- Sorry, even with that premise, the water would still have to be warmest near the energy source. If it was being heated by volcanoes and hot water vents, the hottest ocean water would be found down deep. In fact, the coldest water is found deep and the hottest is found at the surface. The temperature profile is consistent with heating occurring from above. It is being heated by the Sun and the atmosphere is acting as a blanket to keep the heat from radiating away as IR radiation.Delete
All you have provided is some statements without any scientific proof that what you say is valid and that it affects the issue of man made global warming, one way or another. Submit scientific evidence to support your claim and I will be glad to consider this a submission, although this issue has already by discussed in other submissions. 
AnonymousJuly 14, 2014 at 1:42 AMNo. The hottest water is found down deep and is reported to range from 60 to 464 oC at thermal vents. Lava erupting from submarine volcanic vents emerges at temperatures ranging from 700 to 1200 oC. This effect happens spasmodically all along the Mid Atlantic Ridge. The cold water you refer to is replacing the rising hot water as it does in a pot heating water on a stove.
As you say, the sun also heats the surface water and seasonal variations cause the sun to warm and cool sea surface waters alternately between the two hemispheres. This results in carbon dioxide migrating between the hemispheres each year, as shown on the "saw tooth" NOAA graphs. My calculation shows this migrating flux is around 1.7Gt per year as shown in the "seachange report" referred to previously. However, the underlying up trend in the NOAA graph is caused by a recent slow increase in background heat coming from some of the many possible submarine sources.
The main flaw in your AGW argument is that the sea has to heat BEFORE there is any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, as per Henry's Law, so CO2 cannot affect the earth's surface temperature, if in fact it does, until after the sea has heated.
Response:
The first fatal flaw in this line of reasoning is that it requires volcanic activity under the oceans to be increasing. Our data indicates it has remained about constant over the last several decades that we have been witnessing the oceans getting warmer.
But, let's look at this quote and plot from UC- San Diego:The circulation of the cold water sphere is poorly known. The water is cold because it "originated" in high latitudes, where the surface waters these in cold regions were cooled, sank, and filled up the deep ocean basins. This process is constantly happening, and without it the abyssal waters would be warm in a few thousand years from the Earth's heat flow through the ocean floor. If waters sink at high latitudes, they must rise at low latitudes. They do so at an overall rate of about 1 cm/day. Most of the abyssal bottom water of the world ocean "originates" ( i.e. sinks from the surface) around Antarctica. The other important deep water source is the northernmost North Atlantic (the Norwegian Sea and Labrador Sea). This is know from mapping the temperature and oxygen content of near-bottom water. As the water moves away from its surface source (i.e. as it "ages") it gradually warms. Also, it slowly loses oxygen because of the respiration of organisms in the deep sea. Thus, "young" water is cold and oxygen-rich, "old" water is less cold and has less oxygen. Most of the deep water in the Atlantic is young, while that of the North Pacific is old.
This plot (from the same source) shows the temperature profiles for high latitudes (polar regions) on the right, mid-latitudes in the middle and low latitudes (equatorial regions) on the left. Notice how the temperature is warmest at the surface (the top of each plot) and gets colder as the depth increases.Source: UCSD
This should be enough to end the discussion. Are there volcanoes under the ocean? Yes, and they heat up the local water. Is there heat coming through the surface of the sea floor? Yes, and given time it will heat up the water that is in contact with it. Is this amount of heating significant? No. The temperature profiles and the discussion in the quote above both illustrate that ocean water gets cold at the poles, sinks down deep, and travels along until it is forced back up to the surface. The principle source of heating is from the Sun and the oceans get hotter from the top down.
But, we don't need to stop there. Let's look at the total amount of energy needed to heat up the oceans and compare that to the amount of heat coming from volcanoes.
Take a look at this graph from the EPA that shows the amount of heat stored in the oceans (heat content):Source: EPA
We can see that the ocean heat content increased from about 0 joules in 1980 (the normalized baseline) to about 12 x 10^22 joules by 2012. That is a change in heat content of 12 x 10^22 joules of energy that was in the oceans in 2012 that wasn't there in 1980.
So, how about the energy released by volcanoes?
The explosion of Mt St Helens in 1980 released about 7 megatons of energy. That is approximately 3 x 10^16 joules. In other words, it would take 4,000,000 Mt St Helens-sized explosions over 32 years to put that much energy in the oceans. That comes out to about 340 Mt St Helens-sized eruptions occurring every day for 32 years.
Sorry, but the facts and evidence do not support this claim. Here is a website at Oregon State I found that pretty much stated the same thing.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Ocean Warming is Due to Volcanoes
AnonymousJuly 13, 2014 at 1:08 AM
Petition Project
Pls consider this article as my submission:
http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
Response:
I refer first to the project's own FAQ page:
The number of climate scientists on the list of signers is very small, approximately 200 out of 32,000. Another issue is the people are not listed with their associations making it impossible to confirm their credentials. Additionally, critics have successfully submitted fake names, including names of characters from M*A*S*H, Star Wars, duplicate names, corporate names, names with no initials and other fictitious names, illustrating how the petition has low accountability of the names submitted.
This quote from their webpage speaks of the qualification of the signers:
We know that John Coleman signed it and he doesn't even have a science degree so he is not qualified to be a signatory. We really have to wonder: just how many of those signatures are authentic and are qualified to sign it under their stated requirements?
One last point, a degree in biology does not make someone an expert on climate science, even if that degree is a Ph.D. In fact, a Ph.D. in biology could very well have less knowledge of climate science than the average person on the street. Most researchers have little to no time to study fields of study other than their specialty.
At this point, you would think any rationale person would stop and move on.
Not enough? Well then, how about this one:
So, they won't reveal who the organizers are and they also won't reveal their methodologies and sampling procedures. At the same time, deniers scream bloody murder anytime they think they can get away with accusing a climate scientist with lack of transparency. Hmmm. A trend is already appearing. But, it gets worse because Wikipedia identifies the head of the project as Arthur Robinson and there is a very curious statement about Robinson in the Wikipedia entry on him:
A definite pattern is emerging.
Then there is this:
In particular, the petition's founder, Arthur Robinson, has run as a Republican candidate for Congress three times (including this year) on a fundamental Republican platform. I would want to see his list of donors if he is going to claim he is free of any money from the fossil fuel industry or anything associated with the fossil fuel industry. They state "none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production." Is that true? I doubt it. But, then, if they won't reveal their funding sources we can't know for sure, can we? What if they get their funding from the Heartland Institute or Donors Trust, both organizations that specialize in funneling funds from the fossil fuel industry. Would they still claim they receive no funds from the fossil fuel industry? And, how do we know that isn't the case?
But, wait. The Petition Project was initially co-published with the George C. Marshall Institute, which has received considerable amount of funding from ExxonMobil over the years. So, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine teamed up with the Marshall Institute, which receives fossil-fuel funds. This is exactly what I mean when I say deniers have been caught fudging about their funding. The funds might not have come directly to the Oregon Institute, but they knew where the Marshall Institute was getting its funds and they made use of that fossil fuel money for their cause.
Check out this video that discusses the credibility of the project:
So, a pattern has been established - one of deceit.
All right, we have firmly established they do not have any credibility, but what about the science? It gets very bad right from the beginning. Again, from their web site:
A review of the literature leads to the conclusion that increased CO2 levels have had no deleterious effect. This is an incredible statement. Be sure to note what they didn't say. The did not say they reviewed the literature and didn't agree with it. They said the literature leads to this conclusion. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is an outright lie. You may or may not agree with the conclusion of the literature, but you would have to be an absolute idiot to say that the scientific literature does not support the conclusion that rising CO2 levels are deleterious. Just look at the IPCC report to see that what I am saying is correct.
There is more bad science, but I think I have shown enough to say the Petition Project is debunked as any kind of proof that man made global warming is not real. What we have established is that they simply have no credibility to be believed on any issue whatsoever.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
Response:
I refer first to the project's own FAQ page:
1. Is the Petition Project fulfilling expectations?The project has fulfilled the expectations of its organizers. In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.
Now, look at these numbers:Moreover, the current totals of 31,487 signers, including 9,029 PhDs, are limited only by Petition Project resources. With more funds for printing and postage, these numbers would be much higher.
According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.Now, let's keep in mind that 97% of climate scientists agree that man made emissions are causing global warming. In other words, 0.3% of non-climate scientists agree with the petition while 97% of climate scientists agree AGW is real.
The number of climate scientists on the list of signers is very small, approximately 200 out of 32,000. Another issue is the people are not listed with their associations making it impossible to confirm their credentials. Additionally, critics have successfully submitted fake names, including names of characters from M*A*S*H, Star Wars, duplicate names, corporate names, names with no initials and other fictitious names, illustrating how the petition has low accountability of the names submitted.
This quote from their webpage speaks of the qualification of the signers:
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.
We know that John Coleman signed it and he doesn't even have a science degree so he is not qualified to be a signatory. We really have to wonder: just how many of those signatures are authentic and are qualified to sign it under their stated requirements?
One last point, a degree in biology does not make someone an expert on climate science, even if that degree is a Ph.D. In fact, a Ph.D. in biology could very well have less knowledge of climate science than the average person on the street. Most researchers have little to no time to study fields of study other than their specialty.
At this point, you would think any rationale person would stop and move on.
Not enough? Well then, how about this one:
3. Who organized the Petition Project?The Petition Project was organized by a group of physicists and physical chemists who conduct scientific research at several American scientific institutions. The petition statement and the signatures of its 31,487 signers, however, speak for themselves. The primary relevant role of the organizers is that they are among the 9,029 PhD signers of the petition.
So, they won't reveal who the organizers are and they also won't reveal their methodologies and sampling procedures. At the same time, deniers scream bloody murder anytime they think they can get away with accusing a climate scientist with lack of transparency. Hmmm. A trend is already appearing. But, it gets worse because Wikipedia identifies the head of the project as Arthur Robinson and there is a very curious statement about Robinson in the Wikipedia entry on him:
Robinson is the president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM),[3] a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization located in Cave Junction, Oregon.[15] The institute's mission statement and purpose is, "research, development, and public education on the biochemistry of molecular clocks and the degenerative diseases of aging, elementary science education, the effects of environment on health and welfare, and disaster preparedness".What? I don't see a single item in there that qualifies him as a climate scientist. But, there is something else - he signed the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, an document that promotes Intelligent Design. So, Robinson is a creationist and has a track record of rejecting science when he doesn't like it.
A definite pattern is emerging.
Then there is this:
4. Who pays for the Petition Project?
I'm sorry, that just isn't good enough for me. I have seen many times when deniers have been caught fudging the facts and even making outright lies about their funding. Until they reveal who these scientists are and where they get their funding, I will assume they are funded by denier organizations or organizations associated with denier organizations. If they aren't, then why won't they reveal details on their funding sources? If some climate scientist tried this deniers would jump all over it.The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals, many of whom are signers of the petition. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. No funds or resources of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are used for the Petition Project. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has never received funds or resources from energy industries, and none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by scientist volunteers.
In particular, the petition's founder, Arthur Robinson, has run as a Republican candidate for Congress three times (including this year) on a fundamental Republican platform. I would want to see his list of donors if he is going to claim he is free of any money from the fossil fuel industry or anything associated with the fossil fuel industry. They state "none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production." Is that true? I doubt it. But, then, if they won't reveal their funding sources we can't know for sure, can we? What if they get their funding from the Heartland Institute or Donors Trust, both organizations that specialize in funneling funds from the fossil fuel industry. Would they still claim they receive no funds from the fossil fuel industry? And, how do we know that isn't the case?
But, wait. The Petition Project was initially co-published with the George C. Marshall Institute, which has received considerable amount of funding from ExxonMobil over the years. So, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine teamed up with the Marshall Institute, which receives fossil-fuel funds. This is exactly what I mean when I say deniers have been caught fudging about their funding. The funds might not have come directly to the Oregon Institute, but they knew where the Marshall Institute was getting its funds and they made use of that fossil fuel money for their cause.
Check out this video that discusses the credibility of the project:
So, a pattern has been established - one of deceit.
All right, we have firmly established they do not have any credibility, but what about the science? It gets very bad right from the beginning. Again, from their web site:
ABSTRACT
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.
A review of the literature leads to the conclusion that increased CO2 levels have had no deleterious effect. This is an incredible statement. Be sure to note what they didn't say. The did not say they reviewed the literature and didn't agree with it. They said the literature leads to this conclusion. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is an outright lie. You may or may not agree with the conclusion of the literature, but you would have to be an absolute idiot to say that the scientific literature does not support the conclusion that rising CO2 levels are deleterious. Just look at the IPCC report to see that what I am saying is correct.
There is more bad science, but I think I have shown enough to say the Petition Project is debunked as any kind of proof that man made global warming is not real. What we have established is that they simply have no credibility to be believed on any issue whatsoever.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
Issue With Central CO2 "Evidence"
FRANK LANSNER PROOF 3
Richard Alley: “We can’t explain the size of warming without CO2.”
While now reviewing many sceptic arguments against CO2 as a dramatic climate driver, lets not forget how surprisingly weak arguments FOR the CO2 effect is.
And check out how easy it is debunked:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/alley3.gif
This picture is from a Richard Alley speech with presentations.
He shows the Vostok ice core CO2 – temperature data. He is NOT (like Al Gore) indicating that we can see CO2 drive temperatures from these graphs, he goes one step further.
He says that the large differences of temperature on Earth cannot occur without assistance from changing CO2 concentrations.
And ladies and gentlemen, this “argument” today appears to be the central and fundamental argument for CO2 as a dramatic climate driver.
So is it true?
Take a very good look at the Vostok ice data on the picture I linked to. In the upper right corner I have inserted the graphs so one can better see data. I have also inserted a green box.
The years of data enclosed in the green box actually show a rather constant CO2 level for the years where the Earth changes temperature completely from interglacial to glacial.
So, the very data behind Richard Alley happens to show exactly that temperature CAN change from one extreme to the other without help from CO2.
So the very data Richard Alley use to proof that CO2 is a “must” to explain large temperature changes shows the opposite, that nature does this without help from CO2.
Its not only the last shift from interglacial to glacial that occurs mostly without help from CO2, see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
The most important “evidence” for the CO2 effect thus simply is not there.
Kind regards, Frank Lansner
Response:
Once again, you relied on Anthony Watts. And, I'll say it again - If you ever use Watts for a reference, you're going to be wrong.
Your issue is that the CO2 level and temperature plot are not 100% correlated. 95% doesn't mean anything to you, it has to be 100% or it means nothing at all. In other words, you're going to reject science because it isn't 100% to your liking. I think that shows the influence Watts has had on you and that is unfortunate. Try someone credible next time. The problem with this complaint is that you have left out a massive amount of facts. But, the record shows Watts and his buddies aren't real big on facts.
Past climate warming cycles have begun with some kind of naturally occurring trigger, typically the Milankovitch cycles, which increase the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth. The problem is this extra energy is not enough to have melted the glaciers and cause the warming that occurred. But, it was enough to begin releasing the CO2 trapped in the oceans. This extra CO2 then became the principle driver of warming by trapping extra heat, which leads to additional water vapor in the atmosphere (itself an excellent greenhouse gas). As the Milankovitch cycle continues, the amount of solar energy reaching Earth begins to decrease, leading to lower temperatures. The atmosphere can no longer hold the extra water vapor (hot air can hold more water vapor than cold air) and it precipitates out, taking the CO2 with it and leading to a further temperature decline.
Now, there is nothing new about any of this. In fact, scientists had predicted exactly this decades before it was actually found in the paleoclimate record. There is an excellent video that details this whole story and shows the actual scientific papers. By the way, he shows just how deceptive Anthony Watts is. The video is only about 13 minutes long. If you are at all interested in the facts, you owe it to yourself to watch it. In fact, you owe it yourself to watch the entire series.
In summary, my interpretation of your statement is that you claim CO2 cannot be the cause of global warming because the CO2 level does not exactly follow the temperature record. I have shown your premise is wrong and the reality is that this is exactly what scientists expected to find.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
Richard Alley: “We can’t explain the size of warming without CO2.”
While now reviewing many sceptic arguments against CO2 as a dramatic climate driver, lets not forget how surprisingly weak arguments FOR the CO2 effect is.
And check out how easy it is debunked:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/alley3.gif
This picture is from a Richard Alley speech with presentations.
He shows the Vostok ice core CO2 – temperature data. He is NOT (like Al Gore) indicating that we can see CO2 drive temperatures from these graphs, he goes one step further.
He says that the large differences of temperature on Earth cannot occur without assistance from changing CO2 concentrations.
And ladies and gentlemen, this “argument” today appears to be the central and fundamental argument for CO2 as a dramatic climate driver.
So is it true?
Take a very good look at the Vostok ice data on the picture I linked to. In the upper right corner I have inserted the graphs so one can better see data. I have also inserted a green box.
The years of data enclosed in the green box actually show a rather constant CO2 level for the years where the Earth changes temperature completely from interglacial to glacial.
So, the very data behind Richard Alley happens to show exactly that temperature CAN change from one extreme to the other without help from CO2.
So the very data Richard Alley use to proof that CO2 is a “must” to explain large temperature changes shows the opposite, that nature does this without help from CO2.
Its not only the last shift from interglacial to glacial that occurs mostly without help from CO2, see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
The most important “evidence” for the CO2 effect thus simply is not there.
Kind regards, Frank Lansner
Response:
Once again, you relied on Anthony Watts. And, I'll say it again - If you ever use Watts for a reference, you're going to be wrong.
Your issue is that the CO2 level and temperature plot are not 100% correlated. 95% doesn't mean anything to you, it has to be 100% or it means nothing at all. In other words, you're going to reject science because it isn't 100% to your liking. I think that shows the influence Watts has had on you and that is unfortunate. Try someone credible next time. The problem with this complaint is that you have left out a massive amount of facts. But, the record shows Watts and his buddies aren't real big on facts.
Past climate warming cycles have begun with some kind of naturally occurring trigger, typically the Milankovitch cycles, which increase the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth. The problem is this extra energy is not enough to have melted the glaciers and cause the warming that occurred. But, it was enough to begin releasing the CO2 trapped in the oceans. This extra CO2 then became the principle driver of warming by trapping extra heat, which leads to additional water vapor in the atmosphere (itself an excellent greenhouse gas). As the Milankovitch cycle continues, the amount of solar energy reaching Earth begins to decrease, leading to lower temperatures. The atmosphere can no longer hold the extra water vapor (hot air can hold more water vapor than cold air) and it precipitates out, taking the CO2 with it and leading to a further temperature decline.
Now, there is nothing new about any of this. In fact, scientists had predicted exactly this decades before it was actually found in the paleoclimate record. There is an excellent video that details this whole story and shows the actual scientific papers. By the way, he shows just how deceptive Anthony Watts is. The video is only about 13 minutes long. If you are at all interested in the facts, you owe it to yourself to watch it. In fact, you owe it yourself to watch the entire series.
In summary, my interpretation of your statement is that you claim CO2 cannot be the cause of global warming because the CO2 level does not exactly follow the temperature record. I have shown your premise is wrong and the reality is that this is exactly what scientists expected to find.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
More Trouble For Antarctic Ice
I saw an article in Physics Today about the Antarctic ice sheets. It is pretty technical, but really explains the dynamics of ice sheets on land very well. They discuss how recent research indicates portions of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has reached the point of no return. But, they also discuss how new research indicates portions of the ice sheet of East Antarctica is also at risk of collapsing. Here is a figure illustrating the two areas the article discusses:
What they found is a large 'plug' is holding back the ice in Wilkes Basin. This plug is huge (about a trillion tons of ice), but is small in comparison to the ice in the basin. In comparison, the plug would raise the world sea level by about 80 mm if it all melted. If the basin ice melted, it would raise world sea levels by about 3 m. If the plug melts or breaks apart, then there won't be anything to stop the Wilkes Basin from dumping its ice into the sea.
So, what are the chances of the plug melting? That is a big unknown. It could happen relatively quickly, or it could take hundreds of years. Right now, we don't know enough of what is underneath the ice and the dynamics of what is going on to say for sure.
Research continues, so stay tuned.
 |
| Source: Physics Today |
What they found is a large 'plug' is holding back the ice in Wilkes Basin. This plug is huge (about a trillion tons of ice), but is small in comparison to the ice in the basin. In comparison, the plug would raise the world sea level by about 80 mm if it all melted. If the basin ice melted, it would raise world sea levels by about 3 m. If the plug melts or breaks apart, then there won't be anything to stop the Wilkes Basin from dumping its ice into the sea.
So, what are the chances of the plug melting? That is a big unknown. It could happen relatively quickly, or it could take hundreds of years. Right now, we don't know enough of what is underneath the ice and the dynamics of what is going on to say for sure.
Research continues, so stay tuned.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Outstanding Climate Change Videos
A comment on my blog directed me to one of the videos I have linked below (Thanks, Anonymous #2). I watched that video through and was so impressed I went out and found the rest of the videos this guy has done on climate change. I have been very impressed with what I have seen so far and will, over the next few days, watch all of these videos all the way through. In the meantime, I am providing links to all of the videos. If you are interested in learning more about climate change, this guy explains the pertinent parts in a clear, easy-to-understand manner.
They were produced by Potholer54, the YouTube name of Peter Hadfield, a British journalist, science correspondent and geologist. So, his credentials to report on the subject are genuine.
Hopefully, you'll watch these videos. I know you will learn a lot if you do.
They were produced by Potholer54, the YouTube name of Peter Hadfield, a British journalist, science correspondent and geologist. So, his credentials to report on the subject are genuine.
Hopefully, you'll watch these videos. I know you will learn a lot if you do.
26 -- Science vs. the Feelies
27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC
27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC
Basic CO2 Forcing Issue
FRANK LANSNER PROOF 2
The Basic CO2 Forcing issue
Its always healthy to take a “birds perspective” of things, just to ROUGHLY get an idea of the situation.
Normally its believed that CO2 (incl feedbacks) is responsible for around 15% of the Earths Greenhouse effect. It cannot be much more since we live on a planet with a water surface and thus plenty of water in the atmosphere. So water (incl feedbacks) is responsible for the majority of Earths greenhouse effect.
The whole idea of global warming started because the Earth appeared around 33 K warmer (278 K) than “it should have been” (255K) given the Earths albedo.
So all greenhouse gasses incl. all feedbacks combined yields roughly these 33 K.
No news so far, I agree.
This ROUGHLY leaves around 15% of 33K to the CO2 forcing incl. feedbacks. That is around 5 K. Lets say 6 K to be conservative.
So as a ROUGH starting point we have around 6 K of warming from CO2 forcing incl feedbacks from CO2 in tha atmosphere.
Still not much new in this, so lets go a step further.
If you take a climate model like MODTRAN you will see that the forcing of the entire CO2 concentration (incl feedbacks) is typically around 9 – 10 times the forcing of one CO2 doubling incl. feedbacks.
So according to typical models, ONE doubling of CO2 should yield around a tenth of the forcing seen from the entire CO2 concentration in the atmosphere incl. feedbacks.
The entire CO2 concentration should have a forcing that matches roughly 10 doublings.
So as a starting point – the rough birds perspective – a new doubling og CO2 concentration from 400 ppm to 800 ppm should yield around one tenth of the 6 K warming we have from the entire CO2 concentration.
So a doubling should yield warming around 1/10 times 6 K = 0,6 K.
Something is wrong now.
IPCC suggests 3 K for just ONE new CO2 doubling. That is, today ONE doubling should have an effect incl. feedbacks of HALF the entire CO2 concentration.
This is a violation of the principle that each doubling has a similar effect.
James Hansen goes further, he suggests 6 K of forcing from jus ONE doubling of CO2. So one doubling today for some reason should match the effect incl. feedbacks from the entire CO2 concentration.
Also, some believe that we will have a global temperature rise of 2-4 K within year 2100.
But hardly any believe that we will have more than 600 ppm in year 2100. (even 600 ppm appear not realistic)
So with just HALF a doubling, we are supposed to see a 2-4K rise in temperature. This demands arounf 4-8 K warming effect from CO2 incl. feedbacks.
Again this demands that the next CO2 doubling incl. feedbacks has an effect around 10 times the other doublings incl. feedbacks.
The point.
As long as it is NOT explained why CO2 effect incl. feedbacks added to the atmosphere now should have an effect dramatically stronger than the CO2 already in the atmosphere, then any such claim fall.
You cannot claim that one doubling of CO2 now should have an effect that roughly matches the entire CO2 concentration in the atmosphere without very carefully explaining, documenting and justifying how this should be possible.
So far this obvious problem is not even mentioned when claiming dramatic forcing from CO2 incl. feedbacks.
See illustrations and more:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/08/working-925-what-a-way-to-make-a-livin-at-agw/
Response:
I will start with your ending - referencing Anthony Watts on anything. If you do that, there is a very high probability you are wrong. See my response about your previous submission for more details about Watts.
But, let's go back to the beginning of your submission when you say that CO2 is responsible for only 15% of the greenhouse effect. This is false it two ways. First, CO2 is responsible for about 1/3rd (33%) of the warming, but it is the principle driver because the main greenhouse gas is water vapor and that vapor wouldn't be there if CO2 wasn't raising the temperature in the first place. So, CO2 is actually the principle driver of the greenhouse effect. So, using your own math, the result of doubling CO2 would be about 1.5 degrees C. But, there are many other factors involved, most noticeably the water vapor. Another very major factor is what happens to cloud formation. Clouds are a negative feedback in the daytime by reflecting incoming sunlight, but a positive feedback at nighttime by trapping IR radiation leaving the surface. And, how does the cloud formation change with temperature and water vapor? It all becomes very complicated very quickly and the question of clouds is the wild card in this whole process.
In short, you tried to use a simple calculation to make a definite calculation for a very complicated system. The fact that your number does not agree with forecasted results is not surprising or controversial.
But, the bottom line is if you are going to rely on Watts for you information, you will always have problems. Garbage in, garbage out.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
The Basic CO2 Forcing issue
Its always healthy to take a “birds perspective” of things, just to ROUGHLY get an idea of the situation.
Normally its believed that CO2 (incl feedbacks) is responsible for around 15% of the Earths Greenhouse effect. It cannot be much more since we live on a planet with a water surface and thus plenty of water in the atmosphere. So water (incl feedbacks) is responsible for the majority of Earths greenhouse effect.
The whole idea of global warming started because the Earth appeared around 33 K warmer (278 K) than “it should have been” (255K) given the Earths albedo.
So all greenhouse gasses incl. all feedbacks combined yields roughly these 33 K.
No news so far, I agree.
This ROUGHLY leaves around 15% of 33K to the CO2 forcing incl. feedbacks. That is around 5 K. Lets say 6 K to be conservative.
So as a ROUGH starting point we have around 6 K of warming from CO2 forcing incl feedbacks from CO2 in tha atmosphere.
Still not much new in this, so lets go a step further.
If you take a climate model like MODTRAN you will see that the forcing of the entire CO2 concentration (incl feedbacks) is typically around 9 – 10 times the forcing of one CO2 doubling incl. feedbacks.
So according to typical models, ONE doubling of CO2 should yield around a tenth of the forcing seen from the entire CO2 concentration in the atmosphere incl. feedbacks.
The entire CO2 concentration should have a forcing that matches roughly 10 doublings.
So as a starting point – the rough birds perspective – a new doubling og CO2 concentration from 400 ppm to 800 ppm should yield around one tenth of the 6 K warming we have from the entire CO2 concentration.
So a doubling should yield warming around 1/10 times 6 K = 0,6 K.
Something is wrong now.
IPCC suggests 3 K for just ONE new CO2 doubling. That is, today ONE doubling should have an effect incl. feedbacks of HALF the entire CO2 concentration.
This is a violation of the principle that each doubling has a similar effect.
James Hansen goes further, he suggests 6 K of forcing from jus ONE doubling of CO2. So one doubling today for some reason should match the effect incl. feedbacks from the entire CO2 concentration.
Also, some believe that we will have a global temperature rise of 2-4 K within year 2100.
But hardly any believe that we will have more than 600 ppm in year 2100. (even 600 ppm appear not realistic)
So with just HALF a doubling, we are supposed to see a 2-4K rise in temperature. This demands arounf 4-8 K warming effect from CO2 incl. feedbacks.
Again this demands that the next CO2 doubling incl. feedbacks has an effect around 10 times the other doublings incl. feedbacks.
The point.
As long as it is NOT explained why CO2 effect incl. feedbacks added to the atmosphere now should have an effect dramatically stronger than the CO2 already in the atmosphere, then any such claim fall.
You cannot claim that one doubling of CO2 now should have an effect that roughly matches the entire CO2 concentration in the atmosphere without very carefully explaining, documenting and justifying how this should be possible.
So far this obvious problem is not even mentioned when claiming dramatic forcing from CO2 incl. feedbacks.
See illustrations and more:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/08/working-925-what-a-way-to-make-a-livin-at-agw/
Response:
I will start with your ending - referencing Anthony Watts on anything. If you do that, there is a very high probability you are wrong. See my response about your previous submission for more details about Watts.
But, let's go back to the beginning of your submission when you say that CO2 is responsible for only 15% of the greenhouse effect. This is false it two ways. First, CO2 is responsible for about 1/3rd (33%) of the warming, but it is the principle driver because the main greenhouse gas is water vapor and that vapor wouldn't be there if CO2 wasn't raising the temperature in the first place. So, CO2 is actually the principle driver of the greenhouse effect. So, using your own math, the result of doubling CO2 would be about 1.5 degrees C. But, there are many other factors involved, most noticeably the water vapor. Another very major factor is what happens to cloud formation. Clouds are a negative feedback in the daytime by reflecting incoming sunlight, but a positive feedback at nighttime by trapping IR radiation leaving the surface. And, how does the cloud formation change with temperature and water vapor? It all becomes very complicated very quickly and the question of clouds is the wild card in this whole process.
In short, you tried to use a simple calculation to make a definite calculation for a very complicated system. The fact that your number does not agree with forecasted results is not surprising or controversial.
But, the bottom line is if you are going to rely on Watts for you information, you will always have problems. Garbage in, garbage out.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
Mountain Valleys
- FRANK LANSNER PART 1ReplyDelete
Dear Christopher,
I am: Frank Lansner, chemical civil engineer with focus on biochemistry from Danish Technical University. I have worked the last 16 with software development.
I have to follow my hunch, and it tells me that you are actually sincere about this challenge. My hunch also tell me that you might not accept a really good presentation of evidence against Human caused global warming, simply because “pro-IPCC” scientists normally don’t.
But still, your approach here is very personal and different, so who knows, perhaps you are actually going to be open fair and honest. So, I’m curious, and in the following I present to you severe problems for the AGW hypothesis.
I “know” I won’t see money, so from me this is not about money. I’m interested to see your responses, simply. Am I going to make any impression to you at all? Lets see.
PROOF 1
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/06/the-original-temperatures-project/
As explained in this article we have a surprising problem in data when finally it was possible to get hands on original temperature data from original meteorological year books.
The proof against global warming is NOT that we generally see more cold trended long temperature series from original sources than typical “adjusted” sources. We do, but this is no itself a proof about anything.
No the surprising proof is as follows:
For ALL countries analysed using original temperature data (not massively adjusted my “GISS” or “BEST” or similar) it turns out that temperature stations with a location in shelter of air coming from oceans show hardly any warming after the last warm period 1930-50.
The better the shelter (typically behind mountains, in valleys and similar) the less warming. In some very well sheltered areas it appears to be colder today than during the last warming period 1930-50.
These findings goes for the areas/continents tested so far in the “original temperatures” project and the RUTI project.
So, what does it tell us that areas that is located rather near mountains in shelter of ocean air?
First it raises the question:
How come “CO2” seems not to work after approx. 1940 without the presence of ocean air? Why cannot CO2 warm such areas? If it was indeed a strong climate driver?
Well IF CO2 had been a strong climate driver and human addition of CO2 was important we should have seen warming after around 1940 also in the valleys sheltered best from ocean air. But we don’t.
So here I could end my case, because dangerous CO2-effect already appear wrong at this point.
I want you to first consider this first evidence just as is. In a real “Earth laboratory” where changes in ocean air temperature “noise” is avoided best possible, there is little or no warming. Sometimes even cooling after the warm 1930-50 period. 
FRANK LANSNER PART 2ReplyDelete
But let’s go a little further, simply to understand what’s going on. Why the missing “valley-warming”?
The Earth surface today is generally warmer than in the warm period 1930-50.
Coastal temperature stations and mountain stations facing ocean winds also show this warming, but in such stations affected by ocean air we see that the warm-period 1930-50 is not nearly as warm as seen for the valley stations.
So, the heat measured in valley stations 1930-50 resembles present day heat. But something is preventing this heat to show in data from water-affected stations.
Water – oceans or deeper lakes – will buffer rapid temperature changes resulting from a new heat balance of the Earth. Water will reduce the temperature change from a changing heat balance. Water will delay the temperature change due to a new heat balance over the Earth.
It seems that after the little ice age that ended around 1900-20, the rapid change in heat balance around 1930-50 could only be detected in the valleys best protected against “delay-noise” from oceans.
This is why Valleys do show us the new much warmer heat balance that began around 1930-40, but ocean affected stations don’t.
Since the temperature of the best sheltered valley stations show same temperature today as 1930-50, then this tell us that the actual heat balance over the Earth today is similar to the 1930-50 levels – before massive human CO2 outlets.
The warming seen in recent decades over oceans and from ocean affected stations thus appear to be a delayed adaption to the new heat balance that began around 1930-40.
So falsely it looked in recent decades as if the heat balance due to CO2 was still warmer. But it was just the oceans that were slow to adapt.
OK, dear Chris.
Before claiming that you can’t see this when you look up stations in BEST and GISS etc. please be aware that these sources of temperature information often adjusts temperature stations in valleys to look like station data from near by mountain tops, coast, larger cities. And in many cases the 1930-50 data from valley stations are simply just not used.
Notice that the Majority of for example original Alpine stations (around 90 of 150) are valley stations with little or no heat trend, so its quite a severe action to ignore the valleys at times, see:
ALPS:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-the-alps-273.php
HUNGARY:
Hungary is SURROUNDED by mountains, see original data – and how it is ignored by “BEST”:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-hungarian-valley-271.php
DENMARK
In Denmark, only a few coastal stations are really public available, and then the metropol Copenhagen, but, see what original inland data from old books show:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-denmark-and-south-sweden-270.php
And so on.
BEST:
In general, see how treats all data from valleys from all countries analysed:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-best-265.php
In general it seems that temperature stations in valleys for some reason are very unreliable? According to BEST?
So in short my proof 1:
If CO2 had a dramatic effect since around 1950, this should also result in strong heat trend from temperature stations located in the valleys best sheltered from ocean air temperature trends.- wops, words missing:ReplyDelete
So in short my proof 1:
If CO2 had a dramatic effect since around 1950, this should also result in strong heat trend from temperature stations located in the valleys best sheltered from ocean air temperature trends. But all over the world we see that the best the valleys best sheltered against ocean air show little or no heat trend. Sometimed even a cooling trend after around 1930-50.
Kind Regards Frank Lansner - Im very sorry, my child danced on the keyboard while im writing... ! one more time the final lines:
So in short my proof 1:
If CO2 had a dramatic effect since around 1950, this should also have resulted in a strong heat trend from temperature stations located in the valleys best sheltered from ocean air temperature trends.
But all over the world we see that the valleys best sheltered against ocean air show little or no heat trend. Sometimed even a cooling trend after around 1930-50 like in the US midwest.
Kind Regards Frank Lansner
Response:
You started out with a link to a post by Anthony Watts. Watts is one of the people that I automatically reject as a source of information - and for very good reason. First, he receives funds from The Heartland Institute. This is an organization whose very own internal documents show they fund people for the directed purpose of undermining climate science. That is enough for me to reject him and I use that standard on a routine basis. Anyone associated or affiliated with Heartland in any way is not a credible source.
But, there is more. My take of the evidence is he fabricates his results. That would be consistent with being affiliated with Heartland. Take a look at a review of some of his work here.
Finally, consider this: When Richard Muller questioned the global average temperature results from the international teams, he set up his own team to examine the question using completely different data. Watts said this:"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."
But, when the Berkeley Earth team confirmed the results of the international teams, Watts rejected those results and was quoted by the NY Times:"Mr. Watts ... contended that the study's methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness."
Really!!?? Global warming isn't real because there were some spelling errors???!!!!
There is a lot more on Watts, but I think I made the point. If you are going to base anything on Watts, then you have already failed in your proof.
As for 'getting our hands' on the data - it is freely available to anyone with Internet access at the National Climatic Data Center. In fact, several submissions have cited the NSDC as the source of their data.On to the next issue. You say CO2 is only warming the climate in certain areas and not in others (simplifying your words). Take a look at this NASA GISS plot of temperature changes over the entire globe and I think you will immediately see how that is not a true statement:
As you can see, with the exception of a few areas, global warming has been happening just about everywhere. There are some regions that have been experiencing more (the polar regions) than others (the equatorial regions), but it is present in all regions of the planet. In particular, the oceans have experienced the least amount of warming. This is because it takes over 4 times as much energy to raise the temperature of a given mass of water as it does to raise the temperature an equal mass of air.Now, are there specific areas that have not experienced global warming? Certainly. And, this is very consistent with our understanding. The climate is very complicated and there are many factors besides man made greenhouse emissions. It is not at all surprising to find some local area that has experienced reduced warming, or even cooling.But, the thing to remember is that 'global warming' means the entire globe. A very localized area does not, in any way, mean global warming is not happening.As for the oceans making things more level - absolutely! Oceans absorb 93% of all energy coming into our environment. It takes a lot of energy to heat the oceans and it is very slow to give it up. It has been well known for thousands of years that the climate near the ocean is much less extreme than the climate far from the ocean.
My understanding is that you are claiming man made global warming is not real because some mountain valleys are not exhibiting as much warming as other regions. Well, you admitted the data for those areas are questionable. I don't know this and my experience tells me to reject your claim, but you made the claim the data is bad, but then used that same data to make your point. You can't have it both ways.
In short, your claim is that the majority of the planet has experienced global warming, but some isolated areas, in your opinion, have not exhibited the amount of global warming that you think is appropriate. The claim that a small area trumps what is happening in the rest of the world is not valid.
You have not shown man made global warming is not real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Dear Professor Keating
The widely vaunted premise is that humans discharge Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere thereby causing the earth to heat unusually.
However, conventional science teaches us that the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere can be predicted by Henry's Gas Law:
"At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid."
Henry's Gas Law effectively states that the Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is wholly dependent on the average sea temperatures.
Unless we can prove that humans were directly responsible for increasing the temperature of the oceans, there is no possibility that humans have anything to do with the slowly rising concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, whether that rise causes the earth to warm or not.
The recently experienced slight lift in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide concentration is entirely due to a very small rise in average sea temperatures, which is most probably caused by minor changes in the level of submarine volcanic and tectonic activity. My backup presentation notes on this subject are available at http://www.bosmin.com/HenrysLaw.pdf with a more detailed presentation at http://www.bosmin.com/SeaChange.pdf
Best regards, BobBeatty@bosmin.com
Reply
Replies
Christopher KeatingJuly 6, 2014 at 10:13 PM
The oceans are heating from the top down, not the bottom up. That is enough to debunk everything you just said.
My Reply is:
Traditional science says "hot water rises", so send the cheque.