Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
Climate scientists are obsessed with carbon dioxide. The newly released Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that “radiative forcing” from human-emitted CO2 is the leading driver of climate change. Carbon dioxide is blamed for everything from causing more droughts, floods, and hurricanes, to endangering polar bears and acidifying the oceans. But Earth’s climate is dominated by water, not carbon dioxide.
Earth’s water cycle encompasses the salt water of the oceans, the fresh water of rivers and lakes, and frozen icecaps and glaciers. It includes water flows within and between the oceans, atmosphere, and land, in the form of evaporation, precipitation, storms and weather. The water cycle contains enormous energy flows that shape Earth’s climate, temperature trends, and surface features. Water effects are orders of magnitude larger than the feared effects of carbon dioxide.
Sunlight falls directly on the Tropics, where much energy is absorbed, and indirectly on the Polar Regions, where less energy is absorbed. All weather on Earth is driven by a redistribution of heat from the Tropics to the Polar Regions. Evaporation creates massive tropical storm systems, which move heat energy north to cooler latitudes. Upper level winds, along with the storm fronts, cyclones, and ocean currents of Earth’s water cycle, redistribute heat energy from the Tropics to the Polar Regions.
The Pacific Ocean is Earth’s largest surface feature, covering one-third of the globe and large enough to contain all of Earth’s land masses with area remaining. Oceans have 250 times the mass of the atmosphere and can hold over 1,000 times the heat energy. Oceans have a powerful, yet little understood effect on Earth’s climate.
Even the greenhouse effect itself is dominated by water. Between 75 percent and 90 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and clouds.
Yet, the IPCC and today’s climate modelers propose that the “flea” wags “the dog.” The flea, of course, is carbon dioxide, and the dog, is the water cycle. The theory of man-made warming assumes a positive feedback from water vapor, forced by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
The argument is that, since warmer air can hold more moisture, atmospheric water vapor will increase as Earth warms. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, additional water vapor is presumed to add additional warming to that caused by CO2. In effect, the theory assumes that the carbon cycle is controlling the more powerful water cycle.
But for the last 15 years, Earth’s surface temperatures have failed to rise, despite rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. All climate models predicted a rapid rise in global temperatures, in conflict with actual measured data. Today’s models are often unable to predict weather conditions for a single season, let alone long-term climate trends.
An example is Atlantic hurricane prediction. In May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued its 2013 hurricane forecast, calling for an “active or extremely active” hurricane season. At that time, NOAA predicted 7 to 11 Atlantic hurricanes (storms with sustained wind speeds of 74 mph or higher). In August NOAA revised their forecast down to 6 to 9 hurricanes. We entered October with a count of only two hurricane-strength storms. Computer models are unable to accurately forecast one season of Earth’s water cycle in just one region.
The IPCC and proponents of the theory of man-made warming are stumped by the 15-year halt in global surface temperature rise. Dr. Kevin Trenberth hypothesizes that the heat energy from greenhouse gas forcing has gone into the deep oceans. If so, score one for the power of the oceans on climate change.
Others have noted the prevalence of La Niña conditions in the Pacific Ocean since 1998. During 1975-1998, when global temperatures were rising, the Pacific experienced more frequent warm El Niño events than the cooler La Niñas. But the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a powerful temperature cycle in the North Pacific Ocean, moved into a cool phase about ten years ago. With the PDO in a cool phase, we now see more La Niña conditions. Maybe more La Niñas are the reason for the recent flat global temperatures. But if so, isn’t this evidence that ocean and water cycle effects are stronger than the effects of CO2?
Geologic evidence from past ice ages shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide increases follow, rather than precede, global temperature increases. As the oceans warm, they release CO2 into the atmosphere. Climate change is dominated by changes in the water cycle, driven by solar and gravitational forces, and carbon dioxide appears to play only a minor role.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:12 pm
I thought about addressing this, but it’s been gone over a thousand times. And time, right now, is on Salby’s (and my) side. The human emissions and atmospheric concentration are currently diverging, while the atmospheric concentration continues to track the integral of temperature as Salby demonstrated.
With declining temperatures, we will not have to wait too much longer before the fact that humans have little impact on CO2 levels becomes undeniable. Even to the most gung-ho warmist. Even to Ferdinand.
gbaikie says:
October 8, 2013 at 11:36 am
———————————————–
Only 1 out of 6?
And how on earth did you get 5 wrong?
gbaikie says:
October 8, 2013 at 11:36 am
———————————————–
Only 1 out of 6?
And how on earth did you get 5 wrong?
I must be brilliant.
I assume I got #1 question correct.
As for #2, obviously any gas convects heat- and all greenhouse gases are a trace gases in Earth’s atmosphere.
The moisture of air [despite being a trace component] is controlling element in determining lapse rate. There nothing particular unique about H20 in air other than it condenses and evaporated at temperature found on Earth’s temperature and pressure [though, it notable it has higher specific heat and higher latent heat than most gases or liquids].
It’s the involvement of water which causes hurricanes- one of the most convective phenomena on Earth. And presence of water is involved with tornadoes- the next most dramatic convective phenomena.
And in terms of thermal lift used by gliders it a warmed surfaces which commonly used.
There is no known convective process unique to CO2 or other non-condensing
greenhouse gas [though CO2 is a condensing gas in some environments not typically found on Earth- and CO2 both reacts and mixes with H20].
And #3. It’s related to #2
As #4, I can’t see how one disagrees with my answer.
Perhaps #4 is correct answer and #1 is one I got wrong.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says, October 8, 2013 at 6:56 am:
“About your point 5: Satellites show a decrease in outgoing radiation in one of the CO2 band(s). That means that some energy is retained in the troposphere, wherever that may be: increased skin temperature of the sea surface, more evaporation and/or more convection. In all cases, that gives that more energy is retained somewhere in the system, until the temperature increased sufficient to put more energy into other outgoing IR bands besides the CO2 band(s)…”
No, it does not mean that some energy is retained in the troposphere. That is a very common way of misinterpreting those spectrums. They don’t show total OLR power density flux at ToA. They simply tell us that a smaller portion of the total OLR flux emitted to space is going through this band. The total OLR is not reduced. That has rather increased in step with global temperatures since at least the mid 80s (ERBE/CERES). OLR at ToA is determined by 1) surface temperature, 2) atmospheric temperature and humidity, and 3) clouds. I would also include winds.
I have been saying this almost 5 yrs on, posted as comments many times on different articles posted on WUWT; and is published in my blog. But your explanation about ‘Rain Cycle’ is wrong that’s why we have climate change problems. Correct explanation of rain cycle will show the solution to climate change. Rain Cycle according to your diagram is impossible, so we need new explanation. For answer click on my name.
I have been saying this almost 5 yrs on, posted as comments many times on different articles posted on WUWT; and is published in my blog. But your explanation about ‘Rain Cycle’ is wrong that’s why we have climate change problem. Correct explanation of rain cycle will show the solution to climate change. Rain Cycle according to your diagrem is impossible, so we need new explanation. For answer click on my name.
For an additional surprise, look up what has transpired (!!) with global RH and Absolute Humidity over the last few decades.
“””””……BBould says:
October 8, 2013 at 10:54 am
Anyone know of any night time studies of how the earth loses heat during the night? Is it possible that the earth releases any extra energy into space during the night and then starts accumulating it again next morning?……””””””
So just when is it night on earth, and when is it next morning. Since the moon is not big enough to occult the earth, it is never night on earth. Now sometimes it is night on some parts of the earth but never on the whole earth.
Konrad 10/7 4:21pm: “To understand why the radiative green house hypothesis is in error…”
The radiative green house hypothesis basic science is not in error; high quality historical experiments are proof, though the water cycle GHE magnitude is not as well established as a calculator shows to 12 decimal places. None of those 6 questions are particularly relevant though interesting to think through. Technically, all Konrad needs to understand water cycle GHE is optical opacity of an atm. in the SW & LW IR bands to come up to speed on the GHE subject and experiment. Read a good textbook; I recommend Caballero on line or Bohren theory & experiments 2006.
For history ref. listing, experiments and radiative science discussion this guy will also serve to increase Konrad’s kitchen table experimental expertise in the top post subject:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf
I have been saying this almost 5 yrs on, posted as comments many times on different articles posted on WUWT; and is published in my blog. But your explanation about ‘Rain Cycle’ is wrong that’s why we have climate change problems. Correct explanation of rain cycle will show the solution to climate change. Rain Cycle according to your diagram is impossible, so we need new explanation. For answer click on my name.
devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com
“kitchen table experimental expertise”
Trick if you were going to try to denigrate and smear, why on earth would you of all people use “kitchen table” as your attack?!
Remember when you claimed that removing energy from a fluid column could not cause convective circulation? The Internet does. Forever.
————————————————
Konrad says:
January 23, 2013 at 10:55 pm
Trick says:
January 23, 2013 at 4:49 pm
“Nothing in Konrad’s cinnamon/beer can/ice water bath contraption can change these physics. I suppose at least Konrad got some human wants/needs fulfilled from the experiment by emptying the beer can.”
———————————————————————————
Trick,
That will not work either. You made a direct claim that I would need to add energy to speed up convective circulation in the atmosphere. You provided truly spectacular bafflegab to that effect here –
“Your strawman; well stabbed only if you can ‘splain the source of the created energy within the control volume of earth/atm. causing net speed up (more f*d ) diffusion and advection because as you write only constant radiative energy flux gets in/out to deep space (at LTE I might add).”
And doubled the stupidity here –
“Takes energy to increase mass’ speed, an acceleration. F=ma, energy = F*d. QED, Konrad creates energy in control volume.”
I responded with a simple experiment showing how to generate convective circulation by REMOVING energy from a fluid here –
“- get a large glass container of hot water and mix a ¼ teaspoon of finely ground cinnamon into it.
– wait until Brownian motion slows till the suspended particles are barely moving.
– now suspend a beer can full of ice water in the top 50mm of the hot water to one side of the clear container.*
– watch as convective circulation develops in the container.”
Trick, you keep getting the basic physics of convection spectacularly wrong. You claimed I needed to add energy to drive convection. I gave you an empirical experiment showing how to drive convection by removing energy from a fluid. Will you admit that you got the basic physics of convection wrong?
You lost a physics debate to some hot water, ice and a ¼ teaspoon of ground cinnamon!
Konrad 1:31am – Your google-fu is strong. But your physics are weak. Your experiments remain AFAIK non-ISO9000 compliant.
“..REMOVING energy from a fluid here…..mix a ¼ teaspoon of finely ground cinnamon into it.”
Still can’t see that adds energy into the control volume not removes energy. My point at 9:46am withstands your kitchen table cinnamon test: “The radiative green house hypothesis basic science is not in error..” contrary to conclusions you draw from uncontrolled household tests.
Now, if you were to get an ISO9001 process approval cert. for your lab, followed proper processing techniques with auditing, and still discovered something the atm. physics text book world has overlooked & can be independently verified then, well, you might have something of interest.
Because it is possible to use a tabletop glass of ice water, non-ISO processing of a rubber compound with some compression to form a proper physics view text book experts had overlooked:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/01/28/the-challenger-disaster-and-a-cup-of-ice-water/
Trick says:
October 12, 2013 at 7:09 am
“Still can’t see that adds energy into the control volume not removes energy.”
———————————————————————————————-
There is none so blind…..