Guest essay by David Archibald
President Obama didn’t start the war on coal. That war had its origins back in the 1970s. The nuclear industry joined the fray in 1982 with the establishment of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at Oak Ridge, part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The CDIAC collects data on carbon dioxide concentrations around the planet and conducts experiments with pre-ordained outcomes. By that I mean growing plants in elevated carbon dioxide concentrations to study the effects of that on growth rates but at the same time adding ozone so that the growth would be stunted. Not everything the CDIAC is completely useless though.
The pause in global temperature rise might cause a loss of faith in the global warming faithfully so the priests of the movement are required to provide an explanation. The explanation they have come up with is that the missing heat is hiding in the depth of the Altantic Ocean and will one day leap out at us when we are least expecting it. This is an illustration of the heat gone AWOL:
The illustration shows heat plunging into the depths as far as 1,500 metres. The oceans don’t work like that. Most of the heat energy of sunlight is absorbed in the first few centimetres of the ocean’s surface. Waves mix the water near the surface layer such that the temperature may be relatively uniform in the top 100 metres. Below that there is almost no mixing and no vertical movement of water.
This is where the CDIAC comes in handy. Following is a map of CDIAC voyages in the Atlantic Ocean:
And this is the temperature profile of A16 from almost 60°S to near Iceland, a distance of over 13,000 km.:
It shows how the Antarctic is a giant refrigerator for the planet. The dark blue in the bottom left is cold water below 1°C plunges near Antarctica and ponds in the deep ocean right up to the equator. The CDIAC voyages also record carbon dioxide data of course. This is the carbon dioxide and total alkalinity profile for A20, to the west of the A16 voyage:
Once again, most variation is near surface while the bulk of the ocean is effectively homogenous.
We didn’t need the CDIAC data to debunk claims of missing heat in the ocean depths but it is good to have empirical data. The CDIAC is well past its use-by date though. Apart from the unnecessary cost, it was conceived for a dark purpose under President Carter. The United States will need all the energy it can get soon enough.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).
Reference:
Is Atlantic holding Earth’s missing heat?
Eli Kintisch
Armchair detectives might call it the case of Earth’s missing heat: Why have average global surface air temperatures remained essentially steady since 2000, even as greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere? The suspects include changes in atmospheric water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas, or the noxious sunshade of haze emanating from factories. Others believe the culprit is the mighty Pacific Ocean, which has been sending vast slugs of cold bottom water to the surface. But two fresh investigations finger a new suspect: the Atlantic Ocean. One study, in this issue of Science, presents sea temperature data implying that most of the missing heat has been stored deep in the Atlantic. The other, published online in Nature Climate Change, suggests a warming Atlantic is abetting the Pacific by driving wind patterns that help that ocean cool the atmosphere. But some climate specialists remain skeptical. In a third recent paper, also published online in Nature Climate Change, other researchers argue that the Pacific remains the kingpin. One reason some scientists remain convinced the Pacific is behind the hiatus is a measured speedup in trade winds that drive a massive upwelling of cold water in the eastern Pacific. But there, too, the Atlantic may be responsible, modeling experiments suggest. A consensus about what has put global warming on pause may be years away, but one scientist says the recent papers confirm that Earth’s warming has continued during the hiatus, at least in the ocean depths, if not in the air.
The partial pressure of CO2 on Venus is, what, 96 ATMs? On Earth its 0.0004 ATMs. Any idea what the difference in emissivity might be? Look up Hottle’s measurements and report.
Mr SonicsGuy
…
I have “confidence” in this model, I believe you also might.
….
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png
…
Aren’t models fun?
Might be hard not having confidence in them.
Yeah, but G is a free parameter to which the model has been tuned. That makes it worthless.
Moreover, we know today that this equation is wrong, and it fails to predict observable phenomena. A better equation is G = k*T, where G is the Einstein tensor, and T is the stress-energy tensor in 4-dimensional space-time. This equation has limits on its applicability as well, which is why we keep searching for better ones.
This is an important point – most physical laws, as written, are known to fail in particular cases. You cannot just apply some laboratory result far beyond the range of its tested limits and expect it will necessarily hold in your intended application.
Edward Richardson, only a climate clown would compare a simple, provable linear model like the inverse square law to a chaotic, nonlinear unprovable (at least probably in my lifetime) climate model.
But you and David Appell (sockpuppeting as sonicsguy) seem to share such traits.
[Snip. Invalid email address. ~mod.]
No model is “provable”
…
Nothing in science is “provable”
…
If you want “proof” study Math.
@Hanzo:
What is the definition of a “contrarian”? It is a pejorative, and you used it twice in one comment.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ah. Gavin Schmidt. The guy who tucks tail and runs from any fair, moderated debate with skeptics. That’s because he always loses the debates. Now his answer is… don’t debate!
Yeah, he’s got a lotta credibility. ☺
==============================
Terry Oldberg says:
climatologists have magnified the disaster they have created by leading policy makers to the conclusion that the models are eminently useful for this purpose.
Exactly right. Climate models — GCMs — are truly pathetic. Not one of them was able to predict the most significant event of the last twenty years: the fact that global warming has stopped.
GCMs cost $multi-millions, and they are a waste of taxpayer money. What year do they predict that global warming will start up again?
Contrarian = contrary to mainstream understanding. For example, an explanation of Venusian surface temperatures using atmospheric ‘thickness’ rather than Greenhouse effect is a contrarian viewpoint. It is less pejorative than ‘denialist’.
dbstealey: Why are you skipping out on the Venus questions above? Hmmmm?
Climate models don’t make predictions, they make projections, because no one knows what natural changes take place with solar irradiance, volcanoes, ENSOs, ocean cycles, etc. or the level of future emissions.
Climate models project the equilibrium state of climate, not every wiggle and turn on the way there. That is, they solve a boundary value problem, not an initial vallue problem. They are spun up in a random state, not with the actual initial conditions (which we not know).
Climate models are skillful (as Gavin Schmnidt said in his TED talk), but always wrong. Do you have a better method to project future climate change?
IMO the most important climate event since 2000 is the rapid melting of the Arctic. There isn’t much of a pause (see Cowtan & Way), just a slowdown which has happened several times before, and lots of works show more heating going in the ocean. This slowdown does not invalidate the role of CO2 in any way.
SonicsGuy:
Well said. Models that project but do not predict have a limitation that is not often recognized. This is that they convey no information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions. A consequence is for the climate to be uncontrollable using these models. Despite this limitation governments persist in trying to control the climate. The cause of their persistence seems to be applications of the equivocation fallacy by climatologists ( http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 ) that make it seem as though the climate is controllable when it is not .
OK, Hanzo, let’s apply your definition to the real world:
More than 32 thousand scientists and engineers, all with degrees in the hard sciences, have co-signed a statement that CO2 is ‘harmless’ and ‘beneficial’. No “contrarian” alarmist group has ever come anywhere close to that number.
Therefore, by your definition, climate alarmists are contrarians. Yes?
And thanx for admitting that ‘contrarian’ is a pejorative. See, the alarmist crowd started with all the name-calling, and they do it more often and in more places than skeptics ever did. So it is amusing when we see them whining about hurt feelings.
BTW: have you ever read Michael Mann’s tweets? Just wondering…
We may use ‘in opposition’ if you wish. For example, the claim that global ice mass is diminishing at an accelerating rate is in opposition to the claim that global ice mass is increasing. Hanzo is persuaded by 20-year results of GRACE data analysis from 26 labs quantitating mass. Dbstealey is persuaded by 2.7 years of sea ice extent increases quantitative area. Our views and inderstanding are in opposition. Do you agree? Do i misunderstand you? Do care to elaborate?
Claiming consensus?
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.”
– Michael Crichton
PS: What about Venus questions?
SonicsGuy August 25, 2014 at 8:58 pm
Matt G wrote:
“Notice the oceans should have 2.45 times more temperature profiles, just to have an equal coverage of observations.”
There’s no “should” — only what’s been and the associated uncertainties. Water temperatures are much more stable than air temperatures — the latter varies greatly every day, with every burst of wind, with every season. The ocean does not.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
Water temperatures are more stable than air temperatures, but changes over weeks are occurring all the time under the ocean surface with PDO, ENSO, AMO and many ocean currents. The main difference is 1000’s meters of water require many more temperature measurements in 3D comapred to 2D surface temperatures. The link on my previous post showed the depth to 250m were getting closer to the 17,000 value representing 2.45 times here.
The errors may be fairly large for the most reliable data sets we have, but the errors are even bigger for those measuring below 1000m without even considering, the much bigger problem highlighted before of almost non-exsistent coverage of the deep oceans..
“The errors may be fairly large…”
I think we can all agree that larger data sets reduce uncertainty. So when I see an uncertainty ± 0.1 W/m^2 and an ocean heat trend of +0.55 W/m^2 over the 2005-2010 Argo collection timeframe, I can quite comfortably rule out ‘hiatus’ and ‘cooling’
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/11/286636/sorry-deniers-the-ocean-is-still-warming/
“Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) also estimate the errors in global trends from the period analysed, and also future error uncertainty. For the 2005-2010 period the error uncertainty is plus/minus 0.1 watt per square metre; quite large considering the global trend over the period is 0.55 watts per square metre. However, after 15 years of observations the uncertainty drops considerably, down to ± 0.02 watts per square metre. This demonstrates how longer periods of observation, along with the complete ARGO network, are critical to derive more accurate long-term ocean trends.”
Hanzo,
ARGO data do not show what your link pretends to show. But then, that is a wacko alarmist blog, so they can be completely disregarded as incredible.
In the Northern Hemisphere, ARGO buoys show consistent declines in ocean temperatures.
The models, as usual, were wrong. ARGO data shows flat to cooling ocean temperatures.
ARGO SST [sea surface temperatures] also show no accelerating warming, as had been incessantly predicted. In fact, SST shows no warming at all.
There are only two depths in which the ARGO buoys have found any ocean warming. The rest all show cooling.
Now that the ARGO floats have been *ahem* “adjusted” by the government, they might show some ocean warming. But agencies like NOAA, USHCN, GISS, and others have all fraudulently re-jiggered their so-called ‘data’ [which is no longer data after all their adjustments] so often that they cannot be trusted.
Hanzo preposterously claims that ‘global warming’ is still chugging along as always. Since his income is dependent on that scare, I understand his motivation. But he is completely at odds with all the mainstream organizations, both alarmist and skeptics, which admit that global warming has stopped.
How do we know that? Because they all use words like “Pause” and “Hiatus” to describe the end of global warming. Those Orwellian terms do not cover up the fact that they have thrown in the towel, and are now admitting that global warming has stopped. [At this point I believe they are up to 50+ excuses.]
So, hanzo, you are out of step with the mainstream. Can we refer to you as a “contrarian” now?
Taking contrarian data analysis ad absurdum, one might conclude that global warming stops each winter.
Dbstealey gave four links to support the claim of global ocean cooling. Using this data one can demonstrate how one can be mislead by ambiguous graphs, regional cherry picking and by the use of short-term data that exagerates the effect of superimposed natural variation.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Argo_Heat_Content.jpg
Shows 4 years of data (2004-2008) showing a short term cooling trend. Without more labeling it can’t be determined whether the indicated trend truly represents global temperatures including depths lower than 800 m or whether this trend is governed largely by natural variability.
Key questions for a skeptic should include: how does the short-term trend compare with the longer term trend and are the effects of cooling consistent rising sea level rise and accelerating ice mass declines?
http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/NH-0-65N-v-50-65N-0-2000dBar-2004-2013max.png
Shows 9 years of data (2004-2013) including deep ocean, but only for selected latitudes in Northern Hemisphere only (0-50N show -0.01 deg C cooling and 50-65N show -0.04 deg C). Is this trend truly a global representation?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q5ZstJqH6jk/TyKKSoN-eyI/AAAAAAAAEPQ/m4-hHMQM4fI/s400/argo-v-climate-models.gif
Two 8-year ocean heat content graphs are shown (2004-2012). A perfectly linear red line is purported to represent climate model data. Since runs from any single climate model exhibit variations and are often depicted with error bars, a single linear representation of multiple climate models appears highly suspicious. The black curve indicates a rising heat content trend.
http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/ARGO-sea-temperature-max-max.PNG
Six purportedly global 8-year (2004-2012) surface temp data are contrasted by increasing depth: 0-2.9m, 0-19.5m, 0-48.7m, 0-97.4m, 0-146.1m, 0-194.7m. What is interesting is that the slope of the linear regression lines trend in the positive direction as the depth is increased.
Below is the fully labelled global OHC data from two sources, in context and without regional cherry-picking. They show increasing ocean heat uptake without pause, hiatus, or plateau.
0-2000 m
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content#/image/File:Ocean_Heat_Content_(2012).png
10-1500 m
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/ocean-heat-content-10-1500m-depth-based-argo
Here is additional context regarding short-term cooling surface temp trends in the ocean.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html
“In the Northern Hemisphere, ARGO buoys show consistent declines in ocean temperatures.”
Citation?
And what about those Venus questions? (Really man, you are making this too easy….)
The World Ocean Database 2013 contains almost 13 million data points:
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/WOD/DOC/wod_intro.pdf
(see pg 26, Table 1.3)
Sure, it’d be nice to have 13 trillion, but there are always budget and manpower issues.
The question is, given the data that’s collected, how good is the data? That is, using data models, what is the resulting uncertainty in the various calculated values, such as OHC?.
Looking at that (very thorough) document, and Levitus et al 2012
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract
I get the definite impression that these scientists were very careful about uncertainties (as most scientists are; a particle physicist once told me that 90% of his work was getting the error bars).
So when I read Levitus et al 2012, and see graphs like their Figure 1, I am not surprised to see quite large error bars for, say, the year 1960 where the 2-sigma error bars for OHC stretch from -2 to -9.5e22 J, then decreasing with time.
All data has limitations. The question is what you do with it.
katatetorihanzo August 27, 2014 at 5:32 pm
A complete Argo network will indeed be critical in providing more accurate long-term trends.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/mnth_gif/xy_data/temp.prof.global.90s-90n.1000-5000m.gif
Please note the little warming from between 2005-2007 to 2008-2010 with ARGO maybe just an artifact caused by significantly increasing the temperature profiles as highlighted above.
Therefore you can’t rule out hiatus and cooling, when other data which was also fairly reliable shows otherwise.
http://climate4you.com/images/NODC%20NorthAtlanticOceanicHeatContent0-700mSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
“Please note the little warming from between 2005-2007 to 2008-2010 with ARGO maybe just an artifact caused by significantly increasing the temperature profiles as highlighted above.”
What is the evidence for your claim?
Calibrating for new instruments is something scientists are well aware of, and spend a lot of time doing.
What conclusion about a global hiatus can drawn from only one-half of the Atlantic, and only to 700 meters?
PS: Seven of eight datasets say there is no hiatus.
dbstealey August 27, 2014 at 3:05 pm
“Who’s speculating? I’m talking about the science.”
You’re still speculating, because you are trying to describe something that doesn’t exist.
What doesn’t exist? The pressure, temperature and composition of Venus’s atmosphere has been measured, its opacity in the IR has been measured (it’s only transparent in two narrow windows), thermal emissions are only observed from very high in the atmosphere (~210K and ~260K) due to the opacity of the lower atmosphere. The pressure broadening has been measured.
You may believe otherwise. But that’s how I see it, and I much prefer real world, empirical evidence as opposed to guesses, no matter how sciency they are.
No you don’t, because when presented with ‘real world, empirical evidence’, not guesses, on this subject you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn’t agree with your beliefs.
Reprise: The partial pressure of CO2 on Venus is, what, 96 ATMs? On Earth its 0.0004 ATMs. Any idea what the difference in emissivity might be? Look up Hottle’s measurements and report.
Yes, thermal physics is a good deal more advanced than Climate Science, but since you seem eager to dive in…
CO2 as a low pressure gas absorbs in the 10 to 15 micron region, becoming bond-vibrational energy, i.e., latent kinetic energy which is shared with the surrounding gas on collision.
The emissivity of CO2 at 400 ppm is 0.0001 that of an ideal black body. Dirt and green leaves are 0.94, even snow is 0.75.
The speed of an interaction, the time required to effect absorption or emission, is directly proportional to emissivity. The black body emits ‘instantly’ on absorption.
In the Earth’s atmosphere the low emissivity means CO2 is comparatively transparent to radiation with regard to Venus’. Moreover, on absorption CO2 on Earth will invariably contribute the added energy to the surrounding gas, heating it ever so slightly, and not have an opportunity to emit ‘back radiation’.
There is, further, no possibility that CO2 can heat the surface by back radiation when the ratio in emissivity stands 1 to 10,000.
Correction, the emissivity of C02 at 0.0004 ATM is 0.001 that of the ideal. Sorry.
The atmosphere is a strong absorber (viz. a blackbody) at the infrared wavelenghts where water vapor, CO2, CH4 etc. absorb.
I Guess you mean Hoyt Hottel, author of ‘Radiative Transfer’?
Your mistake is to refer the emissivity of CO2 for all wavelengths, in the absorption band, 10-15 microns it’s close to 1 as would be expected from Kirchoff’s law.
As I pointed out above on Venus CO2 is much more opaque over a wider range of wavelengths, due inter alia to pressure broadening but in the absorption band it is fairly strong absorber. Excited CO2 does not ‘invariably contribute the added energy to the surrounding gas’, near the surface that is the main mode of transfer but higher in the atmosphere radiative transfer predominates.
Phil. says:
…you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn’t agree with your beliefs.
Best psychological projection comment I’ve seen all day! Thanx, Phil.
Next, the anonymous coward, ‘scuse me, I mean “sonicguy” cherry-picks his faves. Two can play that game, and I shall trump sonic’s pathetic finds:
Declining trend chart #1. Not very scary, eh?
And here we have chart #2, the 2 meter temperature anomaly.
Now for some multiple data sets. Chart #3.
And of course, HADcru, chart #4.
Here is chart #5, showing four more declining temperature trends.
And here we have the globe, from 85º N to 85º S: Chart #6.
Here is another view of HADcru, chart #7.
Want more? I thought so: chart #8. Includes ARGO.
Next, we have chart #9, global temperatures since 2000.
That’s not enough? OK then, here is chart #10, 5 datasets.
And chart #11, with a declining trend line.
I got more charts showing the same thing. Lots more. These are just a random selection. But they show why the mainstream climate professionals are all in agreement that global warming has ‘paused’. Or, if you like, is in a ‘hiatus’. Of course, those terms mean that global warming has stopped, whether you want to say it’s five, or ten, or twenty years ago. Global warming stopped, many years ago.
The few true believers who cannot accept reality argue against that reality. But they aren’t in the current *ahem*… consensus, which agrees that global warming has stopped.
Their consternation is palpable. Why? Because that fact cuts the heart out of the “carbon” scare. But then, skeptics know that CO2 has simply gotten a bad rap: it is a harmless, beneficial trace gas. More CO2 is better. So…
Give us more ‘carbon’! It’s all good.
dbstealey: Still refusing to answer the Venus questions? Why?
Simple. It’s because you know those observations are direct evidence of the greenhouse effect.
@ur momisugly Edward Richardson: August 27, 2014 at 7:03 am
“Why is the sun facing side of Mercury cooler than the surface of Venus despite it being half the distance to the Sun?”
———————
Edward R, please read the following “link” containing “quick facts” ….. and you will find the “answer” to your question
Planets For Kids
http://www.planetsforkids.org/planet-mercury.html
From the link you provided…..”Mercury’s sunny side has a temperature rising to 400° Celsius or 750° Fahrenheit. ”
…
There is no mention of Venus in the link
From http://www.space.com/18526-venus-temperature.html …..”The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius).”
Now why don’t you explain to all of us w hy is the sun facing side of Mercury cooler than the surface of Venus despite it being half the distance to the Sun?
@ur momisugly Phil.: August 27, 2014 at 8:59 am
“Nothing, nice cherry picking of the quote, you were claiming that the increase of CO2 was due to the change in temperature whereas in fact it’s due to the introduction of previously sequestered Carbon into the atmosphere …… and its subsequent partitioning between the atmosphere and ocean per Henry’s law.”
———————–
Phil, please tell me and all your friends what it is that directly or indirectly “triggers” the action/reaction that is necessary in order to “transfer” and/or “introduces” the above said …… “previously sequestered Carbon into the atmosphere”.
“Phil, please tell me and all your friends what it is that directly or indirectly “triggers” the action/reaction that is necessary in order to “transfer” and/or “introduces” the above said …… “previously sequestered Carbon into the atmosphere”.”
Mining equipment and drilling platforms.
dbstealey August 27, 2014 at 9:33 pm
Phil. says:
“…you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn’t agree with your beliefs.”
Best psychological projection comment I’ve seen all day! Thanx, Phil.
OK, so why when presented with ‘real world, empirical evidence’, not guesses, on this subject do you refuse to acknowledge it?
According to you, you ‘prefer real world, empirical evidence’ so why not in this case?
“Your mistake is to refer the emissivity of CO2 for all wavelengths, in the absorption band, 10-15 microns it’s close to 1 as would be expected from Kirchoff’s law.”
Completely false. By Kirchoff’s law, absorption precisely equals emittance. If it were the case that CO2 at a partial pressure of 4^10-4 interacted with every incident photon of the 10 and 15 micron wavelengths no trapping would occur. Yes, renaming Kirchoff’s law to Stewart’s law and claiming a quantum mechanical impossibility is standard Climate Science, but your physics is adumbrated.
As indicated, bond-vibrational energy is latent kinetic energy and not an electron raised to a higher orbit, and therefore has a much extended time of interaction. Your explanation is uneducated and fabulist.
Trapping results on absorption because the kinetic energy is transferred to the surrounding gas which does not emit at the 10 micron wavelength.
Samuel C Cogar August 28, 2014 at 5:49 am
@ur momisugly Phil.: August 27, 2014 at 8:59 am
“Nothing, nice cherry picking of the quote, you were claiming that the increase of CO2 was due to the change in temperature whereas in fact it’s due to the introduction of previously sequestered Carbon into the atmosphere …… and its subsequent partitioning between the atmosphere and ocean per Henry’s law.”
———————–
Phil, please tell me and all your friends what it is that directly or indirectly “triggers” the action/reaction that is necessary in order to “transfer” and/or “introduces” the above said …… “previously sequestered Carbon into the atmosphere”.
I thought it should have been reasonably clear but here goes. The mining of coal and drilling for oil and gas and their subsequent combustion introduces previously sequestered Carbon in the form of CO2 into the atmosphere in Gtonne quantities. That causes an increase in the pCO2 in the atmosphere, followed by absorption of some of that CO2 into the ocean per Henry’s law. Some also enters the biosphere.
@ur momisugly Phil.: August 27, 2014 at 1:37 pm
“Who’s speculating? I’m talking about the science.
CO2 has everything to do with it, …..”
———————–
“NO”, Phil, you are talking trash.
Iffen CO2 had all the “magical” properties that you claim it does …… then the US Federal Government would be DEMANDING that it be used as an “insulation” product to be “installed” in the walls and ceilings of all homes and businesses, ….. thus saving the owners of said homes and businesses thousands of dollars in their yearly energy costs.
Shure nuff, Phil, just pump the walls and ceilings of your homes full of 95% CO2 …… and your heating unit would only have to operate for a few minutes each day …… and would keep you warm, cuddley and comphy all winter long.
“DUH”, even the “dummies” should be able to reason out the fact that if CO2 “works” for Global Warming …… then it sure as hell will “work” for Home Warming.
So, get with “the program”, Phil, …… get with “the CO2 program”.
Be the verily firstest one in your neighborhood to “practice what you preach”
SonicsGuy August 27, 2014 at 6:46 pm
“Please note the little warming from between 2005-2007 to 2008-2010 with ARGO maybe just an artifact caused by significantly increasing the temperature profiles as highlighted above.”
What is the evidence for your claim?
Calibrating for new instruments is something scientists are well aware of, and spend a lot of time doing.
——————————————————————————————————–
Much of the remaining error in the difference estimates of heat content, thermosteric expansion, and temperature is due to inadequate sampling by the in situ data. In recent years, subsurface floats have begun to contribute a substantial fraction of globally available temperature profiles. Once the Argo float array is fully deployed, it will produce approximately 100,000 profiles per year, evenly distributed over the global oceans. Although this does not represent a large increase in profile density over the present, the more uniform distribution of the float array is expected to reduce the errors caused by undersampling, particularly in the Southern and Indian Oceans.
Calibrating instruments can’t resolve the problem caused by undersampling and the little/very short increase soon stopped once profiles become stable. An example over few miles comparing 3 temperature profiles earlier with 5 temperature profiles later.
earlier) A,B, and C = 1.2c,1.2c, 0.9c
later) A,B, C, D, and E =1.1c, 1.1c, 1.1c, 1.3c and 1.2c
Comparison between earlier and later only using A, B, C results in no temperature change. (1.1c v 1.1c)
Comparison between earlier and later using all available temperature profiles result in slight warming. (1.1c v 1.2c)
SonicsGuy August 27, 2014 at 7:04 pm
What conclusion about a global hiatus can drawn from only one-half of the Atlantic, and only to 700 meters?
PS: Seven of eight datasets say there is no hiatus.
———————————————————————————————————–
Based on the recent paper with the latest excuse stating the missing heat was suppose to be in the North Atlantic depths this doesn’t support it. Hence why I linked this, but forgot to link the global one also which does show a little warming very recently.
http://climate4you.com/images/NODC%20GlobalOceanicHeatContent0-700mSince1955%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Seven out of the eight data sets I linked before show the opposite of your conclusion from the ARGO time period. (ie one of eight show no hiatus)
Already described before why down to 700m because until ARGO has full distribution of temperature profiles then 1000m and below is not worth using. Before Argo it was like using two temperature profiles for the entire USA up to 2000m ASL.
@ur momisugly Phil.: August 28, 2014 at 7:04 am
“The mining of coal and drilling for oil and gas and their subsequent combustion introduces previously sequestered Carbon in the form of CO2 into the atmosphere ….. ”
———————–
Phil, it appears that you have INTENTIONALLY neglected to specify what “triggers” your aforesaid subsequent “combustion” ……which I SPECIFICALLY asked you to do.
Maybe you should “focus” all your brain power on what it was that “triggered” the microbial combustion (oxidation) of previously sequestered Carbon (dead biomass) in the form of CO2 into the atmosphere ……. given the FACT that it produces/generates like 20 times more CO2 than does the “combustion” of fossil fuels.
And ps, Phil, the CO2 emissions resulting from the COMBUSTION of fossil fuels are so miniscule that they CAN NOT BE detected or determined in the daily, weekly, monthly or yearly Mauna Loa measurements of atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.
But iffen you think otherwise, here is the “link”, to wit: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
to the Mauna Loa average “monthly” CO2 ppm quantities for the past 56 years ….. so that you can “point out” the human emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.
And NO “weazelworded” obfuscations, …. tripe ….. or piffle, …… or any more of your “circular questioning” or “roundhouse tactics”, …. just list the “year/month” that said “detected” amount occurred.
SonicsGuy
August 27, 2014 at 2:50 pm
“Also, explain the TOA-observation of Earth’s outgoing spectrum:”
It appears a slam dunk – without a doubt, GHGs in the atmosphere intercept outgoing radiation. That indicates beyond a doubt that, all things being equal, some quantity of GHG in the atmosphere should increase temperatures at the surface beyond what they would be with no GHG.
However, this does not establish that increasing levels of a GHG will, at all times and all quantities, increase surface temperatures. The global sensitivity (secant line) may be positive, while the local sensitivity (tangent line) is negative (as in the plot).
To establish local increasance, you must show that incremental additions of GHG produce a corresponding incremental increase in surface temperatures. The last 18 years suggest that, in the present state of the Earth’s climate, that relationship fails. Indeed, if you look at history over the past century, there is no evidence whatsoever that increasing CO2 has any effect at all in the present climate state. Since at least 1900 (measurements rapidly become poorer before then), the average surface temperature has been composed of a steady trend plus an approximately 60 year cyclical component.
This pattern was established long before CO2 levels markedly increased, and is evidently therefore due to some other driver. The peak of the ~60 year cyclical component occurred right on schedule in the mid-2010’s. The likelihood is that the established pattern will continue, and I predict that future temperatures will evolve something like this. All without any apparent dependency on CO2 concentration.
gary gulrud August 28, 2014 at 8:33 am
“Your mistake is to refer the emissivity of CO2 for all wavelengths, in the absorption band, 10-15 microns it’s close to 1 as would be expected from Kirchoff’s law.”
Completely false. By Kirchoff’s law, absorption precisely equals emittance.
Not true, Kirchoff’s law states that emissivity=absorptivity!
Gibberish omitted.
As indicated, bond-vibrational energy is latent kinetic energy and not an electron raised to a higher orbit, and therefore has a much extended time of interaction.
A point I have made many times here, I’ve not referred to electronic orbitals so I don’t know where you pulled that one from.
Your explanation is uneducated and fabulist.</em.
No, it's accurate
Trapping results on absorption because the kinetic energy is transferred to the surrounding gas which does not emit at the 10 micron wavelength.
As pointed out many times collisional energy transfer predominates in the lower troposphere whereas radiation predominates at high altitudes where the mean time between collisions is greater allowing sufficient time for the loss of a photon.
“Trapping results on absorption because the kinetic energy is transferred to the surrounding gas which does not emit at the 10 micron wavelength.”
It isn’t one-way. The surrounding gas can also transfer its kinetic energy to unexcited GHG molecules, which can then radiate that energy away, providing cooling. Which effect dominates depends inter alia on the relative concentrations, energy levels, and surface radiative input.
There are many ways to short-circuit this comic book sketch of one potential outcome of the melange. However, the running experiment, in which no effect on surface temperatures from rising CO2 is observed over the past century, argues this is not the outcome for the Earth in its present state. Doubly so for the past 18 years, in which we have seen no increase in surface temperatures at all, despite a sum total output of fully 30% of the sum total of CO2 produced by human industry since the dawn of the industrial age.
Discounting as gibberish that which you do not understand is the end of AGW. It should be plain that a quantum mechanical interaction does not change its spots because one looks at it alone. Your discrete spectral emissivity has no scientific foundation whatever.
“No, it’s accurate”
You are simply a congenital prevaricator.
Samuel C Cogar August 28, 2014 at 7:25 am
@ur momisugly Phil.: August 27, 2014 at 1:37 pm
“Who’s speculating? I’m talking about the science.
CO2 has everything to do with it, …..”
———————–
“NO”, Phil, you are talking trash.
Iffen CO2 had all the “magical” properties that you claim it does …… then the US Federal Government would be DEMANDING that it be used as an “insulation” product to be “installed” in the walls and ceilings of all homes and businesses, ….. thus saving the owners of said homes and businesses thousands of dollars in their yearly energy costs.
We’re talking about heat loss from a planet which can only be by radiation, not heat loss from a building.
I don’t see any government mandating hermetically sealed double walls and ceilings pressurized to 1500 psi either!
dbstealey August 27, 2014 at 2:34 pm
Hanzo says:
“Something” is making Venus hot.
Yes. “Something”.
What is that ‘something’?
It is certainly not CO2, because CO2 canot have that effect:
It certainly can, especially when the concentration is about 250,000 times higher on Venus, and all the pressure broadening that I’ve explained to you.
Bart August 27, 2014 at 1:13 pm
“pCO2 is linearly related to the cumulative fossil fuel emission, the temperature effect is a minor modulation due to the Henry’s law coefficient variation etc.”
Quite impossible, given the data.
Try plotting it you’ll find it’s not impossible!
“… so sealey’s claim that it’s high temperature is due to it’s proximity to the sun is refuted.”
But, your argument was still non sequitur. Hey, you wrote it in haste. No big deal.
Is there any subject you know something about?
As stated because of its high albedo less solar radiation enters the Venusian atmosphere than the Earth’s, therefore the elevated temperature of Venus is not due to its proximity to the sun. Due to the increased opacity of the atmosphere to IR the radiational heat loss rate is much reduced leading to the higher temperature.
“Try plotting it you’ll find it’s not impossible!”
I did. It is. Atmospheric CO2 is diverging from emissions, while hewing to the integral of temperature.
“As stated because of its high albedo less solar radiation enters the Venusian atmosphere than the Earth’s, therefore the elevated temperature of Venus is not due to its proximity to the sun.”
No, that is not what you stated. You stated
At best, this would argue that Venus would have (2/3)^0.25 = 0.9 of the temperature of the Earth. And, that is only under the assumption that the albedo is independent of temperature.
Nope, sorry. This is beyond your level.
Here is what it looks like without the “derivative”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/offset:-380/plot/uah/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
And, that is the wrong relationship.
If you want to look at it in that domain, here is the proper relationship.
[Snip. Invalid email address. ~mod.]
Again, nope, sorry.
Bart August 28, 2014 at 12:27 pm
“Try plotting it you’ll find it’s not impossible!”
I did. It is. Atmospheric CO2 is diverging from emissions, while hewing to the integral of temperature.
No you didn’t, read the post again!
It’s impossible, Phil. You cannot filter out the trend in temperature. Nature has no way of doing that and, if it could, which it can’t, it would leave telltale phase distortion, of which there isn’t any.
How long will it take for you to see the light? If emissions keep accelerating (which they will), and temperatures decline (which is already underway), the gap between virtual accumulated emissions and actual concentration is going to become very large in the not-too-distant future, with the former showing a distinct positive curvature, and the latter a distinct negative. At what point, I wonder, will you throw in the towel?
I’ve been pointing out this relationship for years now, and you’ve been arguing against me for years now. I predicted the temperatures would decline with the natural ~60 year cycle, and that CO2 rate of change would level off, both of which have come to pass. Do you really want to continue betting against me all the way to the bitter end?
Bart August 28, 2014 at 2:15 pm
It’s impossible, Phil. You cannot filter out the trend in temperature. Nature has no way of doing that and, if it could, which it can’t, it would leave telltale phase distortion, of which there isn’t any.
There’s no need to, the overall growth in pCO2 is so much greater than the change due to temperature that the temperature effect is just a small modulation superimposed on the overall change. (after all that’s why you detrend the data before you make your misleading graphs)
Ferdinand has been pointing this out to for years.
How long will it take for you to see the light? If emissions keep accelerating (which they will), and temperatures decline (which is already underway), the gap between virtual accumulated emissions and actual concentration is going to become very large in the not-too-distant future, with the former showing a distinct positive curvature, and the latter a distinct negative. At what point, I wonder, will you throw in the towel?
For that to happen would require a huge change in temperature, which even your crystal ball doesn’t foresee.
I’ve been pointing out this relationship for years now, and you’ve been arguing against me for years now. I predicted the temperatures would decline with the natural ~60 year cycle, and that CO2 rate of change would level off, both of which have come to pass. Do you really want to continue betting against me all the way to the bitter end?
You were wrong then and you’re wrong now, just as you were on turbulent mixing in the boundary layer last week.
“…after all that’s why you detrend the data before you make your misleading graphs…”
I don’t detrend any data. What are you talking about?
[Snip. Invalid email address. ~mod.]
No, using the derivative function takes the derivative of the data. The derivative maps 1:1 to the overall concentration modulo an integration constant. Since anthropogenic emissions have not been constant, they account for the integration constant.
Since anthropogenic emissions have not been constant, they cannot account for the integration constant.
[Snip. Invalid email address. ~mod.]
No, Edward, that is not at all what is happening. The linear trend component remains, but becomes a constant offset. The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is proportional to temperature relative to a particular baseline temperature. We find that baseline temperature by comparing with the offset in the rate of change of CO2.
The model is
dCO2/dt = k*(T – To)
where To is the offset temperature, and k is a coupling factor. This is a first order expansion of the true relationship over a limited timeline. We do not know how long the timeline lasts over which the equation should be accurate, we only know that it is remarkably accurate over the past 56 years, since reliable measurements of atmospheric CO2 became available, and over which time the greater part of the modern rise is observed.
To fit anthropogenic additions in, we would have to decrease the k factor, but there is little room to do that and maintain a match with the higher order variability in the data. Hence, anthropogenic emissions cannot be a significant driver of atmospheric levels.
[Snip. Invalid email address. ~mod.]
Edward Richardson:
I believe you are confusing the global temperature with the time average of the global temperature once again. The “T” in Bart’s model is the global temperature while your “T” is the time average of the global temperature.
[Snip. Invalid email address. ~mod.]
@ur momisugly Phil.: August 28, 2014 at 11:31 am
“We’re talking about heat loss from a planet which can only be by radiation, not heat loss from a building.”
————————–
“NO”, we are talking about the near-surface “warming” effect of “greenhouse” gases …… so quit trying to “change the subject” to better serve your “trash talking” crapolla.
“DUH”, the top of atmosphere (TOA) heat loss from a planet via radiation is in FACT a ”global cooling” function/process. And the 2nd FACT-of-the-matter is, …. no one really give a crap about that TOA heat loss of the earth …… any more than they care about the heat loss at the South Pole in Antarctica.
When the air temperatures are -60 C or greater at the surface in Antarctica and/or at the top of the troposphere, …… but only -20 C or less at the stratopause, ….. then who cares how much is being emitted (radiated) at the TOA (above the thermosphere). To wit:
http://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/profile.jpg
Does anyone actually believe that the GREATER the “heat” radiation is at the TOA ….. the GREATER the “sucking” sound will be that is “sucking” the “heat” radiation out of the near-surface atmosphere?
“HA”, a belief in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is more sensible.
Anyway, Phil, iffen you are “talking” ……. “geenhouse” gases (CO2) and “burning” fossil fuels, …… then you are also directly “talking” heat loss from homes and building, …. regardless of whether it is the retention of said “heat” for warming purposes or the dispersal of said “heat” for cooling purposes. And both of said human perpetrated “heat” controlling functions are “energy intensive” …… and “energy intensive” infers fossil fuel “burning” and CO2 emissions.
So, Phil, best you explain to all your friends and neighbors exactly what this IR photograph is telling you about “heat loss” radiation from homes and buildings, to wit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/images/energy_saving_1.jpg
The “junk science” claims of CAGW are so intricately connected that they are akin to a “circular” row of Dominoes. All it takes is for one (1) of them to “fall” ……. and the remainder follows suite resulting in total collapse.
[Snip. Invalid email address. ~mod.]