Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Over at Dr. Judith Curry’s always excellent blog, she has a post headlined by a question, viz:
What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?
Let me start by saying that this is a horribly phrased question. Consider a parallel question:
What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in my body surface temperature when I put on a jacket?
I’m sure you can see the problem with Dr. Judith’s question—temperatures can rise without ANY new sources of heat or ANY change in existing sources of heat.
For example, regarding the climate system, every year there is more and more oil that goes into the ocean. This oil floats on the surface in a monomolecular layer, and it reduces both conduction and evaporation. As a result, the oceans end up slightly warmer than they would be without the oil … where is Dr. Judith’s mysterious “source of heat” supposedly driving that change?
Here’s another example. Over say the last 50 years the incremental temperature rise at the Poles has been generally greater than in the tropics. This reduces the equatorial-polar “delta-T” (∆T), the temperature difference between the two. But wind speed is generally some function of ∆T, so less ∆T means less wind. And evaporation is linearly proportional to the wind speed, so this would tend to amplify warming from whatever cause by reducing evaporation … and where is the “source of heat” for that wind-related amplification of warming?
With that as a preface, let me start by giving you an overview of our understanding of the historical climate. Be forewarned, it’s depressing. Here we go.
Nobody knows why the Roman times were generally warmer than times prior to that, or why it generally cooled after the Roman Era.
Nobody knows why it then warmed again up to the Medieval period.
Nobody knows why the warmer Medieval times were followed by fairly rapid cooling to the Little Ice Age of the 1600s-1700s.
There’s more. Nobody knows why the Little Ice Age didn’t turn into a real ice age. Certainly, the orbital parameters were there for us to slip into a glacial period … but it didn’t happen. Why? We don’t know.
Instead, and again for reasons nobody understands, rather than continuing to cool, the planet started warming, at about a half a degree per century for the last few centuries, right up to the present.
(Please note that “nobody knows” doesn’t mean “nobody claims to know”. I can find ten scientists tomorrow who all claim they know why the Little Ice Age came about … the problem is, they all have different answers. But the truth is … nobody knows.)
And as far as we can tell … none of those gradual temperature changes were caused by variations in CO2.
Given all of that, it is a giant and unsupported leap to think that we can say either that a) there’s been an increase in some kind of heat source, or b) whatever might have caused that increase in the heat source, it has in turn been the cause of the recent years of incremental warming.
I gotta say, the hubris of climate scientists is beyond all bounds. Despite not being able to explain the past, they claim that they can predict the future out a hundred years … pull the other leg, it has bells on it …
But heck, let’s pretend for a moment that in some mysterious fashion we’ve been able to establish firmly that the change in surface temperature is indeed caused by a corresponding increase in radiation absorbed by the surface. Here’s a graph of the anomalies in total absorbed radiation at the surface (longwave plus shortwave, blue) along with the total absorbed solar radiation anomaly (shortwave only, red).
I’m sure that you can see the problem. The change in just absorbed solar radiation alone is more than enough to explain the entire change in total absorbed radiation at the surface …
So per this particular individual analysis of the CERES data, the source of energy for the incremental change in temperature is … the sun. No need to invoke CO2 or GHGs of any kind. The sun alone provided enough additional heat to completely explain the total increase in absorbed radiation.
Now, does this show that the sun is indeed the cause of the gradual warming? ABSOLUTELY NOT. There are plenty of forces at play in even this restricted subset of climate variables, and the fact that a couple of them line up does NOT mean that one is causing the other.
Part of the problem is our childlike insistence that there is some kind of simple cause-and-effect going on in the climate. I describe it instead as a “circular chain of effects”. Here’s an example. The sun warms the ocean. The warmer ocean generates more and earlier daily clouds. The clouds cut down the sun. Less sun makes the ocean cooler. The cooler ocean produces fewer and later daily clouds … you see the circle, you see the problem.
There’s an insightful Sufi teaching story about this question. Hussein asked the Mulla Nasruddin:
“Well, then, how do you account for cause and effect?”
Nasruddin pointed to a passing procession carrying a coffin and said:
“They are taking a hanged man, convicted of killing another man, from the gallows to the grave. Is this the result of his stealing the knife from the butcher, or of using the knife to murder his enemy, or of being caught by the police, or of his being prosecuted by the magistrate, or of being found guilty by the judge, or of being hanged at the gallows? Which event can you point to and say ‘This is the moment in time that caused him to meet his fate’?”
But then, as Nasruddin was wont to say, “Only a fool or a child looks for both cause and effect in the same story” …
Anyhow, in answer to Dr. Judith’s question, I fear that all we can say with certainty is …“Nobody knows”.
My best to everyone on a lovely winter night,
w.
PS—As usual, I politely request that when you comment you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO, so we can all understand what you are discussing. Please note that although the request is polite, if you ignore it, I may not be … I’m tired of picking random unsourced uncited unreferenced spitballs off the wall.
PPS—In addition to the always-fascinating scientific give-and-take here, let me invite you all to contribute to the ongoing discussions of a more political and personal nature at my own blog, Skating Under The Ice, or to follow me on Twitter, @WEschenbach.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is a great deal of assertions in climate science made with great assurance, and damn little real evidence.
Are, not is. My grammar goes away sometimes.
Start: “There are a great many assertions . . .”
No, you had it right. The “great deal” is a collective subject that calls for a singular verb. “Assertions” in the prepositional phrase isn’t the subject. I’m seeing this error all over the place in recent years, most commonly by British writers, but now picked up by Americans.
Sometimes one, sometimes the other … welcome to English.
The difference is whether something is countable or uncountable. For example, we say “there IS a great deal of confusion” … because “confusion” is uncountable. In general, if you can replace “great deal of” with “a large number of” then it is plural, otherwise, singular. Since you cannot say “there is a large number of confusion”, the singular is correct.
In this case, since we can say “there are a large number of assertions”, then the plural, “are” is correct for “great deal”.
w.
Tom, I just hate it when I’m wrong about being wrong.
You were right the first time. A great deal is only one deal, as attested by the indefinite article “a”, so “is” is correct.
Like UNFCCC? It’s like claiming that lung cancer causes smoking? An ideology that wants us on the road to serfdom?
I know 2 people that I grew up with that were heavy smokers and both died from lung cancer. Sure there are a lot of Churchills around but I wouldnt bet my life on it just to obtain the pleasure of smoking.
Smoking is undeniably a cause of lung cancer. Not the only one, but not all smokers die of lung cancer. The epidemiological evidence is there, as is the evidence of carcinogenic chemicals in cigarette smoke.
I’m afraid you guys missed Santa’s sarcasm. I believe St Nick is repeating Michael Crichton’s example of reverse logic, i.e. “wet streets cause rain”.
Smoking is NOT undeniably the cause of lung cancer because non-smokers also get lung cancer. Epidemiology is the worst of sciences… if it died out tomorrow we’d probably be better off.
If 10% shows causality, yes. Sarcasm or no. It’s the psuedoscience we are drowning in—like asbestos. There’s money be taxed and sued for. IF you accept that tobacco causes lung cancer, you MUST accept the pseudoscience of global warming. Their statistical evidence is at least equal. Humans will accept any pseudoscience that agrees with their world view. Even the skeptics do this on a regular basis.
(Note: My father died of lung cancer. I am not about to let any emotion cloud my scientific understanding. Whether or not the smoking or weed spray or bad luck had anything to do with this, SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW. I had tongue cancer with NO RISK FACTORS whatsoever. Who should I blame and scream and shout about the injustice to? Listerine? Australia says so. It’s all mumbo-jumbo and about blame and money, not science.)
Bob Johnston
Are you saying smoking does not cause lung cancer? If so, you are wrong.
If you are saying it is not the only cause, then that is true…. but that doesn’t mean smoking does not seriously increase your chances of getting lung cancer.
Simon, smoking does NOT necessarily cause lung cancer. An uncle smoked heavily his whole life (82 yrs), died of something else. It might. But I would say that it greatly increases the risk. We probably agree.
Icecore studies tell us that temperature drives/leads CO2 with 800 +/-200 years. So if UNFCCC claim that CO2 is driving temperature ITS like claiming that lung cancer caused smoking or wet streets caused rain etc..
Simon – I’m saying we don’t know if smoking causing lung cancer. Perhaps lighting matches is the cause, perhaps yellow fingers is the cause, perhaps stinky clothes are the cause… the point is we don’t know because it’s unethical to do a randomized controlled trial on the subject. We can’t do that trial because it’s already thought to be dangerous to smoke so without a RCT all we have is epidemiological evidence and epidemiological evidence is sh#t.
It’s the same thing with manmade global warming – there’s only one earth and it’s definitely multi-variant so it’s impossible to run a an RCT on the effects of just added atmospheric CO2 and its effects on temperature… once again all we’re left with is spotty observational data and once again, observational data is sh#t.
A lot of hypotheses actually go unstudied – they sound reasonable on the surface and become standard practice and nobody ever tests the idea. An example of this is stenting a patient with blocked arteries. It sounds good in theory but we’re finding out now that there’s no benefit to stenting in people who aren’t having a heart attack. Think of how many billions are wasted and how many people have side effects (like death) because a stent was inserted with no actual benefit. It’s much the same for statins – unless you’ve actually had a heart attack and are a male under 50 there’s no proven benefit and in that small class of people the benefit is teeny tiny and could easily be dismissed as drug company shenanigans. And it’s never been shown in females for a statin to be effective against heart attacks yet doctors routinely subject their patients to all the known side effects of a statin for no possible gain.
I guess my point is we believe a lot of things that sound logical but in practice isn’t really the case. Yes, I believe smoking contributes to the cause of lung cancer but people who don’t smoke also get lung cancer it’s obviously not the entire story. I actually believe that cancer is a metabolic disease, a disease of mitochondrial dysfunction and not genetic in origin as oncologists and cancer researcher have been chasing their tails attempting to prove for decades. Does smoking cause mitochondrial dysfunction in the lungs or does it cause genetic mutations – I would bet the former. I would also suspect that diet plays a huge role in the formation of cancer – namely sugar, wheat and polyunsaturated seed oils (corn oil, canola oil, soybean oil, etc.). It would be interesting to study the diet of smokers who get lung cancer and those whop don’t.
Anyway, I’m rambling… but I hope my point is made that we don’t really know jack about a lot of the chronic diseases that affect us today, if people tell you otherwise they’re full of it.
Bob: I agree. There are “risk factors”. These are not causes. As I have said before, my oncologist said “We really don’t know what causes these cancers”. If the oncologist could be honest enough to tell me that, I fail to see why scientists throw tantrums when “we don’t know” is used to describe things. Risk factors are not causes. They are statistical behaviors and so forth that indicate you MAY have a higher risk of cancer. You may not. Much of the time, the “cancer fear” is just a way to try and terrify people. Many of the things that are risk factors are very small risk factors. Come on, it should not have taken lung cancer to make it evident that smoking was a bad idea. People do things that are bad ideas all the time. Get over it—it’s called free will.
Although there is other evidence, what was put forward as irrefutable evidence was that 9/10 men who got lung cancer were smokers while it was only 7/10 women. You were a smoker if you smoked 20 cigarettes in your life. No stats on how many men and women who never got lung cancer were smokers – 9/10 men and 7/10 women is my guess. The majority of victims are 80+ and under 50 is very rare.
Not in the pay of Big Tobacco but got suspicious because of the continual analogy.
“I am certain there is too much certainty in the world.”
― Michael Crichton
And here is another aphorism: “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.—Voltaire “
Agreed with both quotes.
Tom I got your bigger point regarding great assurance with little evidence.
My grammar goes away some times too, or is that sometimes also, but then it comes back again never perfect. Is there a psych term for fear of pedanticism.
Pedantophobia. 🙂
Not that I ever heard of, but someone probably came up with some pseudo-latin term for nearly anything.
Tom Hella, Here in Oz a large study was made of immigrants to find out if they learnt english before they came here or after. Some of the feed back and quotes were priceless.One woman said most of the first words she learned were rude ones, but the one that was a real treasure that gives our language it’s teeth was “you have a word for everything”
English (and the English) have a long tradition of appropriating anything from foreign languages ( and foreigners) anything the found useful, and filing off any serial numbers and claiming it as their own. So American English has a good amount of Spanish words for which the settlers were not quite familiar. And the same sort of thing has gone on with most every language and culture English speakers have encountered. It is not a matter of borrowing, it is unashamed theft.
When it comes to ‘measuring’ the ‘global temperature’, may I point you to what is known as ‘the coastline paradox’.
(from wikipedia)
If the coastline of Great Britain is measured using units (62 miles) long, then the length of the coastline is approximately (1,700 miles). With 31 mile units, the total length is approximately 2,100 miles, approximately 370 miles longer…etc etc.
I do not think that we can safely say we know what is happening to Global Temperature until we have fifty years of stable, universally accepted, calibrated measurements…and not the hotch potch of ‘adjusted’ garbage that passes for data today.
What is the point of measuring something that varies significantly based which way the wind blows? Literally. I suppose we could use it to determine which the wind was blowing last year. Lest you think I jest consider el Nina and El Nino. It’s not like temperature is a measurement of energy. It’s relationship is often not even linear. At a minimum we would need pressure and humidity also.
This is what Willis is saying, we don’t have even close to enough data. And, no way is temperature the only data we need.
“This is what Willis is saying, we don’t have even close to enough data. And, no way is temperature the only data we need.”
That seems to me to be the whole point of the article, and he’s right.
Why only 50 years? How about 500?
I like fifty million years. Climate has progressed in a regular periodic way to get to this modern ten thousand year paradise. The lengths of the periods and the magnitude of the bounds did change in an understandable way. This cannot yet be discussed in an open forum because someone with credentials shuts the discussion down with their own bias and repeat the dreaded words, “no one knows”, “no one can know”.
Tom Halla wrote: There a great deal of assertions in climate science made with great assurance, and damn little real evidence.
There is plenty of real evidence. We have many proxies and we especially have the ice core proxies for 800 thousand years in the SH and more than a 100 thousand years in the NH. There is damn little real discussion about most of it. Much of earth is covered by water. There is ice on land and ice covering water. Water changes state between liquid, vapor and ice with huge energy changes. Planets and other bodies in space without water do not regulate temperatures like earth. Earth regulates temperatures with the circulation of water on the surface and in the atmosphere. Convection carries energy in the oceans and atmosphere. Climate people treat earth as static with energy getting removed by IR traveling from the surface up through the heat trapping greenhouse layers. The convection in the oceans and lakes and rivers and in the atmosphere blows this away and it is being ignored.
Earth climate is self correcting. Earth is heated by the sun, but like people, it adjusts its atmosphere and ocean and ice as needed to stay in narrow temperature bounds. Earth is not a non responding object of external forces.
There is plenty of real evidence, we must start openly discussing it.
Agreed!
Agreed!
Ice cores are pretty much taken on faith to be thermometers, as are tree rings. There’s plenty of evidence this is not the case. Let’s discuss that.
No need to discuss it, Sheri. The only reliable way to determine the temperature of anything is with a thermometer.
What we really need, is the exposure as liars of charlatan’s claiming that whatever particular part of our multivariate world they happen to study, is a reliable guide to past temperatures.
I would say that at a minimum we need two full PDO cycles worth of data. Which would be about 120 years.
Nit pick, “For example, regarding the climate system, every year there is more and more oil that goes into the ocean. This oil floats on the surface in a monomolecular layer, and it reduces both conduction and evaporation. As a result, the oceans end up slightly warmer than they would be without the oil … where is Dr. Judith’s mysterious “source of heat” supposedly driving that change?”
Does this mean oil introduction to the ocean is accelerating? I don’t think it is. Besides various microbes metabolize oil so its concentration doesn’t build beyond some pseudo equilibrium. As oil is extracted from fields, natural leaks and seeps are actually reduced. Oil is also hydrophobic. It would not spread out to form a monomolecular layer. Further, some oil is heavier than water and sinks.
R. Shearer March 9, 2018 at 9:01 pm Edit
Thanks, R. I’m sorry for the lack of clarity. I didn’t mean the rate was accelerating, just that every year more oil is added, year after year. Although indeed, it may be accelerating, as more and more boats of all kinds and sizes spend more time on the ocean, and more fossil fuels of all kinds are shipped in fragile vessels, and more and more fossil fuels are dumped into streams and rivers …
Only if we assume that the same amount is added each year …
Sorry, but that’s simply not true. The reason you get a rainbow from fossil fuel in the water is because the layer is so thin … see e.g. Variation of the Microwave Brightness Temperature of Sea Surfaces Covered with Mineral And Monomolecular Oil Films …
Yes, and some oil never gets into the ocean at all … SO WHAT?
I don’t mind picking nits, but you’ve gone OTT with your line of discussion. It is an EXAMPLE, not a dang PhD thesis on oil. I fear that like the poet< said, you had the experience but missed the meaning …
Best regards,
w.
I don’t think it was a good example and wasn’t of the same quality as the rest of your piece. Anyway, like I said I was nitpicking.
I’ve always found it interesting that historically, Spanish explorers and Chumash Indians told of natural oil sheens in Santa Barbara Bay as an example where extraction has generally reduced its prevalence today (barring accidental leaks and spills too). Sheens are on the order of the wavelength of light from which interference and non-uniformity causes the rainbow effect. As a chemist, I perhaps took mono-layer too literally.
R. Shearer March 9, 2018 at 10:09 pm
No matter what I write, someone will jump up to tell me I did it wrong, and that I could have done it better if I’d only done it the way that THEY wanted … today, it’s you. Congratulations.
Truly, amigo, you’ve got to start doing your homework before uncapping your electronic pen … I find this:
You go on to say:
I just sent you a scientific citation about LITERAL monolayers of oil, so I have no clue what you mean by that.
Regards,
w.
Willis, you are obviously very intelligent, but you seem rather thin skinned. You cannot accept any criticism, no matter if it’s prefaced by it being nitpicking. Perhaps it would be more effective to just say “point taken” and move on instead of acting condescending and getting into a pissing contest about something trivial. When you are writing to presumably persuade people of your viewpoint, it doesn’t help your cause to denigrate them. Surely the entire nature of the climate debate would be a good example of this.
WR March 10, 2018 at 12:48 am
Why on earth should I “accept” nitpicking? I have no problem with valid scientific criticism. Like anyone I’m never happy to admit I’m wrong, but when I am I do so loud and clear. I’m probably the only scientific blogger with a post entitled “Wrong Again”, and another later post on another subject entitled “Wrong Again, Again”. So yes I accept criticism IF it is backed by facts. As the man said, “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”
However, as Popeye remarked, “I yam what I yam, and that’s all that I yam”, and no, I don’t suffer fools gladly.
Been there, tried that. You do realize I’ve written over 700 posts for the web? I have found through painful experience that if I don’t hit back at people for insults and meaningless nit-picking, very quickly another person jumps in to attack me, and then another. You seem to think this is a wonderful warm environment run by good feelz … in fact, it is much more like a lion cage, and the lion tamer is ill-advised to let the lions do what they want, they’ll gang up and eat you given half a chance.
What about when I’m writing to try to get people to stop attacking me on meaningless grounds? Heck, if you want to blow in their ears and rub their tummies, or just say “Point taken” and slink off into the night, go for it. Not my style … but hey, thanks for the writing advice.
w.
Yes I know you have written many many posts, and I have read many of them, with what I noticed (and I’m sure I’m not the only one) is a similar condescending attitude full of ad hominems towards anyone who may have any disagreement with you, no matter how minor. Your response here is another good example. It’s interesting that you view disagreements as “attacking”, “meaningless”, “insults” and “nitpicking”. No wonder you respond in kind.
Dale Carnegie would certainly disagree with your tactics. In your “painful experience”, as you say, of going on the attack when anyone disagrees, you seem to confuse shutting people down with convincing people of your position. Sure people will stop responding to you when you go on the attack, but then you have also likely fail to persuade people of your position.
The vast majority of people here are in general agreement with you, so there’s really no need for nastiness and friendly fire. Save that for the alarmists.
“It is an EXAMPLE…”
This is the central point.
I knew what you meant, and the line of reasoning you were conveying.
I have had this same thing happen to me twice recently, on another site where I spend a lot of time.
It was regarding Warren Buffet having said that doubling your (generic “your”) net worth will not make you happy.
I took exception to this, and said so in a short blurb at the top when I shared the story on my FB page.
Further along what had mysteriously become a hotly contested debate (not by me, I was merely offering my opinion) I used an example of the sorts of things some rich person may worry about, vs the sort of things that people living pay check to pay check might worry about.
Oh, no, I was told…rich people do not worry about that. I did not know what I was talking about.
The point was not the example I had chosen, but the idea that wealthy people may have problems, but they are qualitatively different than those faced by the not-so-wealthy.
I feel your pain Willis…yup…feeling it.
And as usual, I share most of your thoughts on the topic of your article.
WR March 10, 2018 at 10:49 am Edit
Hey, he’s the one that called it “nitpicking”, at least get your nonsensical attacks straight.
Clearly you mistake me for someone who gives a rat’s fundamental orifice about the opinion of random internet popups. Look, I do scientific research and I write about it as best I know how. I truly don’t care if anyone gets all butt-hurt as a result. That’s their business. I’m not trying to be a master persuader. I’m trying to tell the truth as I know it. If I persuade people, great. If I don’t, great. I’m doing the best science I can, in the best manner I know how.
In the process, I take heaps of flak. To me that’s OK, because when you’re taking flak it means you’re over the target.
Now, obviously you think you are the expert on how to handle the flak, but guess what? I’m the one who has experimented with all kinds of responses to the flak, not you. I’ve tried gentle, I’ve tried humorous, I’ve tried soothing, I’ve tried corny, I’ve tried aggro, I’ve tried a whole host of things. In the long run, what I find has worked best is to hit back twice as hard when someone starts in with their ugly nonsense. It works wonders “pour décourager les autres”.
And you don’t like it?
So what?
Seriously, why should I care about the opinions of a man who doesn’t have the albondigas to sign his own name to his own opinions?
When you finally get up off your dead … chair and write and publish something on the web, then you can decide for yourself how to deal with the inevitable ill-wishers and malcontents and village experts and the rest of the curious inhabitants of the blogosphere. Like I said, if you want to blow in their ears and tickle their tummies then more power to you. I’d never say you were wrong for doing it. But it hasn’t worked for me.
Yes, the “vast majority” may agree with me, but there is always a vicious, nasty minority that want to do nothing but attack me. My response is, I hit back twice as hard. And if that doesn’t sit right with you, then GO AWAY AND READ SOMEONE ELSE’S WORK!
w.
WR,
Willis is not schooled in the sciences, so what’s the point of discussing science with him? And maybe this is where some of his frustration lies.
I would suggest you do as Willis stated, “GO AWAY AND READ SOMEONE ELSE’S WORK!”.
skepticgonewild March 11, 2018 at 11:52 am: “Willis is not schooled in the sciences, so what’s the point of discussing science with him?”
WR (Wim Röst): Skeptic gone wild. Too wild.
skepticgonewild March 11, 2018 at 11:52 am
Oh, man, that’s hilarious. Frustration? Get real. My only frustrations are dealing with random anonymous internet popups who are unwilling to sign their own name to their opinions, and trying to explain basic thermodynamics to the congenitally inadequate … but then, given the quality of many of those anonymous opinions, I suppose it should be no surprise that they wish to remain well hidden and unaccountable for their words.
And yes, skeptic, I’m like many scientists throughout history, I’m self-taught in the sciences. So what? The only valid question is, are my claims correct, not whether my schooling fits your fantasies or not.
But despite being entirely self-taught in science, I’m one of the most-read climate bloggers on the planet, and Nature magazine thought enough of my scientific ideas to peer-review them and publish them as a “Brief Communications Arising”, and I have over sixty citations in the scientific journals to my work … man, those ugly facts must really frost your banana.
w.
How to stretch the truth: “my scientific ideas”
.
.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02689
.
Writing a comment about the work of other scientists is not a “scientific idea” it is simply a comment, which of course what BCA is all about: https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/bca
Whatever makes you happy Willis.
SkepticGoneWild March 11, 2018 at 3:18 pm
What makes me happy is people contributing to moving the scientific conversation forwards … but you wouldn’t know about that …
w.
“and trying to explain basic thermodynamics to the congenitally inadequate”
You cannot even get the thermodynamic concept of “heat” correct. Have you taken a university physics course? No. Have you taken a university level thermodynamics course? NO!..Then why should I give credence to your notions regarding thermodynamics?
How can anybody believe you are qualified to explain thermodynamics to anyone? The prerequisites for thermodynamics courses requires 1.5 years of calculus and 1.5 years of general physics. Do you have anything close to this?
.
Re R. Shearer March 9, 2018 at 9:01 pm
I share R. Shearer’s puzzlement about ‘monomolecular layers’ of oil on the surface of the oceans, although I disagree with him that his puzzlement is nit-picking, since Eschenbach baldly concludes that ‘the oceans end up slightly warmer than they would be without the oil’.
The puzzlement comes from all the unquantified generalities in that one statement – particularly ironic since the author takes Dr. Curry to task for ill-formulated statements.
1 ‘every year there is more and more oil that goes into the ocean’
– Maybe, but how much goes in?
– How much of that is bouyant?
– What are the rates of evaporation of the various bouyant oil fractions?
– In other words what is the destruction rate?
– And therefore what is the net balance?
2 ‘This oil floats on the surface’
– Better: some types/fractions of oil float on the surface.
3 ‘in a monomolecular layer’
– In ‘a’ single layer, or patches?
– Of what extent?
– Where is this layer (or layers) found? In which oceans? At which latitudes?
– Persistance of this layer?
– Breakup by wave action? Interaction with seawater…
– …which, of course is not pure water but which is a very complex mix of micro-objects.
– Destruction at shorelines?
4 ‘it reduces both conduction and evaporation’. We need some empirical data here.
– To what extent does a ‘monomolecular layer’ reduce conduction?
– It may even have a higher conductivity that sea water.
– The oil in the layer will also have a gas phase and an equilibrium; it will also evaporate.
– Why is this ‘monomolecular layer’ considered impervious to water vapour?
Summa summarum: Would the author or one of his Persian mystics quantify ‘slightly warmer’ for his baffled readers? And please do it without ad hominem invective.
NB: The paper Eschenbach cited in his response to Shearer in no way supports Eschenbach’s assertion about a ‘slightly warmer’ ocean.
That was a wonderful way to emphasize Willis’ point. kudos. Even in one small item as the effect of oil and quantity there are so many variables and unknowns. Or causes and effects.
NB: The paper I cited was to support the existence of monomolecular layers, NOT to support the warming.
w.
This paper Meredith questioned used “…. a monomolecular surface-film experiment with oleyl alcohol…” My Merck Index says it is found in fish oil. Fish oils, often used to locate fish schools, and other organic products are common causes of slicks as previously noted. They often don’t last long especially with a heavy sea. The largest pollution with oil was probably in WWII, to an extent afterwards for a few decades. The amount which natural seeps have been reduced along with anthropogenic oil leaking and oxidation would be an interesting figure. I once went looking for papers on slicks, didn’t find much. Any organic chemists know more about this?
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4157409/?reload=true
“Summa summarum: Would the author or one of his Persian mystics quantify ‘slightly warmer’ for his baffled readers? And please do it without ad hominem invective.”
I shall take a stab at it.
The point was not whether it was a significant amount of heat, or evenly distributed, or whether it was even measurable.
Logically, some heat is kept from leaving the surface for some amount of time.
This principle is used to keep swimming pools from getting cooled off on chilly nights, so it is a provable and well known effect.
The point is not the amount of heat.
It is “some” heat.
Who knows or cares how much?
No one, methinks.
The amount was not the point.
Some scientists you mean.
Others…not so much.
Are you familiar with what is known as a “rhetorical device”?
menicholas March 10, 2018 at 5:25 pm
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand the question. “Slightly warmer” is not quantified. Why should it be? Again, what I gave is an EXAMPLE, not a PhD thesis on monomolecular oil layers. I also didn’t quantify the size of the ocean in question, the water depth, the ambient temperature, or the amount of oil … so what? I’m discussing CONCEPTS, not numbers.
w.
Do not overlook that oil is a natural result of life; especially in the ocean.
Every time, there is a fish feeding frenzy, an oil slick forms on the ocean/sea/lakes/rivers/etc.
Surface oil slicks naturally form over schools of particularly oily fish or crustacea species; e.g. herring and krill.
These slicks form anywhere/everywhere there are fish, crustacea, mammals and water.
Perhaps this could be a new threat, ocean oil mono-layerization (OOM or OOML).
Anyway, the comment about natural fish/krill oil slicks is interesting. From my perspective, I assumed “oil” to be crude oil. I assumed that some type of accumulation of crude oil was being implied. My initiation reaction was that accumulation of oil in this manner is not likely because of so many biological and physical mechanisms at work which destroy petroleum in the marine environment, not the least of which is wave action but also photo-chemical reactions and oxidation, metabolization, solublization, vaporization, etc. (Fish oil is naturally polar from the existence of fatty acids, the acid end being hydrophillic.) There is some complexity to this as noted by GM.
Crude oil is a mixture. Much of it is non-polar hydrocarbons that are hydrophobic, which preferentially agglomerate, especially on a disturbed non-flat surface. Some polar molecules do indeed like to form films with water but they also will make micelles depending on concentration but all layers (mono-layer or not) are broken by waves. At infinite dilution, everything is dissolved.
All biological, geological, chemical processes are complex.
Inherent in the assumption that surface oil slicks are solely temporary conditions requires a static belief that oil slicks dissipate or are consumed quickly thus eliminating the oils.
A belief that ignores surface oil slicks formation is continuous. That oil slicks dissipate or are consumed is irrelevant, new slicks form continuously.
Whether oil is mineral sourced or biologically sourced, there are constant supplies existing, forming and/or entering oceans, rivers, lakes.
Oil slicks are easily spotted by the weakening of wind action on waters. An effect noticed, hypothesized and tested by Ben Franklin.
Large amounts of oil and gas is constantly being spewed out of the ground by itself, the human contribution to this ‘pollution’ is miniscule. Whenever there is a ‘large’ oil leakage caused by human activity, it appears dramatic at first. Microbes will take care of it surprisingly fast, even in areas that many people mistakenly consider as vulnerable to oil.
Ha Ha I believe the English Navy used to use Oil Bags to still the waters. Having read the input from the chemists on this thread, I thought that I might hope for a definitive ruling on the efficacy of the oilbag from the loo dispersation method for stilling the ocean waves, or at least overcoming their breakieness. Please help one who sails a little boat.
FundMe March 10, 2018 at 11:13 am
Good question, Fund. I’ve been a swabby all my life, so I’ll answer this one. Oil definitely retards and diminishes the breaking of waves. It’s the origin of the English saying “to pour oil on troubled waters”, meaning to calm things down.
However, you don’t want to put it down the loo. Since in heavy weather you’re generally going downwind, you want to stream a source of oil (a canvas waterbag with a few holes pricked in it is traditional, a plastic jug also works) behind the boat. That puts the oil between you and a possible breaking wave.
Stay safe on the ocean … and if you haven’t read it, you might enjoy my post entitled In Which I Finally Understand the Fair-Weather Gale” …
w.
Since the whole point of this post appears to be pedantry, let’s have at it:
Because we were in an ice age before, during, and after? We’re in an ice age right now, just not a glaciation.
Man, the grammar Nazis are out in force today. If you look up “ice age” in the dictionary it says:
And yes, I know in scientific terms they’re called “glacials” and “interglacials”, but I write English as she is spoke, not as you fantasize it should be spoke …
And no, the “whole point of the post” is not “pedantry”. Stop picking nits and LOOK AT THE MEANING.
Sheesh …
w.
We are in an ice box climate which is cold oceans and polar ice caps.
We have been in ice box climate for millions of years and it’s an Ice Age. Within this Ice Age there are glacial and interglacial periods. Interglacial periods tend to be shorter periods between the glacial periods and don’t have large ice caps in the temperate zones.
It is thought that polar ice caps may have causal factor related to the cold ocean though if oceans were warm, there would not be polar ice caps.
Our ocean’s average temperature is about 3.5 C and during our ice box climate, it’s average ranges from about 1 to 5 C.
willis , i thought everyone knew the answer to all of the above was co2 😉
It is not pedantry at all.
It seems some folks are expert at missing the point.
I think Willis knows that we’re in an ice age with glacials and interglacials,but the common general public calls the glacials the “ice ages” and in all scientific litterature they use the term ice age for the glacials.
It’s a very correct description if you are just talking about concepts in a for a large public understandeable way…
some here are really missing the point between just summing up some concepts that may/may not cause or may be/may not be an effet of the rising temperature that is measured.
concepts are not exact numbers but the principles behind the numbers, It is there that everything starts. When you take just concepts as real science and try to correct it then i think you are comparing apples with melons.
In this context Willis is imho just debating about the concepts of climate change which is the framework that says what to investigate, check measure and what can be causing it without exact.
It’s like this concept: “to make a room warmer you have to turn the heater on”
but anyway i say good point Willis let the concepts come, i find them very interesting
“they claim that they can predict the future out a hundred years”
Come off it Willis this is straw man territory. Who is “they”? And where I their quote?
You’ve written lots about what we don’t know but what we do know is that on top of any other fluctuation adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm it.
zazove March 9, 2018 at 9:17 pm
Dude, if you’ve never heard a climate scientist tell us what will happen by the year 2100, you are far, far beyond my poor power to add and detract. Google “climate scientist 2100”, you’ll find hundreds of examples, I’m not gonna hold your hand.
No, we absolutely do NOT know that. For example, after we came out of the last glaciation, the CO2 continued to rise for about a thousand years while the temperature was falling … kinda blows a giant hole in your theory.
What we do know is that increased CO2 increases atmospheric absorption of longwave radiation. Whether that actually causes the surface to warm is far from established. For example, a change of a few percent in the cloud albedo is enough to offset a doubling of CO2, and neither you nor anyone can say that does not happen.
Let me suggest that you might profit by meditating on Mark Twain’s words:
Best regards,
w.
zazove,
what we do know is that on top of any other fluctuation adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm it
Willis,
No, we absolutely do NOT know that. For example, after we came out of the last glaciation, the CO2 continued to rise for about a thousand years while the temperature was falling … kinda blows a giant hole in your theory.
Me:
It would blow a giant hole in the theory, if we knew for sure that at the coming out of the last glaciation there weren’t other fluctuations. But obviously there were. I think we can safely agree that CO2 does not cause glaciations nor their end just by itself. I agree with zazove that we do know what he says we know. What we do not know is what other natural fluctuations are currently in play. We cannot blame CO2 and CO2 alone for the little variations currently happening to the climate.
“they claim that they can predict the future out a hundred years” is your silly claim, you google it and show who says it.
Apropos of nothing it’s an amusing irony that whenever someone quotes an aphorism like this, they always seem to attribute it to some famous person or other with no evidence that they ever said it – thus demonstrating the truth of the quote.
Bellman March 10, 2018 at 8:36 am
Thanks, I hadn’t realized that in fact, nobody knows who might have said that first … as you say, ironically demonstrating the truth of the quote.
w.
If I might add one further point to the cloud story it is not just the change of a few percent but when in the day that the cloud is present to the point that that defines if it cools or warms the planet.
Are you guys seriously suggesting you are unaware of claims made of being able to predict changes to the climate caused by man burning fossil fuels?
I doubt it.
No one who spends any time reading or commenting on the CAGW meme could possibly be unaware that such claims are made…it is the entire basis of the alarmism.
Wow…just wow.
‘…..adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm it.’
In a laboratory, not in the atmosphere at large.
Why not?
zazove.
because of water vapour convective cooling.
because of water vapour transport of heat to winter polar regions.
What laboratory experiment conducted sensibly ever showed a temperature change?
because of water vapour convective cooling.
Then it condenses.
because of water vapour transport of heat to winter polar regions.
Where it melts the ice.
The energy doesn’t disappear.
Zazove…why do you think Greenland put on an extra 250 GT of ice during the ‘warmest year evah’?
How did all that ice get there?
Zazove…why do you think Greenland put on an extra 250 GT of ice during the ‘warmest year evah’?
How did all that ice get there?
Um, it lost that much and the sea ice volume is down 70% in 30 years.
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/files/2017/08/GrnLndMassTrnd.png
You were telling me where all that heat was going, do go on…. or you could just give yourself another uppercut.
Oh look, a graph that starts in 2002. The year greenland ice sheet mass took a downturn.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Mass-Balance-Fettweis-2017.jpg
Needless to say. It was gaining mass for years just prior.
~¿~
zazove, that “graph” is from nasa. There’s your problem — goobermint paid shills…..
zazove, the atmosphere is gaseous. Warming a gas (or a mixture of gases) causes it to expand, if it can. The atmosphere can expand (there is no rigid roof). It does expand. Yes, as you note, the energy does not “go away” — it converts to a different form, e.g. mechanical, as in the expanding atmosphere.
Lol, charles posts nonsense and you choose to reply to me instead. Biased much?
zazove, stop and think for once. If energy didn’t “disappear” then the earth would have first melted and then vaporized millions of years ago.
Convection cause by water vapor carries heat high into the atmosphere where it does indeed “disappear”, into space.
zazove, changing the subject -> cognitive dissonance. The energy that charles describes being moved does not necessarily cause a temperature change; any energy that causes a mechanical change (or an acoustic change or a chemical change or an electrical change . . . ) cannot also cause a temperature change. It was your insistence that the atmosphere “must” warm that was nonsense.
zazove, just like all alarmist data your nasa graph is discontinued right before the growth year. january 2018 would have shown the 250 GT increase. but they discontinued it….
how inconvenient is that?
Really?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-evidence-shows-co2-cools-the-atmosphere/
CAGW is not only scientifically unsound, it is scientifically impossible.
Science of Doom has a slightly more professional approach to this.
Hugs—yes, but they also have something of a slant. I enjoy readiing their site, but I’d never question them because I would expect to be put down for not believing as they do.
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-will-climate-be-2100-expect-surprises-says-new-met-office-study/
“Come off it Willis this is straw man territory. Who is “they”? And where I their quote?”
Can you possibly be serious?
The entire AGW scam is based on constant production of, and constant transmission of, horrifying long-range predictions of the effects of CO2. A hundred years is the scammers’ typical projection. The entire power base the alarmists have built is based on terror–their fraudulent predictions of dire effects in the future.
Even if you don’t follow this issue, the 100 year predictions of doom are constantly broadcast through every possible media, to every possible audience. Also in schools, Hollywood, TV, and everywhere else influence is possible. You might want to get out more, if you seriously do not know who “they” are, or what they predict.
Here are just 3 examples, the top results of a Bing search on :
“It looks like the world could be a much hotter place by the end of the century.New data released by Nasa scientists is revealing how temperature and rainfall patterns around the world may change by the year 2100.
Using climate change predictions based on increasing levels of carbon dioxide, the data reveals what may happen to the climate in individual towns and cities.” Daily Mail, 2015
“According to scientist David Archer, whose research is often featured in the renowned Nature magazine, the C02 that we are emitting from fossil fuels today will still be affecting the climate in many millenia from now. His conclusion is that even though the majority of C02 emitted from burning a single tonne of coal or oil today will be absorbed over a few centuries by the oceans and vegetation, approximately 25% of it will still be lingering in the atmosphere in 1,000 years, and 10% still remaining and impacting the climate in 100,000 years time.” UN University, 2011
“Scientists nearly double sea level rise projections for 2100, because of Antarctica
“Sea levels could rise nearly twice as much as previously predicted by the end of this century if carbon dioxide emissions continue unabated, an outcome that could devastate coastal communities around the globe, according to new research published Wednesday. The main reason? Antarctica.” Washington Post, 2016
Thousands more such predictions are issued every week. Try a Google Alert on “climate predictions 2100.” You’ll be able to compile your own list! Try it, it’s fun!
Here’s a good one I think you will like, “We don’t inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children.”
We’re all being pressured by this systemic emotional guilt trip by claims that cannot be proven to be true.
“Come off it Willis this is straw man territory. Who is “they”? And where I their quote?”
Can you possibly be serious?
Yeah, an extreme example of somebody playing “stupid”.
Zitherzatherzuzz is trolling…I can sense it.
Hey, zazz…do your own homework.
If you are somehow unaware of this, stick around and pay attention this time.
beng135, he’s not playing.
Com’on Kent Zazove supports the IPCC claims, their predictions only go to 2097 not 2100! Everybody knows that!
(sarc)
FWIW,
“Knowing is not understanding. There is a great difference between knowing and understanding: you can know a lot about something and not really understand it.”
Charles Kettering
If oil on the surface of the sea reduces evaporation wouldn’t that result in less rain, more droughts?
Richard111 March 9, 2018 at 9:42 pm
Could be, Richard111. The basic rule of the climate system seems to be:
w.
There has always been oil on the ocean (except when there wasn’t … or something).
Thus, per Richard111, evaporation and precipitation might change if people added more, but ..
that might encourage faster growth of the microbes that metabolize the oil. The population of microbes might overshoot and chew up more oil, and . . . I think I see a circle!
Makes my head hurt.
The issue extends to CO2. More in the atmosphere — the “sinks” ramp up. If the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere begins to go down . . . well, the bulked up sinks will still be there. Over time they will adjust.
Enough circles. A last sip of wine and I’m headed to bed.
Cheers.
do we know for certain that globally the total amount of precipitation has to equal the total amount of evaporation assuming that comets dont provide much water on a global basis?
I suspect it’s probably still true; but it used to be (in the states) if you spilled fuel in the water enough to cause a sheen e.g. fueling your boat; you were supposed to report it to the Coast Guard so they could come out and issue you a citation.
Anyone remember this:
Now friends, there was only one or two things that Obie coulda done at
The police station, and the first was he could have given us a medal for
Being so brave and honest on the telephone, which wasn’t very likely, and
We didn’t expect it, and the other thing was he could have bawled us out
And told us never to be seen driving garbage around the vicinity again,
Scafetta’s cycles based on solar orbit wobbles, due to planet perturbations, is worth a closer look because of its connection with the PDO and 60 year cycle, found in ice cores and shallow sea cores.
I would also point out that the LIA came to an end around 1900 in the Southern Hemisphere, icebergs were large and plentiful, which maybe related to Length of Day (LOD).
ironicman March 9, 2018 at 10:03 pm
Scafetta? Don’t make me laugh. Been there, done that. See here for the details. TL;DR version?
Sorry, but Scafetta’s work is a scientific joke …
w.
Okay, thanks Willis, I’ll take Scafetta off my Red Team.
In regards the LIA, do you think it was a Bond Event?
What is so ironic Willis is that you are going to have to eat your hat when it come to what Scafetta is saying. He is closer to the mark than you might realize even though he may not be on solid scientific grounds. Anthony Watts – your co-collaborators and Basil Copland claim the following periods appear in the smoothed world’s mean temperature: 9.2 year and 20-21 years. They even say that:
“As for the decadal signal of 9.22 years, this is too short to be likely attributable to the 11 year solar cycle, but is very close to half the 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle, and thus may well be attributable to the lunar nodal cycle.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/23/evidence-of-a-lunisolar-influence-on-decadal-and-bidecadal-oscillations-in-globally-averaged-temperature-trends/
Are you laughing at them as well?
astroclimateconnection March 10, 2018 at 8:29 am
Thanks, astro. What is so ironic is that I just showed how Scafetta has already claimed four totally different and contradictory things … so which one of them am I going to have to eat my hat over?
As to the early work by Anthony Watts and Basil Copeland, I think that they were seduced by the apparently cyclical nature of climate, and at that point almost a decade ago they had not realized the limitations of fitting curves to natural climate observational data.
Regards,
w.
Like you do…?
First chuckle of the day.
Willis’ article ‘The Source Of The Heat’ rather nicely sums up our knowledge of how the Climate works.. The answer is that we know almost nothing about how it all works. There is no shortage of theories, but no sure knowledge of which theory is right. Fortunately, nothing really unusual is happening in the weather right now.
+ a whole big bunch
What is driving the shortwave increase post 2012? Less clouds I am assuming, but why?
That’s my guess — less clouds. Why?
I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all
https://youtu.be/L-fIO7_HJBo
The sources of heat that may change and that cause a change in ambient heat are
1) coming from outside in, i.e. the sun
2) coming from inside out, i.e. the earth
1) There was some change in heat coming in but we reached a zero point somewhere around the new millennium. My results show that more CO2 does not cause any heat entrapment so we can rule out this interaction.
2) most probably due to a realignment with the sun, earth’s inner core has been moving, north east. Quite fast over the past century, compared to previous centuries. This may account for the [extra] warming of the arctic. Namely, my results show that there has been no warming in the SH. In fact, here where I live, in South Africa, it has been cooling [looking at minimum temperatures.
“2) coming from inside out, i.e. the earth”
That has been a big question I keep asking with generally no quantifiable response.
Volcanoes, lava, sea floor vents, and general conduction from the earth’s core… How much heat is going into our atmosphere from the core and how is this affecting climate?
If the science is truly settled, then someone has the numbers.
fizzissist March 10, 2018 at 6:32 am
Average flux for continents is ~65 mW/m^2, oceans on average 101 mW/m^2.
As flux this is irrelevant compared to the solar flux, BUT the temperature of the crust just below our feet (20-30 m) is completely caused by geothermal energy, Same for the oceans below the solar heated mixed surface layer (the “base” temperature)
This means that every morning the sun rises it doesn’t start to warm a blackbody at 0K, but it adds its energy to an already warm surface, increasing its temperature a little.
In this situation occasionally large magma eruptions in the oceans can increase this base temperature.
eg the Ontong Java Event, some 100 million km^3 magma erupting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontong_Java_Plateau
Ben, fizzizist
I have followed an empirical process to prove that there is no man made warming, as shown below. I have no answer on why in South Africa there never was any warming other than that earth inner core has been moving north east.
To give a summary of all my investigations into climate change starting ca. 2009/2010
Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
Arguing with me that 99% of all scientists disagree with me is fruitless. You cannot have an “election” about science. You only need one man to get it right…..
henryp, please do a guest post here. Thank you kindly.
Willis: nice article that makes us all think about rethinking about what we think. I like it!
PS good job responding.
Willis,
I agree 100% with your Analise,
But 97% of the above disagree with my decision.
Thanks Willis, as usual great .
As an example of just how bad an average scientific climate study report can be
Here are my first 19 criticisms of David Battisti and Etienne Tetrault-Pinard and M.B. Baker’s “scientific paper” called “Impacts of Surface Moisture on Surface Temperature Variability. Submitted, J. Climate, Dec.2015″ Dr. Battisti is one of the top 10 global warming hoaxters.
1) Both in the abstract and paper, Battisti and the other 2 authors say
” A striking finding is that globally, all land areas belong to one of two
regimes, defined by the role of surface moisture on temperature variability. In
’dry’ regions variations in moisture enhance the impacts of forcing anomalies
on temperature, whereas in ’wet’ regions, surface moisture variations, acting
by a somewhat different mechanism, damp the temperature fluctuations.”
This statement is unbelievable in every way. In the body of the paper he even has different formulas for each area. Computers love it when they only have to consider 2 outcomes of a variable. Reality not so much.
2) Battisti and the other 2 authors have it right when they say that surface temperature variability depends on turbulent heat flux. However he puts together variables and coefficients into equations as if he invented the term heat flux. If he had checked the literature he would have seen that there are no set of equations that can accurately describe heat flux. There are only approximations. At present noone has proved any equations relating Reynolds numbers to turbulence. Turbulence has a mathematical definition. It is the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces. Dr. Richard Feynmann described turbulence as the most important unsolved problem of classical physics. For Battisti and the other 2 authors to use the word “turbulent” in their study as in the words “turbulent heat flux” is an insult to all the greatest physicists of the ages. Furthermore Not one of Battisti and the other 2 authors’s references were to any general or even specific textbook or paper on heat transfer. They all referenced other climate model studies. For those interested I refer you to the bible “Radiative Heat Transfer” by Dr. Michael F. Modest
3)The title of the paper should have read ” Survey and computer simulation analysis of climate model variability on the impacts of soil moisture on summertime land surface temperature variability” If you compare this corrected title to what Battisti and the other 2 authors actually ended up naming it you can see how fraudulent this paper really was.
4) The abstract says that heat flux is a function of surface moisture and this is oberved both in observations and models. Yet the body of report says this is true only in GCMs(General circulation computer models).
5) line 89 the word “large” should be replaced with “small”
6) The abstract quotes “Although temperature variance is generally somewhat under predicted by our model” This makes it seem as if he is referring to reality when in fact their model is underpredicting other models. I have come to the realization that climate scientist PhDs sometimes get so lost in their computer simulations that they forget that there is a real world out there.
7) All through the report Battisti and the other 2 authors refer to ERA40 reanalysis data as if it represents real world soil moisture samples. It doesn’t. It is a computer simulation that uses satellite data to calculate soil moisture. I will quote the ERA web site limitations A) Tropical moisture larger than observed from 1991 onwards B)precipitation greatly exceeds evaporation C) Spurious arctic temperature trends. Nowhere does Battisti and the other 2 authors mention these caveats.
8) The last sentence of abstract says “where warming causes a climatological shift from the moist regime to the dry regime.” Common AGW theory says that increased temperatures will cause water vapour forcing. How that would cause a climatological shift from a moist regime to a dry regime can only be found on Hercules’ bare bottom.
9) page 6 of the report says that the physical parameters controlling summertime surface temperature variability are not well understood. So how is a computer simulation (that Battisti and the other 2 authors calls his “toy model” that is then compared to other computer simulations) going to improve our understanding?
10) Equation 6 on page 12 states that heat flux into ground from surface is linear where the coefficient is always positive. However the general standard model of AGM is Heat anomaly = (@ur momisugly * Temp diff) + IR forcing However Heat anomaly in this equation is fictititious and isnt 0 if the system is not in equilbrium. Therefore If in equilbrium -@ur momisugly * Temp diff = IR forcing Clearly the coefficient is negative in Standard model and positive in GCM usage. So I guess that the computers to be able to calculate anything have to disagree with the standard model of AGM. Sometimes I get the idea that I am reviewing PhD work from “Alice in Wonderland”
11) page 7 The 3rd sentence “An
unexpected and somewhat puzzling finding in our study is that (at least in the world of GCMs) on
monthly time scales surface moisture fluctuations also have a significant impact on sensible heat
fluxes, which also modifies temperature variability.”
Every scientific report should have a hypothesis to which the scientist is carrying out experiments to try to prove the null hypothesis.The sentence
above is a finding which should be the basis of another scientific study. It should not be included as part of this report’s hypothesis. It seems climate scientists dont even know what the scientific method is all about.
12) on page 7 the hypothesis should include the word “summer”. The text also crudely defines summer as 3 specific calendar months in Northern hemisphere and 3 others in Southern hemisphere. However in figure 16 they present 5 months as summer in the Northern hemisphere.
13) All the variable letters and subscripts should be in 1 easy to reference table. The table that is given lists only 7.
14) Only 15 references are given
15) The members of the peer review committee are not stated
16) page 8 The authors mention that they should use the 10cm sil temperature but instead they use the 2 metre air temperature because of ability to compare the results with University of Delaware observations. However they do not compare the error factor that will result from this.
17) The report often talks of parameterizations. However true parameterizations consist of fitting a curve of an independent variable to a dependent variable variable by connecting data points that represent real world sample data. This report only fits curves to computer produced data points.
18) Figures 13 and 14 are confusing as to what the fit really is for the “toy” model vs the other GCMs.
19) LE is defined on page 10 as latent heat yet on page 33 it is split up into latent heat flux and evapotranspiration and on page 9, L is defined as the latent heat of evaporation and E is net flux of vapour to the atmosphere. on this same page 9 in equation 1 , LE is a latent heat flux but how can it be both heat flux and a water vapour amount?
I am only 1 /3 of the way through this report. More to come.
It is the Reynold’s number not turbulence that is defined as the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces. While no closed form exact equation describes the onset of turbulence, or it’s heat or mass transfer details, approximations like LES do a fair job of estimating net averages in limited cases. For very complex situations like atmospheric flow, the result is chaotic flow and no long term solution is ever going to be made with any accuracy, but the envelope of boundaries can be made from the energy balance, storage possibilities, transport (wind and ocean currents), and latent heat storage and release.
Ya thanks for correcting me Shows that copying from notes can screw things up. In any case trying to calculate energy balance,storage possiblities, wind and ocean currents and latent heat storage and release is amugs game not to mention getting the correct dependencies when everything seems to affect everything.
I have 2 major questions
1) Does global precipitation overall have to equal global condensation not counting asteroids as a source of water?
2) How much of the latent heat upon release of condensation and precipitation goes into outer space?. My guess is almost all of it because if a significant portion of it stayed in the atmosphere we would have runaway global warming just with water vapour alone.
Everything we do results in waste enthalpy being emitted into the environment. If you summed up all this heat energy, what would be the equivalent W/m² value?
I have often made this observation, even with all machines working at 50% efficiency the waste heat has got to be significant.
Jeff, is this what you are looking for? Or something like?
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
I estimate about 0.04 W/m², just from primary energy consumption in 2013, however the IEA defines that.
Humans in total emit about 0.00005 W/m² just from existing.
The start of the article does not need the sophistry. No matter if “the oceans end up slightly warmer than they would be without the oil” or there’s a “rise in my body surface temperature when I put on a jacket”. Because it’s still a valid question to ask about “the main sources of heat that account for the incremental”.
Note that nobody mentioned any “new source” or “changed source”. Only Willis introduces this notion.
As if to illustrate Willis exactly does the same trick when he writes “Nobody knows why the Roman times were generally warmer than times prior to that”. Which just implies again Judith’s question on what are then “the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature” — in this case the Roman Times.
Which leaves us with a horribly phrased article without much coherent logic in relation to the introduction. The technical content as such is okay but it’s unclear why it needed to be written like that.
I believe you are correct on all points.
What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?.
1. Heat source the sun, any small cumulative increase in it’s temperature or distance closer to the earth.
2. Factors that modify the influence of the sun.
a. water vapour and clouds
b. increases in other GHG
c. albedo decrease changes, more soot, less polar icecaps, algal blooms, reforestation etc.
3. Possible slow turnover of deeper warmer currents on a 60-100 year timescale, like El Nino but longer.
Problem is implies less heat went out when currents went under and not really a sustainable cause of incremental heat rise.
Sub sea volcanoes could add to this.
4. Increase in activity of earth’s core causing more heat diffusal out.Problem is this is very small in the scheme of things.
5. Going through bigger meteorite clouds for years?
Scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
–
Mr Dessler seems fixated on small amounts of minor GHG to the exclusion of a lot of the more important things. Does he have an agenda in mind?
Please, everyone, it’s = it is. Its is the possessive. Yes, I’m both a Grammar Nazi and a nitpicker.
But how does one remember? Its is like his and hers. No apostrophe.
“But how does one remember?”
The way I remembered when I was learning was to remember “never possessive”—i.e., “it’s” is always a contraction, and therefore “its” is never possessive.
There is one source of heat on Earth and that is a warmed ocean.
And presently, it appears that sunlight is main source of heat which warms the ocean.
The ocean surface temperature is the global air temperature.
The average ocean surface air temperature is about 17 C.
And average land surface air temperature is about 10 C.
Without the higher ocean surface air temperature, the average land surface temperature would
colder than 10 C.
gbaikie, could you tell me where you did get your numbers from?
Berkeley Earth. At:
Berkeleyearth.org/papers
(Bottom on list:
“New estimate… )
Also google: average ocean surface temperature:
Window 2universe.org:
” average temperature of the ocean surface waters is about 17 degrees celsius”
and 70% earth surface is ocean which results in 30% of land being 10 C if average global is about 15 C.
Thanks for the info gbaikie, I will have a look at the Berkeley Earth paper.
I also add, that it’s been said for a long, that the tropics warms the rest of the world.
I would add that about 80% of tropics is ocean and that it is the tropical ocean not the tropical land
which warms the rest of the world- though that’s fairly obvious and one could say it doesn’t need to
be said.
And the average temperature of tropical ocean which is a bit less than 40% of entire earth surface,
is about 26 C.
And having this large warm area, increases the oceans average temperature both in sense that smarter kids will increase the grade average of a class and it actually warms the rest of the ocean.
Re, doesn’t need to said, Africa has tropical land, Africa doesn’t warm Europe, but the Gulf Stream does warm Europe. India is tropical land, India doesn’t warm China and average temperature of China is colder than continental US. And Indian has very warm average temperature.
Berkeley Earth: India: 24.5 C and China: 7.5 C
And Africa is known as warmest continent.
And both Africa and India are increasing all of Earth’s land area average temperature in terms of
the class average of 10 C as they are a significant fraction of all land area.
Or India is 1/3 of land area of China, but if India and China were in same class the much warmer India significantly increase average temperature of China. China and India average is about 12 C.
Or average land temperature of 10 C may not seem cold but a lot land areas are cold, as in Canada being – 4 C but Africa increases the class average score. But Africa does not warm the air of Canada or Europe. Rather it’s the warmer ocean which increases the air temperature of Canada and Europe.
Thanks Willis for posting the CERES data. I had been wondering how the large drop in surface temperature recorded in 2008 ….about 0.7 C, would show up in CERES data. I can see that although there is a drop in surface absorption of solar short-wave, there is a greater drop a couple of years later, so there does not seem to be a simple relation of solar incoming at the surface and surface temperature. I would think this relationship must be subject to phases of storage and release of ocean heat in the top layers (about 200m) – which in the case of ENSO cycles, seems to depend on oscillations in wind.
If you take a look at the Greenland ice-core data (Alley), you can see abrupt shifts in surface temperature of the order of 3 C almost from one year to the next…..something that could only be caused by shifting winds. The warming occurs in a distinctive pattern – most particularly in the depth of the last ice-age between 50ky and 30 kyr BP…….sudden warming occurs in what looks like a damped oscillation with several peaks (Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles) within a 10,000 year beat cycle. If one looks at the duration of each of the D/O events, they peak in an 8:5:3:2:1:1 series within the beat cycles, but this clear Fibonacci series disappears either side of the glacial maximum where things are more chaotic. However, one could discern a similar but less clear pattern for the Holocene (which may also be a 10,000 year beat cycle).
If this pattern is indeed a feature of the earth-system, then the peaks and troughs such as Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period/LIA are relatively predictable. Recent work on the Tibetan Plateau using tree-ring data by a team from the Chinese Academy of Sciences claims to find an 1100 year cycle over the last 2500 years of data, using spectral analysis. But as we can see from the Greenland data, the cycles are not ‘regular’ and averaging may obscure the pattern. Of course, I am with you on the ‘nobody knows’ when it comes to what might drive such a pattern – these are long time periods for some kind of solar driver.
Here is a radical thought. A story which I came across earlier today sparked a new thought on a speculative thought from a few years back. Here is the story, …https://www.space.com/39942-africa-blob-earth-magnetic-flip.html
Three or four years ago I noticed a long shot correlation between great quakes on the Cascadia Fault zone, and the shift between Warm and Cool Periods. It just so happens that there is a major quake spaced at the beginning of the Medieval WP as well as one at the end of the MWP. Then there is one in 1700 AD which I think marks the transition point to our current Warm Period. This correlations holds true goping further back in time.
So the connection between the above is that the story at Space dot is talking about the magnetic field anomaly in South Africa, and that a way was found to flesh out the history of changes and shifts in the magnetic field. Here is an excerpt from the story detailing the last occurrences “…The data show that the magnetic field experienced sudden directional shifts between A.D. 400 and 450, and then again between A.D. 750 and 800. Between about A.D. 1225 and 1550, …”.
So with the above dates in mind here is the list of known very large Cascadia quakes which align with the above dates of magnetic field shifts, …400 AD, 810 AD, and 1310 AD. This makes my initial thought on the relationship between Cascadia quakes and climate shifts even stronger, and it points to a possible cause of the Cascadia large quakes. Think of the picture that this shows of how the climate system may work.
“What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?”
“What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in my body surface temperature when I put on a jacket?”
“I’m sure you can see the problem with Dr. Judith’s question—temperatures can rise without ANY new sources of heat or ANY change in existing sources of heat.”
Hmm.
Judith is asking if there is an incremental rise in temperature [taken as a given], which, if any of the known heat sources changing [increasing] is/are mainly responsible.
Basically.
I presume she is asking if you exclude CO2/GHG as causes, and if the temperature is still going up in increments over a long period of time, what natural causes would be occurring to explain this.
The question could have been pedantically worded better, I agree.
She was not asking about the GHG effect She states elsewhere on her blog GHG may have an important role in the warming [if any is occurring], just that this is not quantifiable yet , hence what other mechanisms might be causing incremental heat gain.
I think it is a fair question if taken in good faith.
Could we discuss it as it was meant to be understood instead?
Good points.
“temperatures can rise without ANY new sources of heat or ANY change in existing sources of heat.”
Though you did not alter the heat sources you altered the equation by changing the state of the system.
Judith’s question did not relate to changes in the system, only the heat sources.
You are unfairly comparing apples with oranges.
Furthermore, given a few caveats, unchanging source of heat, unchanging radiating receptor of heat, set distance apart, no overcoats or unicorns, I doubt the temperature could vary. Note the emphasis on unchanging receptor, planets with atmospheres and seas are definitely not unchanging
angech March 10, 2018 at 1:26 am
Thanks, angtech, but I don’t understand this objection. Dr. Judith’s question ASSUMED that there was some change in heat source behind the incremental temperature rise.
My point was that the question was very poorly phrased, since temperatures can change with no change in heat sources.
w.
30 odd Years plus untold millions of dollars worth of super computer computations later and what do we have ? Its Co2 wot dunnit 97% of us agree and us climate scientists don’t lie .
Perhaps a few Bitcoins mined at taxpayer’s expense also, at least recently.
@Willis
Come on, Willis, you know enough of physics to answer
“What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in my body surface temperature when I put on a jacket?”
In the case of your jacket, the heat source is the slight imbalance in flux experienced during your putting the jacket. You have to count it as a source
Your body radiates/convects ~80W before you put the jacket.
And your body +jacket will radiate just as much after reaching a new equilibrium.
But, before reaching the equilibrium, the jacket will radiate slightly less. Maybe ~50W average for a few minutes. Manwhile you accumulate ~30J/s
This source doesn’t last,
It is needed to accumulate some heat to rise your skin temperature,
It is not needed to keep the new temperature reached at new equilibrium.
Same on Earth: for the Earth to globally warm, you need an imbalance top of atmosphere (1). It need not be huge.
However, surface and atmosphere can also warm if some other place (ocean) cools, just through different distribution of heat. Just shouldn’t be called “global warming” (2)
In both case, a fraction of W/m² is enough (*). So we know that we don’t have data precise enough to know if we experienced (1) or (2) in recent decades,
I, however, know there is NO reason for the top of atmophere to be at precise equilibrium in the +/-0.01W/m² range required for no significant warming (or cooling) to occur in a decade.
For the very simple reason Earth is not flat, homogenous, non rotating as Trenberth and friend picture it. So Earth is forever out of equilibrium by day and summer (more energy recieve than lost) and by night and winter (opposite). And this more or less balanced out… but only “more or less”; not with the required precision.
So best guess is (1). Obviously, past event show that no GHG are required for it to happen.
Actually, the miracle is rather that Earth temperature is so stable, in a narrow +/-1% range. It takes huge negative feedbacks and bumpers to constrain temperature so much.
(*)a year is 31,5 millions seconds, 0.01W in a century, or 0.1 W in a decade, are 31.5 MJ, enough for a 1°C rise in temperature of ~7,5 ton of water, or, equivalently, the whole atmospere column above 1m². 1°C/century : this is the magnitude of the effect we are looking for. To see this effect, we need +/-0.01 W/m² data precision. 3 order of magnitude better than current instrumentation.
Also, to destroy the example, your body will adjust its metabolism or make some other change to maintain stasis.
I don’t live in stasis, and I lose less heat with my ski jacket (not a black body) on.
Strangely enough you DONT lose less energy with your ski jacket on, in the sense that, jacket on or not, you still lose just as much energy you produce.
The difference is, without the jacket, your skin is the jacket for your inner body, keeping it warm while being cold; OTOH, with the jacket, your skin is warm, too, instead of being cold, which is much more confortable.
And, of course, being homeotherme, you tend to adjust your production of energy with the temperature of your skin, and this too, is a source of discomfort.
The Earth is not homeotherme, doesn’t adjust it energy production to its “skin” temperature.
I have two questions.
What happens to water vapour in a period of glaciation and does it lead or follow
Can as- seen with recent sudden stratospheric warming events, high and low pressure system align in a certain pattern where the heat balance falls or rises. For example in the northern hemisphere’s winter where large high pressure systems cling like barnacles on north America and Eurasia thus atmospheric heat leaks into space. I haven’t read all of Willie’s article but when he says if you put a coat on you get warmer of course you do as humans actually create body temperature but with the earth as far as I get it there are only three source of heat the sun, the oceans and the molten core
If an internal combustion engine stops working (won’t start) it is reasonable to look for a single cause — no fuel, no spark, no air, dead battery etc. If an internal combustion engine runs but is down on power, there may be a single cause or a number of things that contribute to the problem — leaky rings plus restricted air filter plus dirty injectors.
Why would anyone try to blame “global warming” in a complex climate system on a single cause?
Because that’s where the money is.
Do you hear that change in noise the engine is making? I don’t. But believe me, if you don’t switch to this expensive fully synthetic lubricant today, that engine is going to die in 100 years.
Because progressives wish to “help” to “make things better” and so forth.
Blaming conditions upon something that “they” and eventually all of us can do something about is the root of the hysteria. The real climate science folks may have started without understanding the progressive mentality, but it was easy to find a human emission of a human activity and it was offf to the races. Endless grant money, other people’s money, and a continued source of income.
I will guarantee that if the “consensus” was that climate was changing and we can’t nail down “the one thing”, that little grant money would be available except for mitigation and preparation.
Gums sez…..