Fake Climate Science On German ARD Television. Sea Ice Cover Indeed Saw Large Pre-Industrial Fluctuations

Inconvenient historical natural sea ice fluctuations

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

On April 29 German ARD public television presented a report on a Canadian sea ice reconstruction using coral algae growth. The report (in German) can be seen at the ARD-Mediathek in the Internet (begins at the 16:38 mark).

German researcher Jochen Halfar of the University of Toronto found a coral algae type in Canada’s Arctic Ocean that forms annual rings. During the polar nights of winter, photosynthesis stops. In the spring it reactivates again and the algae starts to grow, and does so much better when there is less ice to block out the sunlight. This allows the sea ice cover to be reconstructed over the past several centuries.

It is truly a documentary worth seeing.

But it does has one point that deserves to be criticized. Beginning at the the 27:10 mark, Halfar shows a reconstruction for northern Canada with a strongly receding ice cover since 1850 (Figure 1). Thus the algae growth has increased greatly since 1850 because the shrinking ice cover allowed more light to find its way to the algae.

Fig. 1: Curve for sea ice cover over the past 200 years in North America was reconstructed from coral algae growth, which is shown in the above chart. The strong upward trend means reduced sea ice cover. Screenshot from ARD documentary at 27:20 mark.

The problem is that Halfar blames the effect solely on the industrialization that started in 1850 and the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Here it would have been more real if he had brought up the Little Ice Age – the coldest phase of the last 10,000 years – a natural climate variation. He must have forgotten about it. But things got interesting shortly thereafter when Halfar claimed that such a reduction in sea ice had never occurred during the examined pre-industrial time. But then the camera moved in on the curve for the past 600 years (Fig. 2):

Fig. 2: Coral algae curve for northern Canada over the past 600 years, which allows sea ice cover to be reconstructed. The upward trend line on the right side supposedly corresponds to what Halfar said was an unprecedented sea ice reduction. Screenshot from ARD documentary at the 27:37 mark.

Lo and behold, the data immediately refuted Halfar’s claim. Between 1430 and 1470 there were multiple algae growth spurts which would mean a sea ice reduction.

So what could have caused these earlier warm phases? Here the solar active phase between the Wolf and Spörer Minima may have played a role. But maybe it was due to the AMO or PDO.

In any case Halfar succeeded in documenting significant pre-industrial fluctuations which were flat out ignored on Germany’s flagship ARD public television.

The elephant in the room is plain to see: If one goes back some hundreds of years into the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) when Arctic sea ice also melted, we find that sea ice cover was about what it is today.

We have documented the Medieval ice melt very well within the scope of our ongoing MWP Mapping Project  We have to assume that Halfar is very familiar with this literature. It remains a mystery as to why he left out this important climate-historical context in the documentary.

 

116 responses to “Fake Climate Science On German ARD Television. Sea Ice Cover Indeed Saw Large Pre-Industrial Fluctuations”

  1. sod

    I do not think that that second pictures supports the claims that are made about it.

    http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/alge2-1024×579.jpg

    The modern maximum is both higher and broader than the early one, which also includes dips below the horizontal (average) line.

    Real scientists do real science in real boats and with real data. They also use real data analysis tools to compare the modern time with the past.

    on the other hand “sceptics” just take a single look at a single picture and then make wild claims based on their false impressions from that one datapoint.

    1. R. Shearer

      Says the person who starts with a single data point.

    2. AndyG55

      Doesn’t even go back to the MWP, sob

      What it is showing is that the LIA was VERY COLD.

      How’s your fossil fuelled heated basement going ??

      Or have you moved to northern Russia to avoid the beneficial warmth of the MODERN SLIGHTLY WARM PERIOD

      We still live in a period that is only a small bump above the COLDEST in the last 10,000 year.

      https://vimeo.com/14366077

      Let us all pray for more warming, and that the current plateau in temperatures doesn’t start to drop off TOO quickly in response to the sleepy Sun.

  2. tom0mason

    The basic premise of ice coverage is dependent on air temperature is a broken meme. The ice coverage is also very dependent on sea temperature.
    The assumption is that during very cold periods the Arctic was completely covered in ice.
    What evidence is there that during the all the recent Wolf, Spörer, Dalton and Maunder minimums the North pole was completely covered in ice?

  3. M Peters

    That is some of the laziest polynomial interpolation I have ever seen. Really, you have a data set for seven hundred years and you only use the data from the last one hundred and fifty years to make your best fit line. I’m no scientist. I’m just a dumb electrician who studied math for a couple of years. But I can plainly see that focusing on data that supports your argument, while intentionally ignoring that which does not, is entirely reprehensible.

    Ninety Eight percent of today’s scientist, the ones arguing that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the sole driving force behind the current warming trend, are nothing more than statisticians that have lost sight of the scientific method. They have drawn a conclusion based on environmental observation but haven’t actually tested the theory. There has been no experimentation to control the variables at play and develop a formula to calculate the absolute effect that each measure of carbon dioxide has on the overall system. For that matter, they haven’t even performed an experiment since they were a first year undergrad. They have been spoon fed a new way of science. One that tells them a theory is true without proof of said theory through experimentation. After graduating, they take all theories of note as verbatim because they were trained that way. Trained to accept the theory and go forth collecting data that fits the model they wish to purport. Then they use the consequent of the antecedent theory as it’s own proof.

    Again I am not a scientist. I do Remember the scientific method as it was taught me though. That was theorize. Develope an experiment that controls the variables. Observe the effects of manipulating the one variable you wish to test. Formulate a mathematical expression to represent that relationship. Use that formulation to predict another variation of that variable several times over until you can conclusively say that the formulation is accurate. I wasn’t taught to just go gather data that fits my theory.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Exactly. The entire CO2-is-the-dominant-cause-of-climate-change narrative is entirely dependent upon the assumption/hypothesis that varying CO2 molecules over a body of water (oceans) is the dominant cause of heat changes in that body of water, overriding the variability in solar energy absorbed. And yet no physical experiment has ever shown that CO2 variability in the atmosphere causes net heat changes in water bodies, let alone in the 0-2000 m ocean. It’s even acknowledged by the CAGW advocates themselves that no scientific experiment has ever affirmed what they believe is true about CO2 variations and water:

      RealClimate: “Clearly it is not possible to alter the concentration of greenhouse gases in a controlled experiment at sea to study the response of the skin-layer.”

      SkepticalScience: “Obviously it’s not possible to manipulate the concentration of CO2 in the air in order to carry out real world experiments, but natural changes in cloud cover provide an opportunity to test the principle.”

      So we don’t have real-world experiments, but yet we are supposed to believe it anyway. And this is science?

      1. richard verney

        Yet there are some people, like Willis at WUWT, who consider that DWLWIR keeps the oceans from freezing.

        Unless there is some process that is not presently known or understood that allows DWLWIR absorbed, in the top few microns, to be sequestered to depth, and thereby the energy dissipated by volume, at a rate faster than the rate that DWLWIR would otherwise drive evaporation from the top 10 micron layer, then if DWLWIR carries sensible energy and is absorbed by the oceans it would have boiled off the oceans from the top down long ago.

        1. SebastianH

          I think you have it backwards. If LW radiation would be only evaporating the top layer this would have boiled off the oceans a long time ago. It doesn’t really get absorbed either. The “AGW scam” as you guys call it says that the outgoing LW radiation (much higher) and the incoming radiation (quite a bit lower) cancel each other out. So the object that has yet to lose energy someway or the other will have an internal energy build up until it (the surface) is warm enough to “overcome” the incoming radiation. Understood? You don’t have to agree, but do you understand this concept?

          1. AndyG55

            “but do you understand this concept?”

            Why.. you most certainly don’t !

            And if you “think” something, it is almost certainly the opposite of reality.

            Your IGNORANCE of the water cycle is revealed in it totality.

            ABSOLUTE and COMPLETE IGNORANCE !!

          2. SebastianH

            So explain where that energy is going then, AndyG55. The atmosphere radiates. One half into space, the other half down to the surface (backradiation). That backradiation will now evaporate the top layer of the oceans, right? At least this is how I understand what you are writing.

            The water vapor will condense somewhere in the atmosphere and fall back down as water. Energy is transfered back to the atmosphere and then what … where does it go? Not to space and it can’t heat up the atmosphere otherwise you’d admit that backradiation indirectly does what “AGW scamers” say it does.

          3. AndyG55

            Not up to me to teach you basic stuff you should have learnt in Junior high.

            We have seen that it is ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS trying to educate you.

            You are impervious to any sort of physical reality.

            CO2 DOES NOT radiate below about 11km

            CO2 DOES NOT cause ocean water to warm

            CO2 DOES NOT cause warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Your ABJECT INABILITY to provide on single piece of real scientific evidence for any of these MYTHS shows that to be true.

            Your continued IGNORANCE of the basic water cycle is HILARIOUS to behold. !

          4. SebastianH

            So you don’t know … go figure.

            CO2 DOES NOT radiate below about 11km

            So what gets measured then when looking up from the surface? https://i2.wp.com/www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg

            CO2 DOES NOT cause ocean water to warm

            Of course not, the Sun does. But incoming LW radiation changes the temperature gradient in the surface layer (the top has to get warmer to get rid of the energy) and therefor it becomes harder for lower layers to get rid of their energy. The result is an internal energy build up over time …

            CO2 DOES NOT cause warming in a convective atmosphere.

            The gravito-thermal effect then? 😉

            Screaming for evidence while not providing any numbers, calculations or evidence yourself isn’t going to help your cause.

          5. richard verney

            Sebastian

            According to the K&T energy budget cartoon some 324 W/m2 is “absorbed by the surface.” Are you suggesting that contrary to what K&T says, in fact 324 W/m2 is not in fact “absorbed by the surface”?

            Due to the wavelength of LWIR almost 100% is absorbed within 10 microns of vertical distance in water, with about 50% in just 4 microns. Howecver, DWLWIR is omnidirectional such that some of the DWLWIR striking the oceans is at an inclination of 10 degrees to the surface, some at 20 degrees to the surface, some at an inclination of 30 degrees to the surface etc. At such angles of inclination the vertical penetration is reduced such that about 60% (may be even more than t6his) is fully absorbed within just 3 microns of the ocean.

            now 3 microns is very small. For comarative purposes the human hair is about 50 to 100 microns, so one needs to slice the human hair into 20 or 30 small slithers to visualise just how small 3 microns is.

            So according to the K&T energy budget cartoon about 210 W/m2 (324 x 66%) is fully absorbed within a volume of water measuring just 1 metre x 1 metre x 3 microns. That is a lot of energy in a very small volume.

            I discussed this once with Nick Stokes, a well known Australin warmist, and he calculated that that amount of energy was sufficient to drive some 16 metres of rainfall annually accross the globe. The estimated annual global average rainfall is thought to be about 1 to 1.3 metres, no where near 16 metres.

            If DWLWIR were to be absorbed by the oceans, photonic absorption takes place at or about the speed of light, whereas any mixing between the ocean surface and depth is a slow mechamical process. the actions of waves, swell, wind, diurnal overturning are slow mechanical processes incapable of sequesting the energy absorbed in the top few microns down to depth (say a few metres, tens of metres) where the energy would be diluted and dissipated by volume, at a rate fast enough to prevent rapid evaporation from the top few microns such that the oceans would boil off from the top down.

            Fortunately for us, solar, by virtue of its wavelength, is not absorbed within the top few microns of the ocean but instead it is absorbed in the top 10 metres, and some of it is absorbed in depths down to 100 metres (or even slightly more). Thus solar energy is not concentrated in a very small volume but rather in a volume of million or 10 millions times that in which DWLWIR would be fully absorbed (if indeed it is absorbed at all). This enables soalr to gently heat the oceans/keep the oceans warm, rather than boiling off the oceans from the top down as would occur with DWLWIR if DWLWIR possessed sensible energy capable of doing real work in the environment in which it finds itself.

            Understanding the oceans and the water cycle is the key to understanding climate on this water world on which we all live. It is unfortunate that more time and effort is not put into understanding the natural processes involved, and instead considering an energy budget which is about as far removed from reality as it is possible to get.

          6. Craig T

            “According to the K&T energy budget cartoon some 324 W/m2 is ‘absorbed by the surface.’ Are you suggesting that contrary to what K&T says, in fact 324 W/m2 is not in fact ‘absorbed by the surface’? ”

            I think it’s safe to say the energy budget cartoon is a simplified version of what climatologists use. If the surface where the light strikes is opaque, all of the energy will be absorbed. If not, things are more complicated. For water shorter wavelengths go deeper than longer wavelengths.

          7. AndyG55

            Still waiting for that paper, seb..

            You are still batting an ABSOLUTE ZERO .

            Nothing, nada, EMTPY as a sad-sack.

            And sorry, LW radiation causes evaporation in the top nm or so, which has been shown to COOL the first 1mm or so.

            Your DENIAL of actual FACTS, and your absolute INABILITY to support even the most basic farce of your meaningless religion, is becoming a monuMENTAL JOKE.

          8. Kenneth Richard

            “LW radiation causes evaporation in the top nm or so, which has been shown to COOL the first 1mm or so”

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1963.tb01399.x/pdf
            “Differences between surface and subsurface water-temperature are caused by evaporation, long-wave radiation and exchange of sensible heat. The relative importance of these three components is discussed, especially with aid of observations under neutral conditions. Evaporation as well as back radiation contributes to a cooling of the surface of 0.1 to 0.2 centigrade under neutral conditions, while under diabatic conditions greater surface temperature deviations are caused by heat exchange.”

            “While short-wave radiation will warm both surface and subsurface layers, long-wave radiation will cause a cooling of the surface depending on the temperature and humidity of the air. The exchange of sensible heat will tend to cool or warm the surface dependent on the air being cooler or warmer than the water. Evaporation in most cases will cause a cooling of the surface. In general, the effects of radiation, evaporation, and heat transfer will be indistinguishable.”

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281996%29077%3C0041%3AOOTIRP%3E2.0.CO%3B2
            Observations of the Infrared Radiative Properties of the Ocean
            [I]t is necessary to understand the physical variables contributing to sea surface emitted and reflected radiation to space. The emissivity of the ocean surface varies with view angle and sea state, the reflection of sky radiation also depends on view angle and sea state, and the absorption of atmospheric constituents such as water vapor, aerosols, and subdivisible clouds affect transmittance.” [CO2 isn’t mentioned as a factor in the heat flux.]

            [T]he temperature of the water throughout the top 2 m of depth is constant due strong mixing, and the skin is significantly colder due to strong evaporative cooling.

          9. SebastianH

            So many words …

            @richard verney: when you give me $1000 and I give you $500 at the same time, what is it that has really happened? You gave me $500.

            So when the surface receives 230 W/m² in SW radiation and gets warmer until it emits 230 W/m² (in form of radiation, evaporation, etc) and it additionally receives value X W/m² in backradiation then it has to “overcome” this and will get warmer until it emits 230+X W/m².

            Getting back at the money analogy: in order for you to really give me $1000 when I am constantly giving you $500, you really have to give me $1500 to achieve that goal.

          10. AndyG55

            “So what gets measured then when looking up from the surface?”

            15 microns, the mean free path under today’s CO2 concentrations is just over 30 cm.

            Think for a change, bozo.

            I have given up trying to educate you.

          11. Kenneth Richard

            AndyG55: “CO2 DOES NOT cause ocean water to warm

            SebastianH: “Of course not, the Sun does. But incoming LW radiation changes the temperature gradient in the surface layer

            The “surface layer” or “skin”, is only microns “thick”–and that’s the only “depth” that LW can have any causal effect on the temperature of the ocean. Below that, direct solar radiation changes the temperature of the next 20-30 meters of water. Therefore, if there is a change in the amount or intensity of direct solar radiation penetrating into the ocean due to variations in albedo (clouds, aerosols), this will have far more demonstrable an effect on the temperature of the ocean than changes of 0.000001 (part per million) in the atmospheric CO2 content.

            Fairall et al., 1996
            “On a clear day the Sun deposits an average of about 500 W/m-2 of heat into the ocean over the 12 daylight hours. Roughly half of this heat is absorbed in the upper 2 m. In the absence of mixing this is sufficient heat input to warm this 2-m-deep layer uniformly by 2.0 K. … Measurable warming occurs as deep as 20 m and may persist well past sundown.

            Not only that, but scientists even tell us that the shortwave, not the longwave, determines the temperature in the skin layer too. So your claim that “LW radiation changes the temperature gradient in the surface layer” isn’t supported by scientists either.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50786/full
            “In contrast, daytime skin effect was strongly influenced by direct solar illumination and typically had a mean of 0.5 K in the morning that decreased to 0.1 K by midday. The standard deviation of the daytime skin effect ranged from 0.3 in the morning to 0.8 by midday. As the solar heating reduces later in the day the skin effect increases to a 0.3 K mean with a standard deviation of 0.4 K. … (1) intense daytime solar heating overcomes the net upward longwave energy flux and warms the skin

          12. AndyG55

            “isn’t supported by scientists either.”

            There is actually very little that seb “believes” that is supported by real science.

        2. Craig T

          We have an argument over the overall effect of IR radiation: does it cool or warm things? I guess it’s never good to blindly accept the consensus view of physics.

          It is true that the energy from net back radiation will cool the ocean surface by around 66 watts per square meter.The water molecules carry latent energy with them through evaporation. As the water condenses from a gas back into water vapor the energy is released into the atmosphere.

          I think Andy will agree that in a “convective atmosphere” heat is transferred back and forth between the air and water. But in case Andy feels that thermodynamics is a “meaningless religion” maybe a link to Judith Curry’s site will convince him:

          “A number of websites and blogs currently claim that downwelling infrared radiation from greenhouse gases cannot heat the oceans….[ Hockeyschtick, Steven Goddard, Tallbloke]

          If these claims were correct, then any warming of the oceans would have to be attributed to increases in solar intensity or decreases in cloud cover. This paper describes a model that uses the basics of heat transfer to demonstrate than an increase in downwelling infrared radiation associated with increased CO2 reduces heat loss from the mixed layer of the ocean, causing the ocean to warm.”
          https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/21/mechanisms-for-warming-of-the-oceans/

          1. Kenneth Richard

            “This paper describes a model that uses the basics of heat transfer to demonstrate than an increase in downwelling infrared radiation associated with increased CO2 reduces heat loss from the mixed layer of the ocean, causing the ocean to warm.”

            Yes, as you say so yourself, all that is presented is a model of what hypothetically could possibly be true about CO2 heating oceans…from a blog post. No observational evidence or real-world physical measurements from an actual controlled scientific experiment.

            As a true skeptic, I am not one to say that CO2 “cannot” heat the oceans. I’m entirely open to that possibility. I’ve just not been presented with scientific evidence or physical measurements affirming this. All we have are hypothetical models and assumptions about what might possibly be true…and then people like you believe it’s true because a lot of other people believe in those hypothetical models and assumptions too.

            I think it’s rather telling that all you have to back up your beliefs is a blog post. Judith Curry, as a skeptic, allows posts from both sides on her blog. I’ve probably had believers like you link me to this particular blog post about 15 times in the last few years. It’s apparently all that believers like you have.

            And even if downwelling IR from GHGs does trap heat at the ocean surface, it still needs to be demonstrated that (a) this IR heat can override the effects of SW, which, unlike IR, CAN penetrate into the ocean itself and by 10s of meters to directly warm those surface layers, (b) water vapor, the most potent greenhouse gas, does not override the effects of CO2 in the “greenhouse” forcing, (c) clouds, which have a range of forcing that is 25 times greater than the effect of doubling CO2 concentrations (100 W m-2 vs. 4 W m-2), does not override the effects of CO2, and that (d) every other natural factor that have affected change in ocean heat content throughout the Holocene (solar activity [the Modern Grand Maximum, the Dalton, Maunder, and Sporer Minimums], the AMOC, ENSO, volcanic aerosols, etc.) have ceased having any significant effect on ocean heat content during the last 100 years, which has allowed parts per million (0.000001) changes in atmospheric CO2 to become the dominant source of net changes in the 4000-meter deep oceans.

            Obviously you believe that all of those factors have neatly aligned, and you have assumed that the hypothetical models and assumptions are the truth, and thus you are a believer rather than a skeptic. Why are you so facilely believe in hypothetical models, Craig?

          2. Craig T

            Because a climatologist I know speaks well of Curry, and the fact she actually is skeptical about some of the more outrageous thing said on Sceptic sights, I have respect for her. Judith Curry is a climatologist – she’s not trying to twist the laws of physics to support a preconceived position.

            Have you never put water under a heat lamp? The overall effect is warming. Arguing against that isn’t being skeptical, it’s being in denial.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            “Judith Curry is a climatologist – she’s not trying to twist the laws of physics to support a preconceived position.”

            What physics laws might you be referring to that say that varying CO2 concentrations by +/- 0.000001 (parts per million) over a water body has been physically observed to not only cause net deep ocean heat changes, but dominate over all other physical factors affecting ocean heat changes, Craig? Please cite the scientific paper that affirms your beliefs about this physical process — never observed — that has morphed into a physical law. Don’t refer to hypothetical models found on blogs. Actual physical measurements from a scientific experiment. Let’s see what you have, Craig.

            For example, if you had two identical otherwise empty greenhouses with identical containers of water in each and you had a CO2 generator pump in 450 ppm CO2 in one and 500 ppm in the other, what would the water temperature difference be at the bottom of the containers? What physical measurements do you have? Cite them.

            “Have you never put water under a heat lamp? The overall effect is warming.”

            Unbelievable. And here I, consistent with my glass-half-full tendencies, have been giving you too much credit.

            So it is your belief that fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have an effect hypothetically similar to what occurs when a heat lamp is directed at a bucket of water.

            Craig, CO2 is said to trap heat at the surface. The Sun does the heating. And the heat energy from the Sun penetrates down into the ocean by 20-30 meters. IR cannot penetrate past the microns-“thick” ocean skin layer. Even warmist blogs like RealClimate and SkepticalScience acknowledge that. CO2 doesn’t generate its own heat analogous to a heat lamp at the ocean surface.

            I really had thought you were better than this. I keep on hoping those on your side could come up with something more substantive than concocting pathetically irrelevant analogies (CO2 functions like a heat lamp and dominates over the Sun in heating the ocean!) and then calling those who don’t agree with your beliefs “in denial” of “the laws of physics.”

            “Arguing against that isn’t being skeptical, it’s being in denial.”

            In the case of CO2 and net ocean heat changes, please explain what truth you believe I am “denying.” And then explain why it is your belief that the only climatic variable that has changed in the last 100 years is CO2, and why you believe the Modern Grand Maximum, cloud cover reductions and water vapor increases since the ’80s, volcanic activity fluctuations, ENSO influences…have not affected the temperature in the last 100 years. Then perhaps we can see what you are “denying.”

          4. AndyG55

            “Have you never put water under a heat lamp? The overall effect is warming.”

            By heating the surrounding container.

            ie conduction

            Learn some basic physics, CT, you are making a fool of yourself by not understanding the workings of heat transfer and evaporation..

          5. AndyG55

            A heat lamp also puts out a lot of red light, which will penetrate.

            If it didn’t, it wouldn’t glow red.

            You are a goose, CT !!

          6. sod

            “Yes, as you say so yourself, all that is presented is a model of what hypothetically could possibly be true about CO2 heating oceans…from a blog post.”

            yes, but on a “sceptic” blog.

            so have you measured the entire ocean and found out that there is no such effect (you do understand that experiments are models?!?)?

            anyone who thinks about this for a second, using a four layer model (yes, model!), will understand the effect immediately. the layers are water, water skin, “air skin” and air. we do not even need to know how heat transfer works between these, to understand that warming any part one of these will have a feedback warming effect on all 4 of them.

          7. Kenneth Richard

            Have you ever looked at Curry’s blog? She routinely links to scientific papers that both support and undermine the CAGW narrative. That’s why I really like her.

            “so have you measured the entire ocean and found out that there is no such effect (you do understand that experiments are models?!?)?”

            No, I have not measured the entire ocean. And no, as I’ve written, I do not claim that there is “no such effect”. That would imply that I have access to physical measurements from controlled experiments affirming that I know something is true, or that I am certain, when I most certainly do not have such evidence. That’s why I ask for the evidence from those who claim that the CO2-heats-the-deep-ocean conceptualization is one of the “laws of physics.” I’m a skeptic, and therefore I am proudly agnostic. I ask for evidence from those who claim to have the “truth”…and who claim that I am denying it. Like Craig.

            “…we do not even need to know how heat transfer works…”

            I have no words.

          8. AndyG55

            “she’s not trying to twist the laws of physics to support a preconceived position.”

            So why are you ??????

          9. AndyG55

            ““…we do not even need to know how heat transfer works…””

            ROFLMAO…..

            You really do say some moronically STUPID things sometime sob-sob.!!!!

            And I can understand why you don’t think you need to know….

            …. because YOU DON’T KNOW.

          10. SebastianH

            I keep on hoping those on your side could come up with something more substantive than concocting pathetically irrelevant analogies (CO2 functions like a heat lamp and dominates over the Sun in heating the ocean!) and then calling those who don’t agree with your beliefs “in denial” of “the laws of physics.”

            That’s not what Craig wrote. Are you trying to be dishonest? Like you accuse other commenters to be?

            Do you remember how I told you that we are the cause for the increase in CO2 concentration (since reliable measurements exist) and why that’s true? You didn’t understand it back then, so you probably will still think this is some kind of believe system or a model with no evidence, etc …

            Well, i tried and so let’s just calculate the hell out of CO2 forcings and see if they could be responsible for OHC changes.

            So what do we have? OHC is supposed to have changes by around 3*10^23 Joules since the late 60s (https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png), correct? We know the oceans cover an area of 361,900,000 km² which equals 3.619*10^14 m². 1 Joule is als 1 Ws and 50 years equal 1,576,800,000 seconds.

            With that information we can calculate the necessary average forcing over those 50 years to achieve the measured increase in OHC. Do you want to guess?

            It’s 0.525 W/m². What was the average forcing by CO2 in the past 50 years if it is now supposed to be 1.7 W/m² over preindustrial levels? Higher or lower than 0.525 W/m²?

            You see? If the forcing of just one variable (CO2) is enough for the observed change, this means the change would not have happened in the absense of a change in that one variable (CO2). Do you disagree?

            It’s basically the same as with CO2 concentration. Since the increases are smaller than our output, we are the reason the concentration increases.

            This is really simple math and not something one has to believe or not.

          11. Kenneth Richard

            “That’s not what Craig wrote. Are you trying to be dishonest?”

            Craig wrote that there is only factor influencing ocean temperatures that has changed in the last 100 years: CO2.

            Craig: “I believe (as in as best I understand the science) there are many factors affecting climate. Only one of those[3 mentioned: Sun, volcanic activity, CO2] have steadily changed in a clear direction for the last 100 years.”

            In other words, there is no other factor that has caused a net ocean heat change other than CO2…because he apparently doesn’t believe there has been a Grand Solar Maximum, or that there has been a significant reduction in volcanic activity since the LIA, or that cloud cover has decreased since the 1980s, or that heat redistribution in the ocean (ENSO, AMOC) has contributed to net ocean heat changes… Then, when discussing the “laws of physics” associated with the Judith Curry blog post on CO2 heating the oceans, he wrote: “Have you never put water under a heat lamp? The overall effect is warming.” I read into that that he believes CO2 — the one cause of ocean temperature changes — functions like a heat lamp at the ocean surface. Why else broach such a comparison in response to the question of how CO2 causes net ocean heat changes?

            “With that information we can calculate the necessary average forcing over those 50 years to achieve the measured increase in OHC. It’s 0.525 W/m². What was the average forcing by CO2 in the past 50 years if it is now supposed to be 1.7 W/m² over preindustrial levels? Higher or lower than 0.525 W/m²?”

            There’s a rather large problem here, SebastianH. You have yet to be able to establish that the theoretical/hypothetical/assumptive modeled forcing from CO2 can heat the ocean down to 2000 meters. You just believe this to be true without observational evidence because that’s what you’ve been told by others. I’m a skeptic. I need more than just your and others’ beliefs about CO2 heating water.

            “You see? If the [theoretical/hypothetical/assumptive modeled] forcing of just one variable (CO2) is enough for the observed change”

            And the Modern Grand Maximum of solar activity, the cloud cover reduction, the reduction in volcanic activity, ENSO…have had effectively zero effect, right? Because…CO2.

          12. Craig T

            “In the case of CO2 and net ocean heat changes, please explain what truth you believe I am ‘denying'”

            Infrared radiation warms water. It’s basic physics, yet Sceptics seem gullible to arguments to the contrary. Even Roy Spencer is bothered by it:

            “If you claim that any additional IR (say, due to increasing carbon dioxide) is immediately lost by the water body through evaporation, how exactly does that occur? The surface doesn’t know why it has the temperature it does, it will evaporate water based (partly) on surface temperature, and it does not distinguish where the heat comes from (solar radiation from above, mixing from below, IR from above, sensible heat flux across the air/water interface). To claim that any energy gain from IR is immediately lost by evaporation is just an assertion.”
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body/

            “So it is your belief that fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have an effect hypothetically similar to what occurs when a heat lamp is directed at a bucket of water.”

            The source of long wave radiation is irrelevant. Heat lamps work through radiant heating, giving off long range radiation. The heating from IR radiation doesn’t “dominate over the Sun” but it does contribute to the total temperature of the Earth. Spencer is clearly skeptical of any argument that IR emitted by CO2 is a special case. What happened to your skepticism?

            “I really had thought you were better than this.”

            While I take Andy’s insults as badges of honor I’m sorry to hear you say that. When I first weighed in I thought it was only Richard and Andy pushing this argument that IR radiation cools the ocean. I realize that you are sincere when you claim you are “proudly agnostic” and equally skeptical about all claims. I also know the worst way to convince you otherwise is to point out how biased you are in what you question. But we’re talking established physics here, something that can be settled in any laboratory in under an hour.

          13. Kenneth Richard

            KR: “In the case of CO2 and net ocean heat changes, please explain what truth you believe I am ‘denying’”

            Craig: “Infrared radiation warms water. It’s basic physics”

            I don’t deny that infrared radiation affects the top few microns of the ocean surface (the “skin”). But even the top warmist blogs acknowledge that the “heat” from IR cannot penetrate into the ocean past those few microns:

            RealClimate: “infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean

            SkepticalScience: “Sunlight penetrating the surface of the oceans is responsible for warming of the surface layers. … Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and direct part of this back toward the surface. This heat cannot penetrate into the ocean itself, but it does warm the cool skin layer” [“0.1 to 1 mm thick on average”]

            According to RealClimate, in a real-world experiment using clouds as a proxy for CO2, the temperature gradient in the “skin” layer — which is the only “depth” affected by IR — amounts to an imperceptible 0.002 K. In other words, even assuming that CO2 was the only factor contributing to LW IR forcing, and that, for example, water vapor is not a far more influential greenhouse gas in the theoretical greenhouse effect conceptualization, the top-most influence that CO2 could possibly have in “heating” the ocean is 0.002 K.

            In contrast, variations in the absorbed heat energy from solar radiation has quite a bit more of an effect on ocean temperatures:

            Fairall et al., 1996
            On a clear day the Sun deposits an average of about 500 W/m-2 of heat into the ocean over the 12 daylight hours. Roughly half of this heat is absorbed in the upper 2 m. In the absence of mixing this is sufficient heat input to warm this 2-m-deep layer uniformly by 2.0 K. … Measurable warming occurs as deep as 20 m and may persist well past sundown.

            So if there was a reduction in volcanic aerosols on a centennial scale (there has been) or cloud cover on a decadal scale (and there has been according to satellite observations), each of these indirect albedo factors would strongly affect how much of that 500 W m-2 is absorbed in the first 2 m to 20 m of the ocean — much more so than if there was an increase in CO2 concentration by, say, 10 ppm (0.00001), and this affected a change in the “skin” layer with its negligible 0.002 K heat gradient.

            So no, you’re wrong to say that I don’t agree that IR can affect ocean temperature. It can. But only the first 0.1 mm – 1 mm “skin” layer, as the heat from IR cannot penetrate past that. And that’s not nearly influential enough to overwhelm the absorption of SW solar heat in determining ocean temperature. Understand?

          14. Kenneth Richard

            “The source of long wave radiation is irrelevant.”

            No, it’s really not irrelevant. Because if LW radiation is predominantly determined by clouds or water vapor, that leaves little to no room for humans to have an impact on water temperatures. And since the IPCC has concluded that 93% of the heat change from “global warming” is manifested in the oceans, and only 1% is manifested in the atmosphere (air temperature), if the ocean heat content changes predominantly due to changes in natural contributors (solar radiation, clouds, aerosols, etc.), then the entire conceptualization of a dominant human impact on climate collapses. For example, that same RealClimate blog post linked to above says this:

            Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)

            “But we’re talking established physics here, something that can be settled in any laboratory in under an hour.”

            No, CO2 heating water is not “established physics.” It’s never even been observed to have occurred in a scientific experiment…or in a laboratory or anywhere else. It’s theoretical. Or, more precisely, it’s hypothetical. It’s a model. If you don’t agree, see if you can locate physical measurements from an actual CO2-heats-water scientific experiment actually involving CO2 (not clouds or other proxies) as a variable.

          15. sod

            The handful of “scpetics2 with any scientific credentials are against you.

            why not assume that you are wrong and drop this insane topic?

          16. Kenneth Richard

            You mean…I have “scpetics2” against me? This isn’t good. Perhaps I should become a believer.

          17. Craig T

            “So no, you’re wrong to say that I don’t agree that IR can affect ocean temperature. It can. But only the first 0.1 mm – 1 mm “skin” layer, as the heat from IR cannot penetrate past that.”

            Not as LW radiation but heat always transfers until equilibrium is established. Thermal energy will warm the air and the water below it. Temperature changes in the top 1mm don’t stay in the top 1mm.

            “No, CO2 heating water is not “established physics.” It’s never even been observed to have occurred in a scientific experiment…or in a laboratory or anywhere else.”

            It’s been proven for over 100 years that CO2 and water vapor give off infrared radiation. There are water heaters on the market that use infrared energy to heat water.

            The LW radiation from CO2 has been confirmed in the field. A study from 2000 – 2010 looked specifically at a narrow band of IR radiation given off by CO2 while monitoring CO2 levels directly over the location. The long wave radiation matched laboratory values and changed with seasonal variation in CO2.
            http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

          18. Kenneth Richard

            “Not as LW radiation but heat always transfers until equilibrium is established. Thermal energy will warm the air and the water below it.”

            Those two sentences say absolutely nothing about CO2 heating water. That’s what we’re talking about here.

            “Temperature changes in the top 1mm don’t stay in the top 1mm.”

            Heat rises, Craig. Right? And the top 0.1 mm – 1 mm “skin” has a heat gradient of 0.002 K — according to RealClimate.org. How is the heat energy contained in the “skin” going to overwhelm the direct heating of the first 20-30 meters of the ocean (which has a heat gradient orders of magnitude greater than 0.002 K)?

            “It’s been proven for over 100 years that CO2 and water vapor give off infrared radiation. There are water heaters on the market that use infrared energy to heat water.”

            At what level of its atmospheric concentration (320 ppm? 220 ppm? 400 ppm?) did CO2 begin functioning just like a water heater…and then overwhelming the effects of changes in direct solar heat in determining the net change in ocean heat content? Does CO2 always function like a heater, or did it only begin doing so at a certain concentration? And what scientists characterize CO2 as functioning like a water heater (machine), and not an insulator/blanket? Or are you just making that up?

            And if CO2 operates as a water heater, and not as an insulator/blanket (trapping existing heat at the surface), why did the oceans warm up several hundred to 1,000 years before CO2 concentrations began rising from glacials to interglacials? Why did the warming happen first…if ocean heat changes are caused by increases in CO2?

            And at what atmospheric water vapor concentration (3,000 ppm? 4,000 ppm?) did atmospheric water begin functioning just like a water heater too? At what point does atmospheric water heat up deep ocean water more than direct solar radiation heats water?

            “The LW radiation from CO2 has been confirmed in the field.”

            Oh? Please cite the actual scientific experiment that “confirms” that varying CO2 over a body of water causes cooling or warming when decreased or increased. Feldman et al. (2015) use modeled results, and they write nothing about ocean heat in their paper. (I’ve probably been linked to Feldman et al. about 15 times by people like you.)

            And besides, Feldman et al. claim that the 22 ppm CO2 increase from 2000-2010 caused a whopping 0.2 W m-2 of radiative forcing (a modeled result). Stephens et al. (2012) claim that during that same period (2000-’10) the radiation budget had a positive imbalance of 0.6 W m-2. So what was the source of that other 0.4 W m-2 of forcing for that period, Craig? Do you know?

            Stephens et al., 2012
            “The current revised depiction of the global annual mean energy balance for the decade 2000–2010 is provided … For the decade considered [2000-2010], the average imbalance is 0.6 Wm–2

          19. SebastianH

            But even the top warmist blogs acknowledge that the “heat” from IR cannot penetrate into the ocean past those few microns

            It apparently needs more repeating:
            It doesn’t need to penetrate. IR also doesn’t penetrate hard objects. What matters is the surface layer, that’s the layer that is radiating energy into the environment and when that environment radiates back than the surface layer will not radiate as much energy and internal heat/energy will build up. As a result the surface gets warmer (not necessarily the whole object/body).

            THAT is the law of physics that has been discovered over 100 years ago.

          20. Kenneth Richard

            “It doesn’t need to penetrate…As a result the surface gets warmer (not necessarily the whole object/body).”

            I’ll try to explain this to you as simply as possible:

            The temperature gradient for the “skin” layer that “gets warmer” allegedly due to LW forcing is an inconsequential 0.002 K. For tens of meters below the skin, the ocean temperature is determined by direct solar radiation, and the temperature gradient for the first 20-30 meter layers is many orders of magnitude greater than 0.002 K.

            If there was a change in the amount or intensity of direct solar radiation that is absorbed by the first 20-30 meters of the ocean due to changes in cloud cover or volcanic aerosols, this will have much more of an impact on the temperature of the first 20-30 meters of the ocean than will a change in the micrometer layer with a heat gradient of 0.002 K.

            And no, your “explanation” of a modeled (non-observed, non-measured, non-tested) hypothesis as to how 0.000001 variations in atmospheric CO2 content heat oceans 1,000s of meters down is not “the law of physics”.

          21. AndyG55

            seb.. you wouldn’t have the vaguest clue what physics says.

            Proven by observation/measurements that evaporation occurs in top tiny fraction of a mm because of any LW radiation.

            By observation/ measurement that this drags latent heat thus COOLING the surface 1mm by about 0.3C

            You have shown over and over again that your grasp of real physics is basically NON_EXISTENT.

          22. AndyG55

            “There are water heaters on the market that use infrared energy to heat water.”

            And not one of them shines IR from above in an open tank.

            You are either showing your ignorance, or..

            … outing yourself out as a manic, deceitful, lying, anti-science agw scammer.

          23. AndyG55

            I find it quite bizarre that simple mechanisms like evaporation and evaporative cooling are not understood by these klimate-kool-aide quaffers.

            Have they never experience cooling by moisture evaporating from their skin.

            Never been outside their basements,

            Never done anything that required exertion?

            Have so, so little understanding of basic physics ???????

            Quite BIZARRE in their abject ignorance. !!!

          24. sod

            “I find it quite bizarre that simple mechanisms like evaporation and evaporative cooling are not understood by these klimate-kool-aide quaffers.”

            yes. Not understood by a single scientists, not even by those who seem to be “sceptics”.

            But as long a s a guy on the internet named AndyG55 knows the all about it, we will be fine.

          25. SebastianH

            Kenneth, the laws of physics also say that an object in a gravity well will experience acceleration in a certain direction. That’s also a “model”, if you want to call it that. Do you need confirmation that this is true for every gravity well in the universe and for every starting point in that gravity well? E.g. the ball thrown behind a wall … is it really dropping to the ground or can we only know that if there was an experiment that determined the wall/area behind the wall is not defying the laws of physics?

            That’s the problem I have with your way to argument. You are a skeptic of the laws of physics and many in the history of men were. All it takes to show that such a law is not universal or not complete is just one instance were it doesn’t work. Why should radiative heat transfer work differently for different materials? Provide one example where this is the case and I’ll never bring up this topic ever again.

            @AndyG55:
            Any LW radiation just evaporates water from the top layer causing no temperature change in an externally heated body of water? Good luck proving that. Where does the water surface get the information from what incoming energy it should allocate to evaporation and what to radiation, etc?

            Please specify: how many W/m² of energy loss (ocean to atmosphere) does evaporation cause on average? How many W/m² are lost due to conduction? How many W/m² due to radiation?

          26. Kenneth Richard

            “Kenneth, the laws of physics also say that an object in a gravity well will experience acceleration in a certain direction. That’s also a ‘model’, if you want to call it that.”

            We actually have real-world physical measurements of gravity’s effects on surface objects at varying heights. We also have real-world physical measurements of the Sun’s radiant/heating effect on the first 10s of meters of the ocean.

            We have no real-world physical measurements showing that a -10 ppm drop in airborne CO2 causes a ___ decrease in water heat/temperature. We only have modeled assumptions about what a -10 ppm CO2 drop might possibly do, maybe, given our hunches. That’s why your beliefs about CO2 heating the deep ocean from the micrometer layer are NOT a physical law.

          27. AndyG55

            “the laws of physics also say”

            seb , you have proven time, and time, and time again..

            ….. that you have a NEGATIVE comprehension about what the laws of physics say.

          28. AndyG55

            “Not understood by a single scientists”

            YES.. every REAL scientist understand evaporation and its COOLING effects

            Climate pseudo-scientists and their parrots (sob-seb) not so much !!

          29. AndyG55

            “Any LW radiation just evaporates water from the top layer causing no temperature change in an externally heated body of water?”

            Show me where I said that.

            You are a LYING POS, seb

            evaporation cause COOLING in the top 1mm or so.

            You KNOW that, you might even have felt the effect if you had ever worked up a perspiration

          30. SebastianH

            AndyG55, you wrote:

            Proven by observation/measurements that evaporation occurs in top tiny fraction of a mm because of any LW radiation.

            Any LW radiation (= energy gain) causes evaporation (= energy loss). So no energy is added to the body of water (= no temperature change). That’s what you wrote, or do you really mean that the incoming radiation (if it would indeed be all used up in the evaporation process) causes more energy to be lost than gained (= cooling)?

            I repeat myself:
            Please specify: how many W/m² of energy loss (ocean to atmosphere) does evaporation cause on average? How many W/m² are lost due to conduction? How many W/m² due to radiation?

            Do you avoid answering these questions because you would then have to acknowledge that those numbers don’t support what you are saying?

          31. AndyG55

            I repeat myself, over and over again.

            Please produce a paper that proves that CO2 causes warming of ocean water, or in a convective atmosphere.

            BIG FAT ZERO, seb. !!!

            You have NEVER produced one single piece of measured fact to support your manic religious belief in AGW, just yap, yap, yap.

            And yes, there is a measured heat change as latent heat is draw from the top 1mm of water by surface evaporation.

            It cools !!

            ZERO energy is gained by sea water from LW radiation.

          32. AndyG55

            Perhaps seb would like to give an estimate of the ABSOLUTELY IMMENSE amount of energy liberated from the oceans by evaporation.

            The energy that take MASSIVE amounts of heat to the upper atmosphere, regulated by the pressure density gradient.

            Or does seb also DENY that evaporation COOLS the Earth’s surface, and transports huge amounts energy upwards.

            That would be a seriously hilarious DENIAL.

            But we await his idiocy anyway, because we all know it is coming.

          33. Kenneth Richard

            http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/evap_cooling_intro.aspx
            Evaporative Cooling Introduction
            The Science of Evaporative Cooling

          34. SebastianH

            AndyG55 … why do you have to evade that simple question and instead ask me if I want to estimate the numbers. It’s about 80 W/m² that can be attributed to evaporation. Roughly 50% of the energy is transfered this way. 39% is net radiation (67 W/m²) while outgoing radiation is ~396 W/m² and incoming ~333 W/m². Evaporation comes nowhere near those 333 W/m², does it?

            Evaporation isn’t something that happens by itself (Kenneth and AndyG55). It needs a source of energy and I know of no possibility how evaporation could ever cool more than the amount of energy that fuels it. So if LW radiation would work like AndyG55 describes and only causes evaporation and nothing else, then there is no gain or loss in energy in the ocean. It wont get cooler that way … also all that energy would then be in the atmosphere again, completing the circle. Unfortunately nothing opposes the 396 W/m² radiation anymore, so this get to the atmosphere as net radiation then …

            Doesn’t work. No energy balance achieved that has been observed on this planet.

          35. SebastianH

            We only have modeled assumptions about what a -10 ppm CO2 drop might possibly do, maybe, given our hunches. That’s why your beliefs about CO2 heating the deep ocean from the micrometer layer are NOT a physical law.

            Of course we have those measurements. A study measured the increase in LW radiation caused by increased CO2 concentration over 10 years. The fact that CO2 emits LW radiation is well known. The effect of LW radiation is known.

            You can’t measure it directly in an experiment, because that would be hell of an experiment. But you can use proxies, e.g. measure what happens when the cloud cover changes (different LW radiation intensity). Since you know that CO2 emits LW radiation and you measured the effect of LW radiation on the oceans, you absolutely know that CO2 concentration changes will have the same effect. How could it be any other way?

            P.S.: Since you mentioned heating of the deep ocean again, I still think you have no idea how radiative energy transfer works. Yes, you are a skeptic and want to see measurements before you believe that “radiative energy transfer” is actually a thing. But do you understand the principle behind it? It’s not the surface heating anything below. It’s the atoms below not being able to get rid of their energy and therefor more energy builds up (= temperature increases). Do you get that or not?

          36. Kenneth Richard

            “You can’t measure it directly in an experiment, because that would be hell of an experiment.”

            Huh? So that’s it? We can’t actually conduct a scientific experiment testing whether 0.000001 changes in CO2 above a water body cause heat changes (and if so, how much), so…we just believe in the modeled assumptions anyway? That’s your version of “science”?

            Here’s a proposed experiment that actually uses CO2 as a test variable. (Using clouds as proxies is like comparing apples to watermelons — especially since clouds are so much more influential in both the SW and LW.) Do you know what the results of such an experiment would be? Of course you don’t. You don’t need physical measurements or real-world evidence that CO2 heats and cools water. All you need is models and a willingness to believe.

            Real-World Experiment Testing The Effects Of CO2 Changes On Water Temperature
            Find or create two empty and identical glass-covered greenhouses (or other transparent buildings) that are located side-by-side, with neither structure affected differently by trees or shade or other outdoor environmental conditions. Inside each building place matching containers (large, preferably) filled with the same amount of water in each. Measure the baseline conditions of water temperature with precise thermometers, and measure the baseline CO2 concentration each building — which will presumably be the same or similar in each. In the first building (control), do not alter the internal natural CO2 concentration, but leave it at baseline (somewhere close to 400 ppm). In the second building, inject incrementally increasing quantities of CO2 (e.g., 500 ppm, 1,000 ppm, 1,500 ppm) with a CO2 generator (which are used in greenhouses to stimulate plant growth). Use a CO2 monitor (also used routinely in greenhouses) to measure and control the amount of CO2 contained in the experimental building. After a specified time lapse, measure the water temperature change, if any, for both the control building and the building with added CO2 from identical depths and locations for each container. Finally, reverse the process and incrementally draw down the CO2 injection in the experimental building while again gauging water temperature changes for each building.

          37. AndyG55

            seb you have been Evading since day one

            I repeat myself, over and over again.

            Please produce a paper that proves that CO2 causes warming of ocean water, or in a convective atmosphere.

            BIG FAT ZERO, seb.

            And no, the Feldman study found the warming effect of an El Nino.

            Nothing to do with CO2, which doesn’t emit below 11km.

          38. AndyG55

            “So if LW radiation would work like AndyG55 describes and only causes evaporation and nothing else, then there is no gain or loss in energy in the ocean.”

            Again, you LIE from ignorance. Twist what was said, to try and match your ignorance.

            Its pretty slimy behaviour, seb.. as we expect from you.

            Evaporation happens all the time and always causes a loss of energy from the surface.

            LW energy from H2O is just a small helper.
            But that atmospheric H2O is there because of evaporation.

            “I know of no possibility how evaporation could ever cool more than the amount of energy that fuels it”

            That is because you have zero comprehension of latent heat and how evaporation works.

            It draws energy from the top 1mm, so yes it does drag more energy than the small trigger from the down-welling LW energy from the atmospheric H2O above it.

            And its not just ZERO comprehension .. you seem to live in a world of FANTASY, NEGATIVE knowledge.

          39. Kenneth Richard

            “Again, you LIE from ignorance. Twist what was said, to try and match your ignorance.”

            SebastianH knows exactly what he is doing. He makes up positions no one has written or thought, claims that others have written it, and then ridicules the straw man he concocted. It’s contemptuous behavior that is indeed wholly dishonest.

          40. Craig T

            “So what was the source of that other 0.4 W m-2 of forcing for that period, Craig?”

            The source is a feedback loop involving water vapor. As the Earth warms evaporation increases and water in the air also gives off LW radiation.

            As the paper says “The climate perturbation from this surface forcing will be larger than the observed effect, since it has been found that the water-vapour feedback enhances greenhouse gas forcing at the surface by a factor of three and will increase, largely owing to thermodynamic constraints. The evolving roles of atmospheric constituents, including water vapour and CO2, in their radiative contributions to the surface energy balance can be tracked with surface spectroscopic measurements from stand-alone (or networks of) AERI instruments.”

            The forcing from increased CO2 has been a given, and by itself wouldn’t warm the world over 2 degrees by 2100. The scientific debate has been over the impact of other feedbacks caused by the CO2 warming.

          41. Kenneth Richard

            “The forcing from increased CO2 has been a given”

            Yeah, it’s a “given” because believers (like you) have decided that accepting model results without actual physical observation is “settled science.” There has never been a controlled scientific experiment demonstrating that varying CO2 concentrations up or down over a body of water causes heat changes in that body of water…and if it does, how much (real world physical measurements). One has to just believe that this occurs…and just assume that the modeled results are correct. And this is the believers’ version of “science.” Anyone who disagrees with their modeled conclusions are called “deniers”.

            There isn’t even agreement about the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 to make it a “given”. The model results say that doubling CO2 will yield a forcing of 3.7 W m-2, and a temperature change of 1.2 C. That’s it. Any warming beyond that is supposed to come from water vapor, which apparently only “kicks in” at some point when believers see fit.

            Here are 60 papers that say climate sensitivity is in the tenths of a degree with doubling (560 ppm). Why are they all wrong, Craig T?

            http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/#sthash.vKxYOIOi.dpbs

          42. Kenneth Richard

            “The source is a feedback loop involving water vapor. As the Earth warms evaporation increases and water in the air also gives off LW radiation.”

            At what CO2 concentration (240 ppm? 340 ppm? 390 ppm?) does this model of water vapor “feedback loop” that you believe in actually “kick in”, allowing the airborne water to actually heat the ocean water? Why does the CO2 concentration determine the feedback loop anyway? In other words, why is it assumed (models) that doubling CO2 to 560 ppm will by itself (no feedbacks) cause a surface temperature change of just 1.2 C, but water vapor feedbacks will hoist that up to 3.0 C, 4.5 C, and on up the catastrophic ladder? Why does the water vapor “feedback loop” only occur at certain CO2 concentrations, and not by itself?

          43. AndyG55

            “Evaporation isn’t something that happens by itself”

            With that one statement, seb PROVES he has absolutely ZERO understanding of what evaporation is.

            Well done , seb..

            You have proven your IGNORANCE , yet again 🙂

          44. AndyG55

            Poor seb..

            never FAILs ..

            to FAIL !!

          45. AndyG55

            And seb , since ALL that mythical Trenberthian so-called downwelling in the lower atmosphere comes from H2O

            You have to think about how that H2O got into the atmosphere in the first place. 😉

          46. SebastianH

            AndyG55, I should have continued ignoring you. One last reply to your nonsense and then I’ll try to resist your troll attempts (or perhaps you really don’t know it better, then I am impressed about your stubbornness).

            For evaporation to happen energy is spent. Do you agree or disagree? Where does the energy come from? You previously wrote that any LW radiation is just causing evaporation. Now you write “LW energy from H2O is just a small helper.”. The first case can’t work since the amount of downwelling LW radiation by far exceeds the amount of energy used for evaporation. The second case begs the question what then happens to the rest of the energy?

            Last but not least you seem to have found a killer argument by mentioning that the H2O in the atmosphere got there by evaporation, possibly indicating that the downwelling LW radiation (from H2O) is a result of evaporation? Is that correct?

            It’s beyond ridiculous … well, have a good time commenting every comment I write 3 to 5 times in a row. Like Craig wrote, it seems to be a badge of honor to be insulted by you. I am definetly looking forward to it.

            @Kenneth, the only thing that you need to “believe” is that the laws of physics are universal and that it doesn’t matter what material an object is made of as long as you can determine its emissivity. If you think that somehow physics don’t apply to certain materials, because it never has been measured. Ok, so be it. But you are living in actual denial then.

            P.S.: Do you understand the principle behind radiative energy transfers or not? It don’t want to know if you “believe” in it, I just want to know if you understand the principle.

          47. AndyG55

            “For evaporation to happen energy is spent”

            Again, you show that you don’t understand what evaporation is.

            Go and learn. FFS !!

          48. AndyG55

            Poor seb, you STILL haven’t produce one iota of evidence that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Or causes warming of ocean water.

            And now you show that your understanding of what evaporation is, is naïve at the very best.

            Give up while you are STILL batting zero, rather than proving your further ignorance, seb.

            You still haven’t explained how all that H2O in the atmosphere got there, except by evaporation.

            The amount of downwelling LW is a Trenberthian construct to make his flat non-rotating anti-physics Earth models work..

    2. M Peters

      Belief has no place in science, only religion. That is what this has become. A new religion. Anyone skeptical is reviled and vilified.

      Millions of dollars are spent on traveling the globe in search of evidence. None is spent on building a laboratory to control and test the theories. You never hear about collaboration between the climatologists, chemists and physicists working together to develop better experiments to confirm the theory. Only that they have improved the computer program that incorporates probabilistic equations that they themselves developed from statistical data to better predict the future of the climate. Statistical data that is clearly collected and interpreted in a biased fashion.

      One last thing. Just so you are aware, I do not think that filling the skies of this planet with the products of combustion is a good thing. I also do not think that tearing apart society over alarmist catastrophism based on lose scientific practises is good.

      1. Craig T

        You need to search harder if you haven’t seen collaboration between climatologists, chemists and physicists. It goes all the way back to Tyndall’s “On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction” IN 1861. Here is a list of such papers:
        https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Sounds like you agree with “consensus” science: if enough people agree it’s right, then it becomes truth.

          Tell us, Craig T. Between the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, ocean temperatures (0-700 m) dropped by -0.9 degrees C.

          http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-Western-Pacific-Warm-Pool-OHC-2.jpg

          During this period, CO2 concentrations rose slightly. So what was the physical mechanism or mechanisms that caused such dramatic heat loss?

          1. SebastianH

            In previous paper Rosenthal wrote:

            With no additional IWT records, it is difficult to assess the global extent of the trends we have reconstructed

            and

            The modern rate of Pacific OHC change is, however, the highest in the past 10,000 years

            Anyways, if the graph is a correct reconstruction then this means that the Pacific lost energy to somewhere else. Since Rosenthal also mentions that the reconstructed surface temperatures didn’t change that much, where did it go?

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Rosenthal et al., 2017: “[W]e assume that our records represent the World Ocean and thus are comparable in volume with the current estimates (Levitus et al., 2012).”

            “The modern rate of Pacific OHC change is, however, the highest in the past 10,000 years”

            That claim is only possible if one compares apples to refrigerators, or if one compares a trend length of thousands of years to a trend length of a few decades — a statistical charade (which is exactly how Rosenthal et al. [2013, 2017] arrive at that conclusion).

            They compare an 8,000-year trend, ignoring the decadal- and centennial-scale anomalies along the way…

            “Assuming the intermediate depth ocean (0-700 m) cooled between 10 and 2 Ka by ~1.5 °C we calculate a cooling rate 0.002°C per decade.”

            …to a 55-year trend (1955-2010 from Levitus et al., 2012). Of course, when one compares a statistical anomaly to a long-term statistical trend, the anomaly is going to show a faster rate of change. It’s like saying the oceans are now warming by 7.0 C per decade because they warmed by +0.7 C during the ’15-’16 El Nino 12-month period. Statistical malpractice that those on your side are too often guilty of.

            Because along the way to that ~1.5 °C cooling over 8,000 years, there were warming and cooling anomalies on centennial timescales that dwarfed the modern rate. For a visual of this, see here:

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Heat-Content-Rosenthal13-copy.jpg

            Furthermore, Bova et al. (2016) found that the ocean (0-1000) warmed and cooled at rates of 2°C per 200 years during the Holocene, or 1°C per century, which is a rate of change that is at least 5 times greater than what has occurred in the last 100 years.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071450/abstract
            temperature swings >2°C within 200 years.”

          3. Craig T

            M Peters said “You never hear about collaboration between the climatologists, chemists and physicists working together.” What I said sounded like I disagreed with him. There is plenty of work jointly done by climatologists, chemists and physicists.

            Consensus doesn’t make anything true – but as evidence builds some ideas gain acceptance while others are abandoned. When I was in high school there were two camps on the origin of birds. I watched as new evidence made it increasingly clear that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Eventually the only people using evidence against the idea were Creationists using it out of context to claim that nothing evolved.

          4. Kenneth Richard

            Craig T:

            Why did you completely avoid answering my question about the cause of the dramatic loss of heat energy in the Pacific Ocean between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice
            Age? What was the mechanism responsible for that heat loss…since CO2 rose slightly during that period?

            If there has been “consensus” on the greenhouse effect and the cause of changes in the energy budget and ocean heat content, surely you should be able to answer this question using “consensus” science. So what’s the answer, Craig?

            This isn’t about birds or dinosaurs or creationism. It directly applies to your beliefs about what causes net heat energy changes in the Earth system.

          5. AndyG55

            “(1955-2010 from Levitus et al., 2012)”

            Which is based on measurements…

            NOPE.

            Very few measurements were available pre-2003

            Its a model that contains CO2 assumptions.

            Take it with a grain of salt.

          6. Craig T

            I avoided your question about the MWP and LIA because I was focusing on what M Peters said about scientists not working together. There is plenty of scientific debate about the causes of the LIA and if it was global or regional. Possibly volcanic activity, possibly reduced solar output, not likely changes in CO2 levels. I believe (as in as best I understand the science) there are many factors affecting climate. Only one of those have steadily changed in a clear direction for the last 100 years.

          7. Kenneth Richard

            “I avoided your question about the MWP and LIA because I was focusing on what M Peters said about scientists not working together.”

            That was the 3rd time I had asked you this same question, and the 3rd time you have avoided responding to it. I have a hard time believing that the reason you didn’t respond each times has nothing to do with your reluctance to admit that CO2 did not play a role in the MWP-to-LIA cooling, and you realize that if you acknowledge that CO2 didn’t play a role in those dramatic ocean temperature changes, then that would undermine the contention that the dramatic rise in solar activity (the Modern Grand Maximum) since the depths of the Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton Minimums, the dramatic reduction in volcanic activity during the last century (relative to the 1300-1900 LIA), the reduction in cloud cover since the 1980s, the increase in ENSO activity in recent decades….had almost nothing to do with the temperature changes during the last century. Only 0.000001 changes in the atmospheric CO2 concentration had an effect on ocean temperatures. That’s what you believe, right?

            “There is plenty of scientific debate about the causes of the LIA and if it was global or regional. Possibly volcanic activity, possibly reduced solar output, not likely changes in CO2 levels. I believe (as in as best I understand the science) there are many factors affecting climate. Only one of those have steadily changed in a clear direction for the last 100 years.”

            So you don’t agree there has been a Modern Grand Maximum during the last century? You don’t agree there has been a satellite-observed reduction in cloud cover since the 1980s? You don’t agree that volcanic activity, or the lack thereof, has had an effect on temperature changes during the LIA (high activity-cooling) and the last 100 years (low activity-warming)? You don’t agree that the IPCC contends that water vapor concentration has increased since the 1980s? You don’t agree that Super El Nino events have directly affected temperature trends (i.e., prior to the last two events, there was no significant change in temperature for 10-15 years)? Why are you a believer that there has only been ONE factor that has changed in the last 100 years? Are you THAT close-minded to evidence that may contradict your beliefs?

          8. AndyG55

            “Only one of those have steadily changed in a clear direction for the last 100 years.”

            Yep.. the Sun. Leading to a Grand Solar Maximum through the last half of last century.

          9. Kenneth Richard

            “Yep.. the Sun. Leading to a Grand Solar Maximum through the last half of last century.”

            It’s likely Craig doesn’t think the Modern Grand Maximum of solar activity rising out of the depths of centennial-scale solar minima periods (Sporer, Maunder, Dalton) had much of anything to do with temperature changes. He apparently believes only one factor changed in the last 100 years: the 1/100th of 1% increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration.

          10. AndyG55

            CT, you have yet to provide one single iota of proof that CO2 causes warming of ocean water, or that CO2 causes warming in a convective, pressure/density controlled atmosphere.

            You are FIRING BLANKS !!!

          11. SebastianH

            He apparently believes only one factor changed in the last 100 years: the 1/100th of 1% increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration.

            It doesn’t matter if there were other factors that changes. The observed increase in ocean heat equals just 0.525 W/m² (see calculation above). CO2 forcing was higher on average for the last 50 years, wasn’t it?

            Yes, you could attribute the OHC change to something else that increased in the same ballpark, but that still doesn’t change the fact that OHC would not have changed that much in the absense the increasing CO2 concentration.

            P.S.: Please don’t answer with your usual “bla, backradiation can’t heat the oceans” claim. Of course it can’t, the net flow of radiation is almost always from the ocean to the atmosphere/space. The reason why heat builds up in the ocean is because the net radiation is lower than it should be in an equilibrium state.

          12. Kenneth Richard

            “that still doesn’t change the fact that OHC would not have changed that much in the absense the increasing CO2 concentration.”

            What observational evidence do you have that CO2 heats the ocean? Models are all you have. Right?

          13. SebastianH

            The laws of physics, Kenneth. Radiative heat transfer. Look it up and learn something. If you don’t “believe” the world works like this, then please explain how the oven in your kitchen works or the heater in your house/flat.

          14. Kenneth Richard

            “The laws of physics, Kenneth. Radiative heat transfer.”

            Sorry, but without any physical measurements from an actual controlled scientific experiment demonstrating how much heating or cooling is generated in a body of water by raising or lowering airborne CO2 concentrations by + or – 0.000001, your beliefs do not qualify as “the laws of physics”. Models of what we think might possibly be true about how CO2 maybe could perhaps heat the ocean are not “the laws of physics”.

            “please explain how the oven in your kitchen works or the heater in your house/flat.”

            So now you agree with Craig that CO2, when raised or lowered by 0.0001 (+ or – 100 ppm) functions like a household “heater” or “cooler”, and in this way the ocean depths are heated or cooled by CO2 concentrations. And you believe this is “the laws of physics.” Got it.

          15. AndyG55

            “The observed increase in ocean heat ”

            BS from the very first phrase.

            No-one has measured any “observed” increase in ocean heat, Even ARGO since 2003 is all over the place and requires many “adjustments”

            Before that there is very little information, and what there is mostly North Atlantic where the natural AMO cycle has a huge effect.

            https://s19.postimg.org/7onmfamlv/Ocean_Measurements.png

            The whole ocean heat thing is a load of CO2 assumption driven modelling… never measured.

    3. Robert Christopher

      ‘Ninety Eight percent of today’s scientist …’

      Ninety Eight percent of today’s Climate Change scientists …

      Yes, those ‘arguing that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the sole driving force behind the current warming trend’ are Climate Change Scientists, except that they are not Scientists.

  4. TedL

    Halfar’s algae data only go back to around AD 1365. Here is a link to the paper – http://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19737.figures-only. Also, the paper states that the Little Ice Age lasted from AD 1530 to 1860, which is the time period shown on the graph. However I recall that the Medieval Warm Period ended around AD 1250. So in fact Halfar’s algae data shed no light whatsoever on ice conditions during the Medieval Warm Period. His data document only the middle and end of the Little Ice Age and the subsequent warming climate.

  5. DirkH

    The Germans get forced to pay 9 billion Euro a year to the incompetent fat liars of the state media ARD and ZDF.

    It is the most expensive and corrupt propaganda network of the planet – and the feeding trough for all washed up failed globalist politicians of SPD and CDU.

    Hannelore Kraft, SPD socialist, just got fired by the voters of NRW. She will likely get a “job” at the local ARD subsidiary WDR and “earn” more money than when she was still PM of NRW.

  6. TedL

    I posted a comment a few minutes ago but it seems to have disappeared. Halfar’s algae data go back to about AD 1365. Here is a link to the paper – http://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19737.figures-only. The paper states that the Little Ice Age lasted from AD 1530 to 1860, which is the period so labeled on figure 3. However I recall the Medieval Warm Period ended around AD 1250. So Halfar’s data shed no light whatsoever on sea ice conditions during the Medieval Warm Period. His data only cover the middle and end of Little Ice Age and the subsequent climatic amelioration.

    1. AndyG55

      The data doesn’t go back all the way to the MWP, and it is STILL showing warmer spikes as the temperatures dropped to the lowest they have been in 10,000 years.

      All real data available shows the MWP as either of similar to now , or somewhat warmer.

      We are VERY LUCKY to live the Modern SLIGHTLY WARM Period.

  7. AndyG55

    MASIE data shows this years “melt from maximum” is about 23% SLOWER than the next slowest since MASIE started.

    MASIE Arctic sea ice extent is above that of each of the following years:

    2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016

    Furthermore, for the last 3 days MASIE has been GAINING arctic sea ice extent.

    NSIDC has not updated yet today.

  8. John F. Hultquist

    NSIDC has not updated yet today.

    It is Mother’s Day in the good old USA. Maybe no one is working!

    (Do they update on weekends?)

    1. AndyG55

      “(Do they update on weekends?)”

      I don’t keep track.. but I would say that Sunday is often a bit .. slow to appear. 😉

      1. AndyG55

        ps… remember, Sunday in USA is Monday morning down here.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          AndyG55 resides in the Land Down Under? Didn’t know that. NSW?

          When it’s 12 noon in the U.S. Central, what time is it there?

          1. AndyG55

            Mid north coast some 150km north of Sydney.

            I’ve been to many other places…

            But I’m staying here.

            Its nice and WARM in summer, beautiful beaches and “scenery” ;-).

            Get’s a tad nippy in winter (can get down to around 5ºC overnight at times !!!)

            Not overcrowded like Sydney, but close enough if I want to visit.

            And its the gateway to the Hunter Valley, red wine heaven !!

            And we have AMPLE coal to share with the world. 🙂

  9. clipe

    AndyG55, I know you’re not a climate scientist, but did it rain tomorrow?

    https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=240&p2=179

    1. clipe

      I should mention I’m the EDT zone.

    2. AndyG55

      “AndyG55, I know you’re not a climate scientist”

      Well actually …. 😉

      It did rain a bit last night around 10pm, should reach you guys about 2am Monday.. or something like that.

  10. Lasse

    How does melting of permafrost fit into this?
    Will it this time bee a tipping point?
    In Greenland there where civilisation from Scandinavia from 900 until end of 1400.
    They tried to live as farmers but died out when climate changed to the worse.

  11. Craig T

    “Here it would have been more real if he had brought up the Little Ice Age – the coldest phase of the last 10,000 years – a natural climate variation. He must have forgotten about it.”

    No, Halfar explicitly addressed the LIA in his paper [i]Arctic sea-ice decline archived by multicentury annual-resolution record from crustose coralline algal proxy.[/i]
    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19737.full

    “The 646-y multisite record from the Canadian Arctic indicates that during the Little Ice Age, sea ice was extensive but highly variable on subdecadal time scales and coincided with an expansion of ice-dependent Thule/Labrador Inuit sea mammal hunters in the region. The past 150 y instead have been characterized by sea ice exhibiting multidecadal variability with a long-term decline distinctly steeper than at any time since the 14th century.”

    Figure 3 clearly shows that sea ice is now below levels from before the LIA. Yes variability was high pre-industrial but it had no trend from 1400 to 1800. Since 1850 sea ice has a clear falling trend.
    http://imgbox.com/kRZRztI0

    1. AndyG55

      “Figure 3 clearly shows that sea ice is now below levels from before the LIA.”

      You need to get your dates correct , or you will risk looking very stupid.

      MWP was centred around 1000 AD. 1400, at the start of the graph, was well into the cooling period that led to the Little Ice Age.

      So Figure 3 shows absolutely nothing about the period before the LIA.

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Arctic-Werner-2017.jpg

      1. Craig T

        If 1400 was well into the LIA cooling, Halfar’s study shows the Arctic lost sea ice for 100 years of the LIA before the trend reversed itself. Feel free to contact Mr. Hafler and tell him his LIA label was off on figure 3.

        1. AndyG55

          Glad you agree that his label is in the wrong place.

          1400 was very much part of the cool-down period.

          You know that, and I bet Hafler knows that.

          His graphs go nowhere near the warmer parts of the MWP.

          Why are you making a fool of yourself by pretending to be ignorant. ??

  12. tom0mason

    Science still has no complete, cohesive, and verified model of how water works, without this basic knowledge how can anyone believe that climate can be understood?

    See http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_unexpected.html
    also
    http://phys.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/en/lab-group/a-04.html and http://phys.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/en/lab-group/a-05.html

    Yes, water and all it’s attributes are not well understood especially during the transition of vapor to liquid to solid and the reverse. And what exactly happens when ice dissociates to vapor without the usual intervening liquid state.
    So how do they model clouds in the polar regions when H2O goes through all these transition states. They use ‘estimates’, or for the non-scientist, they guess.
    What are the energy states operating in and around clouds? Now add the effect of the variable atmospheric chemistry of real localities for even more unknown unknowns.

  13. Dave Ward

    Bad news for sob & Seb:

    http://www.thegwpf.com/german-green-party-collapsing-in-existential-crisis/

    Good news for the rest of us!

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)

      Getting rid of the Greenies is good, but it’s only the start. Until you have competent leaders replacing them, it’s not much of a victory.
      https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10352/germany-migrants-property-rights

    2. SebastianH

      Don’t be illusional … the other parties have adopted nearly every “green” talking point. The problem for the green party is that they sound like any other party now.

      So why is it good news? Are you happy that the AfD party got over the 5% barrier? Is that also good news to you?

      1. AndyG55

        “Are you happy that the AfD party got over the 5% barrier? ”

        That’s better than the 95% RELIABLITY of wind energy…
        yet you go MANIC APE over its prospects !!

        Exponential blah, blah. !!

Leave a Reply