Reactions are coming in worldwide worldwide to figure 1.4 of the IPCC AR4 draft report. and the revelation that climate sensitivity is lower by aerosol analysis than the IPCC officially projects. Hotheads are blowing gaskets because the hot air just went out of their cause. William Connolley (with an e) gets the “blown head gasket award” for this round, see below.
First some op-eds:
Washington Times: EDITORIAL: Chilling climate-change news
New leak shows predictions of planetary warming have been overstated.
Forbes: Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: The UN’s Global Warming Forecasts Are Performing Very, Very Badly
Investors Business Daily: Climate Change Draft Undermines U.N.’s Claims
PowerLine: Climate Alarmism: The Beginning of the End?
Climate scientist Richard Betts thanks Nic Lewis for “constructive contribution” to climate sensitivity debate. http://t.co/TU02i5rf
http://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/281706335320555521
Media Matters: WSJ’s Climate “Dynamite” Is A Dud (citing the duds dudes at “Skeptical Science”)
The Telegraph, Delingpole: Global Warming? Not a snowball’s chance in hell
Tom Nelson points out this fun exchange between Matt Ridley and William Connolley (with an e) via James Delingpole:
Twitter / JamesDelingpole: Climate troll and banned …
Climate troll and banned Wikipedia tinkerer William Connolley bursts a sphincter at Worstall’s place http://timworstall.com/2012/12/19/is-climate-change-really-a-damp-squib/ …
[Connolley comment] Anyone saying “trust me, I’m an IPCC expert reviewer” is a cretin. *Anyone* can be an “expert reviewer” just by asking to see the draft. It doesn’t mean the IPCC have vetted you in any way.
Is climate change really a damp squib?
[Matt Ridley’s sane, measured response] …I have since gradually come to the view that the extra feedback necessary to make CO2 warming dangerous is increasingly implausible, though still possible, and that the measures we are taking to cut carbon emissions are doing and will do more harm especially to poor people than warming itself. I may be wrong in this, but it’s not unreasonable to debate this possibility — and nor is it outside the scientific consensus, by the way.
I bring to the subject the same technique that I bring to all the topics I cover as a journalist. (Only on climate (and religion) am I told that my credentials disallow me from even having a view.) I read both sides of the question, I challenge assumptions and I listen to arguments. In this case reputable climate scientists like Judith Curry and Richard Betts agree that Nic Lewis has made a good case and deserves to be considered and debated. Would that Dr Connolley would show the same open-mindedness.
Over at Tamino’s place, Tamino is his usual self, calling other people and their conclusions “fake” while oblivious to his own use of a fake name.
Next, Tamino will call Nature itself “fake” for not cooperating at the correct pace. He seems to conveniently forget all the adjustments (all upwards) that been applied to the surface temperature record this past decade. No matter, as long as the adjustments fit his conclusion. /sarc
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Worstalls site seems to have disappeared. Can’t handle the traffic?
Gail Combs says:
December 20, 2012 at 11:28 am
“The professional astroturf establishment is not just going to go away, it will find another Chicken Little Scare to use to milk the masses.”
Steven Crowder tries a job at CALPIRG:
I hope I dont frighten anybody. I dont mean to
but just imagine if the planet had warmed naturally by 2c in the last 15 years
not only would we be fighting a lost cause, we would probably be in jail or some other institution, and the likes of mann, lew and connolley would be crowing over our demise.
and that is why we have to take science out of the hands of these awful people
“The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean’ so why is the Arctic ocean colder than most other oceans?”
Could it be because the sun doesn’t shine much there?…Just like in the Antarctic.
MarkW says:
December 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm
….. So a warmer atmosphere will result in a warmer ocean, because less energy is escaping rather than more energy entering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SWAG –
First you are talking a degree or two or three according to the IPCC.
Second energy leaves the ocean as water vapor that has been evaporated by the sun. Do not forget that snow will sublime even in the Arctic or the Antarctic do to the energy from the sun.
Clouds make the big difference not the atmospheric temperature.
From Willis’s guest thread a graph or two.
typical cloud induced variations in shortwave solar radiation. This is the radiation that is going to penetrate the ocean and warm it.
Short wave Clear sky vs all sky (cloud, rain, clear)
Willis says “As expected, the clouds cut down the amount of solar radiation by a large amount. On a 24-hour basis, the reduction in solar radiation is about 210 watts per square metre.” This is all from actual observations not some GIGO model BTW
long wave (IR) clear sky vs all skys
MarkW says:
December 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm
A warmer atmosphere may or may not be able to warm the oceans, however a warmer atmosphere does make it harder for the oceans to transfer the heat the sun is putting into it up to the atmosphere.
So in the end, the result is the same.
and
MarkW says:
December 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Water is opaque to infrared i.e., greenhouse gas radiation. See the absorbency spectrum of water. SST is totally unaffected by the greenhouse effect. Sea surface temperature is determined by insolation in the short wave spectrum i.e., visible light. This is one of the earth-sized holes in AGW theory.
—
Half right.
Water temperature is determined by energy in vs energy out. Solar insulation counts for most of the energy in, however the temperature of the atmosphere directly affects the rate at which energy can leave the oceans. So a warmer atmosphere will result in a warmer ocean, because less energy is escaping rather than more energy entering.
1. A warmer atmosphere makes it easier for water to evaporate as warmer air can hold more water vapor. Therefore, warmer air is likely to cool the water surface as water evaporates from it. The amount of cooling can be significant as the latent heat of evaporation is 540 calories/gram (i,e, 540 grams of water reduced in temperature by 1C).
2. Humid air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature so will rise convectively and draw in more dry air underneath where the process will repeat – cooling the water and humidifying the air but not warming it as the water vapor is carrying latent heat..
3. The rising water vapor will eventually form clouds and give up the latent heat of condensation. The clouds will raise the albedo and reduce the short wave radiation from the sun that penetrates the photic layer reducing the heating effect of the sun.
4. Water is opaque to infrared so the first few molecules of the surface will be excited by the infrared and this will assist them to evaporate taking some more heat from the surface. It will not heat the body of water below the first few molecules – it will cool it. The small amount of infrared that is purported to be downwelling due to CO2 scattering, is unlikely to have any measurable effect.
From the above you will see that a warmer atmosphere will result in a cooler ocean as more water evaporates taking the latent heat from the surface. This is how hurricanes form after all and they are getting all their energy from the sea below despite the winds being very warm. Only the short wave radiation from the Sun will heat the water and in the tropics with the Sun overhead the photic layer is deep and the oceans warm rapidly during the day. However at the poles are the ocean surface layers are cold as they can lose heat readily into the dry cold air above but there is very little solar heating due to the insolation of what sun there is being at an angle at which water is effectively reflective.
Bob Tatz
“P.S. I’m not a regular poster…”
Too bad, we could always use another chemist on board when the “acidification” issue arises.
Gail Combs says:
December 20, 2012 at 11:28 am
Excellent post. I understand your concern with “the next big scare.” However, worthless studies tied to causes are highly fungible within the academic empire. Biology Departments have all kinds of specialties that are soft science at best but that have been growing steadily since Earth Day 1970. I know a college that has an “at large” Professor of Green, as if he were teaching a lifestyle or something. I believe he is employed through the office of Diversity Dean.
I doubt that what I have said is a surprise. After all, most of the people associated with the CAGW narrative are not what we once called “hard scientists.”
CO2’s ability to create heat diminishes as you stack it up and for a doubling I have understood for a long time that we would get about 1.2C of warming….in line with some of the conservative comments above. Another way of looking at it is to go back 500 million years when the planet started to green….the CO2 was estimated at 15 times todays levels. Or put another way over 7 times the level the warmers claimed would cause a catastrophy. They were wrong.
MarkW says: December 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Half right.
Water temperature is determined by energy in vs energy out. Solar insulation counts for most of the energy in, however the temperature of the atmosphere directly affects the rate at which energy can leave the oceans. So a warmer atmosphere will result in a warmer ocean, because less energy is escaping rather than more energy entering.
========================================
Yes, just as I gave, insolation determines SST, which determines atmospheric temperature, not the other way around. The greenhouse effect on SST is inconsequential. See Bob Tisdales posts on WUWT that very thoroughly address this topic.
Carter says:
Does the warm atmosphere not transfer some heat over to the sea?
Not to any significant degree (pun intended). A warmer atmosphere impedes heat loss from the oceans. Thus causing the oceans to be warmer than they would otherwise be. BTW, I’m talking net energy/heat transfers.
Which incidentally, is why the Arctic Ocean is cold. The atmosphere above the Arctic is much colder on average than any other ocean.
Yes, warmer air would result in a lower RH which would result in increased evaporation, but only til the RH returned to equilibrium. Once that point is reached there is no enhanced evaporation and we reach the point where the only difference is less energy leaving the ocean via conduction to the air.
mpaul says:
December 20, 2012 at 9:35 am
…. Media Matters then runs out to one of their pet scientists, gives him a biscuit and has him say,…
Thanks for that. Made me chuckle, chortle and snort, all at the same time.
MarkW says: December 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Yes, warmer air would result in a lower RH which would result in increased evaporation, but only til the RH returned to equilibrium. Once that point is reached there is no enhanced evaporation and we reach the point where the only difference is less energy leaving the ocean via conduction to the air.
==============================
The warmer the SST, the warmer the air. RH returns to equilibrium only at RC.
MarkW says:
December 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm
“Half right.
Water temperature is determined by energy in vs energy out. Solar insulation counts for most of the energy in, however the temperature of the atmosphere directly affects the rate at which energy can leave the oceans. So a warmer atmosphere will result in a warmer ocean, because less energy is escaping rather than more energy entering.”
The ocean losing energy warms the atmosphere not the other way round, as can been seen during ENSO. A warmer ocean results in a warmer atmosphere, this is shown by the temperature gradient between the surface and the higher troposphere. In winter any cold places with sudden source from the warmer ocean is warmed significantly. With increasing height intervals the temperature decreases showing the energy is decreasing further away from the surface. The atmosphere restricts the energy loss from becoming faster than the solar input, to maintain the similar equilibrium currently shown. When more solar radiation reaches the ocean surface, less percentage of this solar energy escapes. The ocean heat content contains energy that would had been lost to space if it had not been there.
This retained energy in the ocean IMO is most of the 33c greenhouse effect claim, without it the planet would be much cooler, especially away from the tropics. This is because the high energy retained in the tropical oceans would be loss to space and be prevented from warming other parts of the planet that are much colder.
Theo Goodwin says:
December 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Gail Combs says:
December 20, 2012 at 11:28 am
Excellent post. I understand your concern with “the next big scare.” However, worthless studies tied to causes are highly fungible within the academic empire. Biology Departments have all kinds of specialties that are soft science at best but that have been growing steadily since Earth Day 1970….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tell me about it. I was a chemistry major and as a senior topics course in 1971 in chemistry (like a masters paper only assigned) I got stuck with research in ‘Chemical Oxygen demand in polluted waters’ In other words I was the lab tech grunt for my profs next paper.
“Reactions are coming in worldwide worldwide”
oops
cn
Funny!
BTW, a year ago, after posting here for three years, I adopted the use of the blockquote and /blockquote tags (inside angle brackets) to indent and italicize quoted material to any nesting depth. They are helpful in avoiding misunderstandings (because they’re virtually foolproof to the reader) and in enabling me to provide full context locally in complex disputes.
My fingers can now type the first tag without conscious thought. After I’ve typed the first one, I copy and paste it into lines lower down, then insert slashes in the tags that represent out-dents. (It took about six months before I consistently inserted them, though.) When I compose offline in Word, I let Autocorrect convert “bq” to “blockquote” and “bqs” to “/blockquote” (both with angle brackets around them).
Hopefully the Dems will take heed and apply the savings from pursuing pointless green endeavors toward paying off the national debt – oh, sorry – I temporarily nodded off and was dreaming.
540 calories (2260 joules) is absorbed (released) by 1 gram of water evaporating (condensing).
the specific heat of water is 4.2 joules/gram which is the energy required to raise its temperature by 1 degree C.
both of these numbers vary slightly with temperature and pressure.
EternalOptimist says:
December 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Interesting speculation. Some remarks:
We would have attributed such a quick warming to CO2 and agreed with the alarmists that they’re right, I guess. Because it would have been an extraordinarily quick warming never observed in the instrumental record that dates back 300 years or so with the records of CET and Potsdam.
At least I would. I never cared much about climate catastrophism, I enjoyed warm winters here in Germany in the 90ies. Back in those days of gradual warming there were no big energy subsidies to pay so it wasn’t a big economic problem either, and the landscape wasn’t yet enhanced by 100 m high wind turbines everywhere.
Only after I grabbed a copy of Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist did I really notice what Mann had done and what the climate models did and it became apparent that it’s a pseudoscience, I must have recognized this about 2003.
Again, for a long time I didn’t care. Then I got a job in the renewables sector and found a bunch of real malthusian warmists there. I confronted them with the truth and, looking for data online – I didn’t have the book with me – I found WUWT, that was right before climategate so I had the pleasure of following the comedy as it unfolded, and the screaming greenshirts at Copenhagen. I had much more fun at that company, pointing out to them that they were living on borrowed time with the subsidies. They really didn’t like to have it rubbed in…
As it stands, I’m a skeptic of CO2AGW because it doesn’t work. Had it worked, I wouldn’t be a skeptic of it.
Roger Knights says:
December 20, 2012 at 2:51 pm
“My fingers can now type the first tag without conscious thought. ”
Download Firefox, the Greasemonkey plugin and the CA assistant from Climate Audit. It gives you formatting buttons in the edit box.
I made the mistake of following the link to Connolley and within seconds was treated to him abusing commenters with “ignorant tosser” and “cretin” . Classy!
The whole CAGW crowd must be feeling pretty sick with fear at the moment. They are definitely between a rock and a hard place. The most honourable of them – and big apologies to those who just spluttered coffee at my use of the term – will confess all. It will hurt, and hurt quite a bit, but they will then feel a lot better for coming clean. It really is their only way out of the mess they’ve made. All their conniving has only ever gotten them deeper into trouble, so conniving some more will not help them any. Basically they should come out with their hands up or suffer the consequences. I won’t hold my breath on their surrender. After all, that takes courage.
Here in Australia, it is the 21st Dec today. The end of the world? Oh yes, for some, by the looks of it, but then, that’s what the CAGW community wanted, right? Maybe it’s just for them. Maybe they should have been careful what they wished for.
Philip Bradley says: December 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Carter says:
Does the warm atmosphere not transfer some heat over to the sea?
Not to any significant degree (pun intended). A warmer atmosphere impedes heat loss from the oceans. Thus causing the oceans to be warmer than they would otherwise be. BTW, I’m talking net energy/heat transfers.
Which incidentally, is why the Arctic Ocean is cold. The atmosphere above the Arctic is much colder on average than any other ocean.
========================================================================
You couldn’t be more wrong, Phillip. The arctic is cold because of lack of insolation. Kindergarten stuff. Air does not determine SST. That is backwards.