Global warming was supposed to inject thermal energy into the atmosphere, and thus spawn one super cyclone after another. Yet observations refuse to cooperate with the alarmist hypothesis.
At Twitter Colorado State University research scientist Philip Klotzbach reports that 2017 global cyclone energy “remains at record low levels“:
Earlier on June 13 Klotzbach tweeted the following chart showing how this year has been running thus far:
Despite all the warnings that a warming globe would lead to harsher and wilder hurricane seasons, data show that the the opposite is more the case.
In fact the especially harsh June hurricanes occurred when CO2 were at rock bottom levels of 280 ppm, like back 131 years ago, in 1886. Klotzbach writes: “In 1886, 3 June hurricanes made U.S. landfall“. He added:
No other Atlantic season on record has had more than one June U.S. hurricane landfall.”
The following chart shows the 1886 hurricane season:
And to show that things were much worse during the cooler, low CO2 days of the past, Klotzbach tweeted on June 12 the following chart:
CSU atmospheric researcher Klotzbach: “14 Cat. 4-5 hurricanes made U.S. landfall from 1926-1969 (44 years). Only 3 Cat. 4-5 hurricanes have made U.S. landfall since (47 years).”
That 1926 – 1969 period was close to 5 times more active with powerful hurricane strikes than the recent 1970 – 2016 period.
At his Weekend Summary at Weatherbell, veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi shows us the wild hurricane activity back in the 1950s.
Bastardi: “Can you imagine if this happened again, the media would be going nuts.” Cropped from Weatherbell Weekend Summary.
But fortunately we are far from that level of activity – at least for now.
Surprisingly alarmist scientists refuse to bring up the real probability that a warmer world perhaps means milder cyclone activity, as many statistical trends indicate. Of course if the exact opposite were occurring, or even just repeating, scientists would be claiming that there’s unmistakable proof that rising global temperatures cause harsher hurricane activity.
The fact they are are not tells us that the global warming is not about science, but all about politics.
I just did a google search “global warming hurricanes” and it looks like scientist say that we don’t have evidence that frequency of tropical storms is increasing (it’s uncertain as of yet) with global warming, but they do say that intensity is increasing with higher sea surface temperatures. At least that’s what the first few papers on google scholar say.
Can you quote some scientists that said what you claim they did? Are they the overhelming majority?
Sorry, chatbot, but you are wrong AGAIN.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/is-global-warming-causing-hurricanes.php
PA – how many of your references are to models? Why don’t you give us a sample link or links? No modeling, though – just data. Thanks in advance.
My, you’re just now learning about this? Look up the IPCC-preferred Kerry Emanuel, who has for years attempted to demonstrate that warmer water causes more intense hurricanes. Those on your side hold him up as the authority on hurricanes, even though he’s been shown to be wrong over and over.
–
Perrie et al., 2010
“The impact of climate change is seen in slightly decreased intensities in landfalling cyclones.”
–
Klotzbach and Landsea, 2015
“[T]be global frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant downward trend [1990-2014].”
–
Zhang et al., 2012
“The various SST measures only have a weak influence on TMLGP[tropical cyclones making landfall, South China] intensities. Despite the long-term warming trend in SST in the WNP, no long-term trend is observed in either the frequency or intensities of TMLGP[tropical cyclones making landfall, South China].”
–
Landsea et al., 1996
“A long-term (five decade) downward trend continues to be evident primarily in the frequency of intense hurricanes. In addition, the mean maximum intensity (i.e., averaged over all cyclones in a season) has decreased, while the maximum intensity attained by the strongest hurricane each year has not shown a significant change.”
–
Hsu et al., 2014
“All of the counts, lifespans, and accumulated cyclone energy of the late-season typhoons during the 1995–2011 epoch decreased significantly, compared with typhoons that occurred during the 1979–94 epoch.”
–
Hoarau et al., 2012
“There has been no trend towards an increase in the number of categories 3–5 cyclones over the last 30 years.”
–
Chang et al., 2016
“Extratropical cyclones cause much of the high impact weather over the mid-latitudes. With increasing greenhouse gases, enhanced high-latitude warming will lead to weaker cyclone activity. Here we show that between 1979 and 2014, the number of strong cyclones in Northern Hemisphere in summer has decreased at a rate of 4% per decade, with even larger decrease found near northeastern North America.”
–
Wu et al., 2006
“[D]ata show a decrease in the proportion of category 4-5 typhoons from 18% to 8% between the two periods of 1977-1989 and 1990-2004 (Table 1; intensity estimates in terms of sustained maximum winds first became available in RSMC-Tokyo best track data in 1977).”
–
Chan and Liu, 2004
“No significant correlation was found between the typhoon activity parameters and local SST [during 1960-2003]. In other words,an increase in local SST [sea surface temperatures] does not lead to a significant change of the number of intense TCs [tropical cyclones]in the NWP, which is contrary to the results produced by many of the numerical climate models.”
–
Zarzycki, 2016
“Multi-member ensembles show that the overall number of TCs [tropical cyclones] generated by the model is reduced by 5-9% when allowing for two-way air-sea interactions. TC [tropical cyclones] intensity is greatly impacted; the strongest 1% of all TCs are 20-30 hPa (4-8 m s−1) weaker and the number of simulated Category 4 and 5 TCs [tropical cyclones] are reduced by 65% in slab ocean configurations. Reductions in [tropical cyclone] intensity are in line with published thermodynamic theory.”
–
Blake and Landsea, 2011
“[D]uring the 40-year period 1961-2000 both the number and intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply. Based on 1901-1960 statistics, the expected number of hurricanes and major hurricanes during the period 1961-2000 would have been 77 and 30, respectively. However, only 55 (or 71%) of the expected number of hurricanes struck the U.S. with only 19 major hurricanes (or 63% of that expected number).”
–
Sanchez and Cavazos, 2014
“[D]uring 1970−2010 … SST in the MDR [along Mexican coasts]showed a statistically significant increase of 0.57°C over the whole period, but the frequency of HUR4−5 [intense hurricanes, Category 4 and 5] did not show a significant trend, while the frequency of HUR1−5 [weak and intense hurricanes] significantly decreased (−0.95% yr−1).”
–
Free et al., 2004
“Long-term changes in the intensity of tropical cyclones are of considerable interest because of concern that greenhouse warming may increase storm damage. The PI [potential intensity of tropical cyclones] calculated using radiosonde data at 14 tropical island locations shows only small, statistically insignificant trends from 1980 to 1995 and from 1975 to 1995. … Between 1975 and 1980, however, while SSTs rose, PI[potential intensity] decreased, illustrating the hazards of predicting changes in hurricane intensity from projected SST changes alone.”
–
Nott and Hayne, 2001
“Our estimate of the frequency of such ‘super-cyclones’ [wind speeds in excess of 182 kilometers per hour] is an order of magnitude higher than that previously estimated. … [The Great Barrier Reef] experienced at least five such storms over the past 200 years, with the area now occupied by Cairns experiencing two super-cyclones between 1800 and 1870. The 20th century, however, was totally devoid of such [super-cyclone] storms, with only one such event (1899) since European settlement in the mid-nineteenth century.”
–
IPCC AR5 (2013) Working Group I, Chapter 2
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
–
Reduced Frequency Of Landfalling Hurricanes With Warming
–
Knutson et al., 2008
“Here we assess, in our model system, the changes in large-scale climate that are projected to occur by the end of the twenty-first century by an ensemble of global climate models, and find that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are reduced. At the same time, near-storm rainfall rates increase substantially. Our results do not support the notion of large increasing trends in either tropical storm or hurricane frequency driven by increases in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations.”
–
Chenoweth and Divine, 2008
“Our record of tropical cyclone activity reveals no significant trends in the total number of tropical cyclones (tropical storms and hurricanes) in the best sampled regions for the past 318 years. However, the total number of hurricanes in the 20th century is ∼20% lower than in previous centuries. … Long-term variations in the number of tropical cyclones do not show any evidence of increasing storm frequencyand have declined a nonstatistically significant amount.”
–
Haig et al., 2014
Australian tropical cyclone activity lower than at any time over the past 550–1,500 years
“The assessment of changes in tropical cyclone activity within the context of anthropogenically influenced climate change has been limited by the short temporal resolution of the instrumental tropical cyclone record (less than 50 years). Furthermore, controversy exists regarding the robustness of the observational record, especially before 1990. Here we show, on the basis of a new tropical cyclone activity index (CAI), that the present low levels of storm activity on the mid west and northeast coasts of Australia are unprecedented over the past 550 to 1,500 years.”
–
Sugi and Yoshimura, 2012
“We conducted 228-year long, three-member ensemble simulations using a high resolution (60 km grid size) global atmosphere model, MRI-AGCM3.2, with prescribed sea surface temperature and greenhouse gases and aerosols from 1872 to 2099. We found a clear decreasing trend of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency throughout the 228 years of the simulation.”
–
Hall and Hereid, 2015
“As of the end of the 2014 hurricane season, the US has experienced no major hurricane landfall since Hurricane Wilma in 2005, a drought that currently stands at nine years. Here, we use a stochastic tropical-cyclone model to calculate the mean waiting time for multi-year landfall droughts. We estimate that the mean time to wait for a nine-year drought is 177 years. We also find that the average probability of ending the drought with a major landfall in the next year is 0.39, and is independent of the drought duration, as one would expect for a Bernoulli process.”
–
Wang and Lee, 2008
“Here we use observational data to show that global warming of the sea surface is associated with a secular increase of tropospheric vertical wind shear in the main development region (MDR) for Atlantic hurricanes. The increased wind shear coincides with a weak butrobust downward trend in U.S. landfalling hurricanes.”
–
Ha and Zhong, 2015
“Results show that the SCS TC [South China Sea tropical cyclone] activity experienced an abrupt decadal decrease at around 2002/2003. Compared to the TC [tropical cyclone] activities from the early 1990s to 2002, the number of TCs [tropical cyclones] formed in the SCS markedly decreased from 2003 through the early 2010s.”
–
Callaghan and Power, 2011
“The linear trend in the number of severe TCs [tropical cyclones] making land-fall over eastern Australia declined from about 0.45 TCs/year in the early 1870s to about 0.17 TCs/year in recent times—a 62% decline.”
–
Liu and Chan, 2013
“Tropical cyclone (TC) activity over the western North Pacific (WNP) exhibits a significant interdecadal variation during 1960-2011, with two distinct active and inactive periods each. This study examines changes in TC [tropical cyclone] activity and atmospheric conditions in the recent inactive period (1998-2011). The overall TC [tropical cyclone] activity shows a significant decrease [1960-2011], which is partly related to the decadal variation of TC genesis frequency in the southeastern part of the WNP and the downward trend of TC genesis frequency in the main development region.”
–
Williams et al., 2016
“Bayesian age–depth models, derived from eight AMS radiocarbon dates, suggest that the frequency of typhoon strikes was 2–5 times greater from 3900 to 7800 cal. yr. BP compared to 0–3900 cal. yr. BP[calendar years before present]. Possible explanations for this variability in the typhoon record are that typhoons were more frequent and/or more intense in Southeast Asia in the mid-Holocene because of climatic changes associated with the Mid-Holocene Warm Period or that the record reflects site sensitivity changes resulting from a mid-Holocene sea-level highstand.”
–
Dezileau et al., 2016
“Storms and tsunamis, which may seriously endanger human society, are amongst the most devastating marine catastrophes that can occur in coastal areas. Many such events are known and have been reported for the Mediterranean, a region where high-frequency occurrences of these extreme events coincides with some of the most densely populated coastal areas in the world. In a sediment core from the Mar Menor (SE Spain), we discovered eight coarse-grained layers which document marine incursions during periods of intense storm activity or tsunami events. Based on radiocarbon dating, these extreme events occurred around 5250, 4000, 3600, 3010, 2300, 1350, 650, and 80 years cal BP. No comparable events have been observed during the 20th and 21st centuries.”
–
IPCC AR5 (2013) Working Group I, Chapter 2
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
Cooler (Not Warmer) Sea Surface Temps Produce More Frequent, Intense Hurricanes
–
Sugi et al., 2015
More tropical cyclones in a cooler climate?
“Recent review papers reported that many high-resolution global climate models consistently projected a reduction of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency in a future warmer climate, although the mechanism of the reduction is not yet fully understood. Here we present a result of 4K-cooler climate experiment. The global TC [tropical cyclone] frequency significantly increases in the 4K-cooler climate compared to the present climate. This is consistent with a significant decrease in TC frequency in the 4K-warmer climate.“
–
Nott et al., 2007
“Our record demonstrates that the frequency variability of intense landfalling cyclones is greatest at centennial scale compared to seasonal and decadal oscillations. [T]he period between AD 1600 to 1800 [Little Ice Age] had many more intense or hazardous cyclones impacting the site than the post AD 1800 period.”
–
Degear et al., 2015
“A comparison with North Atlantic and Western Mediterranean paleoclimate proxies shows that the phases of high storm activity occurred during cold periods, suggesting a climatically-controlled mechanism for the occurrence of these storm periods. … Periods of low storm activity occurred from 560 cal yr BC to 140 cal yr AD (SP9 and SP8, Roman Warm Period) and from 820 to 1230 cal yr AD (SP4, Medieval Warm Period).”
–
Laliberte et al., 2015
“Our work illustrates a major constraint on the large-scale global atmospheric engine: As the climate warms, the system may be unable to increase its total entropy production enough to offset the moistening inefficiencies associated with phase transitions. … On a warming Earth, the increase in perceptible water has been identified as a reason for the tropical overturning to slow down, and studies over a wide range of climates suggest that global atmospheric motions are reduced in extremely warm climates.“
You asked me how old I am, now I have to ask back, because there is no way someone could think that i just learned about this from my comment.
What do these graphs (all 3 of them, especially the power dissipation index) tell you? https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity
To me this looks like tropical storms being stronger in recent times.
The “How old are you?” was in reference to your name-calling/insults, not the fact that you just now did a Google search on hurricane frequencies/intensities and weren’t familiar with what those on your side (i.e., people like Al Gore and Michael Mann and Kerry Emanuel) claim about hurricanes. I’m 46. How about you?
Shocking. You have linked to a Kerry Emanuel document from the US’s EPA. I guess we’re just going to ignore all the observations (and dozens of scientific papers above) that show no trends (or decreases) in hurricane intensities and frequencies.
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp
Yes I know, but why do you think that I thought that? You are often misinterpreting my sentences and I was always attributing that to your age. But at 46 I can’t really do that anymore.
I am 35 by the way.
SebH asks “What do these graphs (all 3 of them, especially the power dissipation index) tell you?”
WRT the 3 graphs, hurricane numbers are down from the 1890s (well before dangerous levels of CO2). The accumulated energy graph starts in 1950 (LOL), shows an obvious (?) peak around 2005, and then slopes downward (while CO2 increases). The 3 graphs show no link between rising CO2 levels and hurricane numbers/energy.
You understand that google, like Wikipedia, is biased in favor of ‘man-made’ garbage and makes a point of bringing said garbage to the top of the list, yes?
It’s obviously true because the water cycle offsets extra energy accumulated as [CO2] rises. This is why mean global CO2 Climate Sensitivity is very near zero, and will remain so so long as polar ice caps and associated THC remain.
Cambridge Univ. Williamson claims that ocean warming proves AGW is real, which is true. However, this is from higher solar insolation, including the effect of lower cloud albedo due to extra Asian aerosols. They don’t like that argument so fling the usual cabal of supporters of IPCC fizzicks at anyone who dares contradict CO2-AGW. See Williamson’s recent article in The Spectator for proof.
Because the water cycle almost exactly offsets CO2 warming this effect is totally predictable by any professional taught basics, especially energy balance.
IPCC ‘science’ is based on a claim of 40% greater radiative heating than reality, offset by imaginary ‘back radiation’, itself dependent on a basic failure of cloud aerosol optical physics by van der Hulst (1967) and Hansen (1969).
The decision by the US government to push CO2-AGW in the AAAS Charney Report (1979) was a cynical fraud based on Cess’ 1976 mistaken physics, carefully hidden in his text.
Any thoughts on how an oven works without “imaginary” backradiation? Or the heater in your home?
How do physics work in science denier wonderland?
Anything besides thought experiments on how backradiation warms up the 0-4000 meter layer of the ocean—since that’s where 93% of the heat in the Earth system is manifested? Of course you have nothing but analogies involving ovens and home heaters: you have no evidence that in the real world CO2 concentration changes heat up water, or if so, how much (physical measurements).
And yet, ironically, you’re the one name-calling and insulting people as “deniers” living in “wonderland”.
Do you think that name-calling is effective, SebastianH? How old are you?
Why do you always try to change the topic? This one was about backradiation. Ovens and home heaters work with the same principle, everything that radiates does.
Is “science denier” now an insult? OP is clearly denying science by calling existing, working and proved physics imaginary, a fraud or mistaken. Do you disagree?
And I wrote: “Anything besides thought experiments on how backradiation warms up the 0-4000 meter layer of the ocean—since that’s where 93% of the heat in the Earth system is manifested?”
Alec M was talking about backradiation in the water cycle. I am talking about backradiation and its relation to water. You swoop in and talk about backradiation as it relates to…home theaters. And here you are accusing me of changing the subject?
I have explained this to you several times…and deleted past comments with this word in it due to those warnings…and yet you persist on name-calling anyway. Yes, the word “denier” is used to smear those who disagree with your beliefs about backradiation heating water as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, or hateful bigots. I am especially sensitive to this for reasons I will not expound upon here.
You complain about AndyG55 insulting you and calling you names — and I wish he didn’t either. And then you turn around and do the same thing. Do you think that name-calling and claiming that others are living in “wonderland” if they don’t agree with you is effective and persuasive?
It is not “proved physics” that backradiation heats up the oceans. This has not been observed in the real world. Nor do we have physical measurements from a real-world experiment. It’s modeled. It’s assumed. It has not been “proved”. Stop pretending that it has.
😀 … fun aside: AlecM wrote that backradiation is imaginary and depends on a basic failure of cloud aerosol optical physics. That’s it … he was writing about the water cycle in the first paragraph. I don’t see how his claim is related to CO2 heating the ocean. You just brought that up to deviate from the topic for which I asked for clarification by AlecM.
About name-calling. I’ll try to use a different phrase. Do you have a suggestion? What is a better description for someone who thinks that established science – and not just any science, but physics – is wrong, because one particular case could not be measured yet?
That last part would invalidate nearly every law of physics, because we can not possibly do that for every law. That’s why those (working) formulas are used until someone finds a case where they don’t work. An example would be the rather “recent” extension of newtonian mechanics by relativistic mechanics.
So do that experiment and show us that in this particular case the known laws of physics do not work and there is neither a backradiation nor a warming caused by the presence of an insulating atmosphere.
Yes it is. Not in the sense a math proof works, but in the sense that these formulas are used for a lot of things and there is no reason they should not work for bodies of water the size of oceans. Water doesn’t behave differently than any other matter unless you prove that it does.
And the change in ocean heating has been measured: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0426(2001)018%3C0994%3ATMAERI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
P.S.: I know you will likely reply that the burdon of proof is on me, because I want to convince you that this is true. To that I’ll preventively reply: what happens when someone actually does that experiment under great expenses and the result is that backradiation warms the oceans. Then some skeptic will say “but, what if something (e.g. salinity or acidity) is different, then surely backradiation wont warm that ocean water”.
You see where this leads? There is no possible way to do an experiment for every situation imaginable, it would be far easier to do an experiment to show that backradiation doesn’t work in one case and the laws of physics are incomplete. You want to convince people that we aren’t responsible for global warming and especially not increase in ocean heat content (in this thread). So disprove physics and stop claiming that they are “imaginary, a fraud or mistaken”.
…with regard to being responsible for heating water. He later clarified: “An oven works by a combination of convection and IR radiation. When the food is put in it is cold so heat transfer rate is high. As the food approaches oven temperature, net heat transfer falls to near zero. The ocean is much, much cooler than the Sun so it absorbs most solar SW energy. Most of this then leaves by water evaporation. At >32 deg C. the emissivity is near zero.”
One particular case?! One particular case??!! SebastianH, it’s a colossal problem that there are no real world physical measurements that show varying CO2 up or down over a body of water in volumes of 0.000001 causes heat changes in water — especially since 93% of the heat energy change in the Earth system is found in the ocean! You’ve just admitted yourself that there are no real-world physical measurements available demonstrating that CO2 heats water, and yet you think that your belief that this occurs is “basic physics” anyway. And now you’re looking for alternative pejorative words and insults you can call people who question your beliefs? Why do you think it’s a good idea to call people names and insult people who don’t agree with your beliefs in the first place? Is name-calling an effective tactic where you come from?
It is not “proved physics” that backradiation heats up the oceans.
So it’s “proven physics” that IR heats the ocean depths to 0-4000 m because you can reference models and formulas “used for a lot of things”. IR cannot penetrate past the 0.1-1 mm “thick” skin layer, which has a heat gradient of 0.002 K — according to RealClimate.org (!) using an experiment with backradiation from clouds. Even the SkepticalScience blog says:
“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“
Shortwave radiation CAN penetrate into the ocean itself (by tens of meters). And there is enough SW energy to heat up the first 2 meters of the ocean by 2 K within a matter of a single day. The burden of proof is on you to explain how heat from CO2 is what warms the ocean depths when it can’t even penetrate into the ocean where SW energy dominates.
Those measurements exist, what doesn’t exist is a measurement of sea surface temperature (SST) change when varying atmospheric CO2 (and nothing else), because that would be an impossibly difficult experiment to make. Experiments that measure SSTs with varying cloud cover which results in changing backradiation do exist. If the ocean somehow is able to increase his energy loss without increasing the temperature when CO2 is involved, than this would probably be a nobel prize worthy discovery.
You repeat that as if it matters. There is no IR heat lamp warming the oceans, it is just a warm layer of atmospheric greenhouse gases. And by warm, warm relative to space is ment.
There is no need to penetrate to ocean to layers up to 4000 meters down. Increasing backradiation causes the gradient at the surface to change and less energy can escape. So the ocean as a whole doesn’t get rid of incoming solar radiation as fast as before and gets warmer until that’s possible again. Simple physics.
Not understanding this basic principle and the confusion about comparable units might be the root of most climate skepticm. So I hope you’ll one day understand both and your skepticm can just be about whether or not AGW is a problem or not.
SebastianH, perhaps you were not aware that cloud cover changes affect both shortwave and longwave. The measurements would therefore not reflect how “changing backradiation” affects temperatures.
In addition, increasing cloud cover causes a net cooling of the ocean, not a net warming.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17780422
[G]lobal shortwave cloud forcing [-44.5 watts per square meter (W/m(2)] due to the enhancement of planetary albedo, exceeded in magnitude the longwave cloud forcing (31.3 W/m(2)) resulting from the greenhouse effect of clouds. Thus, clouds had a net cooling effect on the earth.
Furthermore, comparing cloud radiative forcing directly to alleged CO2 concentration change forcing is comparing apples to refrigerators.
–
RealClimate.org: “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 [560 ppm] will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)”
–
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17780422
“The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO(2). The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO(2) doubling.”
So how much warmer do water vapor molecules (the most potent greenhouse gas) get in the atmosphere? Clouds are “greenhouse gases” that are significantly more influential than CO2 at “backradiation”. And they cause a net cooling when increased. So in what way do greenhouse gases compare to an IR heat lamp?
According to the experiment cited at RealClimate.org using clouds as a proxy for CO2, the most the “gradient at the surface” can change as a consequence of backradiation is 0.002 K. Explain why you believe CO2 backradiation can therefore be the dominant cause of net ocean heat changes with that minuscule of a difference in skin Kelvin.
Very unlikely … at night.
The rest of you post: we had that discussion. You confused the numbers similarly to your confusion with CO2 totals, increases, and changes of those increases. I won’t go there again, it’s pointless unless you’ve shown that you understand your error with your claim that human emissions only cause a very small percentage of the yearly increase of atmospheric CO2 content.
Huh? This is your response to me correctly pointing out to you that the vastly more influential cloud radiative forcing is manifested both in shortwave and longwave, and therefore you are very wrongly claiming that measurements of cloud effects on ocean temperatures are only measuring backradiation? How is it that you believe clouds can be an effective proxy for CO2 forcing if CO2 forcing is only LW forcing and cloud radiative forcing is both LW and SW, with the SW effect dominating over the LW?
Yes, we had that discussion…and you didn’t fare very well. Let me ask you again:
According to the experiment cited at RealClimate.org using clouds as a proxy for CO2, the most the “gradient at the surface” can change as a consequence of backradiation is 0.002 K. Explain why you believe CO2 backradiation can therefore be the dominant cause of net ocean heat changes with that minuscule of a difference in skin Kelvin.
You are doing this on purpose, aren’t you? You can’t be that bad a reader or I can’t be that bad a writer.
At night there is no SW radiation, why would clouds influence SW radiation at night? Those measurements were made at night (of course).
You are trolling me here, aren’t you? It’s about changes in backradiation and their effect on the ocean. Anything that does that is a good proxy. They could have taken a few helicopters and stretch a big blanket over the patch of ocean they were measuring. Same thing.
You should make a database of my answers to your questions. I did that multiple times now, but ok … one more time can’t hurt:
A change (increase) of the temperature at the skin layer changes the temperature gradient below which results in less energy loss which equals internal warming or increasing ocean heat content.
I don’t know how to get from your mentioned 0.002 K to a Joule value. You could find out. What I do know is that the increase in ocean heat content is caused by an average forcing of 0.5 W/m² of the last few decades. CO2 forcing (without feedbacks) happens to be in that range. Since ocean heat content was decreasing before, some other forcing should also be at play (the feedbacks or maybe even the Sun).
So now you believe that helicopters stretching a blanket over the ocean is the “same thing” with regard to LW forcing as spacing apart CO2 molecules 1/10,000ths more closely — and therefore measurements from the helicopter experiment will yield results that are comparable for CO2. This is just plain ludicrous.
For the 3rd time, clouds reflect SW and LW. CO2 theoretically only affects LW. Therefore, using changes in cloud cover as a proxy for CO2 is not isolating the LW effect — especially since SW cloud forcing dominates over LW cloud forcing in determining ocean temperatures.
A change in the temperature of the skin layer is determined by changes in SW forcing, as SW dominates LW forcing in the skin layer too. Apparently this is also brand new information for you.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50786/full
“intense daytime solar heating overcomes the net upward longwave energy flux and warms the skin”
The 0.002 K “mention” comes from RealClimate.org. That’s the largest possible extent to which they claim the temperature gradient of the ocean skin can change with LW forcing. And yet you amusingly believe this 0.002 K allows the skin layer temperature gradient to dominate changes in ocean heat. Ridiculous.
What are you even talking about? Of course sunlight doesn’t warm the ocean when it’s not shining on the ocean. Who has ever said that it does? No one! Why are you concocting yet another of your ludicrous straw man arguments? Do you ever stop just making stuff up? Do you consider yourself an honest person?
No, a blanket over the ocean dangling from helicopter cords is not the “same thing” occurring as when CO2 molecules are spaced together 1/10,000ths more closely (+100 ppm). No, cloud radiative forcing is not the “same thing” as CO2 forcing, as…”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)”. We have no physical measurements that show that CO2 heats water when varied by 0.000001 over water. None. And yet you not only believe it’s true without verification or evidence or observation, you insist that it’s “basic physics” and that anyone who doesn’t ascribe to your beliefs is a “denier”.
Perhaps if you keep on calling me a troll, SebastianH, it’ll become effective at some point. Does calling people trolls work where you come from?
Says the person who believes that a heat gradient of 0.002 K in the skin layer is predominantly responsible for heating the ocean.
Do you feel like you’re making any headway here, SebastianH? Have you converted anyone to your beliefs yet? What, exactly, is the goal here? I ask because I’m sensing an increasing amount of frustration on your end. Do you like feeling frustrated? Is what you’re doing here working?
You have a false perception of what constitutes a good proxy. Since there is no SW radiation at night you can test variations of downward LW radiation at night. With whatever you can put into the path towards space … be it clouds, a blanket or – if that would be possible – a change in GHG concentration in the whole atmosphere column above the measurement site.
It doesn’t matter what SW those block, since they don’t do that at night. You can measure the full influence of varying the backradiation. And they did.
And of course it is the “same thing” at different magnitudes. Do you think there is fundamentally different physics at play when you crash your car slowly or very fast? The same laws (of physics) apply.
You don’t have to snap at me because you don’t understand some things and might feel threatened. I called your behaviour trolling, because i thought you should know how these things work if you are a climate skeptic. Knowing how things are in reality and yet acting like you have no clue is trolling in my book. But apparently you really don’t know and have your own version of what backradiation is supposed to affect/do.
Again, since this seems to be especially difficult for you to grasp:
– Sun heats water
– ocean surface gets rid of all incoming solar energy (over time)
– in order to do that the surface has to have a certain temperature
– if backradiation increases, the temperature has to increase to maintain the same amount of energy loss as before
– same goes for change in solar radiation (day/night, seasons, longer cycles)
And since backradiation has increased (CO2 forcing is one part of it), the surface is warmer than before (caused by the internal ocean heat buildup). Of course the heat content also still varies because of changes in solar radiation. CO2 forcing is just a “on top” source for causing warming of the ocean water. And it happens to be in the range that corresponds to the increasein ocean heat content.
OHC increased by ~25 * 10^22 Joules, a forcing of 0.5 W/m² over 50 years and an area of 361,900,000 km² equals 28.5 * 10^22 Joules. CO2 forcing was 0.5 W/m² on average in the last 50 years.
And yeah, maybe solar forcing was also 0.5 W/m² or even more in those 50 years, but that’s not something we influence. So we would say the Sun caused OHC to be more or less stable instead of decreasing like before and CO2 forcing caused the increase. The other way around sounds a bit silly.
Got it? I think I’ll have to make a FAQ site just for you. You keep asking the same questions and still don’t understand how those effects you oppose even work. How can you oppose them then?
“You have a false perception of what constitutes a good proxy.”
Says the person who wrote…
Tell me, SebastianH. Do you believe there are others who agree with you that having a big blanket stretched over the ocean via helicopters is the “same thing” or a “good proxy” as having CO2 molecules spaced apart 1/10,000ths more closely than they were 100 years ago? If so, perhaps you could enlighten me as to who might agree with you that CO2 concentration functions just like a blanket when its molecules move closer together by 1/10,000ths.
Oh, I see. So that’s where you decided to falsely make up the fake argument saying that I was claiming that the Sun shines on the water at night.
I just read what scientists write. For example…
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.”
—
https://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf07/extended_abs/minnett_pj.pdf
“Located at the upper limit of the molecular boundary layer, the skin temperature is generally a few tenths of a degree cooler than the temperature a few millimeters below it because of heat loss by sensible and latent heat fluxes as well as outgoing longwave radiative fluxes (Robinson et al. 1984).”
–
Why do you think it is that scientists fail to mention CO2 as a factor contributing to net ocean temperature changes? Why do they mention clouds, water vapor, wind, aerosols…but not CO2? You believe CO2 is the most important factor in causing ocean heat changes. But scientists don’t even mention it. Do you find that odd?
–
ftp://mana.soest.hawaii.edu/pub/rlukas/OCN-MET665/fluxes/radiative/Ohlmann%20etal%20Part%20II%202000%20JPO.pdf
“Results from radiative transfer calculations indicate that in-water solar fluxes can vary by 40 W/m-2 within the upper few meters of the ocean (based on a climatological surface irradiance of 200 W/m-2) and that a significant portion of the variation can be explained by upper ocean chlorophyll concentration, solar zenith angle, and cloud amount [CO2 not mentioned as a factor affecting heat flux, or anywhere in the paper]
–
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223950477_Measurements_of_the_oceanic_thermal_skin_effect
“There is a strong diurnal [sunshine] component to the magnitude of these temperature gradients, as well as a dependence on cloudcover, which modulates the insolation, and wind speed, which influences the turbulent mixing.” [CO2 not mentioned as a factor affecting heat flux, or anywhere in the paper]
–
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/RG022i002p00177/full
On the variability of the net longwave radiation at the ocean surface
[S]pecific humidity in the atmospheric column above the surface layer can introduce LW⇅, variations of 30–40 W/m². … The RTE studies also reveal that LW⇅ variations due to cloudiness effects can be very large. Low clouds can reduce LW⇅ from clear sky values by as much as 70 W/m² [CO2 is not mentioned anywhere in the paper as a factor affecting LW radiation at the ocean surface.]
–
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.” [Nowhere in the paper is CO2 mentioned as a radiative property affecting ocean temperatures.]
–
http://gradworks.umi.com/10/11/10110172.html
“Global solar radiation data is very important for wide variety of applications and scientific studies. However, this data is not readily available because of the cost of measuring equipment and the tedious maintenance and calibration requirements. … The analysis showed that the main atmospheric parameters that affect the amount of global radiation received on earth’s surface are cloud cover and relative humidity.” [CO2 is not mentioned as an atmospheric parameter affecting the amount of global radiation absorbed by the surface.]
To make you understand the basics of what you are skeptic about. Apparently you don’t and that indeed frustrates me because some things you write about have no basis or rather are based on how you think those mechanisms work.
As of yet that doesn’t seem to work. You stubbornly refuse to understand and see your mistakes.
Note: I don’t ask you to accept those things, you can still be skeptic about CO2 causing anything, etc … but at least try to understand the other side and their explanations how the world works. Don’t make up how backradiation works and then be against it. Don’t make up how much of the CO2 increase is of human origin and then use that to argument against AGW. That’s really frustrating. At least try to find arguments that make sense. Sometimes you do, e.g. when writing about possible temperature increase caused by CO2 and feedbacks. That’s up to debate and further research and perfectly valid to argue about. Basing an arguments on wrong understanding of figures and mechanisms is not.
Sorry, SebastianH, but I don’t view you as an informed arbiter on these matters. I’ve had to inform you about many things related to climate science that you weren’t even aware of before. For example, you didn’t know what surface solar radiation was. You thought it was TSI. I had to educate you. You (still) don’t understand cloud radiative forcing.
You believe that exponential growth in solar and wind mean that we’ll have 100% renewable energy by 2038 (if I recall correctly). You have no idea why that’s not how it works no matter how many times I tried to explain it to you.
You believe that a heat gradient of 0.002 K in the skin layer is the determinant of net ocean heat changes in the ocean.
Again and again and again, you demonstrate that you believe that correlation = causation. Whether its ocean heat, CO2 concentration changes, surface temperatures… You don’t understand the logical fallacy involved. You leap to causation without critical examination.
You think that comparing an 8,000-year OHC trend to a 60-year anomaly in OHC is statistically sound, and finding that the latter anomaly temperature change occurred much more quickly on a per decade basis, you declared that that indicates humans are causing unprecedented temperature change. You don’t even realize the statistical malpractice.
You thought the 1.2 C radiative result (modeled) for doubled CO2 was the “average” of several estimates…even though it’s the temperature change associated with the assumed W m-2 forcing upon reaching 560 ppm without feedbacks. I had to fill you in.
You believe CO2 molecules spaced apart 1/10,000ths more closely today than 100 years ago is the “same thing” as a blanket (stretched across the ocean with helicopters).
You believe it is “basic physics” that varying CO2 concentrations over a body of water by +/- 0.000001 is the most dominant cause of heat changes in the global oceans…even though you simultaneously agree that we have no physical measurements or observations or scientific experiments that show CO2 heats or cools water when increased or decreased in those volumes. But you call people “deniers” if they don’t agree with your beliefs.
I could go on and on and on. Again, I just don’t see you as someone who has anything you can “inform” me with, SebastianH. Every single one of your “arguments” I have seen before. Every one. I am very familiar with your side…I used to be there too. It was hard for me to leave, as I am not a conservative and most people on the skeptics’ side are. I debated on comment boards with CAGW advocates for years prior to coming here and staying put. I used to do what you’re doing now — attempting to offer the contrarian view. Most people don’t change their minds because someone else convinced them. They change their mind on their own. I don’t believe I will ever change your mind. You’re too far gone. You have too much pride to critically examine your own beliefs. That’s fine. I understand.
It’s good to know that you at least don’t believe that sea levels will rise by 10 feet by 2065 or that a million species will go extinct due to climate change by 2050. Good for you not buying into that alarmism.
Take a very thin, lightweight blanket that increases backradiation by only 5 W/m². First measure without the helicopter-blanket, then with the blanket. What is so difficult to understand about this?
You mentioned multiple times that SW radiation effects of clouds matter and would make these measurements worthless as those a larger than the LW effects of clouds. This sounded to me like you didn’t understand the setup of the experiment and I had to clarify, e.g. emphasizing “at night”.
Regarding your list of papers … I only have time to address the first one and I addressed it many times now, yet you still quote this one as a paper that supports your position. It doesn’t.
Look at figure 1 in that paper and try to understand what it and the accompaning text says. It includes markers for cloudiness of the sky.
The second quote of yours means the net LW radiation, which is directed up towards space. Read the papers you link to and try to understand what they are saying.
The rest of your quotes do not contradict anything I am telling you. Please first try to understand how backradiation works and then try to make an argument against it being real. If you don’t know what you are against at, then this is pointless.
Um, no, I asked you a different question: Who do you think might agree with you that a “good proxy” for CO2 forcing of ocean temperature changes would be a large helicopter blanket? I doubt you’d have many scientists agree with you. Never mind, though. You’ve essentially answered my question by dodging it.
Again, you’re making up questions I never asked…as is your habit so as to avoid answering my actual question. I asked you, again, why it is you think that the scientists discussing the radiative and atmospheric factors that affect ocean heat content variations fail to even mention CO2 as a variable?
You’re telling me that CO2 is the forcing that caused the OHC to change (0.5 W m-2 since 1950) in your many correlation = causation conceptualizations. I have pointed out to you that scientists don’t even mention CO2 as a variable affecting OHC. And yet you ignore this challenge/question and pivot to your “you don’t understand backradiation” schtick again. Again, I’ll just assume the reason why you didn’t answer my question is for the reason I thought you wouldn’t answer it.
Oh I forgot to reply to the dodging topic. Do you think you are someone who answers every question I make? You don’t … if I would ask you to play a game of football, you would not only move the goal posts, you would go to a entirely new playing field and you would play anything but football.
That’s how it feels.
I did not reply to those questions because I find them irrelevant to the topic and I don’t want to blow up our threads with hundreds of subtopics I didn’t care about in the first place. But it happens all the time, because I keep falling for that trap of yours.
Why would anyone disagree? The goal is to measure the influence of backradiation on ocean temperatures. So you have to manipulate backradiation. The easiest way is to wait for clouds passing by, the most difficult way is to alter the CO2 concentration in the entire area and atmosphere column. Placing a blanket over some part of the ocean with helicopters is probably not an easy thing to do, but if there were really doubt that backradiation changes have an effect, this would be the way to definetly prove it. You can even use different blankets with different W/m² effects.
No, I was just showing you that the first paper you linked to doesn’t say what you believe it says. Almost as if you hadn’t read it at all.
Some of your papers mention LW radiation. Do you think the authors all think that CO2 is no greenhouse gas and that it is not involved? The absense of a special mention is not really an argument for CO2 not causing anything. There are much more papers about the effects of CO2 and they are known for over a century now.
Oh dear … when you see an orange wall and there are two buckets of paint, one red and one yellow, and you deduce that those two buckets are responsible for the wall being orange. Why do you think that this has something to do with correlation/causation? Both buckets are equally responsible. But if the question is if the wall would still be orange in the absense of the yellow bucket, then the answer is pretty clear. It’s just about numbers and attribution … something I tried to explain to you multiple times and yet you don’t understand this and think I am somehow ignoring solar radiation or any other factor that usually “dominates”.
See? Your opinion is already formed. You think you know that whatever I write or not write is wrong or for dishonest reasons. No chance to convince you of your pretty obvious errors.
Please describe how backradiation is supposed to work and convince me by doing this that you actually know what you are against. That would be wonderful. Maybe you can describe it for a light bulb? How would the temperature differ if you put one bulb in a container made of steel and another one in a container made of plastic wrap. Both with very little air in them and places in darkness. And the important question: why would they differ?
Will you dodge the question like you did everytime I asked you something similar?
I asked you, again, why it is you think that the scientists discussing the radiative and atmospheric factors that affect ocean heat content variations fail to even mention CO2 as a variable?
Do you think it’s possible that the reason they don’t mention CO2 as a factor in determining ocean heat content variations is because the CO2 influence is negligible? Methane is a greenhouse gas. They don’t mention methane either. So could it be that they don’t think either methane or CO2 are important variables affecting ocean temperatures? Or have you ruled that out that possibility?
This isn’t about being “against” LW forcing. It’s about the efficacy of LW forcing vs. the efficacy of SW forcing in determining the ocean’s temperatures.
So, to help you understand the difference, and to help you understand what we have been saying to you over and over again (to no avail – you still don’t get it), I have provided a rather straightforward assessment of the efficacy of LW or GHG forcing vs. SW radiation forcing in heating the ocean (hint: SW dominates). So as to satisfy your sophomoric attempts to bait me (which I have not deigned to respond to until now), included in the text below is an italicized paragraph (2nd paragraph down) that contains the description of “how backradiation is supposed to work” according to the IPCC (and you). The rest of the paper includes a description of an actual physical experiment involving backradiation and water…that shows how the LW efficacy is negligible relative to SW — something I and others have explained to you again and again. I encourage you to read the paper and consider the parameters of the experiment in Appendix 1. It effectively destroys what you believe to be true about LW OHC forcing. But that won’t stop you, of course. You’re not going to change your mind no matter the evidence. I expect no less.
———————————————————-
Irvine, 2015
Heat Transfer VIII – Simulations and Experiments in Heat and Mass Transfer
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-engineering-sciences/83/27156 [click “Download” pdf]
[I]t is established physics that Long wave Radiation from GHGs only penetrates the oceans to a depth of a fraction of a millimetre. 99% of the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs is absorbed in pure water in the first 0.015mm of the surface.
The International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) states clearly their belief that the Efficacy (E) of solar forcing (E Solar ) is approximately equal to (E GHG ) in Working Group 1 (WG1) Chapter 8.1.1.3. It has been suggested that the top fraction of a millimetre of the ocean is heated by the long wave radiation (LWR) reemitted by GHGs and that this either acts as a blanket slowing the release of energy to the atmosphere or alternatively is comprehensively mixed by wave action and that these entirely different mechanisms warm the oceans almost exactly the same amount as solar energy which is transported radiatively to a depth of many meters.
Not only is it highly improbable that these entirely different mechanisms would have almost exactly the same effect on OHC, it can, also, be shown by means of a simple experiment, “Appendix 1”, that nearly all the Long Wave GHG energy is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation.
One area that the CMIP5 models do not treat as a tuning parameter is the difference between E(Solar) and E(GHG) [the Efficacy of Solar vs. GHG ocean heating]. They, in fact, treat the approximate equivalence of these two factors as a desired property based on the vertical and geographical distribution of these two forcings in the atmosphere and tune their models to suit. They do not take account of the large difference in water absorption between long wave radiation and short wave radiation.
These changes in radiative absorption have a significant effect on OHC and are approximated in the CMIP5 models for both GHG radiation and solar radiation. The energy from these two vastly different radiative sources is then diffused by various methods, but importantly, is treated the same for the purpose of this diffusion process. What the CMIP5 models don’t do is allow for the fact that the long wave GHG energy is almost entirely absorbed in the evaporation layer of water while solar energy is not.
What can be said is that LWIR from GHGs will have a different and smaller effect on OHC than a similar amount of solar radiation as the LWIR is nearly totally absorbed in the evaporation layer while nearly all short wave solar radiation is not.
It is established physics that the oceans are opaque to the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs while short wave solar radiation readily transports energy to a depth of many meters. Long wave GHG radiation is quickly returned to the atmosphere and, eventually, space as latent heat of evaporation as is demonstrated in [the experiment detailed in] “Appendix 1”. If established, this fact can only lead to the conclusion that a Radiative flux imbalance at the TOA caused by increasing GHGs will likely be restored to balance more quickly than a similar sized flux imbalance caused by changes in solar radiation. It follows that climate sensitivity to changes in GHG forcing is likely to be considerably lower than for similar changes in solar forcing. It is becoming increasingly obvious that no model, with a solid physical basis, can accurately track the slope of the temperature increase from 1910 to 1940, the cooling from 1940 to 1970, the slope of the increase from 1970 to 1998, and the current temperature hiatus without assuming E(GHG) is considerably lower than E(Solar).
Where water is free to evaporate, test “A” shows that back radiation from GHGs will have a negligible effect on the heat content of that water. Test “B” shows that nearly all the energy from an increase in back radiation from GHGs is returned to the atmosphere as latent heat of evaporation. It follows that any Radiative flux change at the TOA will likely be restored more quickly if it is caused by a change in GHG forcing than if it is caused by a change in solar forcing.
6.1 Konrad: Empirical test of ocean cooling and back radiation theory
ROFLMAO.
In four days, seb STILL hasn’t got past using all he has in the way of non-science, meaningless analogies that bear absolutely ZERO relevant to anything to do with real science or physic of the atmosphere
blankets dangling from helicopters.. roflmao
orange and red paint.. ouch my sides hurt from laughing
steel and plastic containers
…. the comedy never stops.
Your JOKES have emptied the theatre, seb !
You are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of any sort of rational scientific explanation of your rabid AGW “beliefs”.. because they DEFY rational thought.
And I suspect that, deep down inside, you actually know that to be a FACT, but your child-minded life choices will not allow you to admit it.
You live your life in a LIE, seb.
Time to wake up and fix it, before you go even more insane.
But AndyG55, SebastianH knows what a “good proxy” is for CO2 LW ocean heating. It’s the same thing.
“when you see an orange wall and there are two buckets of paint, one red and one yellow, ”
Poor seb is also colour-blind, as well as maths-blind and science-blind.
What we actually have is a light blue wall, a bucket of light blue paint and a thimble full of light blue tint.
I actually missed you AndyG55 … welcome back.
Your comments speak for themselves. You try to make fun of everything, but there never is any substance to them. I’ll take your insults as a badge of honor.
Kenneth, can you describe how backradiation is supposed to work, even if you don’t agree with it existing or having any effect on water? Come on, don’t give up just now …
So as to help you understand the difference between the efficacy of SW vs. LW in forcing changes in the temperatures of the ocean, and to help you understand what we have been saying to you over and over again (to no avail – you still don’t get it), I have provided a rather straightforward assessment of the efficacy of LW or GHG forcing vs. SW (hint: SW dominates). So as to satisfy your sophomoric attempts to bait me (which I have not deigned to respond to until now), included in the text below is an italicized paragraph (2nd paragraph down) that contains the description of “how backradiation is supposed to work” according to the IPCC (and you). The rest of the paper includes a description of an actual physical experiment involving backradiation and water…that shows how the LW efficacy is negligible relative to SW — something I and others have explained to you again and again. I encourage you to read the paper and consider the parameters of the experiment in Appendix 1. It effectively destroys what you believe to be true about LW OHC forcing. But that won’t stop you, of course. You’re not going to change your mind no matter the evidence. I expect no less.
——————————–
Irvine, 2015
Heat Transfer VIII – Simulations and Experiments in Heat and Mass Transfer
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-engineering-sciences/83/27156 [click “Download” pdf]
[I]t is established physics that Long wave Radiation from GHGs only penetrates the oceans to a depth of a fraction of a millimetre. 99% of the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs is absorbed in pure water in the first 0.015mm of the surface.
The International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) states clearly their belief that the Efficacy (E) of solar forcing (E Solar ) is approximately equal to (E GHG ) in Working Group 1 (WG1) Chapter 8.1.1.3. It has been suggested that the top fraction of a millimetre of the ocean is heated by the long wave radiation (LWR) reemitted by GHGs and that this either acts as a blanket slowing the release of energy to the atmosphere or alternatively is comprehensively mixed by wave action and that these entirely different mechanisms warm the oceans almost exactly the same amount as solar energy which is transported radiatively to a depth of many meters.
Not only is it highly improbable that these entirely different mechanisms would have almost exactly the same effect on OHC, it can, also, be shown by means of a simple experiment, “Appendix 1”, that nearly all the Long Wave GHG energy is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation.
One area that the CMIP5 models do not treat as a tuning parameter is the difference between E(Solar) and E(GHG) [the Efficacy of Solar vs. GHG ocean heating]. They, in fact, treat the approximate equivalence of these two factors as a desired property based on the vertical and geographical distribution of these two forcings in the atmosphere and tune their models to suit. They do not take account of the large difference in water absorption between long wave radiation and short wave radiation.
These changes in radiative absorption have a significant effect on OHC and are approximated in the CMIP5 models for both GHG radiation and solar radiation. The energy from these two vastly different radiative sources is then diffused by various methods, but importantly, is treated the same for the purpose of this diffusion process. What the CMIP5 models don’t do is allow for the fact that the long wave GHG energy is almost entirely absorbed in the evaporation layer of water while solar energy is not.
What can be said is that LWIR from GHGs will have a different and smaller effect on OHC than a similar amount of solar radiation as the LWIR is nearly totally absorbed in the evaporation layer while nearly all short wave solar radiation is not.
It is established physics that the oceans are opaque to the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs while short wave solar radiation readily transports energy to a depth of many meters. Long wave GHG radiation is quickly returned to the atmosphere and, eventually, space as latent heat of evaporation as is demonstrated in [the experiment detailed in] “Appendix 1”. If established, this fact can only lead to the conclusion that a Radiative flux imbalance at the TOA caused by increasing GHGs will likely be restored to balance more quickly than a similar sized flux imbalance caused by changes in solar radiation. It follows that climate sensitivity to changes in GHG forcing is likely to be considerably lower than for similar changes in solar forcing. It is becoming increasingly obvious that no model, with a solid physical basis, can accurately track the slope of the temperature increase from 1910 to 1940, the cooling from 1940 to 1970, the slope of the increase from 1970 to 1998, and the current temperature hiatus without assuming E(GHG) is considerably lower than E(Solar).
Where water is free to evaporate, test “A” shows that back radiation from GHGs will have a negligible effect on the heat content of that water. Test “B” shows that nearly all the energy from an increase in back radiation from GHGs is returned to the atmosphere as latent heat of evaporation. It follows that any Radiative flux change at the TOA will likely be restored more quickly if it is caused by a change in GHG forcing than if it is caused by a change in solar forcing.
6.1 Konrad: Empirical test of ocean cooling and back radiation theory
Radiation vs convection,
In our first house we had a fireplace. The first time we used it was a big disappointment. Sure, while sitting in front of it we felt warm on the side facing the fire, but cold everywhere else. It did not warm the room.
Then we got a fireplace insert, which heats the air close to the fire, and as the hot air comes out the top, more cold is drawn in the bottom to be warmed. The cold air is warmed not by radiation, but from contact with the hot surface of the insert. Convection the redistributes the hot air to the room, warming it up.
The role of radiation in the process was minimal, at best.
Normal radiators in homes don’t use fire, at least not in Europe. Hot water gets distributed to radiators which warm this inside of the house and the walls.
The walls are insulating the inside from the outside and will eventually lose as much energy to the outside as the radiators are losing to the inside (when temperatures inside reach the setpoint and are stable). The walls also radiate inwards.
If you increase the insulation at this point, the inside temperature will increase. If you are using a thermostat it will stay the same, but the boiler has to warm the water less often.
That’s how heating your home (with backradiation) works. If you have just some thin plastic wrap as insulation your boilder will need to run more often to keep the set temperature or it would be cooler if it runs the same amount of time as in a properly insulated home.
Poor SebH
Here’s a Wikipedia article that should be simple enough for you to understand, especially with the emphasis I have made to it…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiator_(heating)
“In practice, the term “radiator” refers to any of a number of devices in which a fluid circulates through exposed pipes (often with fins or other means of increasing surface area), notwithstanding that SUCH DEVISES TEND TO TRANSFER HEAT MAINLY BY CONCECTION and might logically be called convectors.”
P.S. – while there will be some heat transfer by radiation, if that were all you had you would remain uncomfortably cold.
The radiator heats the air it is in contact with. That air rises, and is replaced by colder air, which is then warmed by contact with the radiator, and the process repeats until the room becomes as warm as it can with that type of heater.
This is very much like the convective atmosphere Andy keeps mentioning, and you keep rejecting in favor of “back radiation,” which warms nothing, merely slightly slowing heat loss back to space. But when the sun sets, that often becomes the dominant COOLING mechanism, especially where humidity is low and skies are clear, like in the desert.
You are preventing heat energy from escaping via convection and conduction, just like an oven does. These are the two MAIN transfers of heat energy in the lower atmosphere.
The walls will radiate back ONLY if they are at a higher temperature than the air in the room, ie in most cases NOT.
So, as always, your brain-dead analogy has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the atmosphere or CO2.
Except of course that in a heated enclosed room, CO2 levels will generally climb to around 1500-2000 ppm.
Again, you show your understanding of heat transfer is that of a failed Arts student.
yonason, apparently you don’t understand what I was writing. Nowhere I mentioned that radiators heat the inside of your home solely by radiation. The comment was about backradiation, remember? It makes no difference how you warm the air inside in order to explain the effect of backradiation. The walls aren’t using just radiation either to get rid of the energy towards the outside.
That’s what backradiation does, exactly. Don’t you see how this causes warming at the surface?
Nope … backradiation is not a cooling mechanism.
@AndyG55:
Those things constitute to internal heat distribution. I am just refering to the radiation part in the oven, the home heater and the atmosphere. Backradiation isn’t directly causing convection and conduction to increase, it causes a temperature increase which indirecty increases both. Net radiation stays the same … at a higher temperature.
Don’t confuse net radiation with radiation towards the wall and backradiation from the wall. The net direction is of course towards the cooler object/place (the sink).
This was about explaining an oven or home heater without backradiation. If it were only convection and conduction that cause the inside of an oven to get to temperature X with energy input Y then it should not matter if the insulation to the outside is just a thin aluminium sheet or what is actually used in modern kitchen ovens. Right? The heating element will consume the same energy to keep temperature X … is that what you are saying? 😉
And the highest temperature change achievable for backradiation-heating of the ocean skin (since it can’t penetrate past that) is 0.002 K according to an experiment using clouds, which are the primary determinants of LW parameters. That’s the “temperature increase” and “higher temperature” that you’re talking about. And you somehow believe that’s enough of a difference to make CO2 the main reason the ocean warms.
“apparently you don’t understand what I was writing.”
That’s because its ABJECT NONSENSE. !!
SebH – “Don’t you see how this [“back radiation”] causes warming at the surface?”
No, because it doesn’t. The sun warms the surface.
Water coming out of your shower comes out slower because of the shower head. it causes a back pressure in the pipe. But, like the back radiation that doesn’t increase the earths heat, the back pressure of your plumbing doesn’t cause the level of your municipal water source to rise.
An oven works by a combination of convection and IR radiation. When the food is put in it is cold so heat transfer rate is high. As the food approaches oven temperature, net heat transfer falls to near zero.
The ocean is much, much cooler than the Sun so it absorbs most solar SW energy. Most of this then leaves by water evaporation. At >32 deg C. the emissivity is near zero.
There is virtually zero SW emission because of the low temperature. I suggest you do a course on practical heat transfer so you can understand the physics. I once made IR pyrometers to measure temperature of difficult substances with emissivity that varied substantially with IR wavelength: there was no net IR energy transfer and we curve fitted the data to get the best estimate of temperature, on-line in rolling mills.
Next question……….
SebastianH thinks that IR from CO2 heats the ocean depths, and that this is “proven physics”. And he calls those who disagree with him “science deniers”.
It doesn’t heat the ocean depths, it causes warming because the ocean heat content increases until the ocean is able to get rid of all incoming SW radiation again.
You keep confusing those two things with each other, why?
So CO2 backradiation causes the ocean to warm because the ocean gets rid of SW radiation, and atmospheric CO2 molecules that are spaced apart 1/10,000ths more closely than they were 100 years ago are now able to prevent the SW-forced ocean temperature from releasing as much of its heat as it otherwise would? At what level of CO2 concentration did CO2 begin functioning like a blanket or a lid? Why didn’t it function as a blanket or lid at 300 ppm, but it did so at, say, 380 ppm?
CO2 concentrations are stable throughout a full Earth rotation, which means they cause as much backradiation in summer months as they do in winter months. So why do ocean temperatures drop by 10 degrees C while CO2 backradiation remains the same as when the oceans were 10 degrees warmer? Would this not imply that SW is the dominant control on ocean temperatures, not CO2 backradiation?
Finally, how does increassed CO2 concentration backradiation cause ocean cooling, SebastianH? The ocean cooled dramatically from the Medieveal Warm Period to the Little Ice Age. The ocean even cooled from the 1940s to 1970s. In both cases, CO2 concentrations increased as the ocean cooled. So why did CO2 back radiation cause cooling? Or did some other mechanism cause the cooling? If so, did that same mechanism stop causing cooling in modern times? And if that same mechanism that stopped causing cooling still exists today, would that not mean that the mechanism that causes cooling also causes warming? Or does only CO2 backradiation do that?
Yes.
There is no starting level. If the concentration would stay the same as it is today, then ocean heat content and temperatures will eventually get into a balance again. That was the case when CO2 was around 280 ppm, it is not the case today. Therefor the forcing (and its feedbacks) is still causing warming of the planet.
Are these serious questions or are you trying to troll me? You’ve read so much about climate science and still don’t know these things work? Of course SW is the dominant control. Day and night have very different temperatures! The backradiation of the atmosphere just prevents this incoming energy from escaping if it (the backradiation) increases. The temperatures increase until all incoming energy can escape again. Please don’t tell me you didn’t know how this works. You should at least know what climate scientists are talking about … you don’t have to agree with it.
It didn’t? Again: http://imgur.com/a/yru36 … do you see dramatic changes in CO2 concentration except at the end? Something else caused cooling and no, that doesn’t contradict backradiation … you just don’t seem to know how it works (if it weren’t imaginary in your world?).
So CO2 backradiation causes the ocean to warm because the ocean gets rid of SW radiation, and atmospheric CO2 molecules that are spaced apart 1/10,000ths more closely than they were 100 years ago are now able to prevent the SW-forced ocean temperature from releasing as much of its heat as it otherwise would?
Wow. So if CO2 molecules were spaced apart 1/10,000ths less closely than they are now, the temperature of the Earth would plummet back to 1850 levels? Can you understand why people would be skeptical of your beliefs, SebastianH?
So then why did ocean temperatures (0-1000 m) rise and fall by 2 C within a matter of 200 years in the past while CO2 concentrations didn’t change at all? Why didn’t CO2 concentrations determine ocean temperatures back then?
As is commonly modeled, the backradiation for clouds is many times more influential in determining ocean temperatures than CO2 is. And yet even with clouds, shortwave forcing dominates over the longwave (backradiation) in determining temperature. So why do you believe that this process is different once atmospheric CO2 molecules are spaced apart 1/10,000ths more closely? Why do you believe backradiation nonetheless dominates over SW in determining temperature when it is understood that SW forcing dominates over LW forcing in determining temperature?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/met.285/abstract
Satellite measurements and numerical forecast model reanalysis data are used to compute an updated estimate of the cloud radiative effect on the global multi-annual mean radiative energy budget of the atmosphere and surface. The cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation dominates over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of − 21 Wm−2.
Reply didn’t came through yet? Hmm …
No beliefs. And some might be skeptical because they don’t understand how even small changes can have huge effect. I suggest talking to a pharmacist near you … you’d be surprised.
They don’t dominate each other. Changes in both LW and SW radiation cause changes in temperature and heat content. I don’t know why you get that impressions and keep repeating this nonsense?
Look at figure 7 in that paper. Do you see any forcing caused by cloud cover changes that are even close to your quoted -21 W/m² figure? Do you know what this graph shows?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/met.285/asset/image_n/nfig007.gif?v=1&t=j48l3eme&s=9ba6b982d01c7ffc455d75d85573c586202dfc58
Can I assume you believe that pharmaceutical products are a “good proxy” for the CO2 blanket?
Your figure doesn’t show up. Are you claiming that the net effect of increasing clouds is not to cause cooling…since SW cloud forcing dominates over LW?
–
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/brt18.pdf
“Clouds reduce the absorbed solar radiation by 48 W m−2 (Cs = −48Wm−2) while enhancing the greenhouse effect by 30 W m−2 (Cl = 30Wm−2), and therefore clouds cool the global surface–atmosphere system by 18 W m−2 (C = −18 W m−2) on average. The mean value of C [cloud radiative forcing] is several times the 4 W m−2 heating expected from doubling of CO2″
–
http://lecuyer.aos.wisc.edu/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf
The socalled albedo effect of clouds enhances the reflected solar flux by 47.5±3 Wm–2, whereas clouds reduce the outgoing longwave flux relative to clear skies by approximately 26.4±4 Wm–2 (a measure of their greenhouse effect). This gives a net loss of radiation from Earth by clouds of 21.1±5 Wm–2, mostly by reflection of sunlight from clouds in the mid-latitude summer hemisphere
–
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016980951300330X
Highlights: The shortwave cloud effect exceeds the longwave one at both surface and top of the atmosphere, thus producing a cooling.
The cloud effects on the shortwave (SW), longwave (LW) and net all-wave radiation budgets of the Mediterranean basin were computed using a detailed radiative transfer model together with satellite and reanalysis data for surface and atmospheric properties. … Overall for the basin, the [cloud] effect on solar radiation is to produce radiative cooling at the top of atmosphere (TOA) and at the surface that more than balances the warming effects on terrestrial radiation. The result is a net radiative cooling at TOA and at the surface, equal to − 18.8 and − 15.9 Wm− 2, respectively. The low-level clouds are most important for the TOA budget through significant SW reflection and little LW emission to space. High clouds play an important role in net surface cooling (− 9.8 Wm− 2) through the combination of SW reflection to space and a much reduced LW warming effect at the surface. The geographical patterns of the effects are mainly characterized by a strong south to north increasing gradient. The seasonal variation of net radiative effects is dominated by solar radiation with maxima in spring and minima in winter.
–
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/4/044006/pdf/1748-9326_10_4_044006.pdf
Shallow cumulus clouds play a key role in the Earth’s radiation budget. Due to their low-altitude location in the atmospheric column, their emitted thermal radiation is comparable to the surface blackbody emission. Therefore, their radiative effect is determined mainly by the reflection of shortwave radiation and it is usually considered to be cooling, although the exact radiative effect is still uncertain. Ramanathan et al (1989) estimated the global radiative effect of all clouds to be −13.2 W m−2 , whereas recent estimations based on satellite data and models stand at −21 W m−2 (Allan 2011).
I should have been clearer in my request. I didn’t mean how the oven heats food. I wanted to know from you how the heating element in the oven is able to make the oven reach a certain inside temperature without backradiation from the insulation surrounding the inside. Especially with the usual wattage.
If you use 2000 W to heat the inside and temperatures are stable inside, then you will also lose 2000 W to the outside, correct? Do you think the oven would reach the same temperature when the insulation would be just a thin layer of aluminum?
“Heat rises. The top of your oven is hotter than the bottom.”
https://www.google.com/amp/lifehacker.com/5991921/master-these-oven-basics-to-expand-your-cooking-repertoire/amp
New to using analogies he is.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. That convection is prevented inside an oven? Yeah ok, but why does it matter? If you could disable the thermostat inside your oven and feed the heating element with a constant 2000 W, do you think the insulation of the oven towards your kitchen doesn’t matter? Do you think it will always reach the same temperature inside?
Another way to ask would be: do you think that identical ovens, one placed in a room that has 25°C ambient temperature and the other placed in a room with 5°C ambient temperature will consume the same amount of energy when they both reached the setpoint temperature to keep it?
Chatbots-SebH writes “I am not sure what you are trying to say here. That convection is prevented inside an oven?”
Just how daft are you? Are you unaware that rising heat IS convection? How could I be saying it doesn’t exist, when I’m using it to prove you are wrong? Just how clueless are you?
If you want to cook something faster (at a higher temperature), you put it on an upper rack in the oven. If you want a lower temperature, on a lower rack. It is the conduction of the heat in the air that cooks the food.
More proof – things cook faster at sea level than on a mountain top at the same oven temperature setting. Try explaining THAT by the effects of elevation on radiation from the oven walls!
“In traditional ovens, when bottom coil is heated, the air inside the oven is heated primarily by conduction and natural convection. The heat is then transferred to the food, which is heated by the natural convection current. In a convection oven, the heat transfer is enhanced by the use of a fan. The fan creates forced convection within the oven, which not only heats the food faster but also encourages even distribution of heat.”
http://emerald.tufts.edu/as/tampl/en43/lecture_notes/ch2.html
Yes, radiation contributes, but is not the primary mechanism.
Also – as I’ve posted before, humidity contributes a NEGATVE feedback to climate. We can see that in baking, as well, because longer baking times are required when humidity is high.
SebastianH 20. June 2017 at 3:43 PM | Permalink | Reply
“Any thoughts on how an oven works without “imaginary” backradiation? Or the heater in your home?”
You think ovens and heaters work by REFLECTING BACK IR at the roast / at you? Do you even read what you write?
There might be some amount of reflection happening on the inside oven walls, but nothing reflects perfectly. The walls (insulation) will heat up and emit radiation to the outside and the inside. The result is that your oven uses less energy to warm your food than if that effect (backradiation) were “imaginary”.
Don’t stare at the roast as it cooks, Dirk, or it might burn your eyes from the back radiation, dontchaknow!
I give up! He’s as dense as a brick.
ASIDE – Another example of Leftist incitement to violence.
https://www.weaselzippers.us/344825-professor-calls-whites-inhuman-assholes-says-let-them-die/
I’m still waiting for SebH to provide me with even one link to alleged Conservative violence. (no links to neo-nazis, SebH. they are not Conservatives.)
Don’t know if you can read German, but just look at the comments (and sometimes posts) in publications like these:
https://jungefreiheit.de/
https://www.compact-online.de/
https://www.tichyseinblick.de/
http://www.achgut.com/
http://www.pi-news.net/
Those are full of hate speech and implied violence (in your link someone says “The time is now to confront these inhuman a**holes and end this now”). Mostly directed at immigrants these days.
Or you take a look at the facebook pages of the AfD-party in Germany.
I don’t know how US publications are, but I guess it looks the same in the comment section of Breitbart, Infowars or Fox News, etc …
As I’ve written, let’s agree that those that can only use insults and threaten violence are idiots … left or right. I don’t really care who is more violent at the end … there are only not stupid people and stupid people and the later ones should not be enabled so much.
‘Breitbart, infowars’ and so forth….
Well, NO, and if you dared to look for yourself you would clearly see that.
BUT if one looks at any leftist news website they can find tons of cries for violence- or how do you think that shooting in DC occurred a few days ago?
Thank you, SebH.
I’ve looked at 3 articles, 2 from pi, and one from jungefreihei. I didn’t see any incitement, just facts – actually not bad, but perhaps if I look closer…?
One of the 2 from pi was about the documentary on muslim and leftist anti-Semitism, which is well documented fact.
http://www.pi-news.net/tv-tipp-ard-zeigt-film-ueber-hass-von-moslems-und-linken-auf-juden/
That isn’t hate speech. It’s news that is essential to guard oneself from them. I’ll look at more when I have more time, in several weeks, after my traveling is done.
Again, thanks for the links. I hope they all prove as useful as what I have seen so far.
Post lost. No time to redo. Thanks for links.
The physics of CO2 as a radiatively active gas is understood. What happens in the real world of the atmosphere, oceans, plants, and many other things is not at all clear.
For example #1: H2O is also a radiatively active gas and does much the same as CO2 does – so the extra CO2 makes little difference with that bit of physics.
For example #2: Extra CO2 allows plants and phytoplankton to increase growth thereby storing some of the energy expected to warm the atmosphere. So that’s a negative.
For example #3: Use of fuels permit industrial process to clean the air of the serious pollutants once common in London and Pittsburgh (including wide regions). Polyacrylamide (PAM), also a C product, can treat farmed fields and reduce particles in the air. Cleaner air means more sunlight goes into the ocean – unrelated to the radiatively active gases. In the Pacific Ocean, heat stored in this way is part of the ENSO pattern.
There can be a long list of examples.
_ _ _ _
PS: “Bret” just disintegrated off the coast of Venezuela. Tropical Storm Cindy (off the US’s Gulf of Mexico coast) will come ashore on Thursday as a rain-maker.
#1: H2O concentration is influenced by temperature and other variables that are a feedback of CO2 change (or TSI change or anything else that changes those variables).
#2: around half of the additional human emissions get absorbed by nature and the oceans. So yes, it gets stored … but not all of it.
#3: forcing by aerosol reduction is a known variable.
It is pretty clear, it wasn’t 50 years ago. We certainly don’t know everything yet, but enough to do these kind of estimations. Don’t act like there could be one surprise variable nobody has thought of yet, that changes everything dramatically …
“It is pretty clear, it wasn’t 50 years ago.”
Right, then WRONG.
Yes it is pretty clear that enhanced atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to ALL life on Earth.
And this was known 50 years ago.
As you have constantly shown, there is NO PROVABLE down side to enhanced atmospheric CO2.
NO runaway warming.. NO CO2 caused warming whatsoever, actually.
NO warming of oceans.
———————–
“We certainly don’t know everything yet”
You don’t seem to know anything at all, yet..
… and have shown to have zero willingness to change that situation.
Hey. Medium time lurker and first time commenters here; thanks for another great article and commenting policy. Especially given some of the latest hysteria over the latest tropical storms here in the US.
Sorry for taking this to the side, but I had a question. What do you guys make of “Potholer54″/Peter Hadfield?
I hadn’t heard of him until a few days ago, but I’m a fan of Bill Whittle on Youtube (who I think is a very sharp mind though he does get things wrong), when some of Potholer54’s less than genius cultists flooded the comments section and started downdinging. So I decided to see what was up. And what I saw alarmed me.
To his credit, I was much more impressed with Potholer54 than most of his wayward fans, and I do think he made some very valid critiques on Bill’s Video (such as the identity of one of the graphs he used). But since I had read the excellent Mark Steyn’s “A Disgrace to the Profession” alarm bells started to ring when he used the Hockey Stick (to be fair, that was a folly Whittle did too) and described it as the “first” of a “dozen” replications (when Steyn and some of his expert witnesses described how these things were basically rolling the same dirty water from the same well around in the cup), and he specifically claimed that modern history was the hottest in 11,000~ years, which really threw me off as a history nerd.
So I re-read the book and did some cursory research and I noticed quite a bit, especially when I saw (though didn’t watch) a video in Potholer’s list that purported to “explain” the “out of context” text in Climategate. So even in my own less than expert opinion things seemed off. Like the reliance on extremely dubious graphs that he apparently vetted with less care than I do primary sources on what Hitler used for internet debates.
Which coupled with another video about how he is “converting” skeptics also worried me. It seems like Potholer54’s an “establishment” figure- for lack of a better word- mixing some genuine scientific and institutional knowledge plus insights with an extremely uncurious and somewhat dogmatic adherence to the Mann-Marcott lineage of shoddy computer graphs. And that does worry.
But in my cursory look online I didn’t find that much coverage of him that wasn’t extremely flattering, including a brief mention on WUWT. I get the feeling he’ kind of beneath the notice of heavy hitters like you hence why he hasn’t been covered as much, but I decided to ask:
What’s the opinion you guys have on him? I am legitimately curious.
Regards, and long live the blog!
I have never watched him but I very much doubt he is ‘converting’ anyone. My guess is he is catching people who never thought about it before, don’t have a clue and are on the emotional side of the fence
@ClimateOtter Firstly, thanks for the reply.
“I have never watched him but I very much doubt he is ‘converting’ anyone. My guess is he is catching people who never thought about it before, don’t have a clue and are on the emotional side of the fence”
I agree on the latter part, but as for the former I’m not so sure. The guy does speak and write in a way that is surprisingly eloquent (even if it’s wrong, which I imagine it mostly is, though not entirely), sounds superficially credible, and does cite a bunch of peer reviewed soures (without going into the glaring issues with why we should trust them). That’s the kind of approach I can imagine converting people.
To be sure, I imagine he mostly works his best magic on neutrals or “Squishes” who don’t have the experience or knowledge, but I am not sure I can discount it all.
Half the reason he raised red flags for me was because I’m a history nerd and I’ve been keeping up with both Mark Steyn and some climate news.
In any event, thank you
Never heard of him, but was curious, so…
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/8/3/potholer54-laugh-a-minute-stuff.html
The comments there are generally helpful, as well.
Sounds like he would fit right in with the less than useless “skepticalscience” crowd.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html?m=1
Color me not impressed.
World wide ACE is down for sure, but conditions in the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, along the south eastern sea board of the US, and especially in the MDR are looking far more conducive for hurricane formation this year than they have for several past years. With no powerful El Nino to change the trades and provide shear to break up the storms. If I had to bet, I would say that the 11 year streak with no majors striking the shores of the lower 48 more likely than not to end this year.
If you haven’t seen it Levi’s blog http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/
does about as good of job of explaining what is going on with Tropical Storms as any I have found.
Agreed.