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
‘Right result, wrong physics’ – Thomas Richard quoting Dr. Peter Ward , climate scientist.
Many may recall Bill Nye, the ‘#Science’ guy, illustrating how greenhouse gases work through a tabletop experiment. In it, Nye fills one container with regular air and another with carbon dioxide (CO2) and exposes each to radiation from a sun-like heat lamp. According to greenhouse gas theory, the CO2-filled container should show a rise in temperatures, which it did. Nye ended up proving that convection, not infrared, raised the temperatures of the container. Convection has no role in climate change.
‘Right result, wrong physics’
That’s according to a paper that reproduced Nye’s experiment. The paper, published in the American Journal of Physics, used the non-greenhouse gas Argon as an experimental control gas because it has no greenhouse-gas properties, e.g., no infrared absorption. By reproducing what Nye did, even the Argon gas heated up. What Nye had proven, the authors wrote, was CO2’s convective heat transport abilities and not its infrared properties.
Not exactly HS Physics -> Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics | #Science http://t.co/CrNnrXeWDw pic.twitter.com/QchZk5ELEC
— intrepidwanders (@intrepidwanders) August 9, 2014
The authors say this is an example of how “bias” crept into the experiment and why it’s important to separate out the radiative and convective properties in these types of experiments. Other scientists have shown how the original Nye experiment, which Al Gore includes in his Climate 101 training program, was heavily doctored and Photoshopped to produce the now-discredited results.
Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment https://t.co/JlLO0fFydK via @wattsupwiththat
— Contrarian Scientist (@MsContrarianSci) January 25, 2016
http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/09/climate-scientist-shows-why-greenhouse-gases-aren-t-behind-observed-global-warming-001136983.html
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/news/20160816/
NASA Analysis Finds July 2016 is Warmest on Record. Posted Aug. 16, 2016
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2016/09/12/heres-how-the-warmest-august-in-136-years-looks-in-chart-form/
Visualizing the Warmest August in 136 Years. September 12th, 2016 by Leslie McCarthy & Michael Cabbage
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/08/16/july-was-absolutely-earths-hottest-month-ever-recorded/
Warmest year ever, tweeted Gavin Schmidt
Zzzzzz….
>”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.”
“Very vague” referring to the lack of any link or attribution to water vapour levels, cloudiness, aerosols, etc. They MUST reconcile DLR with whatever caused DLR change. I don’t see any of that:
Firstly, net LW radiation (Rnl) is all that matters in terms of energy flow. An “increase” (in their terms above) means increased OLR because the net of DLR/OLR is OLR. A “decline” means decreased OLR.
From the IPCC’s assessment, Rnl (OLR – DLR = OLR = Rnl) either decreased then increased or just increased. They say nothing at all about the drivers of the ambiguous assessment i.e. they have no connection at all to atmospheric GHGs, atmospheric temperature and humidity, clouds, and aerosols.
Secondly, DLR changes are actually all over the shop in the observations i.e. there is no coherent trends even though averaging gives the “right” answer, and that depends on whether SurfRad Network or BSRN.
And DLR increase of 2.6 W.m-2/decade is far in excess of the 0.3 W.m-2/decade CO2 change but much less than increases in upwards Latent Heat Flux (LHF) of 4.2 W.m-2 (see upthread). And 2.6 W.m-2/decade DLR increase has no relationship to their ambiguous Rnl assessment.
And again, no link or attribution to atmospheric GHGs, atmospheric temperature and humidity, clouds, and aerosols.
There is just no resolution in all of this. And CO2 gets lost in it all. It is insignificant. A bit player.
>”Meanwhile, back on planet Earth: [GISS link] NASA Analysis Finds July 2016 is Warmest on Record. Posted Aug. 16, 2016″
That’s on Warmer World. Planet Earth is different:
NASA Joins In The NOAA African Fraud’
Posted on September 21, 2016 by tonyheller
NOAA claimed yesterday that Angola and Namibia had their hottest month ever last month, even though they don’t have any thermometers there.
Continues at length >>>>>>
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/09/nasa-joins-in-the-noaa-african-fraud/
Analysis: NASA’s ‘record heat’ in SW Africa is based on one tampered station, located next to asphalt in middle of rapidly growing city’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/09/21/analysis-nasas-record-heat-in-sw-africa-is-based-on-one-tampered-station-located-next-to-asphalt-in-middle-of-rapidly-growing-city/
‘More On The NOAA Africa Fraud’
Posted on September 21, 2016 by tonyheller
As I reported earlier, NOAA shows Angola as their hottest month ever in August. [see chart]
Amazing, since NOAA doesn’t actually have any thermometer readings in Angola – which is almost twice the size of Texas. [see chart]
The RSS TLT August anomaly for central Angola was 0.53, slightly above average and nowhere near a record. There has been almost no trend in Angola temperatures since the start of records in 1978 [see chart]
NOAA and NASA are defrauding the American people and the world with their junk science, which is used as the basis for policy.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/09/more-on-the-noaa-africa-fraud/
I beat Dennis by one hour
Comment on Temperature records by Richard C (NZ) 9/24/2016 11:25:46 AM Richard C (NZ)
More On The NOAA Africa Fraud’ ……..
Comment on Temperature records by Richard C (NZ) 9/24/2016 11:29:51 AM Richard C (NZ)
‘NASA Joins In The NOAA African Fraud’………..
Comment on Renwick distorts evidence by Dennis N Horne 9/24/2016 12:25:07 PM
NASA Analysis Finds July 2016 is Warmest on Record……..
Summary. Water in the oceans is getting warmer as a result of retaining more heat from DSR, because DLR warms the surface of the skin, reducing the temperature gradient across the skin, so slowing the cooling — less cooling. Just as water in a hot water tank retains more heat from the element because lagging reduces the temperature gradient across the “skin” so slowing the cooling — less cooling.
This is trivially obvious and observed.
It explains why most of the heat retained due to the greenhouse effect has “ended up” in the oceans. It hasn’t been transferred, merely an equivalent amount of energy has been retained.
You could use a radiant heater to warm the outside of your hot water cylinder instead of lagging, and providing you didn’t warm it to a higher temperature than the thermostat setting, no heat would be transferred to the water. But the water would be warmer. Wouldn’t it.
No question about it. it’s not difficult. The only difficulty is a mental block.
Presumably if the oceans are warming to any significant degree, we should note a signal in the sea levels
Dr. Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics, addressed the physics of the AO interface a while back, including skin. A 2010 page on his website links to it and lays out the case:
Dr Clark put all this together as,
Clark, R., [2010a] Energy and Environment 21(4) 171-200 (2010), ‘A Null Hypothesis for CO2’
http://eae.sagepub.com/content/21/4/171.abstract
This had previously been a Submission to the US EPA’s “endangerment finding” in 2009:
R. Clark Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 6/17/09, ‘A Null Hypothesis for CO2’
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf
Unfortunately got buried in 30,000 other submissions.
Dr Clark is little known in sceptic circles except Tall Bloke and Appinsys and totally unheard of by warmies, but he was and still is way ahead of everyone.
Dennis
>”Summary.”
You’ve neglected screeds of stuff not the least being Rnl and LHF.
>”It explains why most of the heat retained due to the greenhouse effect has “ended up” in the oceans. It hasn’t been transferred, merely an equivalent amount of energy has been retained.”
No it doesn’t Dennis. For atmospheric energy (power in Wattts and Joules per second) to be retained in the ocean there MUST be an energy TRANSFER from atm to ocean otherwise the OHC accumulation is simply solar forced (as it is).
This “equivalent” notion is bogus. It is an ASSUMPTION. That is climate modeling rationale – theory forces dollops of energy at TOA therefore what isn’t just radiated to space as OLR must be transferred to the ocean i.e. they “impute” heat to the ocean and get ocean temperature too warm because it’s excess energy.
There is no such thing as “equivalent” energy Dennis. It is either REAL energy or it isn’t. What the IPCC are generating is APPARENT energy. Any electrical engineer or technician will tell you the difference. APPARENT energy does very little work and diminished heating effect. In radiation terms in respect to the AO interface, no radation-matter “tuning”.
And there is NO quantified insulation effect as per Peter Minnett. No literature. No reconciliation with IPCC theoretical quantities – Zip, Nada. Nothing.
This is not to say I am dissing Peter Minnett – on the contrary. His effect is natural and conventional. It is the IPCC mechanism that is unconventional and a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. I’ve written out this previously and it is a post here at CCG, picked up by Bob Tisdale and WUWT:
Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 1: Skeptical Science Offside – March. 2013
Professor Peter Minnett’s anthropogenically enhanced insulation effect.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart1SkepticalScienceOffside.pdf
Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 2 – The Improbable IPCC Mechanism – March 2013
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart2TheImprobableIPCCMechanism.pdf
>”Of the two [the IPCC mainsteam view] is actually the unconventional one but neither is physically credible for bulk ocean heating or is anywhere near to being quantified and verified.”
I’m implying here that Peter Minnett’s theory is in the conventional paradigm – and stating explicitly that the IPCC’s isn’t (their’s being “air-sea fluxes” i.e. heat transfer)
>”I’ve written obut this previously and it is a post here at CCG”
Anthropogenic ocean heating Part 1 May 28, 2013 12:15 am \ 24 Comments \ by Guest author
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/05/anthropogenic-ocean-heating-part-1/
Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 3 – Rahmstorf Schmittner and Nuccitelli
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart3RahmstorfSchmittnerandNuccitelli.pdf
Richard C (NZ): “No it doesn’t Dennis. For atmospheric energy (power in Wattts and Joules per second) to be retained in the ocean there MUST be an energy TRANSFER from atm to ocean otherwise the OHC accumulation is simply solar forced (as it is).”
Then explain why water in a hot water tank stays warmer if you warm the skin with an IR radiator. Providing you don’t warm the skin above the thermostat setting NO ENERGY is transferred into the water from the radiator YET the hot water is WARMER. That is some of the IR energy has “appeared” in the water.
Come on. Don’t beat around the bush, just explain it in your own words.
>”This is not to say I am dissing Peter Minnett – on the contrary. His effect is natural and conventional”
Hardly a ringing endorsement but not a dismissal either.
>”Then explain why water in a hot water tank stays warmer if you warm the skin with an IR radiator. Providing you don’t warm the skin above the thermostat setting NO ENERGY is transferred into the water from the radiator YET the hot water is WARMER. That is some of the IR energy has “appeared” in the water.”
Can you provide the details of this experiment please Dennis?
I don’t know of any experiment done to “warm the [hot water cylinder] skin with an IR radiator”. You have previously been talking about lagging for which their is ample data and I’ve given the heat transfer calcs for it:
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 “IR radiator” in this.
I’ve also provided information on the insulation properties of CO2. That’s not in terms of an an “IR radiator” either.
You’ve changed the game again Dennis. Apart from that – “YET the hot water is WARMER”.
It is warmer in respect to heat loss. It is not warmer in respect to heating effect. The heat source provides the heat, the insulation retains it. The ENTIRE air mass is the Easrth’s insulator. That’s the wall here:
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 are probably better examples showing air insulation but that’s the first best I found and the principle doesn’t change. Just insert the air properties instead of wall properties.
In short, insulation is already due to the air mass. The air mass is the primary insulator. Without it we would not be here in terms of heat (and not here anyway). The tiny Minnett effect is another insulation factor (valid or otherwise).
Richard C (NZ).
You want to wriggle? Okay. Let’s make it a thought experiment.
Would you expect the hot water in the tank to be warmer if you warm the skin? YES/NO
Dennis
>”….NO ENERGY is transferred into the water from the radiator YET the hot water is WARMER. That is some of the IR energy has “appeared” in the water.”
This is your misconception in a nutshell. The energy is transferred into the water by the heat source. That is how it “appeared” in the water.
Let’s say the atmosphere was 86% CO2, 85% better insulation properties relative to air.
What would happen?
Firstly, gasses are only effective insulators when they are trapped in a lattice of some sort. This was what happened in the example I supplied previously (CO2 is lagging as above note):
*******************************************************************************************
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“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."
At 86% CO2, the insulation effect only increased by a factor of 1.2 over air. The better insulation properties than air didn't translate to an 85% better result here.
Good for the dive suit application but demonstrates that huge amounts of CO2 are needed (relative to atm constituency) and then trapped in a lattice to have a significantly greater insulation effect than air.
This example captured the radiative effect of CO2 in respect to insulation too note.
Richard C (NZ)
You want to wriggle? Okay. Let’s make it a thought experiment.
Would you expect the hot water in the tank to be warmer if you warm the skin? YES/NO
Somehow the previous comment is missing a chunk at the end:
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 [less than] 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
******************************************************************************************
>”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."
At 86% CO2, the insulation effect only increased by a factor of 1.2 over air. The better insulation properties than air didn't translate to an 85% better result here.
Good for the dive suit application but demonstrates that huge amounts of CO2 are needed (relative to atm constituency) and then trapped in a lattice to have a significantly greater insulation effect than air.
This example captured the radiative effect of CO2 in respect to insulation too note.
No Dennis, no “thought” experiments. Address the real-world examples.
Particularly the CO2 lagged dive suit insulation.
Thermal Insulation
Thermal insulation is the reduction of heat transfer (the transfer of thermal energy between objects of differing temperature) between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence. Thermal insulation can be achieved with specially engineered methods or processes, as well as with suitable object shapes and materials.
Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of differing temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.
The insulating capability of a material is measured with thermal conductivity (k). Low thermal conductivity is equivalent to high insulating capability (R-value). In thermal engineering, other important properties of insulating materials are product density (ρ) and specific heat capacity (c).
Solid materials chosen for insulation have a low thermal conductivity k, measured in watts-per-meter per kelvin (W·m−1 ·K−1 ). As the thickness of insulation is increased, the thermal resistance—or R-value—also increases.
For insulated cylinders, there is a complication – a critical radius beyond which extra insulation paradoxically increases heat transfer. The convective thermal resistance is inversely proportional to the surface area and therefore the radius of the cylinder, while the thermal resistance of a cylindrical shell (the insulation layer) depends on the ratio between outside and inside radius, not on the radius itself. If the outside radius of a cylinder is doubled by applying insulation, a fixed amount of conductive resistance (equal to ln(2)/(2πkL)) is added. However, at the same time, the convective resistance has been halved. Because convective resistance tends to infinity when the radius approaches zero, at small enough radiuses the decrease in convective resistance will be larger than the added conductive resistance, resulting in lower total resistance. This implies that adding insulation actually increases the heat transfer, until a critical radius is reached, at which point the heat transfer is at maximum. Above this critical radius, added insulation decreases the heat transfer. For insulated cylinders, the critical radius is given by the equation [1]
This equation shows that the critical radius depends only on the heat transfer coefficient and the thermal conductivity of the insulation. If the radius of the uninsulated cylinder is larger than the critical radius for insulation, the addition of any amount of insulation will decrease the heat transfer.
http://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Heat%20insulation&item_type=topic
# # #
>”Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
In the dive suit application of CO2 insulation, 85% CO2 only increased air insulation by a factor of 1.2
Richard C (NZ): “no “thought” experiments”
You know perfectly well that if you lag a hot water tank, the hot water in the tank will stay warmer. Yet no heat is transferred into the tank. You have altered the gradient across the “skin” and so less of the heat from the electric element is lost. No heat is transferred to the water but it is warmer.
Exactly the same with the ocean. The DLR warms the surface of the skin thus altering the gradient across the skin. The water loses less heat. The water is warmer yet no energy from the DLR has been transferred into the water.
But the effect is the same as transferring some energy from the DLR into the water.
>”No heat is transferred to the water but it is warmer”
The heat forcing is the energy input. The heat source increases the water temperature. If the power is sufficient it will overwhelm means of energy transfer out of the sink (egress) irrespective of whether or not there is insulation. In the tropics the heat gain is in the order of 24 W.m-2, the energy simply cannot all dissipate upwards so the excess dissipates horizontally until the temperature gradient allows egress.
A cylinder water heating element must be on a thermostat otherwise there is continuous heat gain irrespective of insulation or not. The diurnal cycle is the ocean heat thermostat. I’m inclined to think (intuitively) that the surface imbalance is due as much or more to the long term thermal lag (10 – 100 – 1000+ years) as it is to a small solar forcing i.e. the reduced solar change over the next few decades may not change the surface imbalance perceptively. But I really don’t know, theory says no imbalance at equilibrium but will that be the case in reality?. I’ll be very interested to see what happens over the next decade.
One thing is for sure (within uncertainty bounds). GHG forcing is not changing the imbalance. Theory is now far in excess of actual.
Heat loss occurs when there is no energy input or a reduced input (obviously loss while heating up too). This is where insulation comes in. The insulation doesn’t make cooling water warmer than it already is. But it will retard heat loss. It’s the retardation that you are terming “warmer”. The water is cooling with reduced energy input irrespective of insulation. Insulation retards heat loss but doesn’t make the water “warmer” when it is cooling.
The insulated water will be relatively “warmer” than uninsulated water but relatively “cooler” than the same water at the time when the energy source was switched off (thermostat) or started reducing (noon diurnal). Or at a temperature measurement at a time in the cooling process after a measurement has been made previously to give an appropriate time difference. The second measurement will be “cooler” than the first.
You are talking about relatively “warmer” all the time but the water can either be relatively “warmer” or relatively “cooler”. Sea temperature, which is insulated by air, will certainly be relatively “cooler” at night than noon. It has not got “warmer” overnight due to insulation. It has got “cooler”.
>”You have altered the gradient across the “skin” and so less of the heat from the electric element is lost.”
As I’ve pointed out upthread, I do not disagree with this. The skin, when it is there (not there at noon in the tropics – Fairall et al upthread) is a normal natural state. So is alteration of the thermal gradient across the skin. So yes, there will be an altered heat flow. I’ve pointed out (documented and dated)) that I consider Peter Minnett’s conjecture to be in terms of convention but the IPCC’s to be exactly opposite i.e. Minnett is “offside” with the IPCC. That is NOT to say the IPCC is correct, it’s not. But that does not make Peter’s mechanism the total explanatory mechanism either – far from it. But at least he is in terms of convention.
The problem I have with Peter’s explanatory mechanism is that it is too tiny to make any difference in the big picture. DLR (3% CO2) is only effectively acting at 10 microns depth. This is minuscule. Solar heating is down metres. I have not seen Peter’s mechanism quantified (e.g. global surface energy budget), not by him or anyone else. Until that is done everyone is just hand waving. Think of 10 microns (1/10 of human hair) in a foamy choppy sea (and see below).
Evaporation occurs at molecular level (nanometres, nm) which is unrelated to the millimetre (mm) thickness of Minnett’s thermal skin gradient alteration i.e. molecules are breaking free at the extreme surface irrespective of a tiny thermal gradient alteration. Upthread I’ve shown that evaporative Latent Heat Fluxes (LHF) gazump just about everything else except SW; are the greatest means of surface energy engress; and the change in LHF is double DLR in the opposite direction on a decadal basis.
Peter Minnett has to show that his conjecture is significant among all of this down to molecular nanometre level vs evaporation for example. Then significant in terms of the IPCC’s theoretical GHG-forced energy in ZetaJoules.
The Earth’s surface to space thermal gradient is established by the ocean and space and the entire atmosphere’s insulation properties (air). That’s 480,000 metres of air, dense at the bottom, sparse at the top. Peter’s mechanism is a tiny alteration of millimetre proportions vs 100s of 1000s of metres of air in one direction and nanometres of molecules in the other. In other words, a bit player. He has to prove otherwise.
Then there’s the problem of CO2’s insulation properties as demonstrated by USE OF CARBON DIOXIDE AS A DRY SUIT INFLATION GAS FOR IMPROVED THERMAL INSULATION.
CO2 makes negligible difference to the insulation properties of air at atmospheric levels of CO2 (0.039%). In order to get a change in insulation of any consideration (e.g. 1.2 times as dive suit insulation example), the concentration has to be 85%. This alone slays any idea that a tiny increase in the tiny atm CO2 constituency (0.039%) will have any effect on earth’s surface insulation i.e. it even kills the notion of an enhanced greenhouse effect in term of insulation.
An enhanced greenhouse effect is supposed to increase insulation. How is that even possible at atm CO2 levels (0.039%) when CO2 at 85% constituency is required for greater insulation than air by only 1.2 times ?
>”But the effect is the same as transferring some energy from the DLR into the water.”
No Dennis. No energy transfer has taken place. The IPCC has to “sink” energy in the oceanic “heat sink”. That is energy transfer from air to ocean.
And insulation is not energy transfer either. No DLR energy is “imputed” to the water. Don’t forget OLR either. The OLR flux is greater than DLR i.e. the net LW flux (Rnl) is OLR.
The Rnl/OLR flux from the surface is -52.4 W.m-2 on global average (Stephens et al). This is transferring the radiative energy from surface to air and space. It is an infrared surface cooling flux, the opposite of an insulator.
The surface insulator is air. 480,000 metres of it, densest at surface.
>”In order to get a change in insulation of any consideration (e.g. 1.2 times as dive suit insulation example), the concentration has to be 85%.”
Not only that but it also had to be trapped in a fabric lattice.
>”I have not seen Peter’s mechanism quantified (e.g. global surface energy budget), not by him or anyone else. Until that is done everyone is just hand waving.”
This means at different latitudes to get an average i.e. tropics, mid latitudes, sub-polar. And over time. This is a non-trivial exercise.
The surface budget is highly uncertain at it is, let alone the detail required for Peter’s conjecture.. The TOA budget more certain but no use to him. Peter has his work cut out to document the details of his conjecture, not to mention up to date in-situ measurements as undertaken by Fairall et al back in the 1990’s and in addition to the MV Tangaroa work. That one study is what is known by SkS as “single study syndrome”.
>”I have not seen Peter’s mechanism quantified (e.g. global surface energy budget), not by him or anyone else. Until that is done everyone is just hand waving.”
Minnett says this:
“Consistent to expect” does not necessarily mean expectations confirmed in reality.
This relationship was the in-situ difference of clouds vs no clouds (Clear sky) at the location. Cloud forcing is huge and quick. Easy to experience when a cloud passes the sun on a cool day. What Peter has done is measured a cloud effect, not a GHG effect. Cloudiness change is the dimming/brightening phenomenon that produces SSR change (forcing). SSR forcing is far greater than GHGs (see SSR in AR5 Chapter 2 upthread, page 3 comments)
Note that the relationship is not necessarily essentially linear. The datapoints are all over the place, morning, noon, evening, night. These should be analyzed separately i.e. trends for each to see if there is a difference. and not necessarily linear trends either.
For a per decade change in CO3 of 0.3 W.m-2 (roughly), the alteration of the 5cm to skin temperature gradient is 0.0006 K over 50mm. This is negligible on the face of it.
Peter did not do this calculation. Then he has to quantify the difference in heat flow across the 50mm gradient in W.m-2 that an alteration of 0.0006 K makes and therefore Joules. There’s thermo calcs for that but I’ll have to look it up and revise. I did this a short time after Peter’s post but I’ve forgotten how to do it now. Also put to Rob Painting at SkS (or Hot Topic) but no traction (natch).
Then he has to confirm that this cloud-based change is actually happening over time as a result of CO2 change. At different locations. In-situ. Long-term project. Berkeley Labs has only just come up with an observed per decade change in CO2 over land in Alaska and Oklahoma this century of 0.2 W.m-2. That’s 0.0004 K over 50mm gradient based on cloud.
It starts to look silly.
Then he has to reconcile with theoretical GHG forcied energy in Joules on a global scale. Non-trivial given the IPCC’s problems with that.
Minnett
Based on a cloud-based experiment.
Ok, but what he has to do is reconcile the quantity of actual Joules of theoretical GHG-forced energy (not total DLR note) his cloud-based effect theoretically retains in the ocean over decades with the measured OHC rise from 1970 (or 1950). And he has to reconcile that with IPCC cumulative GHG forcing since 1970.
This taking account of changes in Latent Heat, Sensible Heat, Total DLR, Total OLR, net LR, cloudiness, aerosols, air temperature, water vapour, and whatever, at different latitudes e.g. tropics, sub-polar or higher extra-tropics..
Then he has to confirm it in-situ.
Richard C (NZ) at 8:23
A well-crafted and carefully thought out answer that obstinately misses the point and is completely wrong. Paranoia at it finest! Congratulations!
“An enhanced greenhouse effect is supposed to increase insulation. How is that even possible at atm CO2 levels (0.039%) when CO2 at 85% constituency is required for greater insulation than air by only 1.2 times ?”
What a lot of codswallop. That is not the greenhouse effect and you know it.
It is true a domestic hot water system has a thermostat that limits the temperature by regulating the energy in.
So let us suppose the energy in is otherwise limited so the water never reaches the thermostat turnoff temperature, but remains steady at a lower temperature. (Element too small, interrupted power supply, low voltage… )
The fact remains if you could slow or limit the loss of heat across the “skin” by keeping it warmer with lagging or with a source of heat — radiant heaters or the Sun even — the water stays warmer.
Exactly the same phenomenon occurs in the oceans. The loss of heat from the water across the skin is less if you warm the skin, reducing the gradient. That is exactly what downwelling longwave radiation does. Warms the surface. Doesn’t need to penetrate.
We know that there is no transfer of energy into the water. It has more energy because it has lost less. That “extra” heat is proportional to the DLR, the more heat to the skin surface the more heat retained in the water. So, in effect, I repeat in-effect, some energy from the GHE has “gone into” the oceans.
I am not asking you to stop eating meat or heating your house or driving your car or worry about New York and London flooding.
I’m not even asking you to admit that you are wrong.
Just stop writing nonsense. Please.
Richard C (NZ)
No.
I read your comment after mine. That’s it. No more.
DLR slows the rate heat leaves the surface of concrete warmed by DSR too. Say on a cloudy night. Stays warmer longer. Doesn’t it.
Is the DLR heating the concrete? No it is not. No transfer of heat into the concrete.
No magic. Physics.
All these assertions about DLR slowing the rate of cooling of water etc. can be tested in a lab (unlike the snowball earth hypothesis)
Has anyone done it? It sounds like a good way to settle the argument
Science never settles arguments. What settles arguments is military might and death.
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis*, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy
Vol. 330, Issue 6002, pp. 356-359
DOI: 10.1126/science.1190653
Download PDF here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
“How is that even possible at atm CO2 levels (0.039%) when CO2 at 85% constituency is required for greater insulation than air by only 1.2 times ?” What a lot of codswallop. That is not the greenhouse effect and you know it.
Insulation is insulation Dennis. The greenhouse effect (overwhelmed by the insulation effect of the entire earth’s air mass) is insulation. CO2 insulation includes infrared radiative insulation. The entire property is insulation – period.
The dive suit study is comparing the insulation effect of CO2 vs AIR. Actually AIR with variations of concentrations of CO2 the lower of which is higher than atmospheric AIR but still minimal:
“Suit CO2 concentration averaged 86 ± 8% in the CO2 group and 4 ~ 0.8% in the AIR group.”
>”DLR slows the rate heat leaves the surface of concrete warmed by DSR too.”
Concrete? That’s new. Where’s that study Dennis?
But for water. Give me a little time (this morning) and I should have a simple calc to quantify the difference in W.m-2 through 50 mm of water at 20 K and through 50mm of water at 20.0004 K.
Not the correct thermo calc (I don’t think – maybe it is) because the 50mm is a thermal gradient. But it will demonstrate the difference in the right ball park.
The lagging analogy is not quite the same because the water is enclosed inside a pipe and therefore there are no effects from evaporation
Thanks to Dennis for the suggestion that we resort to violence
I think my definition of “argument” might be somewhat different to his
>”This [Dr Roy Ckark’s 2010 Null Hypothesis for CO2] had previously been a Submission to the US EPA’s “endangerment finding” in 2009:”
R. Clark Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 6/17/09, ‘A Null Hypothesis for CO2’
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf
The EPA has a problem re their “endangerment finding”:
‘On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot “ & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding’
Abridged Research Report
Dr. James P. Wallace III
Dr. John R. Christy
Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo
August 2016
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wwww-ths-rr-091716.pdf
Preface
On December 15, 2009, EPA issued its Green House Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding, which has driven very significant and costly regulations beginning with CO2. Focusing primarily on the time period since 1950, EPA’s Endangerment Finding predicated on Three Lines of Evidence, claims that Higher CO2 Emissions have led to dangerously higher Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST). The objective of this research was to determine whether or not a straightforward application of the “proper mathematical methods” would support EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant. Stated simply, their claim is that GAST is primarily a function of four explanatory variables: Atmospheric CO2 Levels (CO2), Solar Activity (SA), Volcanic Activity (VA), and a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO.)
Under this assumption of the four explanatory variables, only the atmospheric CO2 levels are deemed anthropogenic, that is, impacted by human activity such as the burning of any fossil fuel. The three other explanatory variables are considered “natural” variables. By natural is meant that each of the variables’ values are not impacted by human activity. And, it is also appropriate to call each of these three natural variables “chaotic” here defined to mean that each variable has proven impossible to reliably forecast, say over the next ten years, due to the climate system’s chaotic behavior. Thus, any analysis with the objective of climate/temperature change prediction must deal with the chaotic, that is unpredictable, behavior of these three natural climate model input variables. However, this difficulty regarding climate model forecasting does not rule out the mathematically proper validation of EPA’s claim regarding CO2.
Stated mathematically, EPA’s claim is shown in equation 1 below:
1.) GAST = F1(CO2, SA, VA, ENSO)
When subjected to Structural Analysis involving the proper mathematical hypothesis testing methods and using relevant and reliable real world temperature data, EPA’s claim is that higher atmospheric CO2 levels can be shown to have a positive and statistically significant impact on GAST. Unfortunately, carrying out this structural analysis is anything but straightforward because it requires modeling of a very complicated climate system. Since mathematical statistics, or more specifically, the mathematical approach used in econometrics, is used throughout this structural analysis work; for those readers not familiar with such techniques, it seemed appropriate to provide an overview of the rationale for analytical approach taken herein. There are fundamental mathematical issues facing any analyst seeking to validate EPA’s claim. In structural analysis using econometric methods, there are two issues every analyst must consider. The first is called Multicollinearity; the second is called Simultaneity. Both can have extremely serious ramifications. In the testing of EPA’s claim, both must be considered. Multicollinearity issues result from the fact that the CO2 variable is essentially just a positively sloped straight line when plotted from 1959 to date. This means that, even if using proper mathematical methods, CO2 were found to have a statistically significant impact on GAST, it would be impossible to be sure that the estimated impact was really due to higher CO2 levels–and, not due to one or more of an infinite number of other straight line like variables highly correlated to CO2, e.g., the positive linear trend component in the Solar Activity’s trend cycle over this period. Moreover, even assuming that this multicollinearity hurdle could be overcome analytically, hypothesis-testing challenges do not stop there. To properly test EPA’s hypothesis, it is necessary to also explicitly deal with the simultaneity issue. This issue arises in that it is a certainty that steadily rising GAST temperatures virtually guarantee ocean temperatures are rising which, other things equal, are well known to lead to higher Atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course, so does burning more fossils fuels.
Mathematically, this may be stated as shown in equation 2: 2.) Annual Change in Atmospheric CO2 Concentration = F2(GAST, Fossil Fuel Consumption, Other Explanatory Variables) Note that in the two equations above, by assumption, CO2 concentration impacts GAST in 1.) And, higher GAST impacts CO2 concentrations in 2.) Here, CO2 is assumed to be an “independent variable” in equation 1 and the “dependent variable” in equation 2. Of course, the opposite is true of GAST. CO2 may be assumed to be an independent variable in equation 1 because it is a variable not dependent on the other explanatory variables (i.e., ENSO, SA and VA,) but assumed capable of impacting GAST. In statistics, the dependent variable is the variable predicted using, for example, a regression equation. Here, the forecast values of CO2 and GAST must be obtained by solving the two simultaneous equations. The econometric theory ramifications of ignoring this simultaneity issue are very serious. For example, it would never be mathematically proper to run regressions/direct least squares on equation 1 while ignoring equation 2 in an effort to determine whether CO2 has a statistically significant impact on GAST – a mathematically improper approach that many analysts have used. To do so yields biased and inconsistent (i.e., worthless) parameter estimates. To obtain a statistically meaningful CO2 equation 1 parameter estimate, that is to determine whether or not CO2 has a statistically significant impact on GAST, a simultaneous equation parameter estimation technique must be applied1.
Faced with the challenge of properly testing EPA’s Tropical Hot Spot (THS) claim, which involved the analysis of many different tropical temperature time series, the authors of this research developed an alternative approach which only may work to show that CO2 does not have a statistically significant impact on GAST. Since the Atmospheric CO2 concentration levels are independent of ENSO variable values, removing only the ENSO-related impacts on the temperature time series does not require the specification of a more complicated (i.e., multi-equation) climate model and therefore the use of simultaneous equation parameter estimation techniques – for that matter, neither does removing SA or VA impacts. Importantly, it will be shown that removing “ENSO –related Impacts” in the manner used in this research also removes solar trend cycle impacts. Hence, to seek validation of EPA’s claim that CO2 is a pollutant, the first fundamental question addressed in this research is: do the ENSO-adjusted temperature time series have a statistically significant upward sloping linear trend? If not, then it means that once only the ENSO impacts on temperature are accounted for, there may be no CO2-induced “record setting” warming to be concerned about. Strictly speaking, the ENSO-adjusted temperatures represent the estimated combined impact of CO2 as well as the two natural variables, solar and volcanic activity. For example, Volcanic Activity could be hiding CO2’s impact. So, for example, if GAST, or any other temperature time series, has a statistically significant, positive linear trend slope and ENSO-Adjusted GAST does not, then the positive trend slope in GAST can be totally explained by the natural ENSO impacts alone. But, if a statistically significant trend slope were to have been found in the ENSO-Adjusted Temperatures, it would have been necessary, as explained above, to use simultaneous equation parameter estimation techniques to sort out CO2 related simultaneity issues. As it turned out, this was not necessary. However, while all the ENSO Adjusted Temperatures analyzed had flat trends, it was still possible that the volcanic activity was hiding CO2’s impact. This turns out not to have been the case with all 13 of the highly relevant temperature time series analyzed in this research.
Finally, it should be noted that every effort was made to minimize complaints that this analysis was performed on so-called “cherry picked temperature time series”. To avoid even the appearance of such activity, the authors divided up responsibilities, where Dr. Christy was tasked to provide a tropical temperature data set that he felt was most appropriate and credible for testing the THS hypothesis. All told, thirteen temperature time series (9 Tropics, 1 Contiguous U.S. and 3 Global) were analyzed in this research. The econometric analysis was done by Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC, and when completed, cross checked by the other authors.
# # #
The US Senate will see this. Inhofe and Co will ensure that.
Richard C (NZ): “Give me a little time (this morning) and I should have a simple calc to quantify the difference in W.m-2 through 50 mm of water at 20 K and through 50mm of water at 20.0004 K.”
Don’t bother. I’m not reading it. It’s irrelevant.
Insulation requires energy from the matter being insulated. With the GHE “insulation” the energy is from the DLR. If you still think the GHE has something to do with the insulation properties of CO2 you are as mad as a hatter.
” … water at 20 K”
Not in my whisky, thanks.
No nuts either, thanks.
Wallace III, Christy and D’Aleo:
“It is not surprising that periods of increasing Cumulative Total Solar Intensity Anomaly (Cum TSI Anomaly) would lead to time periods involving more intense and more frequent El Ninos and vice versa. Thus, inclusion of the natural Cum MEI variable in the ENSO adjustment modeling process can be expected to capture such cumulative solar impacts on ENSO behavioral patterns.
[Graph] Cumulative Solar Vs Cumulative ENSO Activity
To demonstrate the truth of this statement, some limited modeling of the relationship between Cum MEI and the Cum TSI Anomaly coupled with the Cumulative 1977 Shift impact was carried out. The results are as depicted in the Figure VII-4 and Table VII-1 below.
This will upset the Contra-Solar folks.
>”Don’t bother. I’m not reading it. It’s irrelevant.”
The 0.0004 K temperature difference (alteration) across 5cm of water is Peter Minnett’s mechanism for the entire OHC accumulation since 1970.
Of course it is relevant. That’s it Dennis. Nothing else.
But I appreciate that you would prefer I do not present that calc giving W.m-2 as a result.
For heaven’s sake man, nobody is disputing the heat in the oceans is from Sunlight.
The radiation from greenhouse gases simply slows its transfer to the atmosphere.
Andy
>”The lagging analogy is not quite the same because the water is enclosed inside a pipe and therefore there are no effects from evaporation”
Yes. And in the case of the AO interface all the changes in all factors have to be accounted for:
Latent Heat, Sensible Heat, Total DLR, Total OLR, net LR, cloudiness, aerosols, air temperature, water vapour, and whatever, at different latitudes e.g. tropics, sub-polar or higher extra-tropics..
Monumental task given the IPCC’s assessment of all of this in AR5 Chapter 2 (comments, page 2).
>”The radiation from greenhouse gases simply slows its transfer to the atmosphere.”
The question is: how much?
I’ll get to that next. First, reading Wallace III, Christy and D’Aleo. They have done what the IPCC admits they neglected:
Removing the MDV signal from GMST to ascertain secular trend. There isn’t any since 1959.
Wallace III, Christy and D’Aleo (2016) makes Foster & Rahmstorf (2011), as cited bu IPCC, look like amateur hour.
And furthermore, this talk CO2 is responsible for only 2% of DLR or whatever you keep saying — and I keep ignoring — is absolute nonsense.
CO2 is directly responsible for about 20% and other non-condensable gases 5%. Water vapour (50%) is a feedback only. It’s the CO2 that initiates the warming.
Madness.
The oceans are warming.
There is no increase in shortwave.
There is an increase in longwave.
That cannot be the explanation.
So the oceans are not warming.
Eh?
>”The radiation from greenhouse gases simply slows its transfer to the atmosphere.”
Except, only 2% of DLR is CO2.
Except, only 2% of DLR is CO2.
Bollocks.
Without CO2 there would be no water vapour (or clouds).
“Without CO2 there would be no water vapour (or clouds).”
Is there any evidence for this hypothesis?
>”Except, only 2% of DLR is CO2.”
But we are only concerned with the CHANGE in that 2% since 1950. Currently only 0.2 W.m-2/decade (Berkeley Labs).
Bit player.
Andy. For most people I would say “use your brains” but in your case I’ll make an exception.
The temperature without GHE is -18.
How much water vapour would there be?
Only 2% of DLW is CO2?????????????????????????????????
No CO2 no DLR.
Simple as that.
More CO2 more DLR.
A lot more CO2 a lot more DLR.
Dennis, do you have any evidence other than your cultish believe system for the assertion that the absence of CO2 implies no clouds or water vapour?
My “brains” tells me that sun shining on a puddle can cause evaporation
Does this depend on the existence of CO2?
I’m genuinely interested as I have heard the argument before.
Andy. Fair enough.
Everywhere more or less -18C. What puddle?
No evidence just an assertion
Is there a reference for this assertion?
Quantifying Peter Minnett’s ocean warming mechanism:
Rates of Heat Transfer
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/Rates-of-Heat-Transfer
Thermal conductivity values (k) in units of W/m/°C. [Coefficient]
Water (l) 0.58 [sea water will be different]
Rate = k•A•(T1 – T2)/d Watts (Joules/sec)
k = 0.58
Area = m2 = 1
T1 = 20.0004 °C
T2 = 20 °C
depth = m = 0.05
Rate = (0.58 W/m/°C)•(1 m2)•(20.0004°C – -20°C)/(0.05 m)
Rate = 0.004 W/m2
Heat transfer retardation across the ocean’s surface skin: 0.004 W.m-2.
Sea water will have a different coefficient but that’s not going to make much difference.
What has to be shown now (evidential proof) is that 0.2 W.m-2/decade CO2 causes a significant change to this 0.004 W/m2 rate.
I remain extremely doubtful.
Dennis,
I can understand your frustration, as Richard can be stubborn, especially when he is defending a principle. Still, I note there are serious problems with your reliance on Minnett’s article. The Tangaroa experiment didn’t measure the thermal effect in the skin layer of the IR radiation from CO2 (much less from the small amount of anthropogenic CO2 which alone interests us). but from passing clouds.
More crucially, the experiment did not measure the effect of the changed thermal gradient on the amount of thermal energy able to reach the atmosphere. So we are left wondering and, as Richard C keeps saying, the IPCC aren’t even trying to resolve this deep unknown that lies at the heart of their arguments. This needs a new post, which I’ll try to get to shortly.
>”Heat transfer retardation across the ocean’s surface skin: 0.004 W.m-2.”
To put this 0.004 W.m-2 in context, the globally averaged heat flux from the ocean surface is 164.4 W.m-2.
@Maggy,
Sorry, Maggy, I don’t think I answered this.
It’s an Interesting link you give, btw, thanks.
Links here:
Tangaroa experiment described by Peter Minnett: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
Skeptical Science post by Rob Painting: http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
Richard Cumming’s post at CCG: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/05/anthropogenic-ocean-heating-part-1/
My response to Hot Whopper: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/12/hotwhopper-wrong-on-ocean-heat/
I’ve just acknowledged the topic needs a separate post. Shortly.
I think Roy Spencer has claimed that CO2 gives the atmosphere structure, without which there would be no clouds.
I can’t find any evidence for this claim. Is there any?
I’m not depending on any article.
I’m depending on established physics.
And I’m not going to waste my time performing an experiment and nor is anyone else.
Under all circumstances, less heat will pass through the skin if the surface is warmed by an external source.
To argue otherwise is to say heat loss would be the same if the air above was colder, and therefore the skin surface colder, and that is clearly nonsense.
>”Only 2% of DLW is CO2????????[….] No CO2 no DLR. […] More CO2 more DLR. A lot more CO2 a lot more DLR.”
WRONG.
Wang & Liang (2008) provide the 1976 CO2 cpmponent of DLR in the Standard Atmosphere at that time. It was a minor component (6 W.m-2). Taking CO2 out of globally averaged DLR leaves 338.7 W.m-2 DLR (see below).
It is a simple exercise using the IPCC’s CO2 forcing expression (an approximation – observations say otherwise) to come up with the change since 1976 (0.9 W.m-2) giving the current component (6.9 W.m-2).
Globally averaged DLR is 345.6 W.m-2 so the percentage is 6.9/345.6 x 100 =2%.
This is greater than observed because Berkeley Labs found only 0.2 W.m-2 CO2 change per decade 2000 – 2010. The IPCC’s forcing expression gives more than 0.3 W.m-2/
Should be – Wang & Liang (2009)
Rubbish.
No CO2 (or CH4) … no water vapour … no GHE.
How anyone can keep misunderstanding basic science is beyond me.
Well, no, it’s not actually. It’s well documented and incurable.
Where is it well documented that no CO2 means no water vapour?
Richard C (NZ)
We’re talking about an increased GHE.
More heat. More DLR. From the GHE. You can’t “take the CO2 component” out. It’s absurd.
It’s like saying fuel is only 0.5% the mass of a car, taking the fuel out makes almost no difference to its momentum.
Sorry, Richard C (NZ), you are a gentleman. I am not. You are an idiot.
There is an interesting discussion on the “no CO2” hypothesis on SkS
https://www.skepticalscience.com/What-would-a-CO2-free-atmosphere-look-like.html
Richard T
>”Sorry, Maggy, I don’t think I answered this. It’s an Interesting link you give, btw, thanks. Links here:”
The paper documenting the MV Tangaroa findings specific to Peter Minnett’s conjecture was linked upthread (page 2 of comments):
SOLAS SAGE – sea-air gas exchange experiment [Provides link trail to papers]
https://www.niwa.co.nz/coasts-and-oceans/research-projects/sage
‘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.
# # #
It wasn’t anything about a confirming how greenhouse gases heat the ocean. It only used clouds and was about wind speed.
Rob Painting miss-represents it completely at SkS:
This is baloney. They did no such thing.
>”You can’t “take the CO2 component” out. It’s absurd.”
No it isn’t. The CO2 component is isolated by LBL spectroscopy.
If you read Wang & Liang (2009) you will discover that CO2 is of no consequence in overall DLR of which AIR temperature is also a component along with WV, clouds, and whatever else radiates at T^4 by S-B..
Richard C (NZ) Yes, and the component of fuel in a car can be done with scales but you still can’t take that 0.5% of the car out and run the car.
>”If you read Wang & Liang (2009) you will discover that CO2 is of no consequence in overall DLR of which AIR temperature is also a component along with WV, clouds, and whatever else radiates at T^4 by S-B.”
For your convenience 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
Richard C (NZ): “read Wang & Liang (2009) you will discover that CO2 is of no consequence in overall DLR ”
No you won’t.
The paper says no such thing.
That’s a delusion.
>”The paper says no such thing.”
You didn’t read it did you Dennis?
[28] Figure 6 shows that the increases in Ta and atmospheric water vapor concentration are the most important parameters controlling long-term variation of Ld.
Richard C (NZ)
Have you spent your whole life like this or is it an age thing?
Nobody disputes water vapour has a greater effect than CO2 but water vapour is only a feedback. CO2 is the forcing (and a feedback).
You can’t take CO2 out of the system the way you are doing.
In any case the direct contribution made by CO2 is accepted as 20%.
And yes I did look at the paper and it does NOT say what you said it does (“CO2 is of no consequence in overall DLR”).
>”And yes I did look at the paper and it does NOT say what you said it does.”
I quoted directly from Wang & Liang (their words):
[28] Figure 6 shows that the increases in Ta and atmospheric water vapor concentration are the most important parameters controlling long-term variation of Ld.
>”In any case the direct contribution made by CO2 is accepted as 20%.”
WRONG
Wang & Liang AGAIN:
Contribution by constituency using Wang & Liang’s SURFRAD data (neglects BSRN and global average):
6.9/337.0 = `1.86%
Contribution by change in Ld: 0.3/2.2 = 13.6%
>”Contribution by change in Ld: 0.3/2.2 = 13.6%”
Berkeley Labs observed 0.2 W.m-2/decade:
0.2/2.2 = 9.1%
>”I quoted directly from Wang & Liang (their words):”
>”Berkeley Labs observed 0.2 W.m-2/decade: 0.2/2.2 = 9.1%”
In other words, factors other than CO2 were the drivers of 90.9% of DLR change.
CO2 is a bit player.
>”Contribution by constituency using Wang & Liang’s SURFRAD data (neglects BSRN and global average): 6.9/337.0 = `1.86%”
Should be 2,05%
Using global average from earth’s energy budget, Stephens et al (2012)
6.9/345.6 = 2%
>”What has to be shown now (evidential proof) is that 0.2 W.m-2/decade CO2 causes a significant change to this 0.004 W/m2 rate.”
Problematic.
Wang & Liang – “the total variation rate in Ld is 2.2 W m−2 per decade”
Is is not possible to prove that the CO2 component of DLR change of 0.2 W.m-2/decade was the driver of any variation in heat transfer across the skin layer when total DLR change is 2.2 W.m-2/decade. Obviously 90% was by other drivers.
All that can be said is that (possibly), CO2 contributed 10% to any change in transfer rate.
And remember, we are only talking about a change to the 0.004 Joules/sec/m2 skin layer effect measured by MV Tangaroa 2004. This minuscule change has to account for 300 ZetaJoules OHC accumulation 1970 – 2016.
Tall order.
The IPCC says OHC accumulation 1971 – 2010 was 0.55 W m–2 (3.4.2.3 Net Heat Flux and Ocean Heat Storage Constraints). 0.55 W m–2 is orders of magnitude greater than a change to a rate which at 2004 in the MV Tangaroa study was 0.004 W/m2.
And the change in the 0.004 W/m2 rate attributable to CO2 is only 10%.
I think it is safe to say that Peter Minnett’s conjecture is BUSTED.
>”The IPCC says OHC accumulation 1971 – 2010 was 0.55 W m–2 (3.4.2.3 Net Heat Flux and Ocean Heat Storage Constraints).”
Thing is: OHC hasn’t been accumulating now since March 2012:
2012-12,16.630146
2013-3,20.317980
2013-6,17.425900
2013-9,16.296843
2013-12,20.558161
2014-3,20.874861
2014-6,19.914608
2014-9,18.526079
2014-12,21.123238
2015-3,23.416958
2015-6,22.368597
2015-9,21.546423
2015-12,22.271896
2016-3,22.931677
2016-6,19.944710
Data
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
Graph
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
10^22 Joules. ZetaJoules are 10^21.
Spike up (accumulation) and back down (dissipation) but no change March 2012 – June 2016. The 2016 El Nino unloaded a bundle but difficult to know how much until some study of it comes out..
Should be
“Thing is: OHC hasn’t been accumulating now since March [2013]”
“Spike up (accumulation) and back down (dissipation) but no change March [2013] – June 2016”
Not forgetting that NODC OHC was “adjusted” in 2010:
‘UKMO EN3 Ocean Heat Content Anomaly Data Disappeared From The KNMI Climate Explorer As Suddenly As It Appeared’
Posted on June 2, 2012, Bob Tisdale
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/ukmo-en3-ocean-heat-content-anomaly-data-disappeared-from-the-knmi-climate-explorer-as-suddenly-as-it-appeared/
NODC before and after 2010 “adjustments vs UKMO-EN3 vs Hansen’s GISS ModelE.
Josh Willis (NODC) threw out floats that were “too cold”. One can only assume that he continues the practice.
From Tisdales ‘UKMO EN3 Ocean Heat Content Anomaly Data Disappeared’ link to ‘Dana1981 at SkepticalScience Tries to Mislead His Readers’
OHC: NODC 0-700m, 0-2000m vs GISS-ER Model
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/figure-4.jpg
Model OHC too warm this century, just like GMST.
Richard C,
No, this was a different experiment later in 2009. The aim of the SOLAS Sea-Air Gas Exchange (SAGE) experiment was to study the exchange of gases that influence the climate. This was carried out by stimulating the growth of plankton, through the addition of iron sulphate to the surface of some of the Southern Ocean’s waters. The Minnett article in 2006 described the “recent cruise” of the MV Tangaroa during which skin sea-surface temperatures were measured to high accuracy by the Marine-Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (M-AERI), and contemporaneous measurements of the bulk temperature were measured at a depth of ~5cm close to the M-AERI foot print by a precision thermistor mounted in a surface-following float. I linked to this and a couple of related articles earlier today (11:56).
RC,
You’ve managed to find this Minnett paper about the gas exchange experiments, but as we’ve both said previously, there was no paper about the Tangaroa temperature measurements, no follow-up experiments and, unsatisfactorily, no attempt to measure either the effect of CO2 on the thin skin or its effect on ocean temperature.
Richard C (NZ): The paper you linked does not show what you claim.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/full
Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
“We found that daily [DLR] increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m−2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.”
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/feb/25/carbon-dioxides-contribution-to-greenhouse-effect-monitored-in-real-time
(Can’t find Feldman paper)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenhouse_measured.html
Maybe you should start here:
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
then stop making such a fool of yourself.
Is there any evidence for this or is it just an hypothesis?
Correction
My approach re the Minnett change of rate across the skin layer is DEAD WRONG (and I multiplied instead of divided – eye strain)
We need to determine the flux through the layer WITHOUT a temperature differential vs a flux WITH a differential to determine skin effect (and there is no skin at noon in the tropics)
Global average net LW flux (Rnl) out through the surface is -52.4 W.m-2 (Stephens et al). Minnett has a skin effect of -0.2 K at -52.4 Rnl). the skin flux iis not -52.4 everywhere but good for starters
Minnett Figure 2: The change in the skin temperature to bulk temperature difference as a function of the net longwave radiation.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Minnett_2.gif
So the calculation SHOULD be (or something like this):
Rates of Heat Transfer
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/Rates-of-Heat-Transfer
Thermal conductivity values (k) in units of W/m/°C. [Coefficient]
Water (l) 0.58 [sea water will be different]
Rate = k•A•(T1 – T2)/d Watts (Joules/sec)
WITHOUT skin temperature differential but with the sub-surface to AIR differential of 3C.
k = 0.58
Area = m2 = 1
T1 = 20 °C
T2 = 17 °C {temperature of AIR at surface – makes no sense at only 0.2 C skin difference)
depth = m = 0.05
Rate = (0.58 W/m/°C)•(1 m2)•(3°C)/(0.05 m)
Rate = 34.8 W/m2
WITH 0.2C skin differential:
k = 0.58
Area = m2 = 1
T1 = 20 °C
T2 = 16.8°C
depth = m = 0.05
Rate = (0.58 W/m/°C)•(1 m2)•(20.2°C – -20°C)/(0.05 m)
Rate = 32 W/m2
Difference: 34.8 – 32 = 2.8 W.m-2
Heat transfer retardation across the ocean’s surface skin with 0.2C temperature differential: 0 – 2.8 W.m-2 (no skin at noon). Sea water will have a different coefficient but that’s not going to make much difference.
34.8 and 32 W.m-2 is about the globally averaged Sensible Heat flux at surface of 24 W.m-2. Obviously the Sub-Surface-AIR temperature differential makes a difference. I used 3C.
What has to be shown now (evidential proof) is that 0.2 W.m-2/decade CO2 causes a significant change to this 0 – 2.8 W.m-2 retardation.
# # #
I have no idea whether this is anywhere right or wildly wrong. But I do think it a much better approach than my previous effort.
The problem of evidential proof (or not) is as previously but with appropriate modification.
The IPCC says OHC accumulation 1971 – 2010 was 0.55 W m–2 (3.4.2.3 Net Heat Flux and Ocean Heat Storage Constraints). 0.55 W m–2 reconciles with 0.6 W.m-2 solar excess in surface budget already. It has to be shown that solar is not the driver and that a change to the 0 – 2.8 W.m-2 skin effect works out to 0.55 W.m-2 or thereabouts.
Tall order.
And any change in the 0 – 2.8 W/m2 rate attributable to CO2 is only 10% anyway due to total DLR change being greater than CO2 change.
I still remain extremely doubtful and I still think it is safe to say that Peter Minnett’s conjecture is BUSTED.
If the ocean water can lose heat via the surface, which of course it does, then lowering the temperature of the surface between the water and the air will result in faster heat loss.
Equally, increasing the temperature of the surface between the water and the air above will result in slower heat loss.
In this universe anyway.
Dennis’ last comment seems to make sense. I still quite fathom that all the H2O will condense out of the atmosphere in the absence of CO2
Apparently I am mentally retarded for not seeing this “obvious” fact that is so obvious it doesn’t require any references or explanation
Dennis,
Why? Please quantify the rate of heat loss in each case.
Andy.
It seems accepted the temperature on Earth with no GHE would be -18C
At this temperature there would be no water vapour to speak of.
The atmosphere needs quite a lot of CO2, CH4 to lift it out of a frozen state and generate some water vapour.
How does one get to an “accepted temperature”?
Is this a vote?
RT
[Me] >”The paper documenting the MV Tangaroa findings specific to Peter Minnett’s conjecture was linked upthread (page 2 of comments): SOLAS SAGE – sea-air gas exchange experiment [Provides link trail to papers]”
[You] >”No, this was a different experiment later in 2009. The aim of the SOLAS Sea-Air Gas Exchange (SAGE) experiment was to study the exchange of gases that influence the climate. This was carried out by stimulating the growth of plankton, through the addition of iron sulphate to the surface of some of the Southern Ocean’s waters. The Minnett article in 2006 described the “recent cruise” of the MV Tangaroa during which skin sea-surface temperatures were measured to high accuracy by the Marine-Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (M-AERI), and contemporaneous measurements of the bulk temperature were measured at a depth of ~5cm close to the M-AERI foot print by a precision thermistor mounted in a surface-following float. I linked to this and a couple of related articles earlier today (11:56).”
I grabbed a paper from the right cruise (2004), but now I’ve looked at it closely I see that his Real Climate Figure wasn’t in it. Just graphs that looked similar (fooled me).
So what was the paper that his Figure comes from? That’s this:
Minnett Figure 2 (Real Climate): The change in the skin temperature to bulk temperature difference as a function of the net longwave radiation.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Minnett_2.gif
The paper I referenced (because title and authors) was this:
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
1. Introduction
“Here we present measurements of the skin-to-bulk temperature differences taken during a cruise of the R/V Tangaroa during the SAGE (SOLAS/SAGE: surface-ocean lower-atmosphere studies air–sea gas exchange experiment) in the waters over the Campbell Plateau off the South Island of New Zealand.”
3. The SAGE cruise
“The SAGE cruise of the R/V Tangaroa took place from 17 March to 15 April 2004 to the south-east of New Zealand in the vicinity of the S.W. Bounty Trough at 481S, 1731E (Fig. 1).”
So right date, right SAGE cruise (2004), right author, right title, but still wrong paper (maybe – see below). What I thought was the Figure above are just wind speed adjustments down near the bottom of the paper.
The right paper (if there is one – see below) will be one of these I think [Hot linked]:
Eleven papers detailing the SAGE results were published in this special Issue of Deep-Sea Research
Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography
Volume 58, Issue 6, Pages 753-882 (15 March 2011)
The SOLAS Air-Gas Exchange Experiment SAGE 2004
Edited by M.J. Harvey and C.S. Law
https://www.niwa.co.nz/coasts-and-oceans/research-projects/sage
I just grabbed ‘Measurements of the oceanic thermal skin effect’, Peter J. Minnett, Murray Smith, Brian Ward because it seemed to be the obvious choice.
I’m beginning to wonder if the Figure Peter Minnett posted at Real Climate was not actually published in any paper. Only way to find out is to wade through the other 10 papers.
How does one get to an “accepted temperature”? Is this a vote?
No. It’s a conspiracy by the UN to take control.
Dennis
>”Richard C (NZ): The paper you linked does not show what you claim.”
You quoted EXACTLY what I claimed Dennis.
The change in the TOTAL DLR was 2.2 W.m-2. Look upthread and you will see I’ve stated this over and over.
This is just the CHANGE in DLR. Their total DLR has 3 components – air temperature (1), atmospheric water vapor (2) , and CO2 concentration (3). The breakdown by Wang & Liang was this (from upthread):
Wang & Liang:
And,
CO2 contribution by constituency using Wang & Liang’s SURFRAD data (neglects BSRN and global average), and adding 0.9 W.m-2 to 6 W.m-2 CO2 since 1976:
6.9/337.0 = 2.05%
Contribution by change in Ld: 0.3/2.2 = 13.6%
Berkeley Labs observed 0.2 W.m-2/decade by observation: 0.2/2.2 = 9.1%”
In other words, factors other than CO2 were the drivers of 90% of DLR change. CO2 10%.
CO2 is a bit player.
Richard C (NZ): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/full
“The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.”
“[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”
You are completely misreading the paper to fit in with your preconceived notions.
It is accepted CO2 is the dominant GHG but it is condensable, short-lived and dependent on temperature. It is a feedback, not a forcing.
Nowhere in the paper does it state CO2 is a bit player. Quite the contrary. It is the primary forcing and thus the most important GHG. The CO2 we add is permanent and “unbalances” the system.
Dennis
>”If the ocean water can lose heat via the surface, which of course it does, then lowering the temperature of the surface between the water and the air will result in faster heat loss.”
Actually you are quite right this time Dennis. My calc was wrong upthread. Thank you.
BUT THIS SHATTERS Minnett’s conjecture. INCREASING the DLR (incl. CO2), INCREASES the skin temperature differential which results in INCREASING heat loss. The conjecture is that increasing GHGs will DECREASE heat loss by INCREASING the skin temperature differential.
Increasing skin temperature vs increasing DLR from Peter Minnett here:
Minnett Figure 2 (Real Climate): The change in the skin temperature to bulk temperature difference as a function of the net longwave radiation.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Minnett_2.gif
Heat transfer calcs from upthread (corrected):
Rate = k•A•(T1 – T2)/d Watts (Joules/sec)
WITHOUT skin temperature differential but with the sub-surface to AIR differential of 3C.
k = 0.58
Area = m2 = 1
T1 = 20 °C
T2 = 17 °C {temperature of AIR at surface – no skin, 3C differential)
depth = m = 0.05
Rate = (0.58 W/m/°C)•(1 m2)•(3°C)/(0.05 m)
Rate = 34.8 W/m2
WITH 0.2C skin differential:
k = 0.58
Area = m2 = 1
T1 = 20 °C
T2 = 16.8°C {lower temperature of AIR at surface incorporating 0.2C skin difference, 3C + 0.2C diff)
depth = m = 0.05
Rate = (0.58 W/m/°C)•(1 m2)•(3.2°C)/(0.05 m)
Rate = 37.12 W/m2
Difference: 37.12 – = 2.32 W.m-2 [NOT 2.8 as previous]
Heat transfer INCREASE across the ocean’s sub-surface to AIR with 0.2C skin temperature differential:
0 – 2.32 W.m-2. Lower AIR temperature results in GREATER heat loss, 37.12 W/m2 vs 34.8 W/m2.
This is hilarious, Dennis, you have helped prove Peter Minnett’s conjecture wrong/
>”Equally, increasing the temperature of the surface between the water and the air above will result in slower heat loss.”
Dead RIGHT again Dennis. This is exactly opposite to the Minnett conjecture. Turns out, more GHGs COOL the surface if GHGs increase the skin temperature differential,
More GHGs = More temperature gradient = More heat loss.
So much for GHG “insulation” of water by LW radiation. We’re saved! Thanks to you Dennis.
Richard C,
Thanks for this, Richard. It’s my understanding nothing was published, but I hope there was something published. I’ll keep looking through them.
Dennis
>”You are completely misreading the paper to fit in with your preconceived notions.”
Oh no I’m not Dennis. I’ve transcribed the numbers as Wang & Liang present them. I challenge you to prove I have not done that.
>”Nowhere in the paper does it state CO2 is a bit player.”
Not explicitly but from the data (their numbers) it is obvious it is. Look at the numbers Dennis (you don’t do numbers do you).
>”Quite the contrary. It is the primary forcing and thus the most important GHG. The CO2 we add is permanent and “unbalances” the system.”
Rubbish Dennis. You neglect SSR (see IPCC AR5 Chapter 2 in previous comments page 2), and look at the Wang & Liang data (the numbers):
CO2 contribution by constituency using Wang & Liang’s SURFRAD data (neglects BSRN and global average), and adding 0.9 W.m-2 to 6 W.m-2 CO2 since 1976:
6.9/337.0 = 2.05%
Contribution by change in Ld: 0.3/2.2 = 13.6%
Berkeley Labs observed 0.2 W.m-2/decade by observation: 0.2/2.2 = 9.1%”
In other words, factors other than CO2 were the drivers of 90% of DLR change. CO2 10%.
CO2 is a bit player.numbers(:
Richard C (NZ)
[DNH] ”Equally, increasing the temperature of the surface between the water and the air above will result in slower heat loss.”
“Dead RIGHT again Dennis. This is exactly opposite to the Minnett conjecture. Turns out, more GHGs COOL the surface if GHGs increase the skin temperature differential,
“More GHGs = More temperature gradient = More heat loss.
“So much for GHG “insulation” of water by LW radiation. We’re saved! Thanks to you Dennis.”
I await my Nobel Prize. Can I borrow some money from you until I collect it?
“This is hilarious, Dennis, you have helped prove Peter Minnett’s conjecture wrong”
If your rrrs was on fire you’d join Cirque de Soleil.
Dennis
You quote Wang & Liang exactly as I have several times:
CO2 was only 6 W.m-2 in 1976. DLR is 337 W.m-2 in Wang & Liang (SURFRAD).
6/337 x 100 = 1.8%
CO2 change since 1976 only adds another 1 W.m-2 (roughly)
7/337 x100 = 2%
CO2 is a bit player.
Contribution by change in Ld: 0.3/2.2 = 13.6%
Berkeley Labs observed 0.2 W.m-2/decade by observation: 0.2/2.2 = 9.1%”
In other words, factors other than CO2 were the drivers of 90% of DLR change. CO2 10%.
CO2 is a bit player
“Look at the numbers Dennis (you don’t do numbers do you).”
Yes, but only when I know what I’m doing.
But I wouldn’t want to stop you… 🙂 🙂 🙂
@Richard C.
I can’t make head nor toe of this sea skin stuff… seems such a silly concept to me when I can view the turbulence of the ocean as the wind blows across it and the tides slosh back and forth.
But as I was looking up stuff on night-time rates of evaporation, I came across this strange paper..
(quite a few spelling and grammatical errors within..)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288824717_In_situ_measurement_shows_ocean_boundary_layer_physical_processes_control_catastrophic_global_warming
Don’t know if this helps or hinders.
Richard C (NZ): “CO2 was only 6 W.m-2 in 1976.”
(Mis)quoting Prata [2008] “… that under the 1976 U.S. standard atmosphere …” Never mind. What does Prata say?
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431160802036508
The climatological record of clear‐sky longwave radiation at the Earth’s surface: evidence for water vapour feedback? F. Prata, Pages 5247-5263 | Received 11 Dec 2006, Accepted 13 Dec 2007, Published online: 04 Dec 2010
Abstract
An increase in global surface temperature of between 1.4 K and 5.8 K is expected to occur by 2100 due to a doubling of the global concentration of CO2. Associated with this predicted surface warming will be an increase in the downwards longwave (3–100 µm) radiation (F↓) at the Earth’s surface. Observations of this quantity on a global scale are almost non‐existent. Clear‐sky estimates of F↓ can be obtained from radiative transfer calculations using temperature and moisture profiles from radiosoundings. Here long‐term (more than 25 years) mean monthly profiles obtained from globally distributed land‐based radiosonde stations are subjected to detailed radiative transfer computations and Fourier time‐series analysis. The results indicate that over the period 1964–1990, there has been a global increase in the clear‐sky longwave flux at the surface. The global trend is approximately +1.7 W m−2 per decade, and there is a strong latitudinal pattern, with greater increases occurring in the tropics and smaller increases at both poles. There are also concomitant increases in precipitable water and the patterns appear to be highly correlated with increases in F↓. Increases in CO2 with time were not included in the calculations and it is estimated that the radiative impact of changes in CO2 on the F↓ trend is ∼20% per decade. A simple model of the dependence of surface air temperature and precipitable water on the downwards clear‐sky flux supports the notion that both variables are contributing to increases in F↓. It is suggested that increases in precipitable water represent a positive feedback on F↓.
Richard C (NZ) is a bit player.
Dennis
>”(Mis)quoting Prata [2008] “… that under the 1976 U.S. standard atmosphere …”
No Dennis. I was quoting Wang and Liang who were referencing the work of Prata:
CO2 is a bit player. Only 6 W.m-2 of total DLR.
Prata (2008) says this:
<blockquote[Prata] – "…is estimated that the radiative impact of changes in CO2 on the F↓ trend is ∼20% per decade"
So Prata only “ESTIMATED” CO2 at (APPROXIMATELY) “∼20% per decade”. But no actual analysis of observations. Even at 20%, CO2 is still only a little more than a bit player.
Wang & Liang did an actual analysis of observations.
CO2 was only 6 W.m-2 in 1976 [REFERENCING PRATA]. DLR is 337 W.m-2 in Wang & Liang (SURFRAD).
6/337 x 100 = 1.8% [CONTRIBUTION BY CONSTITUENCY]
CO2 change since 1976 only adds another 1 W.m-2 (roughly)
7/337 x100 = 2% [CONTRIBUTION BY CONSTITUENCY]
CO2 is a bit player.
Contribution by change in Ld: 0.3/2.2 = 13.6% [IPCC/WANG & LIANG]
Berkeley Labs observed 0.2 W.m-2/decade by observation: 0.2/2.2 = 9.1%” [BERKELEY LABS/W & L]
In other words, factors other than CO2 were the drivers of 90% of DLR change. CO2 10%. [B L/W & L]
CO2 is a bit player
Maggy Wassilieff: Skin.
There is an interface or surface between the water and the air. The air has a layer of water below and the water has a layer of air above. There is a surface effect, a boundary layer; we see that with water in a narrow tube. My understanding is the “skin” is just that.
We know if we lag a hot water cylinder and turn the power off the water retains its heat longer. In a sense some of the heat leaving the “skin” is being returned to the water. We could apply heat from an external source, such as an electric radiator, and this is what the greenhouses gases do – supply longwave radiation. In neither case does the radiation need to penetrate the “skin”. In neither case, providing the applied radiation is at a low enough level, is heat transferred in the water. It just reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient across the “skin”.
I may be wrong. I can change my mind. I used to be a fervent AGW denier. It was Bob Carter who set me looking at the science. I realised he was just a genial boozy bullsh1ting blowhard. Humiliating to have been conned by a very well orchestrated campaign by the fossil fuel industry (Bob was quite sincere, just a useful idiot).
Personally I think we are witnessing the demise of Western Civilisation. Overpopulation, migrations aka invasions with loss of our habitat, food and energy shortages, banks on the brink of another collapse … we will have nothing left in us to deal with the impending disaster that changing the atmosphere so drastically is bringing.
Dennis
I’m still chuckling after you showed Peter Minnett’s “insulation” conjecture is a BUST. that it’s actually an opposite effect. Too funny.
Thomas from Hot Topic did similar a while back, inadvertently agreeing with me that DLR is a low energy source that is not worth harnessing like solar power for any useful purpose even though there is plenty of it and freely available day AND night.
Haven’t seen Thomas here since. Too funny.
Richard C (NZ)
Without CO2 (or non-condensable GHGs) there would be no greenhouse effect.
On Earth, CO2 is the “control knob”. Water vapour is massive feedback.
I refer to your calculation: PIDOMA
Or in Wolfgang Pauli’s words: Not even wrong.
Richard C (NZ): “Dennis. I’m still chuckling after you showed Peter Minnett’s “insulation” conjecture is a BUST. that it’s actually an opposite effect. Too funny.”
Eh? How do you work that out… Have you gone off your rocker, old chap?
I’m going to do the decent thing; stop prodding you. You need to rest.
Dennis, since you are speaking ill of the dead, did you know Bob Carter personally?
I do agree with Dennis that Western Civilisation is possibly near its end, but for completely different reasons (hint: Roman Empire)
Dennis, do you have any evidence that CO2 is the “control knob”
There doesn’t seem to be any evidence in the geological history
Dennis
>”There is an interface or surface between the water and the air. The air has a layer of water below and the water has a layer of air above. There is a surface effect, a boundary layer; we see that with water in a narrow tube. My understanding is the “skin” is just that.”
WRONG
No it is NOT that at all Dennis. The “skin” is the top water layer (5cm). It is immediately BELOW the surface where all energy leaves the surface (LH, Rnl, SH). So obviously if that is where all the energy is leaving the surface (egress), that layer will be cooler than the layer immediately below it.
What you have described is at molecular nanometre scale (not centimetre as in skin layer). that is the actual “surface”. I posted a link upthread to an article on this.
There is no skin layer either side of noon in the tropics (not always the case of course) because solar insolation (ingress) overwhelms all the energy leaving the surface (egress). Therefore there is LESS heat loss with no skin as you rightly pointed out previously and MUCH more heat gain. This why there is a massive oceanic heat gain and energy accumulation in the tropics and why the sun heats the ocean in the tropics,
>”In a sense some of the heat leaving the “skin” is being returned to the water.”
WRONG
NO heat is transferred from the insulation to the water. It is simply a process of heat loss retardation. You say this yourself Dennis – “In neither case, providing the applied radiation is at a low enough level, is heat transferred in the water”
CO2 “insulation” is the same as any other insulation. Go back the dive suit study. You need a far greater concentration of CO2 (85%) to get a better insulation effect than AIR. Even then both AIR and CO2 have to be trapped in a fabric matrix or lattice,
>” We could apply heat from an external source, such as an electric radiator, and this is what the greenhouses gases do – supply longwave radiation. In neither case does the radiation need to penetrate the “skin”. In neither case, providing the applied radiation is at a low enough level, is heat transferred in the water.
LW radiation DOES penetrate the water skin Dennis – 100 microns max, most effective at 10 microns.
>”It just reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient across the “skin”.”
So now GHGs REDUCE the temperature gradient across the skin. You’ve changed your story from right to wrong Dennis. Taking this to the extreme, more and more LW radiation reduces the temperature gradient to zero i.e. no “skin” and less heat loss. But there is a limit to change in heat loss once the gradient reaches zero.
This is contrary to what you rightly pointed out previously (heh):
More GHGs (more LW radiation) = More temperature gradient = More heat loss.
@Maggy (September 25, 2016 at 9:08 pm)
Noted. A bit busy now. I’ll have a look later.
Dennis, I’m interested in your transition from “AGW Denier” to a follower of the AGW doctrine
Most of us “deplorables”, once having got a whiff of the rotting corpse that is modern climate science, tend to steer away from it rather than be drawn to it
What drew you to it? Which blinding lights came to you?
Dennis
>”In neither case, providing the applied radiation is at a low enough level, is heat transferred in the water.” LW radiation DOES penetrate the water skin Dennis – 100 microns max, most effective at 10 microns.
You are neglecting OLR. Yes LW penetrates the water surface but only 10 microns effective (100 max), but the NET heat flux, OLR – DLR, is OLR (Rnl).
You are also neglecting Latent Heat (LH) and Sensible Heat (SH). Both fluxes UP, LH being the greatest means of surface heat loss (egress).
@Dennis,
You have the advantage of having known Bob Carter personally.
I suspect I have the advantage of knowing one aspect of Bob Carter’s work better than most.
I am Castlecliffian… born & bred at Castlecliff, and have spent the last decade researching the natural history of the Wanganui-Sth Taranaki coast. I think the guy was a genius (in his thinking and in his mentoring of young geologists —Naish , included)
However, why don’t we keep the personal to Kiwiblog? (Quite happy to discuss the decline of the West, overpopulation, the Water Crisis, etc….. and you know you can slag me off as much as you like at KB)
I do understand insulation (up to a point)… at least I know what happens to your electricity bill when you have a household of teenage girls and a poorly insulated water cylinder.
What I haven’t seen talked about anywhere , is how much energy/heat leaves the ocean each night or during storm conditions.
Dennis
[Me] >”More GHGs (more LW radiation) = More temperature gradient = More heat loss.”
[Me] >“Dennis. I’m still chuckling after you showed Peter Minnett’s “insulation” conjecture is a BUST. that it’s actually an opposite effect. Too funny.”
[You] >”Eh? How do you work that out… Have you gone off your rocker, old chap?”
I realized I had been caught up in group-think and heat transfer calcs-on-the-fly (getting them wrong) and I had missed the underlying principle. You elucidated that perfectly Dennis. So I saw the principle, realized my calc had an error, I corrected it – Et Voila!:
From which:
QED.
Dennis
>”I refer to your calculation: PIDOMA. Or in Wolfgang Pauli’s words: Not even wrong.”
Which calculation? What are you talking about Dennis?
Copy the calc and show where it is wrong, if indeed, it is wrong. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke.