“A fossil-free future”… Real words from a real social justice warrior and author of The Parents’ Guide to Climate Revolution

As I mentioned to a friend who said that the problem is with “over” population: nobody ever volunteers to make sure we are at, exactly, the “right” population…

And nobody who speaks about “the good old days” would voluntarily live in a world without antibiotics.

WENDY BECKTOLD
“I lie in the dark wondering whether my children will grow up to face life on an uninhabitable planet.”
Mary DeMocker …..
“But as the years ticked by, the news about climate change grew more and more dire, and DeMocker found herself feeling increasingly anxious about the world her children would be inheriting.”

Maybe these “mothers” shouldn’t have children ??

Mocking and calling such people “stupid” over and over again is rude and ineffective and FAILS to win people over to the skeptical side of this debate. It is unworthy of publication in this influential blog.

The woman’s ideas are not “stupid” if you believe as she does that the Earth is in serious danger along with the future of her children. It would be appropriate to challenge those assumptions. But repeatedly calling her or her book “stupid”just turns reasonable people off. It is the tactic of the Alarmists and should not be ours.

THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF HEAT FROM THE ATMOSPHERE TO THE OCEANS (corrected version)

Evapotranspiration from water cycle gives 486000 km^3/year. WIKI gives 503000 and Babkin in a Russian study gave 577000

1 km^3 = 10^12 kg
Latent heat of fusion of water to water vapour at 20C = 2450000 Joules/kg
Number of seconds in a year = 3.1536 x 10^7
1 watt = 1 Joule /second
Surface area of earth = 5.1x 10^14 m^2

NASA graph gives evapotranspiration = 86.4W/m^2 Check their Earth’s energy budget graph on their website

The task is to convert the latent heat that is represented inside the water molecule from the water cycle upon evaporation to a W/m^2 equivalent of NASA’s figure of 86.4 W/m^2. I want to see if NASA’s figure has any basis in reality.

Solution 1: Using the 486000
figure we have Total evapotranspiration = 486000 km^3/year * 10^12kg = 4.86 x 10^17 kg/year
Total number of Joules = 2,450,000 Joules/kg * 4.86 x 10^17 kg/year
= 1.1907 x 10 ^24 Joules/year
Number of Joules/second = 1.1907 x 10 ^24 Joules/year divided by 3.1536 x 10^7 sec/year

= 3.775684932 x 10^16 Joules /sec
= 3.775684932 x 10^16 Watts

W/m^2 from surface = (3.775684932 x 10^16 Watts) divided by 5.1x 10^14 m^2
= ~ 74 W/m^2

Solution 2: Using the Wiki figure of 503000

we have ~76 W/m^2

Solution 3: Using the Babkin figure of 577000 we have
~ 87.8 W/m^2

So the difference between NASA and these solutions can also be because of taking a different temperature of evaporation other than 20C.

So why do I start with this analysis? It is because at least I am starting my topic with analysis which no one can question. Evaporation which exists and which exists on the scale I have enumerated is beyond question. Evaporation is the opposite of heat transferred to the ocean from the atmosphere. Evaporation is HEAT TRANSFERRED FROM THE OCEAN TO THE ATMOSPHERE. Heat transfer does not go the other way. Approximately 48-50 % of the initial total solar input actually makes it to the surface of the earth. Since the surface is ~ 70% oceans, this is the critical battleground of where is Trenberh’s missing heat? The alarmists like to say that the missing heat from the so called energy imbalance which doesnt show up in the atmophere is actually hiding in the oceans. The reason they say that the heat has gone to the oceans is that all measurements of outgoing LWIR at the top of atmosphere still show no deficit from incoming solar. So the alarmists manufacture a supposed heat trapping mechanism whereby the incoming solar is partially absorbed by CO2 and then transferred to the oceans. However , mathematically; that still doesnt add up because the 70 % of incoming solar that isnt reflected eventually balances because of measurements of top of atmosphere outgoing radiation which has not decreased over time. However even disregarding this mathematical flaw, the heat cant go to the oceans from the atmosphere because evaporation happens all the time and everywhere except deserts and Antarctica. Evaporation takes the solar input to the oceans and turns it into latent heat which then by convection gets lifted higher into the troposphere and when the atmosphere condenses most of that latent heat ( a tiny amount is contained within the water molecule) is then lost to the atmosphere as outgoing heat flux to the top of the atmosphere. Since CO2 has nothing to do with evaporation, that released latent heat doesnt make its way back to the surface or we would have had runaway global warming 4 billion years ago when the oceans formed on earth.

Up until 2003, ocean SST were notorious for being inaccurate because there was too much human input with collecting data by water buckets. It was also open to data tampering. However in 2003 a network of automated ARGO buoys was installed in the open oceans.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2016/argo-observing-the-oceans

They took temperatures at many depths all the way down to 2000 metres. For the 1st 10 years this new system worked well and more buoys were added. However after it became increasingly obvious that the data did not show any increase in temperatures, the alarmists argued that the heat burrowed deeper into the oceans. Now they have instituted 2 ways to fake the data; tamper with the chart data and combine the land surface data with the SST data. We all know the fallacy of doing the 2nd adjustment but I would like to point out the former adjustment.

NCAR have on their site, a graph showing SST from ARGO buoys from 2005 to 2010.

Where the last 8 years are, I don’t know. The UK Met office once had a graph showing the ARGO buoy temperatures from 2003 to 2012, almost the same period. That graph did not show any warming. However, they have now taken that graph down and replaced it with the old bucket data graphs. If you compare the old UK Met office data with the NCAR graph (10 metre- 1500 metre depth, you will see that the NCAR data graph has been massively tampered with. At least the UK office dont present a fake graph.

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/ocean-heat-content-10-1500m-depth-based-argo

Of course all of this fake stuff has been reported on before in other contexts and other data sets of other variables. My point here is to go further. The claimed heat imbalance that is supposed to go from the atmosphere to the oceans cant go via conduction since the ne conduction is the other way which NASA and every other energy budget graph makes clear. It is on the order of 18 W/m^2 from surface to atmosphere. That includes both land and surface. So the only other way that the heat/energy could get from the atmosphere to the oceans is by DW back IR. Never mind that the oceans are poor absorbers of IR, but there is very little IR going up from the oceans to the atmosphere in the 1st place in order to be trapped and sent back down . Here are the numbers. NASA gives 163.3 W/m^2 of solar reaching the surface. Of that 70% oceans is 114W/m^2. Now 86.4 leaves by evapotranspiration and evaporation but we have to take 90 % of that because that is the evaporation %. therefore 77.76 is by evaporation alone. Take 70% of that for the oceans which leaves 54.3% . Another 18.4 leaves by conduction/convection and we will take 70 % of that for the oceans so we have 12.88. Another 40 is by the atmospheric window straight to space Take 70 % of that and we have 28. Therefore we have 114-54.3-12.8 – 28 = 18.9 W/m^2.

There is very little to emit from the oceans. (See the analysis by Dr. Charles Anderson below.) We know the evaporation number is more or less correct from my initial calculations above so either the conduction figure is too high or the atmospheric window number is too high. Either way there is very little IR left for the oceans to emit to the atmosphere. In any case with so much evaporation going on how would the IR ever get past all the water vapour that is in the air immediately above the sea? The following is taken from a treatise written by Dr. Charles Anderson 27 March 2014. I quote Dr. Anderson with the text between the *’s

****************************************************************************************************
” The density of atoms per cubic meter in the surface is about 1 gram per cubic centimeter for the water that covers about 71% of the Earth’s surface and even greater for land materials or if considering the salts in the oceans. Expressed as a density per cubic meter of water, this is 1000 kg per cubic meter. A cubic meter of water has 3.34 x 1028 molecules. Infra-red emission and absorption in a surface occurs mostly in the outer 2 micrometers of the surface. Consequently, there are about 6.7 x 1022 water molecules emitting infra-red at most from the surface. These are the same surface molecules that absorb any incident infra-red radiation on the water surface.

The density of the atmosphere near the surface at sea level is 1.225 kg per cubic meter in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere at 288.15K. The number of molecules per cubic meter at sea level in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere is 2.55 x 1025/m3. The important infra-red active gas near the surface is water vapor and its density per cubic meter is commonly between 10 g/kg to 14 g/kg of air as shown in Fig. 7. below. At a specific humidity of 12 g/kg, (the earth’s ocean air average near sea level) ,the number of water molecules/m3 of air is about 4.9 x 1023. Therefore, there are more water molecules in the first cubic meter of air above 1 m2 of water surface emitter or absorber molecules by a factor of 7.3. This should mean that radiation that can be absorbed by water vapor will be absorbed in the first meter of air above the surface at a humidity near the Earth average humidity.

In comparison, at the current 400 ppm of carbon dioxide, there are 1.0 x 1022 molecules of CO2 /m3. There are 49 water vapor molecules for every carbon dioxide molecule at a specific humidity of 12 g/kg. In addition, the emissivity of CO2 molecules is less than 40% that of water vapor molecules. Many of the carbon dioxide molecule absorption peaks are largely or mostly already absorbed by overlapping water vapor absorption lines, so the effect of CO2 near the surface is very minimal compared to that of water vapor. This is less true at altitudes above 4 km when water vapor is very low, but carbon dioxide maintains a proportional mixing with nitrogen and oxygen. However, such altitudes have nothing to do with the back-radiation issue.

Returning to the back-radiation caused by water vapor, ”
*************************************************************
Here I disagree with Dr. Anderson and I supply my own analyis of the IR that is leaving the ocean surface which which I will insert (instead of the 0.033 figure that he calculated) my own figure of 18.9 W/m^2(that I calculated above) and I will insert that figure in Anderson’s calculations below.
***********************************************************************************
However, water vapor does not absorb infra-red across the entire surface emission spectrum which has a black body radiation distribution with energy. It actually absorbs only about 65% of it. So the actual water vapor absorbed infra-red radiation is only about .65 * 18.9 = 12.28 W/m2. But because of the 6.9 x 109 collisions/s, most of this energy is transferred to non-radiating nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. Only about 20% is re-radiated and half of that is radiated toward space. Consequently, the total back-radiation, PB, is about
PB = (0.2) (.5) (12.28 W/m2) = 1.228 W/m2 which is 1.228/340.3 (solar)= 0.0036 or 0.36 %

Thus, the absorbed back-radiation has an upper limit of about 0.36% of the average solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere (340.3 W/m2 ) ! ”
**********************************************************************************

Dont forget that the above number is only for water vapour. I again repeat one sentence from the above quote of Dr. Anderson. “There are 49 water vapor molecules for every carbon dioxide molecule at a specific humidity of 12 g/kg.”

So if the above number for water vapour of back radiation is 0.36% of average solar insolation, the % number for CO2 is at least 49 times less or 0.0073469% of total solar insolation. if the net increase per year in CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.5%, then that means that this back radiation from atmosphere to oceans is increasing by 0.0000367345 % every year. If that number makes you wet your bed at night thinking of CAGW disaster then I say “Get a life”. However the alarmists will argue that they dont agree with “Only about 20% is re-radiated”. If it was more you would have runaway global warming because of water vapour.

So there is essentially very very little IR going from the oceans to the atmosphere . The little IR from the land to the atmosphere is the only other IR that is getting trapped by greenhouse gases. Perhaps some of that then gets radiated downward and sent laterally by the winds to the oceans, but that would be very small except near the coasts. THERE IS ESSENTIALLY NO HEAT TRANSFER FROM THE ATMOSPHERE TO THE OCEANS AND THE GLOBAL ALARMISTS HAVE NOT SHOWN A PHYSICAL MECHANISM BY WHICH THAT OCCURS except by back radiation. So on both counts; the math of energy imbalances doesnt add up and the math of IR ocean emissions is too small to worry about. GLOBAL WARMING MATH IS ALICE IN WONDERLAND STUFF.

The world now is soooooo much better than when I was a kid. Poor people used to be skinny. Polio-crippled people were common. Pollution was rife. Anyone who wants to turn the clock back to when most people lived in abject poverty are deluded.

Climate justice starts when you turn your carbon footprint into a pavement body print. That’s walking the walk, or at least falling for the falsity.

“Are people really this stupid?”

Yes. And they choose to stay that way.

The author is wondering”….if my children would grow up to face life on an uninhabitable planet.” I’m wondering if Wendy’s children will grow up to understand that words have meaning. If the damn thing is uninhabitable you ain’t gonna grow up on it. You’d probably have less to worry about if you developed some standards of precision for your thinking, Wendy. You might even be able to pass them on to your children who would find them useful in a habitable world.

“Are people really this stupid?”

There is abundant evidence that they are!