Setting New Zealand’s post-2020 climate change target
Submission to MfE by Climate Conversation Group
Sent today, 20 May 2015
It is a great irony that you should call this a “climate change” target, for the science tells us New Zealand doesn’t change the climate. It is a fact that, were we to reduce our emissions even to zero, thus achieving the greatest possible reduction, though destroying our entire productive capacity, there would be no resulting change in the average global surface temperature.
Global human emissions in 2013 were 36 gigatonnes; NZ emissions in 2013 were 0.0542 gigatonnes—about 0.15% of global emissions. As for the amount of warming expected from those emissions in a year; it is vanishingly small: in removing them all, our sacrifice would be undetectable.
So you seek a climate change target that cannot change the climate.
First point
That’s the first point of our submission: the science tells us that our best efforts in reducing emissions will not change the climate. Throttling back would be a waste of time and money because we don’t affect the climate even at full throttle. The Ministry for the Environment claims our reductions are necessary to inspire other nations, but we don’t know why they would listen to us: we say please use our money for anything useful.
Second point
Our second point is that there’s been no exceptional warming detected so far, either in the atmosphere or the oceans. Nor has the cryosphere shown exceptional diminution anywhere. The much-cited record reductions in Arctic sea ice recently quickly recovered to normal levels. The record lows were caused not by high temperatures but by strong winds moving the ice into the Atlantic where it melted.
The reductions were unusual, but not unprecedented, because they also occurred in the early 20th century, when our emissions could not have been the cause. The Antarctic sea ice, far from diminishing, continues its steady increase of the last 30 years.
Third point
The third point is that the sole support for predictions of dangerous warming are climate models—but they are faulty. We know this because observations over the last 20 years or so show the observed temperatures becoming increasingly cooler than the model predictions. This is easily verified. Let me repeat: the climate models are proved to be wrong.
Fourth point
Fourthly, a vital link in the supposed chain of causation from our emissions, to atmospheric warming and thus to oceanic warming is missing. To wit: the air cannot significantly heat the sea. We have been researching this for years but have not found a paper that describes this alleged phenomenon. This is no trivial omission, for if our emissions into the atmosphere cannot heat the sea then we can scarcely be held responsible for a sea level rise they did not cause. We can provide more information if the minister requires it and we implore the minister vigorously to confirm this point. This one scientific fact alone has the power to invalidate the need for us to act, for the other ramifications of the entirely mild atmospheric warming to be expected from our emissions are highly likely to be wholly beneficial.
Fifth point
Finally and fifthly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been agitating for a climate treaty for 30 years, has engaged in deception and ruinous distortion of the science—such as brazenly claiming hurricanes had increased under the influence of global warming when the world’s leading hurricane expert had just told it they had not increased—therefore many people no longer trust it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, since there’s no reason to believe our emissions cause dangerous warming now or in the future, as the emissions even of the entire human race have caused no detectable warming for about 20 years, and since there is no evidence of unprecedented warming in the last several hundred years, and since the only sign of future dangerous warming is faulty climate models, and since the UN body exhorting us to act has not earned our trust, we therefore implore the minister to delay his decision on setting New Zealand’s post-2020 climate change target until the facts we outline above can be verified, or at least until the Paris conference of the parties is over and we can see whether anything has happened.
Yours faithfully,
Richard Treadgold,
Convenor
Climate Conversation Group
richard [at] climateconversation.org.nz
Views: 471
Good effort, well said,
However, with Dr Wratt now embedded in the government, I think we can expect some “homogeneous thought” on the climate issue, and facts will be deemed irrelevant, especially when coming from the pens and mouths of mere serfs.
Yes, I tend to agree with you—and that’s the point, Andy. When you explain things, I listen to you. I like it when you talk sense. That’s a beginning, I think. That’s all it takes, because the truth is omnipotent.
Also, I’ve met and spoken with David Wratt and he’s a thoroughly decent gentleman, courteous, attentive and intelligent. He wants the truth, too. We all do. The truth will make it eventually because there is nothing else. Forgive me if that sounds heavy, but truth is very light, honest. Hah—it is the very light! Nice.
Thanks Richard. I do get a bit down with all the “doublethink” that is prevalent in our society these days, of which the climate agenda is one small part.
There are a great number of people who do see sense and who do not shout or tweet or attend “climate target” meetings. (Some of these people have been dubbed “Shy Tories”, but it would be imprudent to label all shy people as Tories, of course)
There does seem an increasing disconnect between our “elite” and the proletariat. One snippet for you – all the candidates for the UK Labour Leadership are Oxford or Cambridge graduates. Milliband is a graduate of Corpus Christi Oxford, and Cameron from Balliol Oxford.
None of them has a science or technical degree either.
Richard,
The points you have made (above) are excellent and I really do hope that Dr Wratt takes them on board.
I admire the work you do and am awed by the time you must expend in research, writing, proofing and presenting it all. I know, as one who loves writing, that is it not a rapid process!
Richard and Andy,
I too get really annoyed at the nonsense that is thrust at us by the the MSM and associated ignoramii, but the facts as we understand them are appearing in public view more often now than in the past.
My observations of politicians in the UK: None of them, that I could discover, had ever had what may be defined as an actual job before strapping on their training wheels and campaigning to become a Local Body Politican, which seemed (to me) to be an evil strain of politics – why on earth would it matter if a local body was run by any particular brand of politician, but it appears to matter greatly in the UK. I prefer our system in NZ, where national politics are largely divorced from local bodies. Most of our competent politicians of whatever brand got their experience in the world of life and work that you and I share, which seems to make for a national difference.
I felt, while I was working in the UK, that their politicos were incredibly slippery (witness the Hune ‘speeding-points’ affair) and didn’t care much for ethics as us proles understand ethics, and that our home-grown variety of Kiwi politicos are actually, on average, superior as humans. I certainly don’t think an Oxbridge PPE does anything much for anybody.
The entire education thing in the UK seems a bit wonky – I was horrified when I discovered that all my School C equivalent students in London had to achieve for a pass in each subject was way, way below the standard accepted in NZ, about 25% was a passing mark and very little work produced in class was required to back up exam work.
My London-based daughter gets very annoyed when her English colleagues flaunt their advanced degrees, but didn’t have to sweat for as many years as she and her fellow Kiwi grads did to get them: She spent 4 yrs at Auckland Uni and was proud of graduating with a BA and an invitation to do an honours year before entering the Masterate programme. Her husband spent 4 years at a former Polytech in London and graduated with a Masterate AND a BA as he had gained suficent marks!
Thanks, Alexander, your appreciation means a lot to me—and yes, it is time-consuming. I always enjoy your analyses of public affairs or historical tales, so do keep them coming!
One point, though: you say “I certainly don’t think an Oxbridge PPE does anything much for anybody.”
I presume PPE refers to a public school education? Anyway, I observe that such an education does give you confidence, an ability to speak and (usually!) the capacity to think. These of course are invaluable in a public life and I generally envy those who have had one—though I manage to stumble along somehow.
PPE is the Oxford degree “Politics, Philosophy and Economics”.
Generally regarded as a bit of a soft touch degree
BTW, I noticed that Roger Helmer MEP (UKIP) is a Maths graduate from Churchill College Cambridge, which(cough) happens to be true for me too.
I also note that Christopher Monkton is a classics graduate from Churchill. Since Helmer is an outspoken critic of wind energy and generally on top of climate change BS, I think we can safely conclude Churchill is a bastion of “denial”
Speaking of claptrap, the Mills and Oates piece in the Herald is good for a laugh
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11451943
The hint is here:
Crony capitalists really are so transparent aren’t they?
‘PPE is the Oxford degree “Politics, Philosophy and Economics”.’
Ah. Thanks. Now I better understand Alexander’s point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy,_Politics_and_Economics
In addition to Cameron and Miliband, I note that Tony Abbott is also a PPE graduate from Oxford
Small world…
“Small world…”
Yes. Well, I’m not saying products of the public school system will always be perfectly polished; but imagine some of these people without the polishing!
>”…..we therefore implore the minister to delay his decision on setting New Zealand’s post-2020 climate change target until the facts we outline above can be verified, or at least until the Paris conference of the parties is over and we can see whether anything has happened.”
One would have thought this was self evident but very helpful I’m sure for those actually interested in the basis of the UN’s crisis. Like our government should be for example.
Tim Groser and his entourage of policy wonks (mostly Trade & Industry, not heat experts, devoid of any ability to critique the IPCC science case, as is MfE) should not be going anywhere near the Paris COP (and why Lima, Durban, Cancun, Bali etc?) until the models are reconciled with reality.
But then, when that’s done (if ever), the issue defeats itself.
On the other hand …..(the Left one)…..
[Stuff] – Obama repeated arguments he cites often to promote his climate change effort, including a litany of grim facts and figures about rising temperatures, swelling seas and vanishing sea ice, dismissing skeptics of the phenomenon or those who refuse to act on it as guilty of “negligence” and “dereliction of duty.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/68729155/barack-obama-says-climate-change-poses-an-immediate-risk-to-us
# # #
Rising temperatures? Nope, not this century.
Swelling seas? How? No human factor either detailed (Chap 11, speculation only) or flux detected (Chap 3) in IPCC AR5.
Vanishing sea ice? Nope again.
>”or flux detected (Chap 3)” [IPCC AR5]
Even if an air-sea DLR flux was detected that could be attributed to human cause, say 1000 W.m-2, there can be no heating effect on water – the radiation-matter interaction physics precludes it.
In reality, CO2 only contributes 6 W.m-2 (US Standard Atmosphere 1976) of actual in-situ DLR fluxes (say 400 W.m-2 in the tropics), and the posited CO2 forcing (assuming valid) is only around 0.3 W.m-2/decade right now when human CO2 emissions are the highest in the industrial era. So now it’s 7.2 W.m-2 (whoop-de-doo).
This is a non-issue.
We are now getting propaganda from the EU.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/68703451/eu-leading-way-on-climate-change
This article was co-signed by the resident European Union Heads of Mission in Wellington: French Ambassador Florence Jeanblanc-Risler, German Ambassador Anne-Marie Schleich, Greek Charge d’Affaires Charalampos Laftsidis, Italian Ambassador Carmelo Barbarello, Netherlands Ambassador Rob Zaagman, Polish Ambassador Zbigniew Gniatkowski, Spanish Ambassador Manuel Viturro De La Torre, United Kingdom High Commissioner Jonathan Sinclair and European Charge d’Affaires Michalis Rokas.
‘Jeb Bush rails against ‘intellectual arrogance’ in climate change debate’
By Ashley Killough, CNN May 21, 2015
Jeb Bush hit back against President Obama’s claim that climate change runs an immediate risk, saying Wednesday that while it shouldn’t be ignored, it’s still not “the highest priority.”
As he has before, Bush acknowledged “the climate is changing” but stressed that it’s unknown why. “I don’t think the science is clear of what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It’s convoluted,” he said at a house party in Bedford, New Hampshire.
“For the people to say the science is decided on this is really arrogant, to be honest with you,” he continued. “It’s this intellectual arrogance that now you can’t have a conversation about it, even. The climate is changing. We need to adapt to that reality.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/20/politics/jeb-bush-climate-change/index.html
[EU agit-prop] – “Paris will be a defining moment in the safeguarding of the planet for future generations.”
Ah yes, the “precautionary principle”. Foisted upon us by “post-modern” science (basically, make it up as you go along). And only necessary by that paradigm. Not so much by the conventional scientific method.
Graphs of predictions vs reality redundant too (Sarc).
Congratulations Richard on a nice clear position statement.
“Jeb Bush hit back against President Obama’s claim that climate change runs an immediate risk, saying Wednesday that while it shouldn’t be ignored, it’s still not “the highest priority.”
It seems to me that the right and increasingly the centre-right are buying the arguments supported here that AGW is basically a fraud. The proponents of the left liberal green wing – who tend to be much louder – are getting more and more desparate in maintaining their increasing untentable position.
The left’s investment in their postion is massive. Jobs, income, belief structures and the (potentially lost) opportunity to change the world order. They will not give up all that lightly.
Fortunately they mainly listen to their own group think rather than find out what the silent majority thinks and eventually that will bite them where it hurts,
The truth will out.
Yes, thanks, Hemi, and I agree. The desperation is palpable. It’s becoming easier and easier to see that the emperor has no clothes.
First point should also compare per capita emissions.
The chart in Point 3 should be referenced and it should be sourced from a peer-reviewed paper.
Point 4 will probably cause fits of laughter in the MfE smoko room. There is significant interchange of heat between the atmosphere and ocean. To deny otherwise is putting yourself in the crank category.
>”The chart in Point 3 should be referenced and it should be sourced from a peer-reviewed paper.”
Why? The data is in the public domain, freely available, archived at KNMI Climate Explorer here:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
You could reproduce it at home Simon, and add to the pages and pages of models vs observations graphs catalogued by Google Images.
A similar graph has been asked to be produced by Gina McCarthy’s EPA for the US Senate. To date I don’t think her multi $billion agency has been able to produce.
>”Point 4 will probably cause fits of laughter in the MfE smoko room.”
Not one of them qualified in applied heat I’m betting. Radiative heat transfer in particular, or radiative heating effects. None oceanographers either. In other words – ignorant laughter.
>”There is significant interchange of heat between the atmosphere and ocean.”
Yes, we know. From ocean => atmosphere but NOT atmosphere => ocean. The primary sun => ocean => atmosphere planetary energy system flow is ocean to atmosphere. Period.
>”To deny otherwise is putting yourself in the crank category.”
No denial of conventional thermodynamics here Simon, so who’s the “crank”?
The problem for the IPCC is that NO posited “air-sea flux” as they speculate, has been detected. As I’ve detailed upthread viz:
“No human [thermosteric] factor either detailed (Chap 11, [“air-sea flux”] speculation only) or [“air-sea”] flux detected (Chap 3) in IPCC AR5 [or AR4, TAR, SAR, FAR].”
And again, from upthread:
Even if an air-sea DLR flux was detected that could be attributed to human cause, say 1000 W.m-2, there can be no heating effect on water – the radiation-matter interaction physics precludes it [see graph below].
In reality, CO2 only contributes 6 W.m-2 (US Standard Atmosphere 1976) of actual in-situ DLR fluxes (say 400 W.m-2 in the tropics), and the posited CO2 forcing (assuming valid) is only around 0.3 W.m-2/decade right now when human CO2 emissions are the highest in the industrial era. So now it’s 7.2 W.m-2 (whoop-de-doo).
This is a non-issue.
>”the radiation-matter interaction physics precludes it”
Easily demonstrated by deferring to the body of medical laser physics dealing with radiation-water interaction starting with Hale & Querry (1973):
http://omlc.org/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif
From:
Optical Absorption of Water Compendium
http://omlc.org/spectra/water/abs/index.html
But the dupes in the MfE smoko room would be oblivious to all that.
>”Point 4 will probably cause fits of laughter in the MfE smoko room.”
That would be Dr Vera Power. Manager, Science and Evaluation.
What makes Dr Power a radiative heating expert Simon?
And the search for Dr Power is, as from the post:
“To wit: the air cannot significantly heat the sea. We have been researching this for years but have not found a paper that describes this alleged phenomenon.”
There’s nothing (no paper citation) in AR5 Simon. Perhaps given your knowledge of the MfE smoko room you might be able to persuade Dr Power to produce what the IPCC cannot.
Good luck with that BTW.
New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot”
May 21st, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
“So, what we see is that the models are off by about a factor of 2 on surface warming, but maybe by a factor of 5 (!) for upper tropospheric warming.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/
Upper Troposphere CMIP5 Models vs Observations
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Upper-troposphere-vs-tropical-SST-sat-vs-CMIP5.png
[RT, this would make a nice update]
‘NASA’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt goes into hiding from seven very inconvenient climate questions’
Guest essay by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
5. There is considerable debate as to where heat has been going in recent years since the temperature increases at the surface and troposphere have flattened. On example of this discussion is in the post
http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/21/cause-of-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/
Q: Since it is claimed that a large fraction of the heat from human input of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has been going into the deeper ocean over the last 10-15 years (as an attempt to explain the “hiatus”), why is the global average surface temperature trend still used as the primary metric to diagnose global warming?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/19/nasas-dr-gavin-schmidt-goes-into-hiding-from-seven-very-inconvenient-questions/
# # #
Yes, why Gavin?
>”Perhaps given your knowledge of the MfE smoko room you [Simon] might be able to persuade Dr Power to produce what the IPCC cannot.”
On the other hand, here’s the seminal paper of an in-situ study clearly showing that the sun, not CO2, heats the ocean in the tropics:
‘Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature’
Fairall et al (1996)
ftp://ftp1.esrl.noaa.gov/users/cfairall/wcrp_wgsf/computer_programs/cor3_0/95JC03190.pdf
Table 5. Solar energy accumulation 23.4 W.m-2
How can CO2 possibly top that except in warmists dreams?
Simon,
Richard Cumming has provided you handsome responses, which I endorse gratefully and add my own comments below.
I’d be interested in hearing your reasons for saying so. Given the absence of climatic effect from our total emissions shown above, it is propaganda to assign our per capita contributions any value whatsoever. The only reason for it is to intimidate the fearful with their personal contribution to the death of the environment. Given we’re not emitting enough even to slightly change the global temperature, who might be concerned except over-reacting greenies, timid lefties and Aunt Clorinda? Certainly the climate (the only important actor in this) will pay no attention.
It is referenced, though I was remiss in not following it back to its original source at Roy Spencer’s website, so my apologies for that. It was of course possible for you to do that sleuthing. Please note I’ve used the Spencer graph in my later post earlier today.
The post clearly says: “the air cannot significantly heat the sea” (it does not mean the reverse). To answer with: “There is significant interchange of heat between the atmosphere and ocean” is simply risible. If you believe that some radiative effect from the atmosphere can significantly heat the ocean, please provide evidence of it. My research confirms that air temperature most often follows the ocean, whether it’s colder or warmer than the air, not the reverse. But I’ve found no evidence that the ocean either cools or warms with contact by the air. The ocean’s heat capacity is so enormously greater than the air’s that this is not a surprise.
By the way, if I “deny it” I certainly deny the statement, but if I “deny otherwise” am I denying its reverse?
The IPCC set the stage and airborne CO2 and air temperature are their chosen metrics. This despite the fact that there is 40,000 times as much CO2 in the oceans and the heat content of the oceans compared to the atmosphere is likely a similar ratio.
If in fact the AGW is real and the missing heat is going into the oceans, the ability of the oceans to keep doing that is, to all intense and purposes, infinite.
I like your “infinite” reasoning Hemi but I’d like to expand a bit on this line:
>”If in fact the AGW is real and the missing heat is going into the oceans”
This is highly problematic conjecture on the part of the IPCC (their “air-sea flux” speculation AR5 Chapter 11). The rationale for it is their Radiative Forcing methodology (RF). Their process is: TOA CO2 forcing restricts OLR (it hasn’t) therefore there must be planetary heat buildup somewhere. The posited heat buildup is not evident in the atmosphere (the missing heat, most critically the upper tropical troposphere where the greater part was originally supposed to manifest) therefore the heat must be going into the ocean, irrespective of AO interface physics and observations.
So there is no physical thermodynamic explanation for the IPCC’s A to O heat transfer (as would normally be calculated), instead their RF methodology “imputes” heat to the ocean bypassing the AO interface heat budget and physics, like some sort of tele-connection. They go looking for evidence of the transfer (AR5 Chapter 3) but don’t find any (natch).
No professional heat specialists e.g. engineers, technologists, chemical, mechanical, process etc would survive for a moment if were known that they would attempt, as consultants, to design, build, and operate by that rationale and methodology. They would be laughing stock. But for climate science there’s no such commercial repercussions (and only muted mirth), certainly not a mass exodus of clients and fees for example.
If climate scientists entered professional consulting as heat specialists they would be out of business from the outset.
Correction
>”This is highly problematic conjecture on the part of the IPCC (their “air-sea flux” speculation AR5 Chapter 11)”
Should be Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
10.4 Changes in Ocean Properties
10.4.1 Ocean Temperature and Heat Content (page 903 paragraph 3)
“Air–sea fluxes are the primary mechanism by which the oceans are expected to respond to externally forced anthropogenic and natural volcanic influences”
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
Problem is, evidence of the “expected” anthro mechanism cannot be isolated. On the contrary, “natural variability” dominates:
Chapter 3 Observations: Ocean
3.4.2.2 Surface Fluxes of Shortwave and Longwave Radiation (page 275)
“The surface shortwave flux has a strong latitudinal dependence with typical annual mean values of 250 W m–2 in the tropics. The annual mean surface net longwave flux ranges from –30 to –70 W m–2.”
3.4.2 Air–Sea Heat Fluxes
3.4.2.3 Net Heat Flux and Ocean Heat Storage Constraints (page 275)
“Large and Yeager (2012) examined global ocean average net heat flux variability using the CORE data set over 1984–2006 and concluded that natural variability, rather than long-term climate change, dominates heat flux changes over this relatively short, recent period. Since AR4, some studies have shown consistency in regional net heat flux variability at sub-basin scale since the 1980s, notably in the Tropical Indian Ocean (Yu et al., 2007) and North Pacific (Kawai et al., 2008). However, detection of a change in air–sea fluxes responsible for the long-term ocean warming remains beyond the ability of currently available surface flux data sets.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf
# # #
In other words, an anthropogenic air-sea flux forcing, even if valid in concept (it’s not), and even if it could be isolated (it can’t), is negligible.
Points to note: surface net longwave flux (range –30 to –70 W m–2) is OLR (cooling effect), not DLR. And the range is 40 W.m-2. A tiny decadal change in CO2 forcing even if valid (it’s not) is currently 0.3 W.m-2/decade, 0.75% of the surface OLR range.
Fairall et al (1996) linked upthread gives tropical surface net longwave flux (Rnl) in Table 5 of -57.1 W.m-2 i.e. ocean cooling, NOT heating. Except Rnl is not the major cooling component, Hl is (latent heat of evaporation) at 103.3 W.m-2.
CO2, the minor component (6 W.m-2 US Standard Atmosphere 1976) of downwelling longwave (DLR) and the miniscule change of it (the “forcing”, 0.3 W.m-2/decade) is negligible among these fluxes. And Fairall gives an outgoing sensible heat flux of 7.7 W.m-2, so no wriggle room there either.
[IPCC] – “detection of a change in air–sea fluxes responsible for the long-term ocean warming remains beyond the ability of currently available surface flux data sets”
They might have considered the obvious long-term candidate for responsibility but no, this is the IPCC.
For example,
‘A new approach to long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing’
A. I. Shapiro1, W. Schmutz1, E. Rozanov1,2, M. Schoell1,3, M. Haberreiter1, A. V. Shapiro1,2, and S. Nyeki1
(2011)
4. Results and Discussion
“The difference between the current and reconstructed TSI during the Maunder minimum is about 6 ± 3 W/m2 (equivalent to a solar forcing of FP−M∼ 1.0±0.5W/m2) which is substantially larger than recent
estimates (see Sect. 1).”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.4763.pdf
Thing is, solar energy (DSR), does real work e.g. heats the ocean. DLR doesn’t.
“In other words, an anthropogenic air-sea flux forcing, even if valid in concept (it’s not), and even if it could be isolated (it can’t), is negligible.”
…and therefore “the ability of the oceans to keep doing that (if indeed it was) is, to all intense and purposes, infinite”
I just think that this is an easier sell than saying there is no known mechanism.
>”I just think that this is an easier sell than saying there is no known mechanism.”
Except it’s not selling truth Hemi. You’re leaving the door wide open for misrepresentation (untruth) i.e. those who conflate natural ocean heat accumulation with spurious anthropogenic cause, albeit negligible if accepted because it’s “easier”.
Case in point, SkepticalScience:
[see graph] “More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans” [hotlink]
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
The hotlink leads to this page:
Global Warming Components – Where is global warming going?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=12
Ocean 93.4%.
But that’s not Anthropogenic Global Warming which can only, truthfully, be attributed to the troposphere if the hypothesis is verified (it isn’t)..
Then in the sidebar, SkS have their “Hiroshima atomic bombs of heat” widget i.e. they’re spinning natural phenomena to the political moon.
In the internet age where information travels at the speed of light, a lie is many times around the world before truth gets its boots on.
The truth. My version of truth is that CO2 is an significant contributor to Global Warming and that our ability to accurately predict future climate is about one week.
Just googled this:
If enough energy was taken from the oceans to heat the air by 2C the sea temperature would drop by 0 .0005C
There are clearly large energy exchanges from evaporation and rainfall and the oceans will buffer our climate quite effectively has they have done for millennia
The Truth. My version of the truth is that CO2 is an insignificant contributor it Global Warming and that the rest of the house of cards is a sham and that we can predict weather for about a week.
However just pulled up this diamond. If enough energy was draw from the ocean to lift the global air temperature by 2C the temperature of the oceans would drop by 0.0005C.
There are clearly big energy exchanges due to evaporation and rainfall and I am comfortable that the sea will buffer the climate for a few generations to come.
Truth is a funny thing.
Ocean surface heating occurs at the boundary through interchange of H2O, CO2, and energy. Ekman transport can then drive that heat down to lower levels. Even if this effect was marginal, the statement that “if our emissions into the atmosphere cannot heat the sea then we can scarcely be held responsible for a sea level rise they did not cause.” is nonsense. Sea level does increase from thermal expansion, but the biggest factor is melting sea ice.
Sea ice volume is a more valid metric than sea ice area, but much more difficult to measure.
Simon,
Sorry, old man. Melting sea ice does not significantly contribute to sea level rise.
>”the sea will buffer the climate for a few generations to come”
Debatable timeframe (see below) but not for nothing is the sea termed the planet’s largest heat “sink”. It is an enormous buffer the surface temperate of which varies little more annually than diurnally in extremes. Here’s Environment BOP’s Wave Buoy temperature off Pukehina:
http://monitoring.boprc.govt.nz/MonitoredSites/cgi-bin/hydwebserver.cgi/points/details?point=834
16.8 to 20.3 last 12 hrs
14.3 to 23.5 last 12 mths
Temperatures were up around 21 but have only just plunged this month i.e. the heat advantage of the buffer is gone for this season.
But on a multi-centennial timescale, far longer than the IPCC’s 6 decade 1951 – 2010 anthro attribution period, the oceanic heat accumulated (buffered) between solar Grand Minimum (Maunder/LIA) and Grand Maximum (Modern/MWP) will benefit climate comfort levels for some years (I say about 3 decades 2005 – 2035)
But a sobering thought. It is not out of the question that solar levels return to Gleissberg, Dalton or Maunder levels by around late 2030s. The climate scenario commensurate with Maunder levels (LIA) is this, from Wiki:
“Freezing of the Golden Horn and the southern section of the Bosphorus took place in 1622. In 1658, a Swedish army marched across the Great Belt to Denmark to attack Copenhagen. The winter of 1794–1795 was particularly harsh, when the French invasion army under Pichegru could march on the frozen rivers of the Netherlands, while the Dutch fleet was fixed in the ice in Den Helder harbour. In the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze, allowing people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing harbors to shipping.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
In 1622 people walked across the frozen Bosphorus at Constantinople (Istanbul) from Asia to Europe and vice versa. There was no sea heat buffer over that era a return of which should be accommodated in any national climate risk analysis with an appropriate probability factor.
But the only climate risk (read economic risk too) according to the NZ govt is “catastrophic” warming, probability factor = 1. I don’t think so. If Maunder/LIA conditions return, people not actually dying of cold and famine induced by crop failure (or idiotic energy policies) will pray for warming of any sort, including what is now being termed “catastrophic”.
>”Ocean surface heating occurs at the boundary through interchange of H2O, CO2, and energy.”
OK, we’ve finally elicited a response from you Simon. I was beginning to think you were nothing more than a hit-and-run fly-by troll but this is an unexpected engagement.
You demand “peer-reviewed literature” from us but you don’t provide any yourself to support your opinion above. What I’m getting at is that your statement is devoid of any quantification either by theory or empirical in-situ study. Neither have you provided the conceptual thermodynamic AO interface physics (the “boundary”).
But I can help you out with that (unlike you we’re used to producing “peer-reviewed literature” to support our contentions). It’s already posted upthread but here it is again:
‘Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature’
Fairall et al (1996)
ftp://ftp1.esrl.noaa.gov/users/cfairall/wcrp_wgsf/computer_programs/cor3_0/95JC03190.pdf
The “basic physics” (as Fairall put it) of the AO interface cooling is provided in 2.1. Cool-Skin Background, page 2 pdf.
The total cooling of the interface Q is given by:
-Q = Rnl – Hs – Hl
Obviously there’s a larger parameter missing. The “basic physics” of total heat supplied to the ocean is given in 4.2 Effects on the Average COARE Energy Budget, page 12 pdf:
Htot = Rns + Rnl – Hs -Hl
Tropical in-situ heat budget values values are given in Table 5, page 12 pdf. Heat gain (Htot) is due to the overwhelming solar input (Rns 191.5) resulting in Htot 23.4 (your “energy” Simon).
No mention of CO2 (negligible amongst Rnl anyway). Precipitation (rain, H20 liquid phase) doesn’t turn around Hs to a heat gain, that’s a heat loss of 7.7 (the minor component anyway), CO2 negligible to Hs too. Hs not surprising because the rising water vapour has given up its latent heat in the gas-to-lquid phase change of condensation at high altitude (duh).
So given the “basic” physics above, we can correct your statement Simon:
“”Ocean surface heating occurs at the boundary through [solar] energy [gain].”
Simple.
Simon, you say:
>”…the statement that “if our emissions into the atmosphere cannot heat the sea then we can scarcely be held responsible for a sea level rise they did not cause.” is nonsense. Sea level does increase from thermal expansion, but the biggest factor is melting sea ice.”
Apart from the sea ice gaffe (already dealt with by RT), your rebuttal is a non sequitur in respect to what you are attempting to rebut, viz,:
“Sea level does increase from thermal expansion”
Yes it does but you’re conflating natural cause with anthropogenic supposition. Yes of course the level of water in a confined space will rise if the water is heated but what is the heat source?
Obviously (see Fairall et al upthread) the heat source is solar energy. Any variation of it will produce either sea level rise or fall. This is thermodynamic fact – not “nonsense”. And it has already been shown that the IPCC has no evidence of anthropogenic ocean heating (Chapter 3, Chapter 10 linked upthread). Again, fact – not “nonsense”. You CANNOT conflate the two.
BTW, the melting ice (no “sea ice” mentioned) SLR components are given by IPCC AR5, Chapter 13 Sea Level Change Table 13.1, page 1151:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf
Note that the world’s ice was melting PRIOR to the start of the IPCC’s anthro attribution 1951.
You might ask yourself about the ice-free glaciated valleys in the south of the South Island NZ too i.e. why and when? Was it elevated levels of CO2 or not? When you’ve satisfied yourself with your answer here’s another poser:
Laurentide ice sheet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet
Simon,
The sun, as I think RC mentioned, warms the ocean independently of CO2. CO2 may provide a small, unknown amount of energy to the ocean by radiation.
That statement is self-evidently true. What you disagree with seems actually to be: “the air cannot significantly heat the sea.” If you wish to refute that please go right ahead.
I’m afraid this is wrong. As I mentioned earlier, floating ice doesn’t raise the water level on melting. However, AR5 cites thermosteric sea level rise as the most significant factor in sea level rise. In Chapter 13, p 1151, Table 13.1 lists Observed contributions to global mean sea level (GMSL) rise in mm per year. [Thanks RC, exactly what I was looking for; I had been wading through Chapter 3 without result.] If I read it correctly, the factors are:
Thermal expansion 1.1
Glaciers 0.86
Ice sheets 0.60
Land water storage (anthropogenic only) 0.38
Total 2.8
Observed GMSL rise is slightly larger: 3.2
I don’t know how they calculate the amount of melting from glaciers and ice sheets caused by an anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric temperatures that have not increased for about 20 years. But they’re the scientists.
Anyway, thermal expansion is significant, according to the IPCC.
>”CO2 may provide a small, unknown amount of energy to the ocean by radiation”
The amount has been estimated at 6 W.m-2 in the US Standard Atmosphere 1976. I can dig out a citation if required. CO2 peak emission is at 10 microns wavelength so is towards the longer DLR range of 4 – 16 microns wavelength in the IR-C range (IR-C is 4 – 100 microns). But it’s not “real” effective heating power as is IR-A/B in the shorter wavelength (and far higher energy-per-photon) solar spectrum. And there’s minimal penetration i.e. “tracklength” over which radiative energy is transferred to matter.
But CO2 is a minor component of DLR which can be around 400 W.m-2 in the tropics (e.g. Darwin BSRN measurements). And the 0.3 W.m-2/decade CO2 “forcing” is negligible in amongst that even if valid (it’s not).
I think Simon is suggesting that CO2 adds to the oceans sensible heat (Hs) when a CO2 molecule at air temperature is absorbed at the sea surface (I.e. an Hs transfer). Problematic when CO2 is only 400ppm and the sea surface is on global average about 3 degrees Celsius warmer than the air above it. Turns out Hs is a sea surface cooling flux anyway, at least in the tropics where it matters (see Fairall et al).
I find it amazing that Simon presents CO2 and H2O as the major ocean heating agents (they’re certainly not) alongside the actual heating agent (“energy”) but cannot bring himself to state the actual primary planetary climatic energy source – SOLAR energy. The heating agent then is obviously, as conventionally termed, solar energy received at surface or solar surface radiation (SSR). I’ve already littered these blog pages with the SSR forcings from Martin Wild’s report so no more here. Suffice to say SSR forcing in recent decades is many times greater than CO2 forcing. And SSR is real power, DLR is not, it is only APPARENT power.
Of course the politically motivated CO2-centric mind is closed to these details. And has never learned the fundamentals by which to understand them anyway.
>”I don’t know how they calculate the amount of melting from glaciers and ice sheets caused by an anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric temperatures that have not increased for about 20 years”
Keep in mind that an increase is not necessary for melting, just sustained high levels of temperature – like the MWP, or the CWP (Current). It is a normal natural process to be expected (think human settlements uncovered by the melting in the Alps).
But we are in an inter-glacial period characterized by freeze-thaw-freeze-thaw cycles e.g. MWP – LIA – CWP. I’m not at all worried about thaw, it’s the freeze thought that’s gets me.
RC,
Yes, now you mention it, I remember this. It’s a lot larger than I thought.
O/T: You can include html in your comment so long as the html “<" sign is not the first character.
RC,
Yes, but they include the figures of mass loss for glaciers and ice sheets only to sheet home (pun alert) responsibility for it to us, yet it’s impossible to know how they calculate the amount we caused. I guess they don’t care if we think we caused all the melting, but it’s hardly likely to be true.
I don’t relish the idea of freezing, either.
>”I guess they don’t care if we think we caused all the melting”
Exactly. That’s the impression they’d like disseminated. The AR5 SPM has it thus on page 13:
D. Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes
Understanding recent changes in the climate system results from combining observations, studies of feedback processes, and model simulations. Evaluation of the ability of climate models to simulate recent changes requires consideration of the state of all modelled climate system components at the start of the simulation and the natural and anthropogenic forcing used to drive the models. Compared to AR4, more detailed and longer observations and improved climate models now enable the attribution of a human contribution to detected changes in more climate system components.
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and
understanding of the climate system. {2–14}
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
First problem being that the models are now no more than junk science (the IPCC alludes to this in Chapter 9, more below from the SPM).
Second problem being the “detected changes” across disparate eras e.g. satellite data is not available even in the early part of “recent” changes. And certainly not for measurements 400 or 1000 yrs ago.
Third problem being, as Jeb Bush points out upthread, “the climate is changing” but stressed that it’s unknown why. “I don’t think the science is clear of what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It’s convoluted,”
Back to the SPM and models. This is what they say on page 13:
D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models
Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continentalscale
surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid
warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic
eruptions (very high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8}
But immediately following in the second bullet point we read:
• The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}
This is highly problematic because this is the era in which the bulk of human GHG emissions to the atmosphere have occurred – but no GHG “forcing” evident whatsoever.
Their solar rationale is baloney but ‘nuther story (actually the critical one, told on these pages over and over…..).
They state “a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean”. Well duh! AGW sceptics have known since the 90s (e.g. John Daly who featured in the Climategate emails) that ocean oscillations have been neglected from IPCC consideration. So come the “hiatus” and the IPCC (and climate science in general) where caught with their pants down. Never mind the body of signal analysis literature going back to the early 2000s that separates the oscillatory component from the secular trend which, if they had deigned to look, would have shown them something was amiss with their methodology as defined above, at least their treatment of “observations” in it.
The SPM might give the impression to the unwary (i.e. summary for dummies and policy wonks) that the IPCC has a handle on it all but the impression I get, especially from the D.1 bullet point gobbledegook above, is that they haven’t a clue.
Further to my SPM screed.
First note the IPCC’s anthro attribution period (page 15 pdf):
D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change
• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}
OK, 1951 to 2010 (and note there has been no statistically significant warming this century).
Figure SPM.1 (a) on page 4 pdf shows just how weak the IPCC case above is.
1) Only 2 decades of warming within the anthro attribution period (1980s and 1990s). At first glance looks like 0.6 C, but the 1940s (prior to the attribution period) were already higher than the 1970s so the net warming 1940s to 2000s is about 0.45 C, fractionally more than 1900s to 1940s (say 0.42 C).
2) the slope of the warming 1910s to 1940s (4 decades) is the same as the slope of the warming from 1970s to 2000s (4 decades).
3) What exactly, makes the 1970s to 2000s any different to the 1910s to 1940s that enables the IPCC anthro attribution to the latter above?
[IPCC] – >”The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle”
Good grief. They’re isolating one solar cycle (SC 23) corresponding to only the 2000s “hiatus” (1996 June to 2008 January, see below). Except after 2008 there was the upward phase of SC 24 which has just peaked midway through the second decade 21st century (2010s) and corresponding to the AR5 report date.
More importantly, what about the “timing of the downward phase” of SC 22 which ended 1996 June right in the second of only 2 decades exhibiting any warming in their attribution period? They can’t have it only one way.
More importantly still, what about planetary thermal lag that displaces temperature from solar activity by whatever estimate from the literature you might chose? Could be 8 – 20 yrs (Abdussamatov), 30 – 40 yrs (Zhou and Feng), or 10 -100 yrs (Trenberth essay). There are others too.
List of solar cycles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles
Apart from those deficiencies, the major solar problem confronting the IPCC is NOT “the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle”, it is the downward phase of solar in the bi-centennial timeframe that is the emerging solar forcing beginning 1986 but most pronounced after 2005. Probably bite them in the early 2020s once the change moves through the sun => ocean => atmosphere system and begins to show up in temperature (i.e. caught with pants down, again).
Richard T,
Thanks for the kind words. As you now know, a PPE from any university is not something that fills the average voter (ie, me) with enthusiasim, or even confidence in the holder.
The more one looks at the graphical representations of of the climate of the earth over time, the less confidence one has in the notion of Man’s influence upon said climate despite the fears of Simon and his cohort.
To me, the very expensive recipes for avoiding ‘Man changing the climate’ seem rather similar to a poor parish purchasing their priest the very best of non-meat epicurean delights for his non-meat Friday repast: said delights will have a negative effect on the poor parish and an equally negative impact on the health of the priest as epicure.
In short, AGW mitigation appears to effect the poor of the third-world rather more than it should. Which, of course, is ‘on message’ for the most powerful ‘environmental’ groups such as the Club of Rome, Greenpeace, etc., who appear to have a pathological dislike of poor people who also posess dark skins.
Richard T,
Further to my thoughts on PPE, etc, I tend to admire the Australian PM as he actually does some public-spirited ‘blokey’ stuff which involves putting himself at risk in what can be quite hairy situations, i.e. Surf Life Saving and as a bush-based Volunteer Fireman, which allows me to think that PM Abbott’s PPE degree can be forgiven!
Poll today on Whaleoil of views on Climate Change
Almost exclusively a natural process 38%
Humans have an insignificant impact 39%
Humans have a measureable impact 18%
Other 5%
This actually amounts to a poll of (a selection) of national voters, but national voters do represent 50% of the population and nearly all of them vote.