilieff
Did you really think I wouldn’t check out your accusation that Salinger refused permission for his thesis to be digitised?
Where did you get this “snippet” from, by the way?
You never read what you link to Richard. Let me quote directly:
This gives an effective temperature of 6 °C on the surface of the Earth, assuming that it perfectly absorbs all emission falling on it and has no atmosphere. The Earth has an albedo of 0.3, meaning that 30% of the solar radiation that hits the planet gets scattered back into space without absorption. The effect of albedo on temperature can be approximated by assuming that the energy absorbed is multiplied by 0.7, but that the planet still radiates as a black body (the latter by definition of effective temperature, which is what we are calculating). This approximation reduces the temperature by a factor of 0.71/4, giving 255 K (−18 °C).
However, long-wave radiation from the surface of the earth is partially absorbed and re-radiated back down by greenhouse gases, namely water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. Since the emissivity with greenhouse effect (weighted more in the longer wavelengths where the Earth radiates) is reduced more than the absorptivity (weighted more in the shorter wavelengths of the Sun’s radiation) is reduced, the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates. As a result, the Earth’s actual average surface temperature is about 288 K (15 °C), which is higher than the 255 K effective temperature, and even higher than the 279 K temperature that a black body would have.
QED. You have to realise that you are a minority of one, even here nobody believes you. You won’t find any support at WUWT either. Try JoNova, if you are willing to believe in a mysterious Force X from outer space.
A minority of one, plus
according to the article.
(since we are in the business of cutting and pasting lists of names into comments)
@Dennis Horne
I did not state that Salinger did not consent to having his thesis digitised (please read carefully what I wrote).
My interest in this topic commenced when it was made public (in a newspaper) that members of the Climate Coalition were having difficulty accessing the thesis as it was only available on closed reserve viewing at Vic Uni Library.
I am happy to be proved wrong.
I tried accessing Salinger’s thesis online last year from VUW library and was unable to.
Simon
>”You never read what you link to Richard. Let me quote directly:”
I do, but did you read what you quoted back to me Simon?
ASSUMING THE EARTH HAS NO ATMOSPHERE. This is NOT the Effective Temperature of the Earth.
That is NOT the Earth Simon. The Earth has an atmosphere. THS is simply pointing out a (GHG-based) calculation of the Effective and Surface temperature of the Earth when an atmosphere is added in:
The Wiki link gives BOTH Effective and Surface temperatures (tabulated):
THS in his 3 step process is duplicating the Effective Radiating Level (ERL,~5km) AND the Effective Temperature (~255 K, -18.15 C) AND the Surface Temperature (14.5°C or 288°K) all WITHOUT greenhouse gases i.e. a completely different calc to the Wiki calc.
Hence the title of his post:
‘Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases’
Dennis was asserting this could NOT be done. Obviously it can.
@Maggy,
This was a frustrating part of our efforts to uncover the adjustments to temperature readings. NIWA dropped red herrings and tossed wild geese all over the place.
We eventually gained possession of a CD through one of our academics, who spent about a month going through the thing before declaring “there’s no methodology in there.”
No experiment is a total failure, but this exercise was a huge waste of time. NIWA even now refers to the thesis as the origin of the 7SS (check the website), but they must be laughing every time they do.
I’ll be interested in what Dennis reports of his investigation into Salinger’s refusing permission for digitising. Let’s hope he knows Salinger.
Simon
>”You won’t find any support at WUWT either”
[ad hom deleted]. There’s a reason for that Simon.
Anthony Watts is a LUKEWARMER. Just like Roy Spencer. They are on YOUR side of the “debate”. It never fails to amaze me that Warmies cannot grasp this. You guys think Watts/Spencer are “deniers” and represent the “sceptic” side – WRONG. They represent the LUKEWARM apex of a triangular “debate”.
There is an ongoing blazing spat between Ultra-sceptic PSI and Watts/Spencer for example. I can assure you they do not discuss on each other’s blogs. One faction puts their case on their blog. The other responds on theirs, and vice versa.
Anthony Watts SHUTS DOWN, i.e. censures, any dissent. I would have plenty of support and plenty have tried but they get shut down so what’s the point anymore? If you comment at WUWT you conform to the limits he has laid down or you don’t comment – simple. THS comments there but notice he doesn’t push his case. Neither do I.
Barycentrism is another topic that is out-of-bounds at WUWT. Launch into that and you will be shut down pronto. It’s a closed shop on certain topics.
You don’t [deleted] understand the spectrum of climate debate Simon.
Maggy Wassilieff. on September 30, 2016 at 9:49 am said:
” to see if we would consent to having our theses digitised and put online, we readily agreed … I’ve never been able to figure out why Salinger insisted his thesis remained on closed reserve.”
Salinger has never refused to have his thesis digitised or it remain on closed reserve.
Anyway. All irrelevant. More CO2, more energy retained: higher temperatures, ice melting. Ocean acidification. Trouble ahead.
Dennis
>“So what? It doesn’t have to Dennis. Std Atm establishes the surface temperature at 15.000 C irrespective of radiative transfer – Period.”
>”Bunkum and humbug. ISA purports to do no such thing. It is a description of the atmosphere as found.”
No Dennis. Given ALL the relevant physical properties, the “atmosphere as found” can be calculated.
What was calculated (see calculator below) has been confirmed observationally. The outputs from the calculation are:
OUTPUT
Temperature
Pressure
Density
Speed of sound
Dynamic viscosity
1976 Standard Atmosphere Calculator
http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/
I’m guessing, given the calculations having already been done decades ago and the results tabulated (1976 in case of US Std Atm), the calculator above is just going to “lookup tables” i.e. the tabulated 1976 Std Atm.
The output data in the Std Atm tables did not exist before calculation i.e. the tables were NOT compiled from observations, they were confirmed by observations AFTER calculation.
Where did the El Nino heat go Dennis ?
It wasn’t “trapped” by the “heat trapping greenhouse gasses” was it ?
So where did the El Nino heat go ?
Dennis,
‘It doesn’t matter about specific predictions about what water vapour does or doesn’t or will or won’t. We know it’s a powerful amplifying feedback.’
No ‘we’ don’t ‘know it’s a powerful amplifying feedback’, and the empirical evidence published by the IPCC proves that water vapour isn’t. Ever noticed how it gets a bit chillier when a cloud passes in front of the sun – is that a positive or negative feedback?
Assuming is not ‘know’ing, and we all know what they say about assumption being the mother of all screw-ups – hence the failed computer models that make the same assumption that you do about water vapour feedbacks. You stick with the assumptions of the failed models dear boy, I’ll go with the 100% consensus of the IPCC’s empirical evidence from multiple sources and methods instead.
“proves that water vapour isn’t. Ever noticed how it gets a bit chillier when a cloud passes in front of the sun”
Clouds? Is that where your head is?
Sunlight passes through water vapour and longwave doesn’t. That’s the key, little man.
Richard C (NZ)
The ISA makes no attempt to explain where the energy in the atmosphere came from. It just describes what it does once it’s there.
Where did the energy from El Nino go? Why don’t you tell me?
My guess would be some into the atmosphere, so some back to the surface and effectively back into the ocean somewhere, and some to space. But I’m sure you have an interesting story to tell us, you’ve been begging us to ask you for some time…
>”Sunlight passes through water vapour and longwave doesn’t. That’s the key, little man.”
‘Absorption of solar radiation by water vapor in the atmosphere. Part I: a comparison between selected parameterizations and reference results.’
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-261X1997000300006
Oh gosh! Does that mean sunlight doesn’t pass through water vapour but longwave does?
What I write briefly might be slightly wrong but what you write isn’t even slightly right.
If you go to the NIWA site on the Seven-station series temperature data (archive), it states in the section Documentation of the adjustment process that :
https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/review/changes/seven-station-series-temperature-data
Now I’ve just searched the theses available online at Vic Uni and Salinger’s thesis is not listed there.
Not much use for someone overseas trying to check how Salinger carried out his adjustments.
Dennis
>”The ISA makes no attempt to explain where the energy in the atmosphere came from.
Yes it does Dennis, The Solar Constant. This is the only system “energy” input. Geo is neglected. You are confusing how temperature in the atmosphere arises. If you compress a gas it gets hot. If you have a mass of gas pressing down it creates pressure which creates heat (simply). But there is also solar energy input. Std Atm calculates from all the physical properties what Temperature Pressure Density Speed of sound and Dynamic viscosity will be at any altitude.
>”It just describes what it does once it’s there.”
No it doesn’t. There are no heat transfer calcs in Std Atm except S-B and Solar Constant (W.m-2. Joules per second).
>”Where did the energy from El Nino go? Why don’t you tell me? ”
I will, see below. But you are of the “heat trapping greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere” faction so I’m interested in your explanation given the El Nino temperature spike is GONE from the atmosphere (and therefore the heat is GONE). I see your explanation follows.
>”My guess would be some into the atmosphere,”
We can check RSS
RSS
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2015
Nope, didn’t go there. Spike up and back down again. Heat GONE from the atmosphere – not “trapped” in it.
>”so some back to the surface and effectively back into the ocean somewhere”
A twist in the “trapping” story. Apparently not “trapped” in the atmosphere after all, it was TRANSFERRED. But we can check Surface and any TRANSFER to 0-700m OHC:
GISTEMP L-OTI (Surface)
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015
Nope, didn’t go there. Spike up and back down again. Heat GONE from the Surface – not “trapped” or TRANSFERRED there. The recent uptick is an ANTarctic anomaly.
OHC
2015-3,15.846370
2015-6,14.841905
2015-9,14.641520
2015-12,15.156898
2016-3,15.433019
2016-6,13.160940
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
Nope, didn’t go there.The ocean LOST considerable energy from the El Nino process. Warm water into 0-700m => Heat loss from ocean (actually what an El Nino is) => Now less heat 0=700m than 2015-3,
>”and some to space.”
Yes, the only place left after atmosphere and ocean eliminated so ALL of it.
From Susskind et al (2012) Global and Tropical OLR – 2010 El Nino
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/susskind-2012-ceres-airs-elnino.png
Enough OLR to briefly close up the Earth’s energy imbalance 2010 (similarly 2007, 2003):
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg
Expect similar for 2015/16 OLR data.
An El Nino is an oceanic heat release mechanism. The heat passes through the atmosphere and is dissipated to space as OLR. No “trapping” but a TRANSFER from ocean to space.
Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Sherwood, Foster, Mann, and the UL Met Office all claimed “most” of the El Nino heat for AGW. Schmidt even went so far as to claim ALL but 0.07C of the 2015 annual L-OTI anomaly was due to AGW, only 0.07C was natural El Nino. But now the El Nino heat has GONE from the system and they look stupid.
>”What I write briefly might be slightly wrong but what you write isn’t even slightly right.”
I simply quoted a paper title. I didn’t “write” anything. The paper studies how best to capture (“parameterizations”) the “absorption of solar radiation by water vapor in the atmosphere” as per title.
I was just highlighting the obvious, that what you claimed – “Sunlight passes through water vapour” – was not entirely correct, even as you rounded on Magoo and derided him (“That’s the key, little man”).
Simon
>”They [Watts/Spencer] represent the LUKEWARM apex of a triangular “debate” ”
I should point out too that sceptics will often take 2 positions simultaneously i.e. even they do not necessarily accept the IPCC’s TOA RF paradigm or believe the IPCC’s prognostications, it is often just as easy to operate inside their paradigm and show there’s no catastrophe looming.
Best example of that is Climate Sensitivity (CS).
I do understand the spectrum of climate debate Richard. Some people think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) that would result from a sustained doubling of atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration is low (say <1°C) whereas other believe it is high (say >2°C).
Your "participation" in the debate is equivalent to an anti-evolutionist trying to explain how heritability works.
Simon
>”Some people think….[CS]”
Rubbish. Those in CS calculate. In order to calculate CS you are, by necessity, accepting the IPCC paradigm. A low CS position is a Lukewarm position but that does not necessarily mean the person doing the calculating and arriving at low CS actually adheres to the IPCC paradigm or is necessarily a Lukewarmer. They just decided to get stuck in and work it out for themselves within the paradigm (e.g. Nic Lewis).
It’s just that it is easier to just operate inside the paradigm and show no catastrophe than it is to attack the paradigm t achieve the same result. This is the only reason why govt’s have been sucked in to all this. Policy institutes on the non-catastrophe side (e.g. GWPF) don’t bother fighting the paradigm, it is a waste of effort and they get no traction from the intractables. Consequently policy wonks don’t realize there is a whole other “debate” going on, one side of which certainly does not accept the IPCC’s contrived paradigm, because they are never exposed to the arguments. The Media are clueless to this too for the same reason.
BTW, give the vindictiveness a rest Simon. It is not a persuasive argument and achieves nothing but wasted pixels.
Climate sensitivity (CS) assumes continued warming but what if in the 2020s, 2030s, 2040s, there is cooling as per the solar conjecture?
The whole CS paradigm falls apart.
Judith Curry:
CS methodology is based on an untested assumption that looks increasingly like it will be tested in the near future.
Obviously a greater problem than just CS for th IPCC if cooling ensues but that’s where CS stands.
Richard C (NZ)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere
“International Standard Atmosphere
The International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) is an atmospheric model of how the pressure, temperature, density, and viscosity of the Earth’s atmosphere change over a wide range of altitudes or elevations. It has been established to provide a common reference for temperature and pressure and consists of tables of values at various altitudes, plus some formulas by which those values were derived. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) publishes the ISA as an international standard, ISO 2533:1975.[1] Other standards organizations, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the United States Government, publish extensions or subsets of the same atmospheric model under their own standards-making authority.”
http://home.anadolu.edu.tr/~mcavcar/common/ISAweb.pdf
http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/aerothermal_dvd_only/aero/atmos/atmos.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568101.app2/pdf
No discussion anywhere of energy entering or leaving the atmosphere. As I knew. That’s not the purpose. It’s for flying and engineering etc.
Richard C (NZ): “I was just highlighting the obvious, that what you claimed – “Sunlight passes through water vapour” – was not entirely correct, even as you rounded on Magoo and derided him (“That’s the key, little man”).”
Do you really think I don’t know that? For the purposes of the discussion it’s near enough to make the point. About which, by the way, he contradicted himself twice.
Because it’s making the point that matters. Not writing screeds and screeds of twaddle.
Richard C (NZ)
Handwaving. And most unlikely.
Dennis,
Clouds/water vapour can still have a negative feedback, even if what you say about LWR is true. Again, the IPCC states this – don’t you agree with the IPCC on this point either dear boy?:
‘By reflecting solar radiation back to space (the albedo effect of clouds) and by trapping infrared radiation emitted by the surface and the lower troposphere (the greenhouse effect of clouds), clouds exert two competing effects on the Earth’s radiation budget. These two effects are usually referred to as the SW (shortwave) and LW (longwave) components of the cloud radiative forcing (CRF). The balance between these two components depends on many factors, including macrophysical and microphysical cloud properties. In the current climate, clouds exert a cooling effect on climate (the global mean CRF is negative). In response to global warming, the cooling effect of clouds on climate might be enhanced or weakened, thereby producing a radiative feedback to climate warming (Randall et al., 2006; NRC, 2003; Zhang, 2004; Stephens, 2005; Bony et al., 2006).’
Source: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-2.html
Water vapour is NOT a guaranteed positive feedback, as evidenced by the empirical data in the AR5 that falsifies the hotspot. In addition, guess what happens to any heat stored in the water vapor when it condenses and rains (the IPCC reports increased precipitation) – oops, bye-bye atmosphere, hello space.
No wonder you’re always wrong Dennis, your beliefs are based on faulty assumptions instead of reality (always a recipe for disaster dear boy). Anyway, you’re fully aware of the truth now – unless you disagree with the IPCC again that is. LOL!
Dennis
>”No discussion anywhere of energy entering or leaving the atmosphere. As I knew. That’s not the purpose. It’s for flying and engineering etc.”
It’s an approximation with assumptions. But still verified observationally and fit for purpose. To get better resolution you need to add in satellite solar (see below).
Those are just two small subsets you are referring to Dennis. Standard Atmosphere is an International agreement no matter for what purpose of each subset. The point is that it is not a radiative transfer model except for S-B and an “assumption” of “moderate” solar activity (US 1976 below). Right down at page 226 Figure 37 is the solar spectral assumption. Obviously there is solar change so that was never going to be valid for long but it was sufficient for the model and for the purposes.
US Standard Atmosphere 1976
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770009539.pdf
At the time of the model’s development there were no satellite measurements from the Sun and Earth to determine Earth’s equilibrium temperature with the Sun but they had to start somewhere. I’ve said a number of times that Std Atm “establishes” the surface temperature. This is WRONG. The surface temperature was another “assumption” by international agreement (15.000 C). It is EVERY OTHER temperature, both above and below surface, that the Std Atm “establishes” relative to the internationally agreed 15.000 but without recourse to GHE.
This was all from physicist Maxwell’s principles. Since the 1876 model satellite data has become available for all sorts of stuff including confirmation of the adiabatic lapse rate and solar and earth radiation. So using all the properties compiled for Std Atm it then becomes possible to derive an equation that DOES determine the surface temperature. THS explains (makes some claims I don’t agree with BTW e.g. trace gasses totally discarded, not true from what I can see although they are all but negligible, CO2 isn’t):
So now to add in the satellite solar data and reproduce the Std Atm TROPOSPHERE including the surface temperature and with minimal “assumptions” (ε = emissivity = 1 assuming Sun and Earth are blackbodies):
Where (Std Atm data, Maxwell’s principles, PLUS satellite update for solar):
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 [hotlink]
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
Now with observed satellite solar added in there is much more detail:
This is much finer detail than the internationally agreed 15.000 C assumption, and the Std Atm. Surface T=288.433K (15.283 C). This is done without recourse to GHE and with the addition of observed solar energy input.
Dennis
>”Handwaving. And most unlikely.”
Troposphere eliminated. Surface eliminated, Ocean eliminated. Where else other than space?
EL NIÑO’S EFFECT ON outgoing longwave radiation [2016]
Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) is the thermal radiation, or heat energy, that radiates from Earth’s surface and atmosphere and goes out to space. OLR depends on temperature, moisture, and clouds, and it’s usually largest over the subtropical desert regions and the subtropical oceans. OLR is lower in the high latitudes and in the cloudy and moist portions of the tropics. El Niño has caused a shift in the regular pattern: there is reduced OLR in the tropical eastern Pacific which causes increased convective storms and moisture, and there is a strong increase in OLR in the tropical western Pacific. This shift in the convection pattern effects on the winter storm track in California and is typical of a strong El Niño.
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/nino-nina
# # #
>”a strong increase in OLR in the tropical western Pacific”
>”OLR depends on temperature, moisture, and clouds”
From Susskind et al (2012) Global and Tropical OLR – 2010 El Nino
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/susskind-2012-ceres-airs-elnino.png
There is strong latent heat and cloud transfer of energy. Tropical clouds punch up through the tropopause and radiate from the tops. That’s the increased OLR in the Western Pacific.
Thunderstorm cloud
http://la.climatologie.free.fr/orage/thunderstorm.png
Magoo old pooh
All the greenhouses gases in total, that is the greenhouse effect, generate a positive feedback. Naturally not all the LR returns to the surface and remains in the climate system otherwise we would be getting hot. Not you, of course. You would never get near finding the hiding place where the gods hide the truth. For you your friends would be calling, “cold, cold.”
The diagrams used to illustrate the greenhouse effect show energy reflected and radiated to space. from memory, 23% of SR by cloud and the atmosphere, LR is 9% by cloud and 50% by atmosphere.
Isn’t it the school holidays now? Why don’t you run along and teach your grandmother to suck eggs?
Richard C (NZ)
Why do you imagine all the energy in El Nino is radiated into space? If all the LR in the atmosphere not from El Nino were radiated into space we would be at -18. Is the LR from El Nino different LR from the other LR?
I repeat. The ISA is merely a description for users. For example, when ATC tells a pilot the QNH is 1013, he sets the altimeter at 1013 hPa, so when the pilot says he is at 3000ft the tower and other pilots know he is at 3000ft. If the pressure is high, the altimeter would read too low, so the altimeters would need to be set at say 1024 so a reading of 3000ft meant 3000ft.
The ISA does NOT explain how energy got into the atmosphere or how it leaves. It simply defines where in the atmosphere the energy is. And presenting screeds and screeds of numbers that prove nothing more than that means you have great difficulty grasping simple concepts. But then we knew that. Already.
Dennis
Firstly, re Std Atm issues. I think I’ve come up with the differing points of view i.e. our respective arguments:
You say GHE is a cause, not an effect (or consequence). Correct me if I misconstrue.
I say GHE is an effect (or consequence), not a cause.
Is this how you see it or not Dennis?
Now on to your comment Std Atm first in this comment, El Nino next comment:
>”I repeat. The ISA is merely a description for users.”
I’m not disputing this Dennis. All Std Atms are a tool for users. The first aeronautical one only went to 85,000 ft, extended now. The US version was from below surface to right up past the TOA for the space race. It was however compiled by mass/gravity, physical constants and properties, not GHE. Solar input is implicit in International and US version (see below). US assumes “moderate” solar activity and a specific solar spectral profile.
>”The ISA does NOT explain how energy got into the atmosphere or how it leaves.”
Before the satellite era they had no observations of radiation at TOA. To get around that they simply “assumed”, by international agreement, a nominal surface temperature (15.000) that conformed to observations. This accounts for solar input i.e. solar input is implicit in the 15.000 assumption. Everyone knows atmospheric temperature has solar input. The Std Atm compilers didn’t have the solar data so they just did a workaround by accounting for solar input by the use of a nominal 15.000 starting point. Now there is satellite solar data it can be utilized as THS or anyone else wishes to. I’ve already alluded to this but didn’t explain myself, I thought it would be just stating-the-obvious. Here it is again but annotated for clarity:
But the ‘solar constant’ is NOT “constant:
The Inconstant Sun | Science Mission Directorate
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/17jan_solcon/
So temperature change at any altitude from a change in ‘solar constant’ can be determined relatively easily. Again, GHE has nothing to do with this.
>”It simply defines where in the atmosphere the energy is.”
This is where cause-consequence vs consequence-cause argument distinction comes in. Yes it defines where in the atmosphere the energy is but the energy input is the ‘solar constant’ implicit in the nominal Std Atm 15.000 and explicit in the ERL-Effective Temperature obtained by satellite observation of the present ‘solar constant’ in the satellite era. The atm properties and major constituents MUST be determined to carry out he gravity/mass calculations in the Std Atm. This has nothing to do with GHE and GHE is not part of the process. You can fact-check this for yourself in the US Standard Atmosphere 1976 linked upthread
Radiative transfer comes into play consequently as does Latent and Sensible heat. This is the hugely simplified earth’s energy budget showing energy flows. Obviously the flows are not as per that simplified budget diagram at every altitude level. The flows are just from “effective” levels. And after that there’s weather, wind, Hadley cells, and what have you.
Once the satellite obtained ‘solar constant’ was available it was just a matter of reproducing and refining the Std Atm except the surface temperature can be calculated rather than nominally assumed. Again this has nothing whatsoever to do with GHE and the 33C difference is fully explained at ERL, not surface.
GHE is a consequence, not a cause.
Dennis
>”Why do you imagine all the energy in El Nino is radiated into space?”
I don’t “imagine” it Dennis, I’ve gone through a process of observational observation. Plus I know the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or, as Habibullo Abdussamatov leader of the Russian part of the International Space Station and Pulkovo Observatory pus it – “Heat rises up, not down”.
>”If all the LR in the atmosphere not from El Nino were radiated into space we would be at -18″
The earth is being constantly replenished by SW so is constantly radiating LW irrespective of El Ninos. Yours is Spencer reasoning Dennis. Isolating one factor and ignoring all others.
>”Is the LR from El Nino different LR from the other LR?”
There’s more of it for a start. This is why El Nino shows up as an OLR anomaly i.e. a variation from normal.
You have exactly the same problem as the IPCC don’t you Dennis? Your theory demands that the El Nino heat was “trapped” by the troposphere and retained in the system so you’re desperately trying to sink it SOMEWHERE. Except the IPCC sink most of theirs in space:
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
Look at all the (supposed) GHG-forced energy just exiting to space as OLR in (b).
Correction
“I don’t “imagine” it Dennis, I’ve gone through a process of observational [elimination].”
“I don’t “imagine” it Dennis, I’ve gone through a process of observational [elimination].”
Ah, the old thought experiment, eh, without the thinking.
“Heat goes up not down.”
Explain how radiators or ceilings warm the people below.
Move on, Richard C, move on. Next post. Defend the deniers!
Dennis
>“I don’t “imagine” it Dennis, I’ve gone through a process of observational [elimination].” Ah, the old thought experiment, eh, without the thinking.
I supplied the observations Dennis. They are self-evident.
>[Misquote corrected] “[“Heat rises up, not down”]”” Explain how radiators or ceilings warm the people below.
The heat only manifests in the material Dennis. There is plenty of radiation passing through space but no heat. You have to place a space vehicle in the path of the radiation to get heat. So radiators direct radiation down (no heat). The radiation strikes material (people). The radiative energy is converted to heat energy. The heat rises. It is cooler at floor level than at ceiling level.
The Interaction of Radiation with Matter
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod3.html
‘How Geological Heating Refuels El Niño’
by James Edward Kamis, September 30, 2016.
http://climatechangedispatch.com/how-geological-heating-refuels-el-nino/
Dennis,
Now, now dear boy, there’s no need to be rude, it’s not my fault you hold an untenable position that is contradicted by a 100% consensus of the empirical evidence.
‘All the greenhouses gases in total, that is the greenhouse effect, generate a positive feedback.’
And where is the evidence that water vapour is generating a positive feedback in the atmosphere? AHHH!, you need empirical evidence to prove that don’t you? Shame the empirical evidence in the AR5 shows there isn’t a positive feedback from water vapour due to the upper troposphere not warming as predicted (remember, this is the IPCC’s definition & data, not mine).
Now, since 100% of the empirical temperature data in the IPCC’s AR5 shows water vapour is not providing a positive feedback, & the IPCC dictates that 50% of the warming should be due to water vapour, how is CO2 a problem? Psst, I’ll give you a clue – it’s not.
Sorry Dennis, but your sandwich board, end of the world street corner act is just another village idiot choking on a chicken bone, but knock yourself out if you like – I’m sure lots of people who think they’re Napoleon or Jesus Christ live a full and rewarding life in their own deluded way. You’re not as smart as you think you are, are you Dennis, or is it just willful ignorance? ‘Denial’ perhaps. Maybe the IPCC are in the pay of ‘big oil’, maybe that’s it.
Magoo
Well, the important thing is I’m happy with my interpretation of the science.
Looking at multiple lines of evidence – it all makes sense to me. Ten thousand or so climate scientists agree with me. Nearly every one of millions of informed scientists too. Every scientific institute and society on the planet… So I’m not exactly lonely.
Nor do I feel my back is to the wall. But perhaps it should be … (dear boy)?
Nor do I feel my back is to the wall. But perhaps it should be
You should be because you believe that we are all going to die an horrendous death because of catastrophic climate change
But then again, maybe you don’t actually believe your own BS
“Nor do I feel my back is to the wall. But perhaps it should be (dear boy)”
Andy: You should be …
Whoooshhhhhhhhhh
Dennis,
‘Ten thousand or so climate scientists agree with me. Nearly every one of millions of informed scientists too. Every scientific institute and society on the plane’
ROFLMAO!! You’re having delusions of grandeur now dear boy. So these ‘millions of scientists’ all agree with you that there is positive feedback from water vapour do they? So where is this great consensus agreement between ‘millions of informed scientists’ & ‘every scientific institute and society on the plane’ confirming positive feedback from water vapour, or is it just another one of your delusions?
Perhaps you mean many scientists believe CO2 warms the atmosphere, is that what you mean? Even I agree with that, it’s just that CO2 is too weak to cause much of a problem by itself without positive feedback from water vapour, & the empirical evidence published by ‘climate scientists’ & the IPCC disproves positive feedback from water vapour according to their own definition dear boy. Oops!!
Le’s just analyse your vastly superior intellect & logical brilliance in action here Dennis:
1/ You believe in positive feedback from water vapour by ignoring the empirical data from more than 30,000,000 radiosondes and 2 satellites published by the IPCC in their AR5 report. Do you disagree with these ‘climate scientists’ & their data Dennis, is their empirical evidence incorrect?
2/ Or maybe you disagree with the IPCC’s statement that the upper troposphere should warm faster than the lower troposphere as evidence of positive feedback from water vapour – perhaps you disagree with those ‘climate scientists’ Dennis, is that it?
3/ So which is it Dennis, is the IPCC’s empirical data wrong, or is it their definition of evidence of positive feedback from water vapour that is incorrect? Take your pick dear boy, but you can’t have it both ways.
‘Ten thousand or so climate scientists … millions of informed scientists … every scientific institute and society on the plane” – LOL, that’s a good one dear boy, very funny. You really do live in a fantasy world Dennis, perhaps you should get out a bit more.
Magoo
I wrote: “Looking at multiple lines of evidence – it all makes sense to me. Ten thousand or so climate scientists agree with me. Nearly every one of millions of informed scientists too. Every scientific institute and society on the planet… So I’m not exactly lonely.”
I said it all makes sense to me. And. Ten thousand or so climate scientists agree with me. It makes sense.
Not to you, you know better. So, without misquoting you as you did me, I show you have delusions of grandeur.
Bad enough, but to be wrong too …
Andy on September 30, 2016 at 4:12 pm said: I would add Maxwell’s ‘Theory of Heat’ too, and Woods’ refutation of Arrhenius. Also the entire NASA Solar System atmospheric database, etc.. Not to mention Mssrs Gay-Lussac, Boyle, Charles, and the compilers of the Standard Atmosphere charts.
Here’s an interesting review paper… just appeared in the latest Nature Climate Change..entitled “Assessing recent trends in high-latitude Southern Hemisphere surface climate”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3103.html
Multiple authors, including James A. Renwick.
From the abstract:
Climate model simulations that include anthropogenic forcing are not compatible with observed trends.
and
Most observed trends are not unusual when compared with Antarctic paleoclimate records of the past 2 centuries.
Assessing recent trends in high-latitude Southern Hemisphere surface climate
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3103.html
Discussion
Climate change and variability over the high latitudes of the SH are
characterized by strong regional and seasonal contrasts for all the
variables investigated here. This is valid at interannual to decadal
timescales, as illustrated in instrumental observations, as well as
on longer timescales, as indicated in proxy-based reconstructions.
The large multi-decadal variations seen in high-resolution
proxy-based reconstructions of temperature and SIE also have clear
regional contrasts. Some estimates suggest common signals over
the whole Southern Ocean, such as the decrease of the ice extent
between the 1950s and the late 1970s deduced from whaling records
(for example refs 86–88), but this remains to be confirmed by the
analysis of additional observations. The longer records independently
support the conclusion that most of the recent changes for
any single variable largely result from natural variability and are not
unprecedented over the past two centuries. This is consistent with
results from state-of-the-art climate models showing that, except for
the SAM index, most recent changes remain in the range of largescale
simulated internal variability. When analysing specifically the
1979–2014 period, including forced changes and internal variability,
models struggle to track the observed trends in SST, SAT and
sea-ice cover. This suggests either that a singular event associated
with internal variability has been able to overwhelm the forced
response in observations, or that CMIP5 models overestimate the
forced response (potentially partly because of key processes missing
in the models), or a combination of both.
Recent observations and process understanding of the atmosphere,
sea ice, ocean and ice sheets suggest strong coupling, which
means that investigations need to encompass and understand the
dynamics of the whole climate system. Statistics independently
applied to a few large-scale metrics may not allow a robust comparison
between observed and simulated trends. Regional and
seasonal complexity89 as well as physical relationships between different
climate variables must be taken into account to evaluate the
overall consistency of observed and modelled time-evolving climate
states, and to identify caveats. We advocate process-oriented studies
in which the primary mechanisms behind modelled behaviour are
identified and their plausibility evaluated against available observations
and theory.
Quote of the day:
There’s no point trying to fight climate change – we’ll all be dead in the next decade and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, a visiting scientist claims.
Guy McPherson, a biology professor at the University of Arizona, says the human destruction of our own habitat is leading towards the world’s sixth mass extinction.
Instead of fighting, he says we should just embrace it and live life while we can.
“It’s locked down, it’s been locked in for a long time – we’re in the midst of our sixth mass extinction,” he told Paul Henry on Thursday.
But Professor James Renwick, a climate scientist at Victoria University, says people should not use his words more as an excuse to give up.
http://www.newshub.co.nz/world/humans-dont-have-10-years-left-thanks-to-climate-change—scientist-2016112408—
Obviously James Renwick is in denial