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
@Maggy
Re the paper you referenced, viz:
‘In situ measurement shows ocean boundary layer physical processes control catastrophic global warming’
Mathews & Mathews (2014)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288824717_In_situ_measurement_shows_ocean_boundary_layer_physical_processes_control_catastrophic_global_warming
Lots of problems with this. They make a DOUBLE anthro attribution statement at TOA & Ocean which is just the mainstream ASSUMPTION:
“1.1 Top of Atmosphere and top of ocean anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming
The top-of-the-atmosphere greenhouse gas heat trap resulting in a net energy imbalance lies over the ~9-16km deep atmosphere. It comprises mainly carbon dioxide because water vapor is not present in the troposphere. This forms the ………[got shut out of the paper at this point before I could copy the rest]”
They continue the TOA anthro attribution to ocean forcing i.e. a DOUBLE assumption. They repeat the “93%” of AGW goes into the ocean mantra but that is false. Theoretical GHG forcing is far greater than just ocean heat even if GHG-forced energy does go into the ocean (it doesn’t).
There looks to be some very good research of natural processes that I would have liked to read but I got shut out before I could. Can’t be bothered pursuing this paper any further because I would have to get a pdf from the author. Not worth the effort for me.
I’m not sure that Dennis was implying he knew Bob Carter personally. Maybe he could expand on this
@Maggy
>”What I haven’t seen talked about anywhere , is how much energy/heat leaves the ocean each night or during storm conditions.”
Yes, problematic. Night OK for in-situ work but storms not so much.
In lieu of storms you can look at the effect of wind variation in the following papers. I think Fairall et al followed the entire diurnal cycle but not 100% sure. Obviously there is no heat gain at night from insolation – just heat loss.
‘Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature’
C. W. Fairall, E. F. Bradley, J. S. Godfrey, G. A. Wick, J. B. Edson, G. S. Young (1996)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3f0px5j3ao12y01/Fairall%20et%20al%201996.pdf?dl=0
Value this paper (Fairall), it is paywalled now.
Clouds, Radiation, and the Diurnal Cycle of Sea Surface Temperature in the Tropical Western Pacific
P. J. Webster, C. A. Clayson, and J. A. Curry
https://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf05/extended_abs/webster_pj.pdf
Cronin and McPhaden (1997), ‘The upper ocean heat balance in the western equatorial Pacific warm pool during September-December 1992′
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/cron1713.shtml
# # #
BTW Maggy. We’ve raked over a lot of this several times in threads previously and that’s where those papers came from. I’ve also done same at other blogs some years ago (warmy enclaves). Fairall et al, and interpretation (and miss-interpretation) of the paper and skin physics in respect to Minnett’s conjecture, was a hot topic. The AO interface physics still is obviously. I seem to remember just coming up with the same heat transfer calc as upthread (once I’d refined and corrected the rationale). Debating was easier because I wasn’t dealing with Dennis then. Rob Painting, author of the SkS Minnett article (and Hot Topic commenter a while back), was one of my adversaries. Rob Painting has gone very quiet I note, completely absent from blogs.
A blazing argument erupted once a while back here at CCG between myself and Richard Treadgold over the meaning of the word “most” in respect to sub-surface heat accumulation in the tropics and incoming energy. Cronin and McPhaden resolved it to a degree (maybe). RT and were just at cross-purposes from what I remember, but hey.
It was fun.
>”Rob Painting has gone very quiet I note, completely absent from blogs.”
Last I saw of him was this in 2013:
Consensus
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S.A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024+.
That’s nearly the entire SkS team. Jokimaki’s missing. Rob must have run out of puff after that. The science being settled an’ all.
Nothing from Keith Hunter and his Otago University pal’s either.
Andy
>”Nothing from Keith Hunter and his Otago University pal’s either.”
What was the name of the Otago guy that used to comment at Hot Topic ?
Andy
>”Nothing from Keith Hunter and his Otago University pal’s either.” What was the name of the Otago guy that used to comment at Hot Topic ?
Mike Palin
>”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)”
>”What you [Dennis] 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.”
Dennis might also be thinking of meniscus and surface tension:
Meniscus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meniscus
IPCC AR5, WG 1, Headlines from the Summary for Policymakers: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
Richard, how does that square with your statement “The IPCC make no such categorical statements”?
Hi James.
You say:
Thanks for the question. The IPCC statement justifies mine, since the inclusion of “It is extremely likely” makes it a conditional statement. You were quoted as saying: “The evidence showed that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming” — very much a categorical statement. Did you say that?
100% Carbon Dioxide insulation
‘Numerical investigation of heat transfer on the building insulation materials with successive layers of polystyrene and various inert gases’
Murat TEKELİOĞLU* (2015)
*Department of Mechanical Engineering, Karabük University Turkey
Abstract
Savings from heating and cooling energy use while not compromising indoor comfort condition is essential to reduce the energy costs on buildings. In order to accomplish this goal, an alternative is to search for a new insulation material that is an effective insulator and inexpensive at the same time. In the present work, various insulation materials created with successive layers of polystyrene and either of the following inert gases; carbon dioxide, argon, nitrogen, or air were investigated. Radiation effect on the polystyrene surfaces was included. Based on 1.0𝑐𝑚 of gas layer size, 𝑅𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 (thermal resistance) of carbon dioxide exceeded 𝑅𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 for argon, nitrogen, or air. This result identified the carbon dioxide as a potential medium to be used inside insulation materials. Insulation effectiveness of carbon dioxide relative to single polystyrene without any radiation effect was calculated for gas layer sizes of 1.0𝑐𝑚, 0.86𝑐𝑚, and 0.6𝑐𝑚 on 3𝑐𝑚-thick insulatio material, and it was, respectively, 31.8%, 28.6%, and 22.0%. Radiation effect on the polystyrene surfaces needs to be kept at minimum for a better insulation. An insulation material with carbon dioxide layered structure is expected to pay off its implementation cost in regard to energy savings in a reasonable amount of time (2.39𝑦𝑟). Argon was the next alternative to carbon dioxide gas.
5. Conclusions
Several insulation materials constructed with successive layers of the polystyrene material and either of the inert gases carbon dioxide, argon, nitrogen, or air were numerically modeled and then solved and evaluated. Incorporation of the successive carbon dioxide and argon layers between the polystyrene layers was promising. The filler inert gases are expected to be well sealed-off to prevent their leakage.
Any advection inside the inert gas layers needs to be suppressed for better insulation capability, which limits the size of the inert gas layers on the insulation materials.
Temperature gradient acted favorable on the insulation material effectiveness, in general. High emissivity at the polystyrene surfaces is unwanted rendering the insulation materials less favorable compared to the condition of absence of any surface emissivity. Carbon dioxide provided the most favorable insulation capability followed by argon, nitrogen, and air in respective order. Carbon dioxide, if it is acquired cheaply, can also be economically viable. A large gas gap size is favorable, which is, however, restricted by the corresponding high value of 𝑅𝑎.
The insulation materials were found to pay their implementation costs relative the single glass-fiber insulation material usage in a reasonably short period of time. Carbon dioxide and argon were the most favorable among the other inert gases. There seemed to have been a limited improvement over the use of the single polystyrene material as this polystyrene material had a relatively low thermal conductivity. Nevertheless, even in the case of XPS material, carbon dioxide and argon use showed promise. Neon gas may be equally considered as a choice for the filler inert gas but with argon still performing better than neon. Helium is not seen a viable choice as the filler gas.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jtst/11/1/11_2016jtst0015/_pdf
# # #
He’s quibbling over the insulation advantage of 100% CO2 over AIR etc.
Meanwhile, climate science thinks a minuscule change to the 0.043% atm CO2 “greenhouse blanket” insulation (at 2014 concentration) will have catastrophic heat buildup consequences.
Numpties.
“Meanwhile, climate science thinks a minuscule change to the 0.043% atm CO2 “greenhouse blanket” insulation (at 2014 concentration) will have catastrophic heat buildup consequences.”
What are you on about you moron.
[TEKELİOĞLU] >”Carbon dioxide [100%] provided the most favorable insulation capability [by a small margin] followed by argon, nitrogen, and air in respective order.”
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jtst/11/1/11_2016jtst0015/_pdf
[Weinberg & Thalmann] >”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) [factor increase 1.2]. Suit CO2 concentration averaged 86 ± 8% in the CO2 group and 4 ~ 0.8% in the2 AIR group.”
http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/6709
[Me] >“Meanwhile, climate science thinks a minuscule change to the 0.043% atm CO2 “greenhouse blanket” insulation (at 2014 concentration) will have catastrophic heat buildup consequences.”
[Dennis N Horne] >”What are you on about you moron”
The Greenhouse Effect – Introduction
“……parts of our atmosphere act as an insulating blanket of just the right thickness, trapping sufficient solar energy to keep the global average temperature in a pleasant range. The Martian blanket is too thin, and the Venusian blanket is way too thick! The ‘blanket’ here is a collection of atmospheric gases called ‘greenhouse gases’ based on the idea that the gases also ‘trap’ heat like the glass walls of a greenhouse do.
These gases, mainly water vapor ( ), carbon dioxide (), methane (), and nitrous oxide (), all act as effective global insulators.”
https://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
‘Understanding Climate Science’ – Richard Wolfson andtephen Schneider
“greenhouse gases as a moderately insulating blanket that traps heat. Just as a blanket covers your body and keeps you warm, so the greenhouse gases blanket Earth and keep ……”
“environmental activists proposing expensive sacrifices to avoid catastrophic climate change”
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ch01ClimatePolicy.pdf
# # #
Climate scientists (and Dennis) obviously don’t know zip about insulation. 85% – 100% CO2 is required to get a better insulation effect than just atmospheric AIR.
“Climate scientists (and Dennis) obviously don’t know zip about insulation. 85% – 100% CO2 is required to get a better insulation effect than just atmospheric AIR.”
What are you on about you moron.
James
>”IPCC AR5, WG 1, Headlines from the Summary for Policymakers: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Richard, how does that square with your statement “The IPCC make no such categorical statements”?
Richard Treadgold was referencing NIWA. viz,
“Main cause” is anything between 51% and 100% for all influence, not just 47% to CO2. But where’s the IPCC’s “categorical” (unambiguously explicit) breakdown of influence that explicitly isolates CO2 influence?
NASA’s breakdown (similar to IPCC AR5 TS TFE-4 Figure 4.1 a below) will stand in for the IPCC here:
NASA Energy Budget Changes 1950 – 2004 Figure (a) (Theoretical forcing)
http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/cumulative_forcing.gif
CO2 is roughly 50% (860/1720) of total theoretical GHG forcing so NIWA are right so far (47%). But the IPCC says between 16.4% and 59.8% of total theoretical GHG “forcing” simply went out to space as OLR (see TFE 4-1 Figure 4.1 b):
IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b)
TS TFE.4-1 (a) (b)
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg
That (NASA budget) reduces NIWA’s “47%” CO2 influence to 30% and below. Where do the IPCC state this or similar?
NASA’s Energy Budget Changes (similar to IPCC AR5 TS TFE-4 Figure 4.1 a) also contradicts (by a huge amount) your claim, and that of the IPCC, that:
Clearly that’s not the case when theory generates 1720 ZetaJoules of excess energy just from 1950 – 2004. There has been less than 300 ZetaJoules OHC gain since 1950 (none 1950 – 1970) according to NODC.
Your “93%” claim, was made under the auspices of the Royal Society which is governed by the Royal Society Act (statutory law) to provide “expert advice”. Obviously your claim is not “expert” irrespective of what the IPCC says (they are wrong too).
Worse. After 25 years and 5 assessment reports, the IPCC have no observational evidence to support their anthropogenic ocean warming attribution. They make attribution-by-speculatio-and-assumption. They only “expect” “air-sea fluxes” to be the mechanism in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution. But they could not isolate any in Chapter 3 Observations. Their surface Earth’s Energy Budget does show any net downward flux other than solar:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
The Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes any heat flux down to the surface anyway. And the physics of the AO interface precludes any “into” the ocean too. When john McLean pointed out in the Chapter 10 Expert Review that effective surface penetration was only microns (10 microns effective – Hale & Querry 1973, Fairall et a l 1996) his review comment was rejected on the basis of speculation and assumption:
Maximum DLR penetration of the ocean surface is only 100 microns. That is about the thickness of a human hair. Worse, the CO2 component of CO2 is only 2% (Wang & Liang 2009). In the 1976 Standard Atmosphere, CO2 is only 2% (6.W.m-2) of total DLR. You can only add about 1 W.m-2 since then. Berkeley Labs only found 0.2 W.m-2 2000 – 2010.
There’s a lot wrong with the claims you are making James.
Dennis.
Address the insulation facts. Read the work of insulation specialists. Expand your moronic argument.
James
Correction – “Berkeley Labs only found 0.2 W.m-2 [ per decade ] 2000 – 2010.”
Richard Treadgold: “Read the work of insulation specialists”
Why? What’s insulation got to do with GHE?
I have tried to post an answer two or three times. Comments don’t appear.
Dennis
>”What’s insulation got to do with GHE?”
And,
Everything apparently.
Dennis said
“Why? What’s insulation got to do with GHE?”
Good question, which makes me wonder why you were going on about lagged pipes
I thought CO2 was a “blanket” according to Magic School Bus Science
Morons
Oops RC beat me to it about the Blanket. I see The Blanket is a commonly accepted scientific principle
Dennis Dennis, I know that watching the US Pres. debate was painful.
Have a wee dram and a cigar.
>”I see The Blanket is a commonly accepted scientific principle”
Heh.
It is actually the commonly accepted insulation principle in respect to inert gasses like AIR and CO2.
But those gases must be either enclosed to avoid advection (TEKELİOĞLU), or better still, enclosed in a fabric matrix or lattice (Weinberg & Thalmann) to achieve an insulation effect – like blankets.
And CO2 has to be 85% – 100% concentration.
None of that in the troposphere of course.
Morons
The “insulation like a blanket” used to describe the GHE has nothing to do with the insulation properties of CO2 as a space-filling gas in a container compared with other gases.
Let’s assume you know silver is a very good conductor of heat. Let’s assume you know silver is used in the thermos flask which insulates the contents and it’s very successful.
A conductor and insulator… Mon Dieu! Mein Gott!
Dennis,
That was Richard C.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
“The rate of flow of heat out of the ocean is determined by the temperature gradient in the ‘cool skin layer’, which resides within the thin viscous surface layer of ocean that is in contact with the atmosphere. It’s so named because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the atmosphere, and therefore becomes cooler than the water immediately below. Despite being only 0.1 to 1mm thick on average, this skin layer is the major player in the long-term warming of the oceans.
“Curious behavior in the cool skin layer
The cool skin behaves quite differently to the water below, because it is the boundary where the ocean and air meet, and therefore turbulence (the transfer of energy/heat via large-scale motion) falls away as it approaches this boundary. No longer free to jiggle around and transfer heat via this large scale motion, water molecules in the layer are forced together and heat is only able to travel through the skin layer by way of conduction. With conduction the steepness of the temperature gradient is critical to the rate of heat transfer.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
“However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here – how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but also helps to control the ocean-atmosphere heat flux. (The ‘skin layer‘ is the very thin – up to 1 mm – layer at the top of ocean that is in direct contact with the atmosphere). Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures”
Skin is 0.1-1mm.
Absorbs DLR from the GHE.
Warming the skin slows loss of heat from the warm water below to the cold air above.
Richard C (NZ).
You don’t seem to have even a basic understanding of energy transfer.
Your calculation is rubbish. CO2 is the primary forcing therefore the most important GHG, its direct contribution is 20%. Water vapour is 50% and thus the most dominant GHG but it is never more than an amplifying feedback. Cloud 25%. CH4, N2O etc 5%. Without CO2 there would be no GHE, the temperature would be -18 so no water vapour to speak of.
Dennis, do you have any direct evidence that Earth would be-18C with no CO2?
Dennis
>”The “insulation like a blanket” used to describe the GHE has nothing to do with the insulation properties of CO2 as a space-filling gas in a container compared with other gases.”
Yes it does Dennis. Radiation is one of the insulation factors accounted for by TEKELİOĞLU, conduction is the other. Both AIR and CO2 must be enclosed in either a space or a fabric “like a blanket” to produce a pronounced insulation effect i.e. prevent advection that is present in the atmosphere. Climate scientists, neglecting AIR insulation, think unenclosed and non-fabric entrapped CO2 at 0.043% concentration acts “like a blanket” in the atmosphere (see quotes upthread). It doesn’t.
TEKELİOĞLU:
Air is the earth’s insulator but inefficient because of advection. Any atm CO2 insulation effect is minimal because there’s not enough of it in the atmosphere (only 0.043%). To get a better insulation effect from CO2 (including radiative effects) to that of AIR you have increase the concentration of CO2 to 85 – 100%.
And to get an efficient insulation effect from both AIR and CO2 at 100% you have to enclose it.
[Dennis] >”A conductor and insulator… Mon Dieu! Mein Gott!”
[TEKELİOĞLU] >”“The aim here is to suppress the effect of natural convection inside the gas layers and to make it pure conduction.” [with respect to advection – not radiation]
[TEKELİOĞLU] >“The heat transfer equations, Eqs. (2-5), were set up after considering the effective modes of heat transfer from neighboring surface nodes toward the surface node under consideration. The surface node 1 (𝑇1), for instance, included the conductive heat transfer from the boundary surface 𝑠, 1 (𝑇𝑠,1) and the combined conductive and radiative heat transfer from the neighboring surface node 2 (𝑇2). The same held for the second surface node 2 (𝑇2) with combined conductive and radiative heat transfer from the surface node 1 (𝑇1) and conductive heat transfer from the neighboring surface node 3 (𝑇3).”
Insulation is about conduction as much as it is about radiation. In fact, to make the insulation effect efficient convection/advection must be prevented to achieve pure conduction and radiation.
Read the TEKELİOĞLU paper Dennis.
Complete nonsense.
No understanding of the science at all.
A good CO2 level for humans is about 300ppm. Drops low, maybe 200ppm, we would ice up. 400ppm we’re heading for dramatic changes including disruptive rises in sea level.
Your head is full of complete twaddle. Have some ECT and start learning again; from informed scientists.
Morons.
Under what conditions does it stay warmer on a hot day after the Sun goes down
1. Clear cloudless sky
2. Layer of cloud
Why?
Does an airplane go bump when it flies though the blanket ?
Is that why it is really cold up there, because it is above the blanket?
Andy. Only if you’re coming from the wrong side of the blanket.
Dennis
>”Warming the skin slows loss of heat from the warm water below to the cold air above.”
Not forgetting the sun completely overwhelms the cool skin at noon in the tropics i.e. no cool skin. Less heat loss. The sun progressively warms the skin from sunrise to noon and decreasing heat loss results (actually a massive heat gain).
Minnett’s conjecture is highly problematic.
[Minnett] >”Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux”
But what happens over a decade?
Warming the skin relative to warm layer decreases heat loss diurnally. Taking that to limit, at noon in the tropics the sun warms the skin to the same temperature as the warm layer i.e. NO skin temperature gradient at all, the gradient is governed by the warm-layer to AIR temperature differential. SSR change makes a huge difference to this.
>”Skin is 0.1-1mm. Absorbs DLR from the GHE.”
But no skin at noon in the tropics because solar power overwhelms it (much less heat loss). After noon, solar power recedes, heat loss from the surface takes energy away from the surface that was being replenished by solar at noon to naturally the surface will be cooler than the warm ;layer. A temperature gradient develops over the skin. Peter Minnett shows the relationship between increasing skin temperature gradient to increasing OLR (net LW. Rnl):
Minnett Figure
http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/oceanskin-Minnettgraph.gif
Increasing the skin temperature gradient from 0.1 K to 0.3 K increases net LW which is OLR cooling (Rnl) from 0 W.m-2 to -100 W,m-2. Global average Rnl is -52.4 W.m-2 (Stephens et al). But this is not a decadal phenomenon.
At night in the tropics there is no solar power. Heat loss is maximum (HS + LH + OLR/Rnl). Skin temperature gradient is maximum. DLR effect is maximum relative to solar (zero). Therefore, DLR would have to increase at night to warm the surface and decrease the skin temperature gradient and therefore decrease heat loss. But Peter is neglecting SSR change which has a far greater effect on oceanic heat gain/loss.
Peter is saying that a tiny increment in the GHG component of DLR (CO2 0.2 W.m-2/decade) makes all the difference to the skin temperature gradient and heat loss over decades. Well, how much?
Minnett’s relationship: y = 0.002*x -0.100
0.002 * 0.2/decade = -0.0004 K/decade
OK, we can quantify this in terms of surface heat loss by heat transfer calc over 0.1-1mm, say 0.55mm middle:
Rate = k•A•(T1 – T2)/d Watts
WITH skin differential reduced 0.0004 K/decade:
k = 0.58
Area = m2 = 1
T1 = 20 °C
T2 = 19.9996°C
depth = m = 0.00055
Rate = (0.58 W/m/°C)•(1 m2)•(0.0004°C)/(0.00055 m)
Rate = 0.42 W.m-2 W/m2 per decade
0.42 W.m-2/decade decreased surface heat loss with CO2 0.2 W.m-2/decade change.
This change of surface heating rate has NOT been observed. The surface heating rate remained unchanged, fluctuating around 0.6 W.m-2 2000 – 2010 Loeb et al (2012):
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg
Peter Minnett’s conjecture is BUSTED.
>”2. Layer of cloud”
Cloud is liquid water – not gas (water vapour).
Dennis,
Interesting. What leads you to say this? It’s 400 ppm outdoors now and we’re doing fine. Indoors, CO2 concentrations normally don’t exceed 1,000 ppm, except in meeting rooms, but routinely reach several thousand. On nuclear-powered submarines (where human performance is keenly monitored) average concentrations are between 3500 ppm and 4000 ppm and range up to 11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003). No problem. Of course, we cannot live with zero carbon dioxide.
So what do you mean by good?
>”This change of surface heating rate has NOT been observed.”
The IPCC admits no “statistically significant” trend exists in the surface imbalance in Chapter 2 AR5. There would have to be for Minnett’s conjecture, or the IPCC’s mechanism, to be valid.
>”A good CO2 level for humans is about 300ppm.”
At 2014, CO2 was 0.043%. At this concentration (or lack of it) the insulation effect of CO2 is completely negligible. 2 papers upthread demonstrate this Dennis. The radiative effect was specifically accounted for in the TEKELİOĞLU paper for CO2 at 100%.
Richard Treadgold.
300ppm because in round figures that’s about the maximum it’s been since we’ve been around.
400ppm because we haven’t seen the end of the warming 400 is causing yet and there’s more CO2 coming. By the time Earth reaches a steady state the temperatures may well be too high for human life.
Quite happy for you to set up your own biosphere with >11000ppm. I’ll bring popcorn.
In the meantime why don’t you read and watch and learn some science from the scientists who are taking the time and trouble to explain it?
(Apologies for blaming you for pointing me at CO2 as an insulting substance.)
Under what conditions does it stay warmer on a hot day after the Sun goes down
1. Clear cloudless sky
2. Layer of cloud
Why?
Answer: “Cloud is liquid water – not gas (water vapour).”
Wrong answer.
Two attempts left.
@Dennis,
Outdoors; it’s much higher in the cave. You give no reason to call it good.
Poppycock. Prove it, you pugnacious panic-merchant; you antique alarmist, you.
Heh, heh. All I’ve done is show humans perform perfectly well in very high levels of CO2. You pretend I said it was ideal. I didn’t.
Good tip, thanks. I’ve been paying close attention for over a decade and I ask questions and point out inconsistencies when I see them, though there are serious defects in the theory of DAGW that remain unanswered. One of the scientists made a mistake in public just the other day and I told him what it was. Turning into an activist has made him forget his usual scientific caution, which isn’t good in a scientist.
In the meantime, our attention is distracted and our resources more and more diverted from real pollution and real-world problems like clean water supply, security, health and education.
Cloud is liquid water (and solid water) Dennis.
What is Cloud Liquid Water?
Cloud Liquid Water is a measure of the total liquid water contained in a cloud in a vertical column of atmosphere. It does NOT include solid water (snow, ice). Cloud water links the hydrological and radiative components of the climate system and are an interesting area of research. They function as both a warming greenhouse influence as well as a cooling factor as they increase the Earth’s albedo, reflecting incoming solar energy back into space. Clouds can therefore provide both a positive and negative feedback to a changing climate. Less is known about clouds than many other measurements and researchers are now focusing on cloud change studies.
http://www.remss.com/measurements/cloud-liquid-water-content
These water phases, solid liquid and gas are major components of DLR. CO2 not so much (7 W.m-2)
What we have been arguing over is the insulation effect (radiative and conductive) of negligible CO2 concentration in the atmosphere vs AIR. And the difference between the insulation effect (radiative and conductive) of CO2 at 85% and 100% vs AIR.
2 papers provide the relative merits.
Clearly CO2 is a better insulator (radiative and conductive) than AIR at high concentrations of CO2 but it is not a huge gain. In other words, to get a better CO2 insulation effect than AIR very high concentrations of CO2 are required.
Relative Humidity is in respect to water vapour:
Temperature-Moisture Relationship – Atmospheric Moisture
You should realize that moisture in the atmosphere can appear in three states–solid, liquid, and a gaseous vapor. It is very rare when the air does not contain some water vapor. When the air is cooled to its saturation point, condensation occurs in the form of clouds and perhaps precipitation. At very high altitudes where the air is very cold, clouds consist of tiny ice crystals. And, of course, precipitation can occur in the form of snow and hail. […]
Relative Humidity : The ratio of the actual amount of water vapor in a given volume of air to the amount which could be present if the air were saturated at the same temperature. It’s commonly expressed as a percentage […]
The importance of air temperature to moisture is obvious. At 80° [F], the air has a relatively low humidity and is relatively dry. As it cools, the humidity increases, reaching its saturation point at 40°. Now the air is very moist, and clouds will form. The dew point of the air is 40° in all three containers in the illustration.
http://ocw.usu.edu/Forest__Range__and_Wildlife_Sciences/Wildland_Fire_Management_and_Planning/Unit_4__Temperature-Moisture_Relationship_4.html
Obviously if water is the major component of DLR than water controls DLR. CO2 doesn’t. And at negliigible atmospheric concentrations it doesn’t control insulation either, AIR and H2O do.
Under what conditions does it stay warmer on a hot day after the Sun goes down
1. Clear cloudless sky
2. Layer of cloud
Why?
Answer: “Cloud is liquid water – not gas (water vapour).”
Wrong answer.
Two attempts left.
Answer 2. Mumbo-jumbo
Wrong answer.
One attempt left
>Answer 2. Mumbo-jumbo”
No Dennis, the answer, supported by facts not “mumbo jumbo”, was “Obviously if water is the major component of DLR then water controls DLR. CO2 doesn’t. And at negliigible atmospheric concentrations it doesn’t control insulation either, AIR and H2O do”
Clouds being water in combinations of phases. CO2 having exactly nothing to do with the dominating cloud and Total Precipitable Water (TPW) influence on DLR. The atmospheric insulation effect is already established by AIR. H2O modifies it significantly in the atmosphere, CO2 at atm levels doesn’t.
Richard Treadgold
When the Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences call the evidence clear and the science incontrovertible and the global community of scientists agrees we’ve got what a rational layman calls a fact.
We know there’s no actual proof outside the world of mathematics. But we live in the real world and make real decisions that have real-world outcomes.
So you won on semantics. Congratulations. Have a gold star for a red herring.
On the other matter. If you can’t see the difference between a high level of CO2 in a room or submarine and a high level in the atmosphere you need to learn the basics of climate science.
Of course you won’t, because the truth would be too difficult to bear.
Answer 3. Still no meaningful answer.
You are a tiresome fool who can’t answer a simple question with a straight answer.
Would it force you to face reality instead of living in the world of delusions you have constructed?
>”The atmospheric insulation effect is already established by AIR. H2O modifies it significantly in the atmosphere, CO2 at atm levels doesn’t.”
‘Calculating downward longwave radiation under clear and cloudy conditions over a tropical lowland forest site: an evaluation of model schemes for hourly data’
Toby R. Marthews & Yadvinder Malhi & Hiroki Iwata (2012)
Abstract
Field measurements of radiation fluxes—notably downwelling longwave radiation flux (LW flux)—are as yet rare or nonexistent outside a very select number of sites in the tropics. Data gaps can only be filled through the use of estimation schemes based on measurements of other meteorological
variables, and there is a need for recommendations on best practice in this area. We selected 18 contrasting semiempirical estimation schemes for downward longwave radiation, based on air emissivities, combined with six different sky cover estimation schemes and compared the expected
longwave flux with hourly observations from a flux tower at Caxiuanã in Brazil. Of all schemes tested, the Dilley–Kimball emissivity scheme combined with Kasten and Czeplak’s sky cover scheme during the day and Dilley and O’Brien’s model B scheme at night proved to be the most reliable, yielding estimates of LW flux generally within 20 W/m2 of measurements across all time points.
1 Introduction
Values of Ld at any particular time and place are controlled by shortwave (SW) irradiance, cloud cover, cloud type and depth, as well as ambient values of vapour pressure, temperature and atmospheric precipitable water.
Fig. 3 The observed diurnal cycle of air emissivity measured at Caxiuanã, Brazil, during April 2002 to July 2003 (grey x, displaced 30 min earlier for clarity) and means for each hour of the corresponding estimate from all emissivity schemes (for codes and definitions, see Tables 2 and 4; clear sky schemes in black, all-sky schemes in red). It may be noticed that the Idso scheme (CID) is consistently high, as mentioned by Prata (1996), and the Konzelmann scheme (CKZ) consistently the lowest. Only mean values over all time
points of each estimate are plotted without showing variation about the mean (±1SD was comparable to the size of the symbol for all except the all-sky schemes AAN, ABR, AMU, AHY, AGB and ALH)
http://www.yadvindermalhi.org/uploads/1/8/7/6/18767612/marthews_longwave_radiation_tac_2012.pdf
# # #
Ld is already there without modification by H2O. H2O causes Ld fluctuation.
CO2 is not considered to be a control factor.
You are a tiresome fool who can’t answer a simple question with a straight answer.
Dennis you are a tiresome fool who cannot answer a simple question with a straight answer
What evidence do you have that Earth will be -18C if we took all the CO2 out
I’m just asking a simple question, a tiny little question,
Read the science Dennis. That answers your question.
Again, Ld already exists due to AIR before modification by H2O (e.g. cloud cover and type) or SUN in the diurnal cycle. Therefore AIR is the establishing atm insulation factor. H2O in its various forms (3 phases) causes Ld fluctuation in AIR and therefore controls insulation fluctuation.
CO2 is not considered to be a control factor of Ld in AIR at the very low atm CO2 concentration (how can it be?). Therefore CO2 is not a control factor of atmospheric insulation either.
Andy. You are a troll with a well-documented track record. I’m not playing your games. Find out the answer for yourself then you can nitpick to your heart’s content while playing with yourself
Hint: Look at temperatures on the moon.
Richard C (NZ)
Pants on fire.
>”Hint: Look at temperatures on the moon.”
The moon has no AIR Dennis. No AIR, no insulation either in or out:
Daytime, about 100 degrees C.
Night, can reach about minus 173 degrees
Wind controls atm advection/convection at surface too. More wind more heat loss irrespective of clouds.
Wind speed controls oceanic sub-surface gain/loss too (Fairall et al). In the tropics the “compensating depth” rises as wind speed increases therefore less or no heat gain, even heat loss.
Hi Richard –
Yes, the IPCC statement does use the term “extremely likely”, which translates to >95% probability rather than to absolute certainty. So you could say that’s a slight extrapolation on my part, or on the journalist’s. I would take this level of certainty as pretty conclusive, though perhaps you wouldn’t? If you were told that the aircraft you were about to board had a >95% chance of crashing, would I be right in thinking that you’d still board, as a crash is “uncertain”?
I am not aware of plausible competing mechanisms that account for the climate changes that have been observed over the past several decades, other than human-induced greenhouse gas increase. Are there any? How would you explain the increased heat content of the climate system?
James
Richard C (NZ)
Well, since you don’t know I’m going to tell you. During the evening after a hot day Earth is still radiating LR.
On a cloudless evening the radiation passes through the atmosphere into space. If there is a layer of cloud, most outgoing radiation is absorbed and some is returned to the Earth’s surface. Thus keeping it noticeably warmer longer, or, warming it.
This is an easily observable aspect of the greenhouse effect.
If there were no CO2 or other GHGs like methane in the atmosphere to raise the temperature by absorption and re-radiation downwards, that is the greenhouse effect, then the water on Earth would be frozen as it has in the past. The temperature needs to be forced high enough to generate water vapour. Thus water vapour is a feedback not a primary forcing.
This is all standard physics and chemistry.
The fact you work so hard to find all sorts of nonsensical explanations for what is obvious shows how desperate you are to avoid facing the truth: Our CO2 is causing global warming and climate change.
If the oceans started to boil you’d still deny it.
James
>”How would you explain the increased heat content of the climate system?”
Constant 0.6 W.m-2 surface solar radiation (SSR) excess over surface heat loss this century (imbalance) accounts for OHC 2000 – 2010 (Loeb et al 2012). The surface forcing is exactly the same as the TOA imbalance (0.6 W.m-2, Stephens et al 2012). The heat gain is simply solar forced at surface into the oceanic heat sink which Dr Keven Trenberth says adds “10 – 100 years” to the climate system.
You’ve ignored a long comment of mine, addressed to you, which addresses exactly this. All this is laid out upthread after your initial comment with more citations and graphs.
There are huge problems with both your’s and the IPCC’s theoretical GHG energy and actual OHC gain. IPCC RF forcing theory generates 1720 ZetaJoules of excess GHG energy 1950 – 2004 but there was less than 300 ZetaJoules OHC gain.
Upthread I’ve laid out why anthropogenic ocean warming attribution is impossible contrary to the IPCC’s attribution-by-speculation-and-assumption. Their attribution is scientific fraud therefore. Oceanic heat gain is easily accounted for by SSR – not TSI at TOA as the IPCC parameterize. The IPCC explicitly discarded ‘surface forcing’ (e.g. SSR) in AR5.
Dennis
>”On a cloudless evening the radiation passes through the atmosphere into space. If there is a layer of cloud, most outgoing radiation is absorbed and some is returned to the Earth’s surface. Thus keeping it noticeably warmer longer, or, warming it.”
Yes, this is EXACTLY what I’ve shown. AIR establishes the earth’s insulation, both in and out, as demonstrated by moon extremes ( (+ve) 100 C vs (-ve) 173 C ). Water in its various forms, solid liquid and (clouds) and gas (water vapour), creates fluctuations in the insulation (so does wind) therefore water (and wind) controls the insulation fluctuation to the AIR insulation you describe.
CO2 at atm levels has nothing to do with this because its insulation effect is negligible. You need 85 – 100% CO2 to get better insulation than AIR and H2O. CO2 is not a player in cloud driven DLR changes.
Actually Dennis, I did provide a bit of a teaser to my line of questioning with a link to Skeptical Science
Never mind. I had no idea I was a “well known troll”. Is there a database somewhere?
Richard C (NZ)
Absolute total inexecrable nonsense. You have zero understanding of the atmosphere. Zero.
How anyone can be corrected so often and still cling to bullsh1t is beyond me.
Dennis asks me to compare the “atmosphere” of the moon to that of Earth to understand the role of CO2 on the atmosphere
Most amusing!
Actually maybe you are onto something
If we take away the Blanket, all the air will rush out into the big hole in the sky
‘A First Look At SURFRAD’
Willis Eschenbach / November 25, 2014
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/25/a-first-look-at-surfrad/
Figure 1. Average 10-metre surface air temperature (black, °C) and average downwelling infrared radiation (blue, W/m2) for the year 2010. Measured at the SURFRAD station in Goodwin Creek, Mississippi. Average covers the entire year, and is shown repeated twice (two days) for clarity.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/air-temperature-and-downwelling-ir-goodwin-creek.png
SURFRAD Radiation Plot – Table Mountain, Colorado USA (TBL)
Downwelling Infrared radiation 26 September 2016
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57eb490b5f00d.png
From
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/pick.html
See also:
Upwelling Infrared
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57eb4eea2809d.png
Infrared Net Radiation
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57eb5011848cd.png
# # #
For Table Mountain.
Obviously Upwelling Infrared drives Infrared Net Radiation (500 W.m-2 OLR vs 302+ W.m-2 DLR, Net -198 W,m-2 OLR ish)
Solar power has driven DLR on 26 September. The peak (zenith) is between 3pm and 5pm in the afternoon, the nadir between 3am and 5am at night . The AIR establishes the insulation at the average of the curve. Solar power has driven the above fluctuations in the AIR insulation.
Note the difference in average DLR between Goodwin Creek, Mississippi (moist) and Table Mountain, Colorado (dry). H2O increases the overall insulation of AIR.
I will try to find a day that demonstrates a cloud-driven DLR fluctuation in the solar-modified AIR insulation. Not much happening in the 26 September graph.
>”I will try to find a day that demonstrates a cloud-driven DLR fluctuation in the solar-modified AIR insulation. Not much happening in the 26 September graph.”
Same Plot, Previous Day – Table Mountain 25 September 2016
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57eb52cde104f.png
>”Solar power has driven DLR on 26 September.” [Table Mountain]
And obviously solar power and AIR temperature has driven annually averaged DLR fluctuation at Goodwin Creek, Mississippi too.
Goodwin Creek, Mississippi annually averaged DLR for year 2010.
Figure 1. Average 10-metre surface air temperature (black, °C) and average downwelling infrared radiation (blue, W/m2) for the year 2010. Measured at the SURFRAD station in Goodwin Creek, Mississippi. Average covers the entire year, and is shown repeated twice (two days) for clarity.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/air-temperature-and-downwelling-ir-goodwin-creek.png
Andy: “all the air will rush out into the big hole in the sky”
There was an old denier called Andy
Who was left feeling ever so randy
He’d have liked a bit of hair pie
But saw a big hole in the sky
Which suited him just fine and dandy
Very good Dennis! Spot on
We’ve raked over Table Mountain DLR at CCG in Oct 2012 and Jun 2016. You can find the CCG threads with a Google search of CCG:
Met Office agrees with global warming stasis October 14, 2012
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/10/met-office-agrees-with-global-warming-stasis/
De Lange and Leyland vindicated June 21, 2016
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/06/de-lange-and-leyland-vindicated/comment-page-1/
First time 4 years ago (to my knowledge).
Richard C (NZ)
There was an old denier called Rich-ard
Who could not get much of a hard
Twas an era of CO2-free air
Too cold to go to it bare
But at least the old fella’s not charred
Table Mountain/Goodwin Creek DLR a bit too inconvenient Dennis?
I see you’ve reverted to form instead.
Off topic, I noted last night that the whole of South Australia was without electricity
It was too windy for the birdchoppers, so they had to shut them down
Caused by climate change, of course. What else?
>”Caused by climate change, of course. What else?”
Will Steffen got in quick – “The atmosphere is packing much more energy than 70 years ago” apparently. There was a more intense storm 50 years ago. Totally ignored the massive COLD front too.
JoNova: How long before someone blames climate change?
—————–
UPDATE#1: Bingo. Just 5 hours for Will Steffen to claim it’s “driven by climate change”:
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/09/entire-state-of-south-australia-without-electricity-as-storm-hits/
I get the impression that Dennis is not aware that the atm AIR mass radiates at T^4 (S-B).
In other words (See Goodwin Creek/Table Mountain DLR above), the AIR mas is already radiating due to ambient temperature and the diurnal solar cycle drives up AIR temperature each day. So the diurnal AIR radiation fluctuation in DLR just follows the diurnal solar cycle.
This has nothing to do with whether a molecule in the AIR is an IR absorber or not, and nothing to do with “greenhouse effect” either. It is simply the insulation of AIR and radiation of AIR at T^4..
Richard C (NZ)
Richard, the important thing is for you is peace of mind. To feel settled.
What you have is like a food fad. Like the mania people have about gluten. If you don’t have coeliac disease you don’t need to avoid gluten. Perhaps they feel they’ll live longer but got the reasoning wrong.
You have decided to avoid the science which fully explains global warming. Perhaps you’re frightened of dying.
I think we’ve established on thing: You’re never going to be rational about climate change.
I find it interesting that Dennis claims that Richard (and by implication the rest of us) have some kind of mental health issue for being irrational
We are irrational because we look for evidence (that apparently we just need to “look for” and “use our brains”) such as –
(1) The Earth would be -18C without CO2
(2) The Earth’s atmosphere can be compared to that if the moon for some issues
(3) The “optimum” level of CO2 is 300/400 whatever ppm
(4) If we don’t do something soon, the planet could be uninhabitable
Ohh Kaaay …
I notice you studiously avoid addressing the DLR observations at Goodwin Creek and Table Mountain Dennis, and the unavoidable reality of them.
This of course is the essence of denial – “refusal to admit the truth or reality”.
James Renwick didn’t answer my comment(s) addressed to him either.
I’m wondering if he’s just not interested in what people are saying about his claims other than Richard Treadgold. Or whether he simply didn’t see them. Or he did see and decided a tactical retreat was in order.
James is probably a busy man. He did respond to a lot of emails from Joe Fone, to give him credit
I was curious where the estimate of an average temperature of -18°C if the greenhouse effect did not exist came from. NIWA has a piece on it: https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/greenhouse as does NASA: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
Gavin Schmidt describes how the estimate was derived is a paper he authored: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_sc05400j.pdf
Unfortunately Richard C’s crackpot theories just don’t hold water (or any other gas for that matter).
The NIWA link that Simon provides says
“In the absence of any atmosphere”
??
Temperature range on the Moon is about -180 to +110, so clearly the mean is going to be well below zero.
Earth is about the same distance from the Sun as the Moon, so the irradiance is of the same order, so clearly the mean temperature is going to well below zero.
Oxygen and nitrogen molecules have little influence on LR; it’s the traces of CO2, CH4, O3 that raise the temperature. Vitally important. The water vapour and droplets follow the temperature.
There is no need to invent cock-and-bull stories to explain the greenhouse effect. In principle it’s well understood.
And easily explained to schoolchildren of normal intelligence.
James,
Fear not: I would not board an aircraft that is given a high likelihood of crashing. However, the credibility of a prediction is paramount. In the case of climate change the timings are highly speculative and the magnitudes are free of evidence. There are serious questions at many points of the warming hypothesis which are not being addressed, or are seldom addressed, by the responsible scientists.
Climate orthodoxy, assisted in no mean measure by your good self, publicises future climate peril constructed in an absence of evidence by unskilful models. The terrible future threats are known only from ever more lurid descriptions provided by activists but not from credible evidence.
In the last “several decades” (say since 1950), there’s been no warming beyond the bounds of natural variability. So we don’t need to find an unusual source of energy, as there’s been no unprecedented warming—indeed, there’s been almost no warming this century, which has drastically reduced the sense of future risk. Still, you asked, so here are my thoughts.
Fluctuations in global cloud cover and natural climate variability are two plausible competing mechanisms of warming (if I might be permitted to call natural variability a mechanism). Warming occurred, as you know, during the 19th century as the earth emerged from the LIA under the impetus of entirely natural forces, long before our emissions were a factor. What caused the LIA and what ended it? Volcanism, perhaps; it wasn’t our steel mills. This shows considerable change is possible within natural variability.
Just a little change in global cloud cover (3–5%?) could cause the observed warming; it’s a credible mechanism (not that we need an explanation beyond natural variability).
Do you agree these are plausible alternatives? There are others.
Do you agree that nobody can say how much warming our emissions caused? The IPCC claims we caused “most” of the observed warming and rates it as “extremely likely”, which just adds another layer of uncertainty at the centre of the climate “crisis”.
It’s hard to overlook the plain fact that the lack of unprecedented warming means no explanation is required beyond natural variability. It amounts to a flimsy case for disrupting society’s energy sources, at the very time we need the highest possible level of scientific certitude.
Much effort has been expended without success to find apparently “missing” heat in the deep ocean. The notion that it may have got past the Argo floats without being detected by them is strange. Still, it hasn’t been found, so we have to assume it’s not there. We’re certainly not warming much.
Cheers,
Richard.
No warming?
Total bollocks!
Not even worth discussing.
I note that the GISS link that Simon provides uses terms like “thought experiment” and “intuitively”
I wonder, does the 99% of the atmosphere that comprises Nitrogen and Oxygen have no effect whatsoever on atmospheric temperature?
Do the molecular collisions between these not release any energy?
So many questions.
Land temperatures up, see the graphs here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
And yes, about 90% of the increased energy retained by the Earth system ends up in the oceans.
Because the DLR reduces the the rate energy entering as DSR is lost.
“I wonder, does the 99% of the atmosphere that comprises Nitrogen and Oxygen have no effect whatsoever on atmospheric temperature?”
The oxygen and nitrogen “are” the atmospheric temperature, in dry air anyway.
Confusing isn’t it. Especially if you’re really, really, really thick.
Maybe we can find an eleven year old Magic School Bus reader to explain it to me.
It is all so blindingly obvious to Dennis, so obvious he can’t even explain it.
Maybe Dennis is too busy smashing his keyboard with his bandaged hands to actually think.
Come on Dennis, just looking for some inspiration
Yes. No question 7 billion people are going to die. I predict within 100 years.
If you got off your rocking horse and read some basic science, say scienceofdoom or skepticalscience, maybe you wouldn’t appear so ignorant and stupid.
On the other hand, maybe not.
If I am trying to persuade someone of a fact or position, I generally find referring to them as “morons” a less than effective means of communication
I had no idea that people got their science from blogs.
Imagine my shock
Simon
>”Unfortunately Richard C’s crackpot theories just don’t hold water (or any other gas for that matter).”
You’re implying the Standard Atmosphere temperature profile from surface to TOA determined WITHOUT recourse to any “greenhouse effect” for the space race in the late 1950’s and elsewhere i.e. from mass/gravity/pressure and solar input, is a “crackpot theory” ?
The same same Standard Atmosphere methodology that establishes the surface temperature at 15.000 C i.e. the “greenhouse effect” is a redundant proposition that doesn’t explain the complete atmospheric temperature profile.
Get real Simon.
Dennis
>”Oxygen and nitrogen molecules have little influence on LR; it’s the traces of CO2, CH4, O3 that raise the temperature. Vitally important. The water vapour and droplets follow the temperature.”
The entire AIR mass radiates at T^4 as per S-B i.e. anything with temperature radiates including aerosols. This has nothing to do with trace gas LW absorbers.
If you look at the Goodwin Creek and Table Mountain DLR it is clearly obvious that the residual diurnal solar energy and AIR mass/gravity’pressure determines the base AIR temperature. The diurnal solar cycle provides the diurnal AIR temperature cycle and therefore the diurnal DLR cycle. Water added in (Goodwin Cr) raises the temperature a little compared to dry (Table Mt accounting for altitude).
Cloud provides additional fluctuation but averages out annually (Goodwin Cr).
Andy
>”I wonder, does the 99% of the atmosphere that comprises Nitrogen and Oxygen have no effect whatsoever on atmospheric temperature?”
The first Standard Atmospheres neglected trace gasses and still explained the entire atmospheric temperature profile surface to TOA.
Nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%), argon (1%), and then trace amounts of carbon dioxide, neon, helium, methane, krypton, hydrogen, nitrous oxide, xenon, ozone, iodine, carbon monoxide, and ammonia. Lower altitudes also have quantities of water vapor.
Composition of the Earth’s Atmosphere – Universe Today
http://www.universetoday.com/26656/composition-of-the-earths-atmosphere/
The trace gasses are all but negligible in determining the surface to TOA temperature profile.
Dennis
>”And yes, about 90% of the increased energy retained by the Earth system ends up in the oceans. Because the DLR reduces the the rate energy entering as DSR is lost.”
Except that is easily falsified Dennis. A 0.2 W.m-2/decade CO2 change means a 0.45 W.m-2/decade surface forcing by Minnetts theory (see upthread). That per decade INCREASE has NOT been observed at the ocean surface:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg
Ocean heat accumulation now in this century is simply a CONSTANT surface solar radiation SSR input over all forms of output – LH, OLR, and SH, fluctuating about 0.6 W,m-2 over the entire decade. And no, an increased solar input is NOT required contrary to thermodynamically illiterate claims (do you have to keep turning up the stove element to warm water in a pot? no).
And the surface SSR-ocean heat sink accumulation is the same as the IPCC’s TOA imbalance i.e their theoretical TOA forcing (CO2 1.9 W.m-2 @ 400ppm) does not fit between surface and TOA. This translates into a humongous cumulative excess of fictitious energy over decades that they have sink SOMEWHERE (1720 ZetaJoules 1950 – 2004, NASA). Observed OHC increase is only less than 300 ZetaJoules and easily explained by SSR at surface i.e. ‘surface forcing’ that the IPCC dismissed in AR4.
From my reply to James Renwick (that he did not respond to):
The “physics” referring to the negligible penetration of water by DLR – only 100 microns mx, about the thickness of a human hair. This eliminates any heat TRANSFER from AIR to Ocean as per IPCC mechanism.
Dennis
>”And yes, about 90% of the increased energy retained by the Earth system ends up in the oceans. Because the DLR reduces the the rate energy entering as DSR is lost.”
At what DLR rate Dennis? In W.m-2/decade.
And what is the IPCC evidence to support this (quote please)?
Remember, DLR does NOT equate to CO2. CO2 is only 2% of DLR. In other words, Total DLR change is way different to the CO2 change within DLR. Wang and Liang (2009) found 2.2 W.m-2/decade DLR change. That is far in excess of CO2 change (0.2 W.m-2/decade) and far in excess of the surface energy flux (constant 0.6 W.m-2).
Simon seems to think the following is a “crackpot theory”:
Surprising involvement in this crackpottery – NASA, NOAA, US Air Force Labs, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
Is there no end to all this crackpottery by these organisations? How could all their people be duped so easily?
Either that or we have the valid non-“greenhouse” methodology for the entire atmosphere.
Richard C (NZ)
The nitrogen and oxygen that comprise 99% of the air plus the nearly 1% that is argon do not absorb very much sunlight or outgoing radiation.
Certainly not enough to explain the greenhouse effect, ie the warming of Earth from -18 to +15.
Here’s the crux of the matter, please answer: Why do you think you are right and the scientists are wrong?
The ISA is a model for predicting atmospheric properties based upon current readings. Current temperatures are what they are, the ISA doesn’t predict why they are so. NASA and NOAA both state that the greenhouse effect is real, why can’t you?
Simon, Dennis
Did “greenhouse” gasses “trap” the El Nino heat?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015
Seems to me they didn’t but perhaps you could explain if you think they did.
Here is the crux of the matter. The 100% of the atmosphere (to the nearest round number) that comprises Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon, has no effect whatsoever on the temperature of the Earth. It would be the same if we removed all the atmosphere. (excluding the non-condensing GHGs)
True or false?
Simon
>”The ISA is a model for predicting atmospheric properties based upon current readings. Current temperatures are what they are, the ISA doesn’t predict why they are so.”
Rubbish. Standard Atmosphere methodology uses atmospheric properties (and solar input) to predict (accurately) the variation by altitude of a number of variables. The properties are “why they [the outputs] are so”.
The Standard Atmosphere OUTPUT variables (not – “properties”) are determined given the atmospheric PROPERTY and INPUT parameters:
PROPERTY
S = the solar constant = 1367 W/m2, derivation here
ε = emissivity = 1 assuming Sun and Earth are blackbodies
σ = the Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.6704 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4
g = gravitational acceleration = 9.8 m/s^2
m = average molar mass of the atmosphere = 29g/mole = 0.029kg/mole
α = albedo = 0.3 for earth
C = Cp = the heat capacity of the atmosphere at constant pressure, ~ 1.5077 average for Earth
P = surface pressure in the unit atmospheres, defined as = 1 atmosphere for latitude of Paris
R = universal gas constant = 8.3145 J/mol K
e = the base of the natural logarithm, approximately equal to 2.71828
No radiative “greenhouse effect” note.
INPUT
Altitude
Temperature offset* (*Temperature deviation from 1976 standard atmosphere (off-standard atmosphere).
OUTPUT
Temperature:
Pressure:
Density:
Speed of sound:
Dynamic viscosity
1976 Standard Atmosphere Calculator
http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/
These OUTPUTS were verified observationally in the early versions of the US Standard Atmosphere from surface to TOA. The upper atmosphere temperature later (e.g. thermosphere) derived from satellite drag.
You CANNOT produce this from “greenhouse effect” methodology:
Input
Altitude: 86000
Temperature offset*: [N/A less than 1]
Output
Temperature: 186.946 K
Pressure: 186.946
Density: 0.00000564114 kg/m-3
Speed of sound: 274.096 m/s
Dynamic viscosity: 0.0000125915 Pa s
“Did “greenhouse” gasses “trap” the El Nino heat? “Seems to me they didn’t but perhaps you could explain if you think they did.”
Why do you conclude the greenhouse gases didn’t absorb and radiate much of the LR to the surface?
Smacks of wishful thinking to me.
Richard C (NZ)
The ISA explains the variation in the atmosphere it doesn’t explain how the energy got there. It didn’t get there by moving energy around that was already there.
It got there via the greenhouse effect. Without the GHE it wouldn’t be there (with the energy it has).
Dennis,
‘Here’s the crux of the matter, please answer: Why do you think you are right and the scientists are wrong?’
Here’s one for you: Why do you think the ‘scientists’ are right and the empirical evidence is wrong?
The empirical evidence from multiple sources in the AR5 is unanimous:
1/ No tropospheric hotspot (i.e. no positive feedback from water vapour that is supposed to double the warming effects of CO2).
2/ Failure on the part of all the computer models to match the empirical temperature data.
Which is more correct in science – theoretical speculation by ‘scientists’ that is falsified by empirical data, or empirical evidence from multiple sources published by the IPCC that falsifies the theories of the ‘scientists’?
It’s not difficult to understand – theory vs. observation, & theory was falsified by observation. Spouting more theory doesn’t change the empirical data.
Dennis
>”The nitrogen and oxygen that comprise 99% of the air plus the nearly 1% that is argon do not absorb very much sunlight or outgoing radiation.”
So what?
Whatever atmospheric constituents that make up the atmosphere (AIR e.g. nitrogen, oxygen mainly), ALL have temperature i.e. ALL are above 0 K. Therefore ALL of the atmosphere radiates at T^4 (S-B).
The temperature (T) at whatever altitude is determined as explained in Standard Atmosphere immediately above. The “effective” emission height {EEH/ERL) of the atmosphere to space is the centre of the AIR mass at whatever T that is (5100 meters, 255 K).
‘Why the effective radiating level (ERL) is always located at the center of mass of the atmosphere & not controlled by greenhouse gas concentrations’
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2015/09/why-effective-radiating-level-erl-is.html
The temperature (T) fluctuation at which the AIR radiates near-surface is driven by the diurnal solar cycle with additional fluctuations from water and clouds and aerosols and whatever. These average out annually:
Average 10-metre surface air temperature (black, °C) and average downwelling infrared radiation (blue, W/m2) for the year 2010. Measured at the SURFRAD station in Goodwin Creek, Mississippi. Average covers the entire year, and is shown repeated twice (two days) for clarity.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/air-temperature-and-downwelling-ir-goodwin-creek.png
SURFRAD Radiation Plot – Table Mountain, Colorado USA (TBL)
Downwelling Infrared radiation 26 September 2016
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57eb490b5f00d.png
What you are looking at is downwelling radiation of AIR irrespective (but not totally) of whether the constituents are IR absorbers or not. CO2 happens to be one of the constituents; a minor one at 0.043% (2014). CO2 therefore radiates at whatever the temperature of the AIR it is in at whatever altitude. But CO2 is also an IR absorber and re-emitter so obviously it punches above its weight (2% of DLR vs 0.043% of AIR).
The temperature (T) of CO2 before and after LW absorption and collision/re-emission is determined by the altitude of the molecule and all the other atmospheric and solar properties. This is the temperature (T) at which the CO2 molecule radiates at T^4 (S-B) in any Standard Atmosphere. After that comes any TRANSFER but the net TRANSFER flux by LW, both surface and TOA, is OLR.
Dennis
>”“Did “greenhouse” gasses “trap” the El Nino heat? “Seems to me they didn’t but perhaps you could explain if you think they did.” Why do you conclude the greenhouse gases didn’t absorb and radiate much of the LR to the surface?
You are not reading the question Dennis. The question is in respect to tropospheric heat as indicated by observed temperature:
Did “greenhouse” gasses “trap” the El Nino heat?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015
At the anomalies, 2015.5 0.72, 2016.08 1.32 and 2016.42 0.8, the amount of heat that represents can be determined by Q = m•C•ΔT:
Measuring the Quantity of Heat
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-2/Measuring-the-Quantity-of-Heat
Obviously the only change was ΔT. So Q increased from 2015.5 to 2016.08 but then decreased from 2016.08 to 2016.42.
Again, it is readily apparent that the heat Q at 2016.08 was not “trapped” in the troposphere but dissipated freely to space. If not space where did it go? It came from the ocean, it didn’t go back there.
Richard C (NZ)
With the GHE Earth temperature is not -18 but +15.
All you are doing is talking about what is happening in the atmosphere under this condition.
You’re not explaining how the temperature got to +15 from -18.
Nor do you seem to understand the question.
Dennis
>”The ISA explains the variation in the atmosphere it doesn’t explain how the energy got there.”
Yes it does Dennis:
PROPERTY
S = the solar constant = 1367 W/m2,
This is the energy input to the entire earth system (neglecting geo).
Dennis
>”With the GHE Earth temperature is not -18 but +15.”
With the entire AIR mass from surface to TOA the surface temperature is 15.000 (288.15 K) without recourse to “GHE”.
At top of troposphere 20,000m, which is ABOVE any “GHE”, 216.650 K.
>”With the entire AIR mass from surface to TOA the surface temperature is 15.000 (288.15 K) without recourse to “GHE”.”
Without the entire AIR mass the temperature at surface would be similar to the moon (-173 C, 100.15 K).
How does “GHE” explain the 188 K difference ?
“Why do you think the ‘scientists’ are right and the empirical evidence is wrong?”
The scientists are right because they understand the science and you don’t. The evidence is clear and the science incontrovertible.
Your problem is your brain. Desperately zeroing in on a couple of points that are wrong or irrelevant. First the computer models have proven skillful but the conclusion or “proof” of AGW does not depend on them. Secondly, not finding a “hotspot” does not show the theory wrong; perhaps the theory or the understanding incomplete. You are just a “creationist” demanding the “missing link”.
True predictions:
Temperatures up,
Upper atmosphere cooling, with lower atmosphere warming,
Nighttime temperatures increasing faster then day time temperatures,
Melting glaciers, losing ice,
Ocean levels rising,
Global heat records more common the global cold records, no global cold record in over 100 years, global heat records yearly and monthly.
Ocean acidification,
Oxygen levels down in the atmosphere, The isotopic carbon 13 to carbon 12 ratio has gone down considerably since the 1850s about the time the Industrial Revolution got underway in earnest.
These and other facts “prove” AGW beyond doubt because there is no other reasonable explanation.
Richard C (NZ): “Without the entire AIR mass the temperature at surface would be similar to the moon (-173 C, 100.15 K). How does “GHE” explain the 188 K difference ?”
Gibberish.
>”These and other facts “prove” AGW beyond doubt because there is no other reasonable explanation.”
Actually they don’t Dennis. They are not even in terms of the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria. And the IPCC threw out the “other reasonable explanation” (SSR) because ‘surface forcing’ doesn’t fit their TOA paradigm. You cannot just discard an explanation then claim it doesn’t exist.
IPCC’s primary climate change criteria (abbreviated):
Dennis
How does “GHE” explain the 188 K difference between an earth’s surface without an AIR mass assumed to be as the moon on dark side (100.15 K) and the surface temperature with an AIR mass (288.15 K) ?
And,
How does “GHE” explain the 85 K difference between an earth’s surface without an AIR mass assumed to be as the moon on sun side (373.15 K) and the surface temperature with an AIR mass (288.15 K) ?
Feel free to change 288.15 K up (day) and down (night), and the 188 and 85 K differences as appropriate.
You cannot explain the Earth temperature being +15 instead of -18C without invoking the greenhouse effect.
That’s all there is to it.
P.S. You won’t get much of a response from the climate scientists. They have a policy of not engaging with cranks as it may give them some credibility in the eyes of dummies.
By the way Dennis, if you had bothered to read the SkS article I linked to about the -18 degree assertion, Richard Lindzen seemed to disagree
Obviously he is a crank, to be ignored by “mainstream climate scientists” and Magic School Bus readers
The important thing in modern society is that we all think exactly the same, from global warming, to same sex marriage and transgender bathrooms.
We must all conform at exactly the same time.
If the rules change, as they do, then we need to follow instructions and goosestep at 90 or even 180 degrees to the previous direction.
There will be no tolerance for dissent at all. Asking questions is sign of mental illness
Richard C (NZ) on September 29, 2016 at 5:04 pm said:
Rubbish. Standard Atmosphere methodology uses atmospheric properties (and solar input) to predict (accurately) the variation by altitude of a number of variables.
Which is exactly what I said. The model does not predict temperature, only the variation thereof. No modelling of greenhouse gases is necessary.
If you deny the greenhouse effect, you are a crank and a crackpot. You won’t find anyone who agrees with you, not even here.
Dennis
>”You cannot explain the Earth temperature being +15 instead of -18C without invoking the greenhouse effect. That’s all there is to it.”
Really?
‘Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases’
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html
Simon
>”The model does not predict temperature, only the variation thereof.”
It does “predict” temperature Simon. Std Atm accurately establishes Temperature, Pressure, Density, Speed of sound, and Dynamic viscosity at any altitude. “Variation” refers only to the varying profile from surface to TOA e.g. Temperature:
NOAA: Temperature vs Altitude (no “greenhouse effect” was used to compile this graph)
http://b.static.trunity.net/images/187002/339×425/scale/AtmTempProfile.png
“GHE” is redundant in this exercise. Obviously, given the different makeup of each ‘sphere’, the temperature varies in each and relative to the others (but not at the tropopause note).
Standard Atmosphere methodology uses atmospheric properties (and solar input) to establish (accurately) the variation by altitude of the variables. The Standard Atmosphere OUTPUT variables are determined given the atmospheric PROPERTY and INPUT parameters. This is all about the physics of the atmosphere system but nothing to do with radiative transfer except solar power, S-B, and emissivity.
INPUT
Altitude
Temperature offset*
*Temperature deviation from 1976 standard atmosphere (off-standard atmosphere).
OUTPUT
Temperature:
Pressure:
Density:
Speed of sound:
Dynamic viscosity
1976 Standard Atmosphere Calculator
http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/
>”No modelling of greenhouse gases is necessary.”
Not as greenhouse gasses for any radiative “greenhouse effect” but CO2 constituency is necessary for accurate closure, and a whole lot more are incorporated in the US Std Atm 1976:
If the temperature profile of the troposphere is established without recourse to GHE, GHE is a redundant concept.
‘Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases’
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html
History of Earth shows when CO2 was low glaciation occurred.
One crank begging other cranks to drop their crackpot ideas:
Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water, Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.
Richard Lindzen is a crank; so regarded by his former colleagues and MIT.