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
@Richard Treadgold
That link you gave to the OCO-2 didn’t work for me… it seemed to jump to some lecture on “Dawn Mission”.
Here’s a better link, I reckon.
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/Videos/
Dennis,
“The 40% increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution, from 270 to 400 ppm, is due to man.”
Calm down. We’re simply looking at transient clouds of CO2 in the present day, and only a simulation at that. I was commenting on “The video, for some reason, puts the highest carbon dioxide concentrations in the Arctic” and suggesting that occasionally we might find high CO2 emissions there. Now, though, I’m unsure who made that comment so I’ll let it go.
“Outgassing is merely putting CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere in the first place back into the atmosphere. Part of the cycle. It’s not at all like newly generated CO2 from burning fossil fuels.”
Whatever you thought I said, this comment doesn’t address it. Outgassing will simply result in a cloud of CO2 which may be detected by the satellite and show up as it does in the simulation. Later it’ll be taken up elsewhere or go back into the ocean. Part of the cycle, as you say.
Richard C,
“But the video is human-only emissions – “The input data were surface measurements of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and completely ignored natural sources”. Why would human emissions concentrate in the Arctic?”
Human-only? Strange indeed! How on earth could they do this? Who said this? Of course our emissions don’t head for the Arctic. Oh, that’s the NASA simulation! That’s why it’s limited to human emissions, because it’s not actually reading the atmosphere. It’s based on the IPCC annual returns from the Parties. You had me going there for a minute. It’s imagination, not observation.
Maggie, that’s an interesting video, too. But the link I posted works for me, so I can’t correct or replace it. One point: to pass on a YouTube link, as you probably know, you right-click the video screen and choose an option, you don’t copy the contents of the address bar. This is what I did, not you, I know! Perhaps I’ll post the contents of the address bar here and that might work for you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UEZqyGU5RU&feature=youtu.be
I can only suggest you try this or the original again. It looks better than your new one. But it intrigues me that in yours the data are more recent, though the graphics are inferior.
Dennis,
You cited Skeptical Science on ocean warming. In 2011 I wrote about that and Dr Peter Minnett’s speculative post at Real Climate in 2006. It remains unpersuasive. You can see my post at
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/12/hotwhopper-wrong-on-ocean-heat/
Dennis
>”SkS – How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean”
Minnett’s theory is an INSULATION effect – NOT a heating effect. Heating is by solar energy in his conjecture. His theory has never been documented in the literature and quantified. The IPCC have not adapted it. On the contrary, their attribution is a direct heating mechanism.
The cool skin is a natural phenomenon anyway. Insolation overwhelms it at midday. Here’s the science:
‘Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature’
Fairall et al (1996)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JC03190/abstract [Paywall – was free, have personal copy]]
Thanks Richard T.
Video link worked ok… must have been me being dopey.
Love the comments attached to the video.
Doesn’t say much for NASA’s PR / public science communication.
Dennis,
Haha. Yeah. Well, I think we’re all working hard to eliminate them, and you’re welcome to join in.
Dennis
>”Beck is bunk”.
Beck surveyed the literature, are you saying all that literature is “bunk”?. The literature provided all the respective methodologies for accurate chemical gasanalysis and the data. From that data the atmospheric CO2 levels are determined. The IPCC use low freqyency ice cores instead of atmospheric measurement pre-Mauma Loa and an 80 year fudge to fit at the splice. Totally bogus.
These are established methods.
>”The 40% increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution, from 270 to 400 ppm, is due to man.”
What rubbish. We have just had a record rise in atm CO2 from a natural El Nino while human emissions have been flat for the last 3 years. Zero growth cannot drive record growth.
Besides, it’s not that CO2 is producing an increasing TOA imbalance as postulated by CO2 forcing anyway. The theory is generating a massive blowout of excess energy that the IPCC has to sink in the ocean by scientific fraud. That’s other than the bulk which they have just radiating to space in TS TFE 4.1.
Renwick disagrees wildly with the IPCC on this of course. And NASA. And NASA disagree with the IPCC.
Too funny, if it wasn’t the scientific fraud that it is all round.
Richard C (NZ): “All sources flux in the Arctic for a season but that’s all. And even more proof that atm CO2 has no relationship to human emissions.”
Man’s emissions perhaps 30 GT per year about half going in to the atmosphere the other half into the oceans.
I really don’t know what to say. Well, that’s not true…
[Anthropogenic CO2] “What rubbish. We have just had a record rise in atm CO2 from a natural El Nino while human emissions have been flat for the last 3 years. Zero growth cannot drive record growth.”
So since we started burning huge amounts of fossil fuels, say 50 years or so ago, CO2 just started coming out of the oceans in huge amounts whereas it didn’t the previous 1,000,000 years, and it’s sheer coincidence.
Pull the other one.
Richard C (NZ): “Too funny, if it wasn’t the scientific fraud that it is all round”
Tens of thousands of climate scientists and all major scientific organisations involved.
Pull the other one.
>”The IPCC use low freqyency ice cores instead of atmospheric measurement pre-Mauma Loa and an 80 year fudge to fit at the splice. Totally bogus.”
“An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The “corrected” ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B), and reproduced in countless publications as a famous “Siple curve”. Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the “age assumption”[10], but they failed[9].”
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Dennis
>”Man’s emissions perhaps 30 GT per year about half going in to the atmosphere the other half into the oceans.”
30 GT? Are you out of your mind?
Global Carbon Emissions
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
And I repeat. We have just had a record rise in atm CO2 from a natural El Nino while human emissions have been flat for the last 3 years. Zero growth cannot drive record growth.
IEA analysis shows energy-related emissions of CO2 stalled for the second year in a row
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth-confirmed.html
Unprecedented Spike in CO2 Levels in 2015
http://junkscience.com/2016/03/unprecedented-spike-in-co2-levels-in-2015/
The disconnect is undeniable Dennis.
>”Tens of thousands of climate scientists and all major scientific organisations involved.”
And total disagreement between IPCC, NASA, Naish and Renwick, etc……
And scientific fraud in ocean warming attribution, without which the IPCC are sunk.
Dennis
How do human emissions explain the high levels of CO2 in non-industrialized regions in OCO-2 ?
And the low levels in industrialized regions ?
Richard C (NZ): “30 GT? Are you out of your mind?”
No, are you? From your source, https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
“Global carbon (C) emissions from fossil fuel use were 9.795 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2014 (or 35.9 Gt CO2 of carbon dioxide).”
So, not 30 GT but 35.9 according to your source.
Pull the other one.
Richard C (NZ): “And I repeat. We have just had a record rise in atm CO2 from a natural El Nino while human emissions have been flat for the last 3 years. Zero growth cannot drive record growth.”
You can repeat it all you like but the source of the increased CO2 has been fossil fuel. From your source: “Global carbon (C) emissions from fossil fuel use were … in 2013 and 60% above emissions in 1990 …”
About half the CO2 emitted accumulates in the atmosphere the other half in the ocean. There is an interchange. At any given time there is a certain amount in the oceans and atmosphere, so if some leaves the oceans there is less left in the oceans.
You are suggesting the outgassing is producing the “new” CO2, not us?
Pull the other one.
Richard C (NZ): “How do human emissions explain the high levels of CO2 in non-industrialized regions in OCO-2 ? And the low levels in industrialized regions ?”
No doubt there is a perfectly rational explanation. Will it be countries burning less fossil fuel are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and countries burning more fossil fuel are adding less CO2?
Pull the other one.
The greenhouse effect affects the temperature of the surface, ground and oceans.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
https://moyhu.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/can-downwelling-infrared-warm-ocean.html
Dennis
Thanks for pointing out that the Earth will soon be uninhabitable for humans and that we are all going to die a slow and painful death because of “global warming”
On a related topic I note that David Hempleman Adams, professional explorer and all round jolly good chap, has unfortunately got his Arctic expedition boat almost stuck in sea ice, to great concern of all Guardian readers. Of course those dreadful right wing trolls at Breitbart are having a giggle which is terribly unfair
Anyway, I digress. 10,000 scientists can’t be wrong can they?
There is plenty of scientific fraud and bad science around. I think the editor of The Lancet recently said that 50% of published science is “wrong”
Andy: “10,000 scientists can’t be wrong can they?”
I don’t usually bother reading your prattle but I’m filling in time at present.
I don’t believe 10, 000 scientists made comments about getting stuck in ice. A few claimed there wouldn’t be any to speak of soon, and we’re certainly heading in that direction. Not as fast as one or two claimed.
Getting stuck? Doesn’t mean there isn’t a rapid net loss of sea ice. Not to mention the 300GT loss of land ice from Greenland year on year.
You remind me of those old films: Carry on up the Andy…
Andy. All science is “wrong”.
Got something better?
A crank handle?
(Not trying to wind you up.)
Yes, I said 50%
http://wmbriggs.com/post/16092/
This study may be biased by including “social science” as a science. However, the problem here is that a lot of climate change science is social science, particularly the type we find in WG3 of the IPCC reports.
Andy. I wasn’t quoting you, when I quote a comment I use quotation marks. They look like “this” and one puts them around the quote to show it’s a quote, like this:
“50% of published science is “wrong””
whereas I wrote:
“Andy. All science is “wrong”.”
The question was, have you got something better, knowing all science is “wrong”?
By the way, is your job just to push comments up the page?
I used “wrong” in quotes because science isn’t necessarily right or wrong. Newtonian physics isn’t “wrong”, it is just a first order approximation to Einsteinian physics
“By the way, is your job just to push comments up the page?”
I am an infrequent poster on this thread. I apologise for my drivel interrupting your blogging experience
Andy. I was not quoting you. I was making a comment, “All science is “wrong””.
All science is wrong. Since we don’t know and understand everything, it is never more than an explanation that approximates the “truth”.
I think the point is, a lot of published science is rubbish.
No need to apologise to me for your drivel. I can ignore it.
Thanks I’m glad you appreciate my drivel. If all science is wrong, how do you know that the CO2-AGW hypothesis is right? Or is it less wrong than other hypotheses?
It would help of course if the hypothesis was well defined, but this is buried in layers of obfuscation, which is why we end up with drivel statements like this
“climate change is real and caused by us”
This statement, or similar, is routinely regurgitated by the media, but is a completely meaningless load of drivel
A better statement would be:
“An anthropogenic signal is clearly present in the climatic system”
which may or may not be true, but it is a better description of the problem, I’m sure you’d agree
The media and science communicators prefer drivel, because they perceive the public to be thick. However, by repeating the mantra so many times, they use the very same meaningless language amongst themselves.
Scientists, having prepped the media with drivel, need to use the same drivel themselves.
PhDs in Drivel from the University of Drivelsville.
Dennis
>”So, not 30 GT but 35.9 [of carbon dioxide] according to your source.”
You are aware Dennis, that CO2 has 2 oxygen molecules?
Carbon Dioxide Benefits the World: See for Yourself
“Plants use energy from sunlight to fuse a molecule of CO2 to a molecule of water, H2O, to form carbohydrates. One molecule of oxygen O2 is released to the air for each CO2 molecule removed.”
http://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Carbon-Dioxide-Benefits-the-World-3.pdf
>”You can repeat it all you like”
OK. We have just had a record rise in atm CO2 from a natural El Nino while human emissions have been flat for the last 3 years. Zero growth cannot drive record growth.”
IEA analysis shows energy-related emissions of CO2 stalled for the second year in a row
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth-confirmed.html
Unprecedented Spike in CO2 Levels in 2015
http://junkscience.com/2016/03/unprecedented-spike-in-co2-levels-in-2015/
The disconnect is undeniable Dennis.
>”No doubt there is a perfectly rational explanation. Will it be countries burning less fossil fuel are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and countries burning more fossil fuel are adding less CO2?”
No Dennis. The answer is the high emissions detected by OCO-2 are natural emissions mostly over land – South Africa and South America. Human emissions are negligible i.e. they don’t show up.
OCO-2 CO2
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nasa.png
>”The greenhouse effect affects the temperature of the surface, ground and oceans.”
Negligibly. DLR only penetrates water the thickness of a human hair. Out of the 342 W.m-2 DLR below, only about 7 W.m-2 (2%) is the CO2 component so that’s less than negligible.
DSR is absorbed at depth, 161 W.m-2 below. The only net heat flux into the surface is solar. The IPCC confirms that
IPCC AR5 WG1 Figure 2-11 Adapted from Wild et al., 2013, note “0.6” and “solar absorbed surface”
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2002/Fig2-11.jpg
“Surface shortwave absorption”. 0.6 W.m-2 imbalance due to surface solar radiation (SSR).
I should add that we recently had a meeting with the Ministry for Environment around the sea level rise issue. I made the point that I thought the figures in their guidelines were confusing (which council planners agreed with)
The MfE guy said that they spent a whole day trying to get the figures and language correct, and had a bit of a chuckle over this
Language in communicating science is a big problem
Can we see those figures? I mean, the MfE web site, or a document?
‘New Report Definitively Shows UN CAGW Hypothesis and IPCC Reports Invalid and Thus CPP and Paris Treaty Total Wastes’
Alan Carlin | September 21, 2016
http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/2958
This will raise hackles.
The specific figures are “to plan for 0.5m sea level rise by 2100 and to assess for 0.8”
It’s out there somewhere, I’ll post in the correct thread. Somehow this has morphed into “plan for 1.0m sea level rise”.
Richard C (NZ)
We were talking about CO2. I mentioned the figure 30 GT. You said 9 something and linked to a paper that said 35 something.
The rest of your argument is bollocks too. If you read some science instead of defending an indefensible position you might learn something.
Of course the greenhouse “blanket” causes the oceans to retain more heat. Why do you think people put polystyrene foam over heated swimming pools when not in use.
Of course the increased CO2 level (40%) is caused by us. We know we added it for goodness sake.
‘Four New Papers Link Solar Activity, Natural Ocean Cycles To Climate – And Find Warmer Temps During 1700s, 1800s’
As of mid-September, there have already been 77 peer-reviewed scientific papers authored by several hundred scientists linking solar activity to climate change. There were 43 as of the end of June, as seen here. In other words, there have been 34 more papers linking solar forcing to climate change made available online just since July.
This publication rate for 2016 is slightly ahead of the pace of published papers linking solar forcing to climate change for 2015 (95 Solar-Climate papers ) and 2014 (93 Solar-Climate papers). At this rate, it is likely that a list of 300+ scientific papers linking solar forcing to climate change will have been made available between 2014 and 2016.
http://climatechangedispatch.com/
‘Four New Papers Link Solar Activity, Natural Ocean Cycles To Climate – And Find Warmer Temps During 1700s, 1800s’
http://climatechangedispatch.com/four-new-papers-link-solar-activity-natural-ocean-cycles-to-climate-and-find-warmer-temps-during-1700s-1800s/
>”Of course the [entire atmosphere] causes the oceans to retain more heat.”
Without the atmosphere the surface to space temperature gradient would be the same as the moon:
Nighttime minus 173 degrees C. Brrr.
>”Of course the increased CO2 level (40%) is caused by us. We know we added it for goodness sake.”
We have just had a record rise in atm CO2 from a natural El Nino while human emissions have been flat for the last 3 years. Zero growth cannot drive record growth.”
IEA analysis shows energy-related emissions of CO2 stalled for the second year in a row
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth-confirmed.html
Unprecedented Spike in CO2 Levels in 2015
http://junkscience.com/2016/03/unprecedented-spike-in-co2-levels-in-2015/
The disconnect is undeniable
>”We were talking about CO2. I mentioned the figure 30 GT. You said 9 something and linked to a paper that said 35 something.”
The IPCC uses GtC i.e. “9 something” is the relevant figure now. 7.8 in AR5:
IPCC carbon budget
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1_errata.jpg
>”The IPCC uses GtC” and PgC obviously.
New study by Wallace, Christy, and D’Aleo:
‘Tropical Hotspot ‘Fingerprint’ Of Global Warming Doesn’t Exist In The Real World Data’
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/22/study-tropical-hotspot-fingerprint-of-global-warming-doesnt-exist-in-the-real-world-data/
Apropos of the “Co2 blanket”, when I Google that term, I get a lot of results about homebrew beer.
As I was saying about language in science…
Symbol Element Atomic weight Atoms Mass percent
C Carbon 12.0107 1 27.2912 %
O Oxygen 15.9994 2 72.7088 %
http://www.webqc.org/molecular-weight-of-CO2.html
Human CO2 emissions are 72.7088 % oxygen
Richard C (NZ): [CO2] “The disconnect is undeniable”
Nonsense. CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere and oceans at roughly the same rate: 30 and more GT a year in total. Sometimes there’s a bit more in the oceans sometimes a bit more in the atmosphere. We know because we added it to the system by burning fossil, mainly.
We know the oceans are accumulating heat because we’re measuring the temperatures.
We’re not adding significant amounts of heat per se we’re adding significant amount of CO2. The heat is retained via the greenhouse effect. On the surface of the land and the oceans.
I’m really struggling with the idea that we can measure changes in temperature in the oceans to any degree of certainty
We really don’t have a lot of data to work with
>“The disconnect is undeniable” Nonsense
Predictable response from denial-of-facts Dennis. Zero growth does not drive record growth – Period.
>”The heat is retained via the greenhouse effect. On the surface of the land and the oceans.”
So it’s only “On” the surface now. You concede there’s no GHG flux “into” the surface.
You better inform the IPCC poste haste.
>”We know the oceans are accumulating heat”
Yes. And we know it’s solar forced because the only net heat flux INTO the surface is solar as per IPCC.
>”So it’s only “On” the surface now. You concede there’s no GHG flux “into” the surface.”
Renwick says “93%” “into” the ocean.
New study by Wallace, Christy, and D’Aleo
A Research Report. Conclusions approved by seven or so scientists. Not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Found rising CO2 levels have caused the reported rising or claimed record setting temperatures.
Well, who’da thunk!
More time wasting.
Rather than screaming fraud, maybe you should better use your time reading and understanding more recent research.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2016/09/22/new-research-climate-sensitivity-forcings-and-feedbacks-september-22-2016/
Richard C (NZ). Read and learn.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
https://moyhu.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/can-downwelling-infrared-warm-ocean.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
I’ve told you before. You misunderstand what Renwick is saying.
Gosh I was wondering how long it would be before Dennis gave us links to SkS and Realclimate. He was doing a good impression for a while
Clearly Vic Crone is unfit for the job of Meer of Auckland
Thankfully Christchurch has Deputy Meer (*) Vicky Buck who was listed by the Guardian as
” In 2008 she was nominated by a panel commissioned by The Guardian newspaper as one of 50 people who could reverse the effects of climate change.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicki_Buck
Only 50 people in the entire world who can “reverse” climate change, and one of them is one of ours!
Oh Lordy
(*) Meer = Mayor for us poms
>”Rather than screaming fraud”
Why do you want me to stop Simon? Inconvenient?
The IPCC’s anthro ocean warming is scientifically fraudulent:
IPCC AR5 WG1 10.4.1 Ocean Temperature and Heat Content
“The high levels of confidence and the increased understanding of the contributions from both natural and anthropogenic sources across the many studies mean that it is very likely that the increase in global ocean heat content observed in the upper 700 m since the 1970s has a substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcing.”
There is NO surface “absorption” apart from solar SW SSR. Therefore, there is NO “substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcing” to ocean warming. Note they do not actually quantify their “substantial contribution”.
This is scientific fraud on a grand scale by the IPCC.
@Andy
We have to wonder why the Acoustic Thermometry of Oceans programs got canned.
http://atoc.ucsd.edu/
>”Found rising CO2 levels have caused the reported rising or claimed record setting temperatures.”
Nope.
Findings of the Research
“Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, the research strongly implies that there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures.”
Here is another “bad science” article, this time from the Economist
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21707513-poor-scientific-methods-may-be-hereditary-incentive-malus
>”I’ve told you before. You misunderstand what Renwick is saying.”
What Renwick is saying:
Doesn’t account for the IPCC’s 1220 ZetaJoules of theoretical GHG forced energy 1970 – 2011. 93% is 1134.6.
Global Ocean Heat Content
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
Only 250 ZetaJoules which is solar forced according to IPCC surface energy budgets.
Renwick’s 884.6 short in terms of reality. 784.6 short in terms of the IPCC’s phoney solar contribution which contradicts their surface budgets anyway.
No Dennis.No misunderstanding.
Dennis, when you find the IPCC’s evidence (i.e. not models, or blog science) for their anthro ocean warming attribution could you cite it for us please.
Ta.
Richard C (NZ)
You keep repeating the same mistakes and false accusations.
No atmosphere-to-ocean heat transfer involved.
The transfer of heat is still from the ocean to the atmosphere, but less of it.
Read the science.
[DNH] ”Found rising CO2 levels have caused the reported rising or claimed record setting temperatures.”
[Richard C (NZ] “Nope.”
Yes, I was too late to edit. Should have read:
”Found rising CO2 levels have NOT caused the reported rising or claimed record setting temperatures.”
I thought the comment, “Who’da thunk” might have given you a clue so I didn’t bother making a correction.
Richard C (NZ)
Is heat transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere?
Dennis
>”No atmosphere-to-ocean heat transfer involved.The transfer of heat is still from the ocean to the atmosphere, Read the science.”
Yes exactly in accordance with the earth’s surface energy budget – no DLR heat flux INTO the ocean. The surface solar forcing is 0.6 W.m-2 “Surface shortwave absorption”. But contrary to “the science” Renwick says “93%” GHG heat went “INTO” the ocean. That’s 1134.6 ZetaJoules too much.
>”but less of it.”
Less than what? Quantify it Dennis. Out of the 342 W.m-2 DLR below, only about a little more than 7 W.m-2 (2%) is the CO2 component so that’s less than negligible.
IPCC AR5 WG1 Figure 2-11 Adapted from Wild et al., 2013, note “0.6” and “solar absorbed surface”
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2002/
Wang and Lian (2009) provide the CO2 component of DLR, it’s negligible and the change in CO2 component less than negligible. Total DLR changes overwhelm the minuscule CO2 changes.
>”Wang and Lian (2009) provide the CO2 component of DLR”
6 W.m-2 in 1976.
>”But contrary to “the science” Renwick says “93%” GHG heat went “INTO” the ocean. That’s [984.6] ZetaJoules too much.”
IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b)
Energy Budget Changes 1970 – 2011
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg
The IPCC have a nasty problem sinking their 1220 ZetaJoules of theoretical GHG forced heat 1970 – 2011 too even with their antro ocean warming attribution.
Apparently most of it just zipped out to space.
@Maggy,
Momentarily distracted, perhaps? Dopey would be incredible.
Glad it worked. 🙂
Richard C (NZ)
You just keep repeating the same rubbish. The GHE slows or lessens the loss of heat across the skin from the ocean to the atmosphere. It’s perfectly clear and obvious and understood by nearly everybody who thinks about it. It’s got nothing to do with GHG energy (per se) or DLW “entering” the ocean.
This may not be error free but have a read:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/06/does-back-radiation-heat-the-ocean-part-one/
I’m not reading anymore of your rigmarole. Learn some science.
@Dennis,
Then you obviously don’t blame human activity for rising seas or rising ocean temperatures. Our emissions of GHG are into the atmosphere; if there’s no heat energy from GHG radiation entering the ocean, we’re not heating it; if we’re not heating the ocean we’re not causing sea level rise. Great.
Simon on September 23, 2016 at 10:50 am said:
>”Rather than screaming fraud, maybe you should better use your time reading and understanding more recent research.https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2016/09/22/new-research-climate-sensitivity-forcings-and-feedbacks-september-22-2016/”
Heh.
‘The Effects of Ocean Heat Uptake on Transient Climate Sensitivity’ (Rose & Rayborn, 2016)
“Heat uptake can be treated as a slowly varying forcing on the atmosphere and surface”
# # #
Well yes. Solar forced at surface by 0.6 W.m-2.
Dennis
>”The GHE slows or lessens the loss of heat across the skin from the ocean to the atmosphere. It’s perfectly clear and obvious and understood by nearly everybody who thinks about it. It’s got nothing to do with GHG energy (per se) or DLW “entering” the ocean.”
Quantify your INSULATION effect Dennis, in terms of the CO2 component of DLR (about 2%). You are claiming the ENTIRE effect of DLR for CO2 (actually the minuscule change in CO2) . This is bogus.
DLR is mostly (by far, 98%) water vapour and clouds and aerosols and whatever has temperature in the air.
You’re just waving your hands around. You have to account, as per IPCC TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b), for all the theoretical GHG forced energy (1220 ZetaJoules 1970 – 2011) and the residual OHC after 100 ZetaJoules of the IPCC’s TOA solar forcing (250 – 100 = 150 ZetaJoules).
That is a non-trivial exercise numerically. NASA disagrees with the IPCC on this. So does Renwick (but erroneously).
The IPCC’s TOA solar forcing having no relationship to the 0.6 W.m-2 SSR forcing of course. You have to quantify this first i.e. multiply by the area of TOA and then find the cumulative total 1970 – 2011.
See if that agrees with the IPCC’s 100 ZetaJoules of solar forcing.
@Dennis,
Yes, thus keeping the ocean warmer, this is the hypothesis. But it is documented in just two blog articles. Why has it not been published anywhere? Why do the IPCC not cite it? It is, when you read the details, unpersuasive. The idea that this sub-millimetre “skin” might impede the passage of gigantic quantities of ocean heat into the atmosphere, no matter the temperature difference, and so long as the water remained calm so as not to disrupt or destroy the “thin skin” is risible. I laugh at it, even if our renowned research vessel Tangaroa was the platform for the experiment. The temperature of the thin skin changed by only 0.002°K (W/m2)-1—astoundingly small, even though it was the sun doing this. Because they used the passage of clouds to achieve a change in radiative effect, though they acknowledged it was 2500 percent stronger than the radiation from man-made CO2. Presumably, from their own report, anthro CO2 would have made the increased skin temperature rise by only 0.00008 °K. Quite underwhelming, really. Thus they “proved” the effect in principle without measuring it. But no scientific paper resulted!! Why not??!!
Richard Treadgold: “no heat energy from GHG radiation entering the ocean, we’re not heating it”
No DLW entering the ocean and yes the DLW is heating it.
Just as there is no heat from lagging entering a hot water cylinder but the lagging is heating it. Better lagging more heating. More CO2 more DLW more heating.
Relax. Read the science. Learn.
@Dennis,
The thin-skin effect is easy to test. We already measure OLR from land and sea; we only need to discriminate between areas of calm and agitated seas to identify whether there are differences in OLR according to the sea state. That’s just testing what the hypothesis states.
>”No DLW entering the ocean and yes the DLW is heating it. Just as there is no heat from lagging entering a hot water cylinder but the lagging is heating it”
Heh. Insulation heats water. A whole new thermodynamic concept from Dennis Horne.
Does your water cylinder have a heating element Dennis?
@Dennis,
Sorry, I don’t understand. You say no DLW is entering the ocean, and the DLW heats the ocean? Or are you in shorthand correcting my reference to “heat energy” and calling it DLW? Or something? You quote me out of context, citing less than a sentence and omitting its negative terms. It’s confusing.
@Richard C,
I think he’s just reflecting “normal” uninformed talk.
Dennis, you CANNOT claim the entire INSULATION effect of DLR for CO2.
CO2 is only 2 – 3% of DLR (Wang & Liang 2009).
Yep. It’s heating it without entering it.
Is your hot water hotter when the tank has lagging? Is there heat entering the cylinder from the lagging?
Read the science. Think.
The surface energy imbalance just fluctuated about 0.6 W.m-2 2000 – 2010 so increasing GHG forcing cannot have been the cause of any OHC increase over that time.
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
Game over.
Richard C (NZ)
How much DLW would there be with no CO2 (or CH4) in the atmosphere?
>”Is your hot water hotter when the tank has lagging?”
No. There is no heat increase lagging or not. There is heat losses in both cases however, Heat gain is when input exceeds output, as in the earth;s ocean until very recently (just lost a bundle)
>”Is there heat entering the cylinder from the lagging?”
No. No heat transfer from ambient cool air to hot water. The heat transfer is from hot water to cooler ambient air as per the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Fundamental applied heat.
Richard C (NZ)
No heat is entering the cylinder from the lagging. You said yourself.
Yet your hot water is hotter with lagging around the cylinder. If it wasn’t you wouldn’t bother with the lagging.
Why?
>”No heat is entering the cylinder from the lagging. ”
Correct. No heat transfer from cold to hot. Fundamental thermodynamics.
>”Yet your hot water is hotter with lagging around the cylinder”
Incorrect. No heat gain by the water. In fact, heat loss through the insulator:
INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING HEAT TRANSFER
Figure 2.7: Heat transfer through an insulated wall
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-050-thermal-energy-fall-2002/lecture-notes/10_part3.pdf
>”How much DLW would there be with no CO2 (or CH4) in the atmosphere?”
In 1976, CO2 was 6 W.m-2. Change from 1976 to 2012 (332.05, 393.82) 0.9 W.m-2 or 0.25 per decade.
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
So in 1976 345.6 (2012) – 0.9 (36 yr change) = 344.7 – 6 = 338.7 W.m-2.
Alternatively, 345.6 – 6.9 = 338.7 W.m-2 2012. This is NOT a heating flux, it is an insulation effect but there is net heat loss from the surface as with CO2 in. There is NO heat transfer from air to surface. The net OLR/DLR effect is a cooling heat flux from surface to air and space of -52.4 W.m-2.
Except the changes in total DLR (see IPCC page 1 of comments) are far greater per decade (by an order of magnitude) than 0.25 W.m-2 i.e. other DLR components overwhelm CO2.
It is the CHANGE of CO2 flux that is in question as being significant in terms of a change in insulation. The change is negligible in the context of total DLR change.
In terms of Standard Atmosphere and +15.000 C surface temperature. Whether CO2 is in or out makes no difference because it is an insignificant trace gas and its contribution is mass (or lack of it) in total mass terms), not radiative effects.
All we are addressing is the heat TRANSFER characteristics of the atmospheric transfer medium when radiation is introduced i.e. Standard Atm temperature is determined first without further considerations (except solar radiation of course – that’s input).
Without CO2, OLR is reduced by the same amount as DLR so there is no net change to net OLR with or without CO2.
Richard C (NZ)
I asked you if the water is hotter if you have lagging around the cylinder. You refused to answer.
The answer is yes. The water is hotter with lagging. (Otherwise we wouldn’t bother with it.).
Yet there is no heat transferred into the tank from the lagging. Is there. You told me there wasn’t.
I asked you why the water is hotter. You refused to answer.
You can’t face the truth. You beat around the bush and try to bullsh1t me.
Correction
“Without CO2, OLR is [increased] by the same amount as DLR [is decreased] so there is no net change to net OLR with or without CO2.”
All there is then is simply a -52.4 W.m-2 OLR cooling flux from the surface. Same as with CO2 in. This is the radiative heat TRANSFER flux from the earth’s surface..
”How much DLW would there be with no CO2 (or CH4) in the atmosphere?”
Blah blah blah bullsh1t.
Followed by a correction with more blah blah blah bullsh1t.
There would be fcukall DLW.
and what about water vapour?
>”I asked you if the water is hotter if you have lagging around the cylinder. You refused to answer. The answer is yes. The water is hotter with lagging. (Otherwise we wouldn’t bother with it.).”
The answer is no. And I did answer (repeated below).
The water does NOT gain heat whether insulated cylinder or not. Heat gain can only come from an excess of input energy. Insulation mitigates heat LOSS.
>”Yet there is no heat transferred into the tank from the lagging. Is there.”
Correct. Fundamental thermodynamics. No heat transfer from cold to hot.
>”I asked you why the water is hotter. You refused to answer.”
I did answer.
Incorrect. No heat gain by the water. In fact, heat loss through the insulator:
INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING HEAT TRANSFER
Figure 2.7: Heat transfer through an insulated wall
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-050-thermal-energy-fall-2002/lecture-notes/10_part3.pdf
The water doesn’t get “hotter” when you lag the tank. It just takes more time to cool i.e. heat LOSS is mitigated.
The ENTIRE atmosphere insulates the earth’s surface, both energy in and energy out. Without it there would be moon temperatures:
+100 degrees C day.
-173 degrees C night.
The ENTIRE atmosphere is the earth’s lagging therfore.
>”There would be [obscenity deleted – very little] DLW.”
Those calcs are from the literature (Wang & Liang 2009) and LBL spectroscopy. And IPCC forcing expression for CO2.
CO2 is a minor component of DLR. Read the science Dennis.
‘Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008’
Kaicun Wang, Shunlin Liang (2009)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/full
Come on Richard & Richard. You continue to subscribe to the crank belief that the atmosphere is incapable of warming the ocean. Dennis provided three links that explains the mechanism. Time to put up or shut up. Andy’s explanation that he doesn’t believe anything on realclimate.net or skepticalscience.com won’t cut it; that’s just denial.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
https://moyhu.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/can-downwelling-infrared-warm-ocean.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
>”CO2 is a minor component of DLR. Read the science Dennis.”
‘Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008’
Kaicun Wang, Shunlin Liang (2009)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/full
[29] The dominant emitters of longwave radiation in the atmosphere are water vapor, and to a lesser extent, carbon dioxide. The water vapor effect is parameterized in this study, while the CO2 effect on Ld is not. The effect of CO2 can be accurately calculated with an atmosphere radiative transfer model given the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Prata [2008] showed that under the 1976 U.S. standard atmosphere, current atmospheric CO2 contributes about 6 W m−2 to Ld, and if atmospheric CO2 concentration increases at the current rate of ∼1.9 ppm yr−1 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007], this will contribute to an increase of Ld by ∼0.3 W m−2 per decade. Therefore, the total variation rate in Ld is 2.2 W m−2 per decade.
Simon
>”You continue to subscribe to the crank belief that the atmosphere is incapable of warming the ocean. Dennis provided three links that explains the mechanism.”
No he didn’t. An INSULATOR is NOT a heating agent. Lagging slows COOLING. There is no heat transfer to the hot water in a hot water cylinder from cool air, through insulator lagging, to water. The heat TRANSFER is in the other direction.
Same with the earth’s AO interface.
This is fundamental thermodynamics. Thermodynamically illiterate warmies will never grasp it.
The only heating agent in the earth’s surface energy budget is solar SW. To deny this is the denial going on around here Simon.
Richard C (NZ)
Read the [profanity deleted] question.
No CO2 (or non-condensing GHGs say CH4) Earth would be a snowball. There would be no water vapour to speak of. So no GHE and no down-dwelling LWR.
You don’t understand thermodynamics. You talk rubbish.
[RC might know, but I’ve lost track: please specify the question, for clarity. Earth has been a snowball, with CO2. Clouds provide downwelling LWR, so you’re wrong there. As far as I know, the tropics were at least partly spared the snowball effect, so there would always be some GHE from water vapour, so you’re wrong there, too. And please, DNH, try to remain calm. – RT]
Did I say that? Where?
Now, now Dennis, ‘take it easy buddy’, ‘the discord and disharmony of cognitive dissonance’ that are the source your profanities and abuse are no substitute for solid science.
All this dirty talk makes me want to take a break from suffering your alarmist pseudo-science mumbo jumbo. I think I might read some literature on water vapour feedback (or lack of it as the case may be) instead.
This is a conjecture, not a fact or proven scientific theory
@Andy,
Quite so. These were not the causes of a snowball earth.
The “snowball Earth” is an early (650 million years ago) conjecture.
The one Dennis is referring to is the one by Lacis et al, that claims that removing all the CO2 will turn Earth into a snowball, which is another conjecture
That is my understanding anyway, Dennis can correct me if I misread it
@Richard Treadgold 1:11pm
Have you any links/references to the experiment re the skin effect and the Tangaroa (date of experiment/researchers involved)?
Ta
>’No CO2 (or non-condensing GHGs say CH4) Earth would be a snowball. There would be no water vapour to speak of. So no GHE and no down-dwelling LWR.”
What little atmosphere the Moon has consists of some unusual gases, including sodium and potassium, which are not found in the atmospheres of Earth, Mars, or Venus (NASA). The surface is effectively exposed directly to space. There is also much less gravity i.e. not enough to hold an atmosphere in place.
Therefore the moon\s temperature is determined by insolation alone:
+100 degrees C day.
-173 degrees C night.
Similarly for earth without an atmosphere but doesn’t get as close to the sun. But gravity means an atmosphere of course.
The earth gains in the order of 24 W.m-2 in the tropics. Hence horizontal heat transport:
2.1.5.2 Heat transport
“Locally, heat storage by the climate system cannot compensate for the net radiative flux imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and, annually, the balance is nearly entirely achieved by heat transport from regions with a positive net radiative flux to regions with a negative net radiative flux. When the balance is averaged over latitudinal circles (zonal mean), this corresponds to a meridional heat transport from equatorial to polar regions (Fig. 2.17).”
http://www.climate.be/textbook/chapter2_node7_2.xml
Solar input overwhelms the surface mechanisms of egress in the tropics (SH, LH, LW).
In other words, solar input heats the earth predominantly in the tropics. The atmosphere, and ocean, provide the mediums for heat transfer towards the poles from which dissipation takes place i.e. about half the 24 W.m-2 tropical gain leaves each respective southern or northern region, 11.4 north, 11.4 south. Heat gain 0.6 because solar ingress overwhelms mechanisms of egress.
The heat loss in polar regions overwhelms any downwelling flux including solar, because solar input is minimal. That is why it is cold there.
Maggy
>”Have you any links/references to the experiment re the skin effect and the Tangaroa (date of experiment/researchers involved)?”
SOLAS SAGE – sea-air gas exchange experiment
https://www.niwa.co.nz/coasts-and-oceans/research-projects/sage
Maggy
>”Have you any links/references to the experiment re the skin effect and the Tangaroa (date of experiment/researchers involved)?”
‘Measurements of the oceanic thermal skin effect’
Peter J. Minnett, Murray Smith, Brian Ward (2011)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian_Ward9/publication/223950477_Measurements_of_the_oceanic_thermal_skin_effect/links/55a793f208ae345d61db4cb8.pdf
a b s t r a c t
Spectroradiometric measurements of the ocean skin temperature and thermometric measurements of
the bulk temperature at a depth of about 5 cm taken from the R/V Tangaroa during SAGE (SOLAS/SAGE:
surface-ocean lower-atmosphere studies air–sea gas exchange experiment) off New Zealand are analyzed
to reveal the wind speed dependence of the temperature difference across the thermal skin layer (DT). The
wind speeds used here are corrected for flow distortion by the ship. Unlike most previously published
measurements of DT, these data include those taken during the day, prior analyses being usually
restricted to night-time measurements to avoid contamination of the data by diurnal heating. The results
show the same dependence of DT on wind speed at night-time measurements, with an asymptotic
behavior at a value of 0.13 K at high winds. These data show larger DT at low wind speeds than previous
studies, and there is an indication that this may reveal a dependence on sea surface temperature.
# # #
So all about – “the wind speed dependence of the temperature difference across the thermal skin layer”
Rob Painting at Skeptical Science describes it thus:
Obviously no such confirmation was made by this work on wind speed effects and Painting’s assertion was not the purpose or spinoff of the exercise. If it had been there would have been a paper quantifying the effect in terms of the IPCC’s GHG forcing paradigm. None forthcoming.We would know about it if some breakthrough science had proved anything.
Fairall et al (1976) studied wind speed and introduced “compensation depth” from another paper. Compensating depth is where energy into the surface equals energy out. Any more heating below that level is accumulation. At nil wind speed solar heating in the tropics is down to 19m and the compensating depth relatively deep. With wind speed at 2m/s there is no heating and the compensating depth is near surface. I would have to read the paper again to confirm that is correct. Fairall et al adopt a DLR surface penetration of 10 microns and document how the cool skin is overwhelmed at noon by insolation.
The IPCC does not run with any skin layer mechanism. It’s a normal natural state because the surface is where energy leaves the ocean. Obviously it will be cooler than just below it either side of noontime.
Should be:
“Fairall et al [(1996)] studied wind speed and introduced “compensation depth” from another paper.”
@Richard C.
Yep,
I got all that…
I knew of the iron-fertilization expt, but hadn’t paid attention to what else was going on.
Tx
” skin layer mechanism. It’s a normal natural state because the surface is where energy leaves the ocean.”
Exactly, that’s the mechanism the GHE warms the ocean.
Or are you going to continue to deny that the water which leaves a lagged hot water cylinder is hotter due to the lagging, and therefore carries more heat yet no heat is transferred into the tank from the lagging?
I guess so.
Richard C (NZ): “Obviously no such confirmation was made by this work on wind speed effects and Painting’s assertion was not the purpose or spinoff of the exercise. If it had been there would have been a paper quantifying the effect in terms of the IPCC’s GHG forcing paradigm. None forthcoming.We would know about it if some breakthrough science had proved anything.”
What’s this then?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean
Guest commentary by Peter Minnett (RSMAS)
“However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here – how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but also helps to control the ocean-atmosphere heat flux. (The ‘skin layer‘ is the very thin – up to 1 mm – layer at the top of ocean that is in direct contact with the atmosphere). Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures”
Written by … yep, Peter Minnett himself.
And I gave you the link earlier too.
>” skin layer mechanism. It’s a normal natural state because the surface is where energy leaves the ocean.” Exactly, that’s the mechanism the GHE warms the ocean.
No Dennis. The skin layer is on the thermal gradient from warm layer => cool skin => air and space. That is also the flow of heat transfer:
Heat transfer: warm layer => cool skin => air and space
This is energy egress i.e. ocean cooling. There is no heating effect. At noon in the tropics there is no cool skin i.e. the solar input overwhelms the ability of the surface and sub-surface to cool. That’s the heating effect, not insulation.
>”Or are you going to continue to deny that the water which leaves a lagged hot water cylinder is hotter due to the lagging, and therefore carries more heat yet no heat is transferred into the tank from the lagging?”
I don’t deny that Dennis but that is a subtle change of story. Even so the lagging is not ADDING heat as below and as you concede. And that analogy with ocean cooling breaks down as follows (it has to be modified greatly).
No heat is transferred in from lagging as you concede. Therefore the heat content of the water is driven by the heat source i.e. the heating element governed by a thermostat. This is analogous to the sun heating the ocean diurnally, thermostat on, thermostat off. Without the heat source there is no heating – period.
Most heat loss occurs at night, no heat source, thermostat tripped out.
This is where that analogy ends because water cylinder heat is governed by a thermostat. Lagging makes no difference when the thermostat hasn’t tripped the heat source. The water is at exactly the same temperature when it trips in an unlagged cylinder as it is in a lagged cylinder. The temperature is what you set it on the thermostat, say 55C. Draw off water and it will be 55C in each case.
Lagging takes effect once the thermostat is tripped out. Yes of course the lagged cylinder loses heat at a lessor rate than an unlagged cylinder but again, the analogy ends because the only water leaving the ocean is evaporation i.e. the thermodynamics are different in each case. There is no heating effect by a lagged cylinder any more than an atmosphere over an ocean. All that is happening is insulation. There is heat loss in both lagged and unlagged, but yes, of course a lagged cylinder will keep water heat longer than unlagged but it is always falling below 55C (or 35C ish tropical ocean) in both cases until the thermostat is tripped in at the cutoff temperature or the sun rises. The lagging doesn’t impute any heat to the water making it “hotter” but the lagging does prevent heat leaving over a short timeframe. Turn off the heat source and the water will go cold in both cases, one before the other.
Equally the atmosphere does not impute heat to the ocean. But there is no water drawoff except for evaporation so we have to have a new analogy of a cylinder without water drawoff but even that has the wrong thermodynamics to be analogous to heat loss from the ocean surface.
Roughly, the analogy is the entire air mass from surface to TOA is an insulator to ocean just as lagging is an insulator to a lagged water cylinder without drawoff and with an open top exposed to air and with no thermostat, the heating following diurnal solar heating and being SW radiation from the top in the middle only. The heat transfer across the insulator, whether air above both hot water or sea water or lagging around cylinder wall and the wall itself is as previously:
INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING HEAT TRANSFER
Figure 2.7: Heat transfer through an insulated wall
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-050-thermal-energy-fall-2002/lecture-notes/10_part3.pdf
There is no heat gain by the water from the insulator in either case. Any heat gain is determined by the heat source which in the middle at peak is far greater than the heat transfer properties of water and insulation will allow to dissipate – therefore heat gain. About 24 W.m-2 in the tropical ocean. Heat loss in tropics is determined by the insulator properties but adding insulation in the tropics makes negligible difference to 24 W.m-2 heat accumulation. That accumulation is dissipated at the sides or polar regions irrespective (largely) to insulation.
The insulator does not determine the horizontal sub-surface heat propagation along the equator to poles temperature gradient (EPTG), analogous to the middle of the water cylinder to the sides. Once at sub-polar or sides the heat dissipates freely from the surface. It would take much more than minimal DLR changes to slow heat loss near the poles when there is little or no solar input and a far greater temperature gradient than the tropics. The 24 W.m-2 heat gain in the tropics turns into a 23.4 W.m-2 loss near the poles. There is obviously very little insulation if the heat loss is 23.4 W.m-2.
If there was no atmosphere there would be far greater heat gains and losses like the moon i.e. the atmosphere modulates heat both ways. This would be the same in our modified analogy (except clouds etc). There would be about an extra 150 W.m-2 SW at surface for starters without an atmosphere.
A constant heat source like the current high solar input to the ocean, greater than dissipation, results in the heat gain of 0.6 W.m-2. And remember that there are other heat loss mechanisms than radiation. Evaporation is the major factor. That 0.6 has just fluctuated this century, it has not increased from increased insulation of 0.2 – 0.3 W.m-2 per decade from CO2.
Obviously the insulation properties of the CO2 component of DLR are not great. Either much more is required or a different insulator. Total DLR changes far greater than CO2 change (by an order of magnitude) haven’t had any effect either apparently. It’s El Nino’s that close up the imbalance and that’s a surface heat release that readily overwhelms insulation.
>”What’s this then?”
Totally inadequate blog science. Where’s the literature? As i said:
Richard C (NZ): “If it had been [confirmation of GHG ocean heating] there would have been a paper quantifying the effect in terms of the IPCC’s GHG forcing paradigm. None forthcoming.We would know about it if some breakthrough science had proved anything.”
What we are talking about is the IPCC’s 1220 ZetaJoules of excess theoretical GHG-forced energy and how to sink it i.e. it has to go SOMEWHERE. The IPCC says the bulk just went to space as DLR i.e. the forcing was completely ineffective in that case.
Watts are joules per second of heat TRANSFER i.e. Joules of heat going from one place to another in one second. Renwick (getting it all wrong) says 93% of GHG forcing was transferred “into” the ocean i.e. Joules of tropospheric heat was transferred from troposphere to Joules of ocean heat. This is the opposite to Peter Minnett”s insulation which inhibits heat transfer of Joules of ocean heat to Joules of troposphere and space heat.
A paper “forthcoming” would have quantify any effect in terms of the IPCC’s theory. If it doesn’t it is just documenting a natural process.
>”A paper “forthcoming” would have quantify any effect in terms of the IPCC’s theory. If it doesn’t it is just documenting a natural process.”
A natural process like this:
‘Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature’
C. W. Fairall, E. F. Bradley, J. S. Godfrey, G. A. Wick, J. B. Edson, G. S. Young (1996)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3f0px5j3ao12y01/Fairall%20et%20al%201996.pdf?dl=0
Definitive and referenced by Minnett et al (2011). Value this paper, it is paywalled now.
>”What we are talking about is the IPCC’s 1220 ZetaJoules of excess theoretical GHG-forced energy and how to sink it i.e. it has to go SOMEWHERE.”
That’s just from 1970 – 2011, let alone 1750 – 2016.
And should be:
“The IPCC says the bulk just went to space as [OLR] i.e. the forcing was completely ineffective in that case.”
Richard C (NZ)
on September 24, 2016 at 12:01 am said:
[DNH] ”Or are you going to continue to deny that the water which leaves a lagged hot water cylinder is hotter due to the lagging, and therefore carries more heat yet no heat is transferred into the tank from the lagging?”
I don’t deny that Dennis but that is a subtle change of story. Even so the lagging is not ADDING heat as below and as you concede. And that analogy with ocean cooling breaks down as follows (it has to be modified greatly).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dennis N Horne
on September 23, 2016 at 3:20 pm said:
[To] Richard C (NZ)
I asked you if the water is hotter if you have lagging around the cylinder. You refused to answer.
The answer is yes. The water is hotter with lagging. (Otherwise we wouldn’t bother with it.).
Yet there is no heat transferred into the tank from the lagging. Is there. You told me there wasn’t.
I asked you why the water is hotter. You refused to answer.
You can’t face the truth. You beat around the bush and try to bullsh1t me.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
@Richard C (NZ). No. No subtle change of story. The water is hotter because it carries more heat. It has more heat because the lagging has changed the gradient across the container “skin”; slowed the loss of heat that’s in the water already, heat from the energy source = heater element or whatever.
In exactly the same way, DownwellingLongwaveRadiation from the GreenhouseEffect “lags” the ocean skin, by changing the gradient across it; slows the loss of heat that’s in the water already, heat from the energy source = DownwellingShortwaveRadiation = Sun.
So, In effect, “extra” energy retained by Earth due to more CO2, which increased the GreenHouseEffect, “goes into” the ocean. Yes, we know there is no actual transfer of heat, but Renwick and Naish are trying to “message” the general public.
This is not for your benefit, by the way. You are a “dyed-in-the-bull denyer”. But I haven’t given up on Maggy yet.
>”Obviously the insulation properties of the CO2 component of DLR are not great. Either much more is required or a different insulator”
Not great at atmospheric levels of CO2. But CO2 in concentrated form is a relatively better insulator than air by 85%.
Insulation properties of CO2
USE OF CARBON DIOXIDE AS A DRY SUIT INFLATION GAS FOR IMPROVED THERMAL INSULATION.
Author: Weinberg, RP; Thalmann, ED
Abstract: Insulation used in thermal protection garments derives its insulative property from trapped gas (usually air), the fabric serving as a matrix to reduce gas convection and prevent compression. The trade-off between increasing insulation garment thickness and decreasing range of motion is nearly maximized in dry suits employing Thinsulate undergarments. Thinsulate insulation provides 80% of the theoretical insulation of still air; the 20% loss due to the required supporting fiber matrix. Use of a gas such as carbon dioxide (C02), which has a relative insulation value 65% greater than air, could enhance the insulation of existing dry suits. To investigate this theory, a series of matched 4-hour shallow immersions in 3 ~ 0.1 °c water were performed by eight U.S. Navy divers. Substituting CO2 for air (AIR) as the suit inflation gas resulted in a significant (p<b.05) increase in overall insulation from 2.6 ± 0.3 CLO (AIR) to 3.1 ± 0.3 CLO (CO2). Suit COconcentration averaged 86 ± 8% in the CO2 group and 4 ~ 0.8% in the2 AIR group. Theoretical calculations taking contribution of Thinsulate material and gas into account predict a 32% increase in insulation for 85% CO2 in air. The lower than expected 20% increase was probably due to intersubject variations in suit COand amount of suit inflation. The respiratory quotient, used as a measure of skin CO2 absorption, was not significantly different between the AIR group (0.87 ± 0.02) and the CO2 group (0.88 ± 0.03). It is planned to determine the transcutaneous CO2 uptake and safe depth range for operational use of CO2 inflation gas during a series of 150 fsw dives. (Supported by NMRDC Task No. M0099.01B-1004) (Previously presented at a closed workshop on Diver Thermal Protection at DCIEM, Toronto, Canada, 31 Jan -2 Feb 1989.)
http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/6709
Obviously to act as an efficient insulator, very high concentration is required far above atmospheric levels.
Dielectric gas [see properties of gasses including CO2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_gas
A dielectric gas, or insulating gas, is a dielectric material in gaseous state. Its main purpose is to prevent or rapidly quench electric discharges. Dielectric gases are used as electrical insulators in high voltage applications, e.g. transformers, circuit breakers (namely sulfur hexafluoride circuit breakers), switchgear (namely high voltage switchgear), radar waveguides, etc.
A good dielectric gas should have high dielectric strength, high thermal stability and chemical inertness against the construction materials used, non-flammability and low toxicity, low boiling point, good heat transfer properties, and low cost.[1]
The most common dielectric gas is air, due to its ubiquity and low cost. Another commonly used gas is a dry nitrogen.
……..
Atmospheric pressure significantly influences the insulation properties of air
Dielectric gases can also serve as coolants.
Minnett
This is an INSULATION effect, NOT a HEATING effect. The heat flux is in the same direction whether reduced or not. No heat is returned in the opposite direction i.e. no heat is imputed to the other side of the skin layer to the warm layer. Therefore there is NO heating effect on the warm layer by the insulation effect.
INSULATION effect is NOT a HEATING effect.
He goes on to describe the INSULATION effect of the temperature gradient:
He’s describing an INSULATION effect in the top 10 microns of the skin layer (max 100 microns). 1/10th the thickness of a human hair. The insulation effect is minuscule. A very minor change in the CO2 component (0,3 W,m-2/decade) is a fraction of minuscule.
The surface insulator is the AIR MASS in the first instance (see relative properties of air vs carbon dioxide previous). The insulation contribution of CO2 at atmospheric levels of CO2 is negligible. For CO2 to increase the insulation effect, the concentration must be vastly greater e.g. 85% concentration in example previous.
Now he describes the solar HEATING effect in combination with the INSULATION effect but he doesn’t make the distinction between the two. He conflates both processes.
Except, sub-surface heat accumulation is only in the tropics and lower extra-tropics. There is no sub-surface heat accumulation in regions of minor solar input e.g. higher extra-tropics, sub-polar, polar. Just the opposite. There is a deficit i.e. heat loss.
Peter is neglecting the different processes working in different latitudes. We have to modify his statement away from the region of heat accumulation (irrespective of his original use i.e. I’m not misconstruing him here):
Peter’s tiny insulation effect is of negligible consequence in the tropics in the face of 24 W.m-2 solar accumulation. The insulator is already the air mass. The insolation overwhelms all egress. And of negligible consequence where heat loss is -11.2 W.m-2 away from the tropics and higher extra-tropics. The insulator in both cases is the air mass i.e. air is the insulator.
The air mass only has so much insulation. An El Nino in the tropics overwhelms air mass insulation for example. And at the poles the air mass has little insulation effect. Heat loss readily occurs.
Peter Minnett has to quantify his tiny radiative insulation effect ABOVE the insulation effect already present from the air mass. He has not done that.
Simon made the comment that I didn’t believe anything on SkS or Realclimate and therefore I was in “denial”
That isn’t actually true, there’s lots of worthwhile material on both (the article on RCP on SkS is particularly useful to me)
My point, which is lost somewhere in this thread, is that providing links to either by earnest but well meaning activists sounds to me like cheesy chat up lines that women must hear all the time
I guess I’m a bit jaded and cynical about the whole thing.
Dennis
>”The water is hotter because it carries more heat. It has more heat because the lagging has changed the gradient across the container “skin”; slowed the loss of heat that’s in the water already, heat from the energy source = heater element or whatever.>
But no heating effect by the lagging. There is no “more” heat than what the energy source supplied. The water loses heat in both cases, lagged and unlagged. the latter losing heat faster. This is not analogous to ocean-atmosphere as I’ve pointed out in previous comment. Water doesn’t flow from the ocean surface to the atmosphere except by evaporation.
>”In exactly the same way, DownwellingLongwaveRadiation from the GreenhouseEffect “lags” the ocean skin, by changing the gradient across it; slows the loss of heat that’s in the water already, heat from the energy source = DownwellingShortwaveRadiation = Sun.”
No, not in exactly the same way. As in previous comment, the ocean insulator is the air mass. Peter Minnett’s insulation effect is a negligible addition. He has not quantified it. Whatever effect there is is minuscule compared to the insulation already supplied by the air mass.
>”So, In effect, “extra” energy retained by Earth due to more CO2, which increased the GreenHouseEffect, “goes into” the ocean.”
No, the theoretical GHG-forced energy does NOT go “into” the ocean. There is no heat transfer from air to sea in Peter’s effect. His is simply a tiny insulation effect. Insulation and heating are entirely different concepts. Peter’s effect is tiny and he has not quantified it so we don’t know what went where and if it is of any consequence.
Given its tiny part in the overall insulation effect by the air mass the chances of it reconciling the IPCC’s theoretical energy generation are extremely slim. His effect is in addition to the insulation already provided by the air mass as pointed out above and in previous comment. We are only talking about less than 10o microns depth here, mostly 10 microns depth in ideal conditions. Think about a wind swept choppy foamy surface on the other hand.
We don’t know how much the CO2 effect, which is only a 2 – 3% component of DLR in the first place, has in his effect (assuming it is actually effective – I doubt it). And the CO2 component is only increasing at about 0.3 W.m-2/decade. This is negligible in comparison to total DLR changes.
The IPCC requires a massive heat transfer from air to ocean to sink their excess energy. Their mechanism is not an insulation effect. Their mechanism is a heating effect.
>”Yes, we know there is no actual transfer of heat, but Renwick and Naish are trying to “message” the general public.”
I’m encouraged that you see this Dennis.
Richard C (NZ): “I’m encouraged that you see this Dennis.”
You may be encouraged but I am not.
What I see is a decent man struggling to not see what’s right before his eyes.
http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/conditions/paranoia-and-delusional-disorders
Paranoia can become delusions, when irrational thoughts and beliefs become so fixed that nothing (including contrary evidence) can convince a person that what they think or feel is not true. When a person has paranoia or delusions, but no other symptoms (like hearing or seeing things that aren’t there), they might have what is called a delusional disorder. Because only thoughts are impacted, a person with delusional disorder can usually work and function in everyday life, however, their lives may be limited and isolated.
Of course when you are done with name calling (denier, racist, Islamophobe, homophobe, loony, crank) the old “mental health card always can be useful
It has worked really well hasn’t it? Does anyone remember the early days of the US primaries, when issues such as abortion, climate change and immigration were discussed? It seems like a distant memory to me.
Now we have a Presidential hopeful referring to a cartoon frog as racist and shouts at the camera asking why she isn’t 50 points ahead of Trump.
I can see why parts of the US populace are praying for a meteor strike over the next couple of months
Minnett is implying the minuscule 0.3 W.m-2/decade change in the CO2 component of DLR is the cause of OHC accumulation.
Meanwhile, NOAA reported in 2007 Latent Heat Flux (LHF) increasing 10 W m–2 over 1981–2005 (4.2 W.m-2/decade). Climate models only have 1 W.m-2 (see below.), and an increase in atmospheric water vapour (maybe). Sensible Heat Flux (SHF) was trendless except fot 1 W.m-2 up in the 1990s and back again.
So apparently, less than 0.3 W.m-2 CO2 down causes 4.2 W.m-2 LHF up and a 1 W.m-2 SHF blip. LHF cooling exceeds the CO2 change down by more than 14 times.
This contradicts Minnett.
Then NOAA had to think about whether there was a DLR change over the same period that could be attributable to increased WV that offsets the LHF cooling (or something). That remains problematic.
‘Objectively Analyzed Air–Sea Heat Fluxes for the Global Ice-Free Oceans (1981–2005)’
BY LISAN YU AND ROBERT A. WELLER, 2007
http://www.oco.noaa.gov/resources/Documents/OAFlux_BAMS_2007.pdf
The mechanisms of 3 surface heat dissipation mechanisms completely overwhelm any posited reverse effect of CO2.
What has to be tied together is total DLR observations, of which water vapour and clouds are the major components by far, and the water vapour levels. This has not been done from what I can gather. The IPCC is very vague on total DLR. The relevant AR5 section is in this thread on page 1 of comments.