Gareth, who has nothing

I ought to rejoice at the latest Hot Topic post, The Lost Art of Conversation … or a challenge foregone, because, one, it’s all about me and, two, Gareth finally relents on the ban he slapped on me years ago (no longer permitted to comment at his blog—native trolls too sensitive). He allows me to comment on this post as long as I don’t “deliberately misrepresent matters of fact.”

But an empty victory cheers me not. Gareth still avoids contesting the points I make and resorts to insult and cliché, by turns reviling me and parroting the approved global warming orthodoxy. He tinkers with my minuscule “punishment” but continues to misrepresent the work of the NZ Climate Science Coalition on the NZ temperature record and to mischaracterise the court hearing we forced on NIWA’s adjustments to it.

Again, though, his arguments are simply wrong, so again he has nothing and again I shall rebut his arguments and correct his misapprehensions.

This latest exchange was prompted by an inflammatory post I happened upon at the Coal Action Network (which I confess I had never previously heard of—I think I owe Andy Scrase a tip o’ the hat for citing it). The author, one “cindybax”, crafted the blunt headline Chch council should drop climate deniers from expert review panel. Of course, I agree—if climate deniers are on it, they should be dropped.

Trouble is, she named Kesten Green and Willem de Lange as the “deniers”. The poison she and Gareth pour on these excellent scientists cannot obscure the truth, which is that they each raise good questions about the so-called settled science of global warming. Gareth ought by now to stop disparaging dissenters out of hand and instead address their reasonable questions about climate change, as a reasonable person would.

Kesten is an outstanding practitioner of forecasting, using rigorous, evidence-based mathematics to derive a reliable indication of the future of all kinds of things, from corporate affairs to elections to climate change. Willem is a respected researcher of long standing in coastal mechanics and oceanography, well published in topics ranging from the oil spilled from the Rena to coastal erosion hazard management and constantly sought for expert testimony at environmental hearings around the country.

Criticism of these learned men from our “cindybax” strikes them, I’m sure, less as the full naval broadside and more as the damp flannel. Same goes for the effect on them of the rubbish churned out by Gareth Renowden.


BUT: Something has come up which brooks no delay and requires that I defer my response to Gareth.

43 Thoughts on “Gareth, who has nothing

  1. Magoo on July 9, 2016 at 10:26 am said:

    I wouldn’t waste your time with these guys RT, you might as well talk to a brick wall.

    Gareth starts off with the biggest whopper of all – ‘The evidence of rapid change is all around us, and incontrovertible to anyone who is willing to bring an open mind to the issue.’

    But when we have a look at the temperature data in the IPCC’s last AR5 report at the links below, we can see that Gareth is knowingly telling blatant porkies.

    (Figure TS.14, page 87, Technical Summary, Working Group I, IPCC AR5 report):

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

    Or for those who can’t be bothered waiting for the AR5 to load:

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg

    There’s absolutely nothing ‘rapid’ about it at all. Is it willful ignorance on Gareth and co.’s part or just dishonesty? Well it’s both of course, they’re both one and the same thing.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on July 9, 2016 at 10:48 am said:

    Magoo >”There’s absolutely nothing ‘rapid’ about it at all.”

    Gets even more benign when you look at the latitudinal breakdown. Check out UAH Southern Hemisphere Extratropics profile and zero trend:

    UAH Southern Hemisphere Extratropics
    https://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/pause-jun16-sh-extt.jpg?w=675

    From The Pause Update: June 2016 https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/the-pause-update-june-2016/

    No evidence of change for 20+ years – let alone “rapid change”.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on July 9, 2016 at 12:34 pm said:

    >”Check out UAH Southern Hemisphere Extratropics profile”

    Also worth a look, from Columbia (http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/):

    Regional Changes – Zonal Means
    (a) 60-month and (b-d) 12-month running mean temperature changes in five zones: Arctic (90.0 – 64.2°N), N. Mid-Latitudes (64.2 – 23.6°N), Tropical (23.6°S), S. Mid-Latitudes (23.6 – 64.2°S), and Antarctic (64.2 – 90.0°S). (Data through April 2016 used. Updated on 2016/05/14, now with GHCN version 3.3.0 & ERSST v4)
    http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/ZonalT.gif

    The Arctic skews the entire global mean and the Antarctic is going in the opposite direction to the Arctic. There’s very little correlation between N. Mid-Latitudes and S. Mid-Latitudes, the recent anomalies are radically different.

    And any “rapid” S. Mid-Latitude change occurred prior to 1980 – 36 years ago.

  4. Magoo on July 9, 2016 at 12:59 pm said:

    Maybe Gareth made a typo and meant to type ‘vapid change’ instead of ‘rapid change’.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on July 9, 2016 at 1:39 pm said:

    > ‘vapid change’

    Heh. 5 stars.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on July 9, 2016 at 2:36 pm said:

    Naish and Renwick blowing hot air too:

    ‘Ten things New Zealand can learn about climate change’ – Tim Naish and James Renwick
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11669116

    “3 ……the radiative effects of carbon dioxide and methane as powerful greenhouse gases has been known for more than a century. The physics is beyond question.”

    Yes the physics of “the radiative effects of carbon dioxide and methane” is “beyond question” depending on the scope of the statement (e.g. absorption and emission, and surface measurement of DLR by BSRN and SurfRad stations, except CO2/CH4 are minor components of DLR). But so what? That is NOT the issue. There are 2 issues:

    1) Is theoretical GHG forcing a valid climate driver? No, as demonstrated by theory (Chapter 8) vs observations (Chapter 2) in the IPCC’s own AR5 report but they ignore their own climate change criteria and the obs-theory discrepancy in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution:

    ‘IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria’
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/IPCCIgnoresIPCCClimateChangeCriteria.pdf

    2) Is downwelling longwave radiation (IR-C, DLR) a surface material heating agent? No, The net LW flux is UP (-52.4 W.m-2) from the surface i.e. a COOLING flux of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). The CO2 component of DLR is only about 2% (7/345.6) and the change since 1976 only about 1 W.m-2 i.e. 0.3% (1/345.6). This is negligible. And DLR only penetrates the ocean surface by a max of about 100 microns. This is about the thickness of a human hair.

    If Naish and Renwick think there is a heat transfer from air-to-surface or air-to-sea (as the IPCC speculates), then they are subscribing to a violation of the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and run contrary to IPCC observations and energy budgets. The IPCC went looking for their “air-sea fluxes” in Chapter 3 but they should have known it was a fools errand, as it turned out to be, if they had just looked at their own cited earth’s energy budget (see ‘IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria’) – there is NO air-to-surface heat transfer by sensible/latent heat or radiation. The radiative energy transfer is UP from the surface (-52.4 W.m-2).

    “Skeptics would do well to stop wasting their energy, and distracting the public and scientists by trying to deconstruct this scientific truth [“the physics is beyond question”], and join the rest of humanity in helping figure out what to do about climate change.”

    They wish. What amazing arrogance, It is patently clear that they know squat about “the physics” as they demonstrate in point 5:

    5 Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….. from humankind’s use of fossil fuels has gone into the ocean.

    This is an outright fabrication (a lie). The IPCC only speculates on this in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution i.e. attribution by speculation. They have no science whatsoever to support their speculation. The IPCC went looking for their speculated “air-sea” fluxes in Chapter 2 but could not find them. Pointless to look because the earth’s energy budget they cite does not have any net LW flux into the ocean so there cannot be an air to sea heat transfer (and see 2 above).

    Naish and Renwick are scientific phonies and they are touting scientific fraud – they are either totally inept or charletans.

  7. Alexander K on July 9, 2016 at 2:36 pm said:

    Richard, I know my comment is not terribly elevated, but in the case of any discussions with the one-track and unalterably biased Gareth, you must remember that wrestling with a pig gets both parties covered in mud and only the pig enjoys it.
    Or, to be more elegant, think of the law of diminishing returns. Time wasted on Gareth is time you can never recover and you will never overcome his iron-clad prejudice.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on July 9, 2016 at 2:41 pm said:

    Should be – “The IPCC went looking for their speculated “air-sea” fluxes in Chapter [3] but could not find them”

  9. Richard C (NZ) on July 9, 2016 at 3:08 pm said:

    >”2) Is downwelling longwave radiation (IR-C, DLR) a surface material heating agent? No, The net LW flux is UP (-52.4 W.m-2) from the surface i.e. a COOLING flux of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).”

    Even if there was a net LWdown flux it would still NOT be a surface material heating agent. DLR (IR-C) has orders of magnitude lower energetics (energy per photon) than solar SW,

    Infrared
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared

    Electrmagnetic spectrum
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

    Solar SW IR-A/B energy per photon units: eV
    Terrestrial LW IR-C units: meV

    Milli- (symbol m) is a unit prefix in the metric system denoting a factor of one thousandth.

    I suspect Naish and Renwick are clueless about all of this.

  10. Richard Treadgold on July 9, 2016 at 3:12 pm said:

    Alexander,

    only the pig enjoys it.

    lol. I agree—and thanks for the advice. I have no interest in what Gareth believes, but I have a vital motive in taking time to rebut Gareth’s arguments: to give confidence and ammunition to the bystanders, for they are the ones who will win us this war. Gareth and his cronies cannot, and we sceptics cannot, save either one persuades millions who vote. That persuasion will be anchored in scientific truth. So far as I can, I will strive to present it for as long as I’m able. I’m pleased, though, that this other matter has come up that lets me drop Gareth for now.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on July 9, 2016 at 10:32 pm said:

    [Naish and Renwick] >”3 ……the radiative effects of carbon dioxide and methane as powerful greenhouse gases has been known for more than a century. The physics is beyond question.”

    What they omit to mention is that carbon dioxide is a minor contributor to DLR. Water vapour (H2O) is greater by far and there’s plenty of literature on this. For example:

    ‘Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008’
    Wang and Liang (2009)
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/full

    4. Evaluation

    [15] Our validation results summarized in Table 2 demonstrate that equation (4) accurately estimates instantaneous Ld under all-sky conditions.

    Table 2.Average of all sites 337.0 [W.m-2]

    5. Decadal Variation in Global Ld [DLR over land sites surveyed]

    [27] ……..The global averaged [Ld, DLR] trend is 1.9 W m−2 per decade.

    [29] The dominant emitters of longwave radiation in the atmosphere are water vapor, and to a lesser extent, carbon dioxide. The water vapor effect is parameterized in this study, while the CO2 effect on Ld is not. The effect of CO2 can be accurately calculated with an atmosphere radiative transfer model given the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Prata [2008] showed that under the 1976 U.S. standard atmosphere, current atmospheric CO2 contributes about 6 W m−2 to Ld, and if atmospheric CO2 concentration increases at the current rate of ∼1.9 ppm yr−1 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007], this will contribute to an increase of Ld by ∼0.3 W m−2 per decade. Therefore, the total variation rate in Ld is 2.2 W m−2 per decade.

    # # #

    So CO2 is only 2% of total DLR. And CO2 change per decade is only 14% of DLR change per decade.

    In other words, in terms of DLR, CO2 is only a radiative bit player rather than a “powerful greenhouse gas” as Naish and Renwick claim.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on July 10, 2016 at 9:39 am said:

    ‘Alarmism: Claiming Normal as Abnormal Began on a Global Scale with Ozone’

    by Dr. Tim Ball

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/alarmism-claiming-normal-as-abnormal-began-on-a-global-scale-with-ozone/

    # # #

    I remember a corporate panic when a marketing manager asked it a CFC audit had been carried out. Didn’t voice an opinion at the time on the veracity of the “problem” because it was accepted as fact by higher ups. We did the audit as a marketing exercise more than anything – an early form of greenwash.

  13. Mike Jowsey on July 10, 2016 at 3:45 pm said:

    “Other matter” RT?????????? Don’t keep us in suspenders, man!

  14. Richard Treadgold on July 10, 2016 at 4:44 pm said:

    “Don’t keep us in suspenders, man!”

    Sorry, Mike, I’m trying hard. But Ann is just home from an operation, able to walk around but unfit for housework. Plus research is needed on this “other”. Briefly, it’s the RS/Victoria road show by Renwick and Naish. They must panicking, because even I can tear some holes in their slides. See http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/events/ten-by-ten/ten-by-ten-climate-change/ http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/media/2016/05/Tenbyten2016_flyer.pdf and a pdf I haven’t posted yet. Wait one … no, sorry, I can’t paste it here. But I’m keen to quickly rebut Cook 2013 and six other papers claiming up to 100% “consensus” on global warming. But I’m on dinner duty.

  15. Mike Jowsey on July 10, 2016 at 5:09 pm said:

    Don’t panic, have a cup of tea and carry on!

    One quick question – How can a woman ever be unfit for housework? I just don’t get it.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on July 10, 2016 at 5:17 pm said:

    Mike, see upthread, July 9, 2016 at 2:36 pm:

    Naish and Renwick
    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/07/gareth-who-has-nothing/comment-page-1/#comment-1497543

    ‘Ten things New Zealand can learn about climate change’ – Tim Naish and James Renwick
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11669116

    I’ve done my bit on “things” 2 and 5 at the CCG comment link and below it. Naish and Renwick have no idea what they are talking about.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on July 10, 2016 at 5:19 pm said:

    Mike, note this article I posted too at the link upthread:

    ‘IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria’
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/IPCCIgnoresIPCCClimateChangeCriteria.pdf

    This is the “thesis” you were asking for.

  18. Mike Jowsey on July 10, 2016 at 5:34 pm said:

    Thanks for reiterating those links, RC.

    The pdf ‘IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria’ looks very interesting at first blush. (I am blushing because I have not yet read it all). I will re-read when time allows, but I must say how pleased I am that you are publishing.

  19. Richard Treadgold on July 10, 2016 at 9:28 pm said:

    Mike, Mike, mate, how could you? I’m in it deep this time!

    How can a woman ever be unfit for housework?

    Ann says: “He can come round and I’ll give him a punch that’ll show him just how unfit I am for housework.”

  20. Richard C (NZ) on July 11, 2016 at 8:10 pm said:

    In March 2013 I wrote this series:

    Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 1: Skeptical Science Offside
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart1SkepticalScienceOffside.pdf

    Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart2TheImprobableIPCCMechanism.pdf

    Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 3: Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart3RahmstorfSchmittnerandNuccitelli.pdf

    At the end of Part 2 I wrote in respect to ocean heat:

    The acid test for the IPCC then, is that following close behind the 21st century negative phase of the relatively less consequential 60 year cycle, a negative phase of the very much more consequential quasi 200 year cycle is looming. The 21st century “standstill” in atmospheric temperatures is entirely consistent with the 60 year climate cycle (think PDO/ENSO) but given the difficulty climate science has had explaining that relatively minor discontinuity in the context of continuously rising GHG levels, we can assume the IPCC would be even less able to explain the much more radical changes to climate that can be expected if the accelerating decrease of solar luminosity settles to a steady downward trajectory by the end of 2014. The IPCC has about 18 months to prepare for the awkward questions that will inevitably ensue post September 2014 in that event. Being caught wrongfooted again now that they have had some experience dealing with the standstill albeit awkwardly would only add to their discomfort. Interesting times ahead for the IPCC.

    And at the end of Part 3:

    And might it just be possible too, in view of the highly problematical nature of their respective cases versus the comparative plausibility of the solar case, that the IPCC, Rahmstorf, Schmittner, Nuccitelli, and Skeptical Science, are all entirely wrong on this issue? We only have about 18 months to 2 years wait before we know for sure.

    Naish and Renwick are stating in ‘Ten things New Zealand can learn about climate change’:

    “Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….. from humankind’s use of fossil fuels has gone into the ocean.”

    OK then, let’s see what the progression of 0 – 2000m global average ocean heat content (OHC) has been since March 2013 (anomalies only, 10^22 joules):

    2013-3,20.317980 << "We only have about 18 months to 2 years wait"
    2013-6,17.425900
    2013-9,16.296843
    2013-12,20.558161
    2014-3,20.874861
    2014-6,19.914608
    2014-9,18.526079 << 18 months "awkward questions that will inevitably ensue post September 2014"
    2014-12,21.123238
    2015-3,23.416958 << 2 years
    2015-6,22.368597
    2015-9,21.546423
    2015-12,22.271896
    2016-3,22.874208

    Data from NOAA:
    http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv

    Note that the major basins exhibit differently i.e. global average OHC is not typical of all 3 basins.

    In data to date, OHC peaked in March 2015 6 months after my "awkward questions that will inevitably ensue post September 2014" statement. There has been NO rise in OHC since March 2015. NO "heat ……… from humankind’s use of fossil fuels" going into the ocean as per Naish, Renwick, and the IPCC's Chapter 10 speculation that “ Air-sea fluxes are the primary mechanism by which the oceans are expected to respond to externally forced anthropogenic and natural volcanic influences” (no citations, contradicted by Chapter 3 Observations: Ocean anyway)

    Note the IPCC speculation is in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution i.e. they make attribution by speculation. And Naish and Renwick morph unsubstantiated speculation into what they present as fact. It is certainly not fact, it is a fabrication (a lie).

    0 – 2000m OHC is now in a hiatus just as tropospheric temperature is in a hiatus as IPCC AR5 concedes. We are now in the "acid test" time zone for the IPCC's anthro ocean warming case and the "awkward questions" the OHC hiatus entails.

    Remember, the ocean, NOT the atmosphere, is where "Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….. from humankind’s use of fossil fuels" goes according to Naish and Renwick.

  21. Richard C (NZ) on July 11, 2016 at 8:50 pm said:

    >”Note the IPCC speculation is in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution i.e. they make attribution by speculation.”

    The specific Chapter 10 OHC attribution statement is:

    “it is extremely certain (that is greater than 95% probability) that the increase in global ocean heat content observed in the upper 700 m in the latter half of the 20th century can be attributed to anthropogenic forcing”

    The IPCC cannot substantiate their attribution – let alone their certainty.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on July 11, 2016 at 9:05 pm said:

    The IPCC attribution above is in respect to 0 – 700m OHC. That progression since March 2013 is this:

    2013-3,13.534068
    2013-6,12.048531
    2013-9,11.164961
    2013-12,13.655460
    2014-3,14.243009
    2014-6,13.165339
    2014-9,11.987585
    2014-12,13.646789
    2015-3,15.846370 << Peak
    2015-6,14.841905
    2015-9,14.641520
    2015-12,15.156898
    2016-3,15.416214

    Data source:
    http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv

    As for 0 – 2000m there has been no 0 – 700m global ocean warming since March 2015.

  23. Mike Jowsey on July 12, 2016 at 5:58 pm said:

    Sorry, RT. [chuckles]

  24. Richard C (NZ) on July 12, 2016 at 8:29 pm said:

    >”Note that the major basins exhibit differently i.e. global average OHC is not typical of all 3 basins.”

    And certainly NOT typical zonally in the ARGO data:

    Change in ocean heat content by zone. Units are 10^22 joules. Graph from the presentation linked to below.
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/argo-change-by-hemisphere.png

    NO heat gain in the tropics (loss). NO heat gain 20N – 60N (loss). See presentation:

    Argo and Ocean Heat Content: Progress and Issues
    Dean Roemmich, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA, October 2013, CERES Meeting
    http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2013-10/14_Global_averages.pdf

    Page 9:

    Sea level and heat content trends are strongly regional, mainly due to temperature changes, often caused by wind-­‐forcing.

    Not by GHG forcing apparently.

    Page 10:

    Heating rate (W/m2, 0/2000 dbar), 2006-­‐2013
    [see graph]
    Note the strong hemispheric asymmetry.

    Sea surface height trend (cm/year), 2006-­‐2013 [see graph]

    What was that? “Strong hemispheric asymmetry”? ALL of the green and blue area is heat LOSS. That is the greater part of the Pacific ocean and corresponds with areas of sea level FALL. The yellow and red areas of heat gain are relatively smaller.There is obviously no way GHGs can be involved in OHC.

    Page 11:

    The southern hemisphere dominates the increases in SH, SSH, and heat.

    The hemispheric asymmetry is magnified in zonally integrated heat gain (due to the large area of southern hemisphere oceans).

    Trend in zonally-­‐integrated heat gain 2006-­‐2013
    [see graph]

    GHGs play no part in a graph like that.

    Page 12:

    All of the heat gain during the Argo era is in the southern latitudes.
    [see graph, also linked at top of comment]

    Page 17:

    All of the heat gain 2006-­‐2013 is south of 20°S, and the same is likely for the more sparsely sampled period 1993-­‐2008.

    This is a damning indictment on IPCC attribution and Naish and Renwick’s claims.

  25. Richard Treadgold on July 12, 2016 at 8:59 pm said:

    Mike,

    Sorry, RT. [chuckles]

    Chuckles indeed, mate! Heh, heh!

  26. Richard C (NZ) on July 13, 2016 at 9:07 am said:

    ‘Santa Pause may be coming to town… The “pause” might be back by December.’

    David Middleton / July 12, 2016

    A funny thing may have happened on the way to 2016 being the hottest year in the history of “life, the universe and everything”…

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/12/santa-pause-may-be-coming-to-town-the-pause-might-be-back-by-december/

    # # #

    What happened to Naish and Renwick’s “powerful greenhouse gases” ?

    So much for the “heat trapping greenhouse gases” meme. The 2015/16 El Nino heat has NOT been “trapped” in the troposphere.

    And climate scientists Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Sherwood, Foster, Mann, and the UK Met Office (see their 2015 Decadal Forecast page below) who attributed the bulk of th El Nino spike to AGW now look like idiots.

    UKMO Decadal Forecast
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

    Figure 3: Observed (black, from Met Office Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted (blue) global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1981-2010. Previous predictions starting from November 1960, 1965, …, 2005 are shown in red, and 22 model simulations, from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5), that have not been initialised with observations are shown in green. In all cases, the shading represents the probable range, such that the observations are expected to lie within the shading 90% of the time. The most recent forecast (blue) starts from November 2015. All data are rolling 12-month mean values. The gap between the black curves and blue shading arises because the last observed value represents the period November 2014 to October 2015 whereas the first forecast period is November 2015 to October 2016.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/q/o/fig3_dp2015_fcst_global_t.png

    We are witnessing the end of the AGW (a.k.a. man-made climate change) conjecture.

  27. Richard C (NZ) on July 13, 2016 at 9:30 am said:

    >”What happened to Naish and Renwick’s “powerful greenhouse gases” ? So much for the “heat trapping greenhouse gases” meme.”

    CO2 is being put to good use as a refrigerant:

    Engineering Thermodynamics by Israel Urieli, Chapter 9: Carbon Dioxide (R744) – The New Refrigerant

    Introduction and Discussion

    In the early days of refrigeration the two refrigerants in common use were ammonia and carbon dioxide. Both were problematic – ammonia is toxic and carbon dioxide requires extremely high presures (from around 30 to 200 atmospheres!) to operate in a refrigeration cycle, and since it operates on a transcritical cycle the compressor outlet temperature is extremely high (around 160°C). When Freon 12 (dichloro-diflouro-methane) was discovered it totally took over as the refrigerant of choice. It is an extremely stable, non toxic fluid, which does not interact with the compressor lubricant, and operates at pressures always somewhat higher than atmospheric, so that if any leakage occured, air would not leak into the system, thus one could recharge without having to apply vacuum.

    Unfortunately when the refrigerant does ultimately leak and make its way up to the ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation breaks up the molecule releasing the highly active chlorine radicals, which help to deplete the ozone layer. Freon 12 has since been banned from usage on a global scale, and has been essentially replaced by chlorine free R134a (tetraflouro-ethane) – not as stable as Freon 12, however it does not have ozone depletion characteristics.

    Recently, however, the international scientific consensus is that Global Warming is caused by human energy related activity, and various man made substances are defined on the basis of a Global Warming Potential (GWP) with reference to carbon dioxide (GWP = 1). R134a has been found to have a GWP of 1300 and in Europe, within a few years, automobile air conditioning systems will be barred from using R134a as a refrigerant.

    The new hot topic is a return to carbon dioxide as a refrigerant. The previous two major problems of high pressure and high compressor temperature are found in fact to be advantageous. The very high cycle pressure results in a high fluid density throughout the cycle, allowing miniturization of the systems for the same heat pumping power requirements. Furthermore the high outlet temperature will allow instant defrosting of automobile windshields (we don’t have to wait until the car engine warms up) and can be used for combined space heating and hot water heating in home usage (refer for example: Norwegian IEA Heatpump Program Annex28).

    Recent update March 2013 – Volkswagen, Daimler, Audi, BMW and Porsche have announced plans to develop CO2 MAC (Mobile Air Conditioning) systems (refer: Environmental Leader)

    Continues>>>>
    https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/Applied/Chapt.7_11/Chapter9.html

    # # #

    CO2 in the troposphere is simply a passive heat transfer medium – no “trapping” involved.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on July 13, 2016 at 10:19 am said:

    >”Furthermore the high outlet temperature [from CO2 MAC] will allow instant defrosting of automobile windshields (we don’t have to wait until the car engine warms up)”

    This being a problem for electric vehicles (EVs). I’ve spent enough time waiting for my petrol engine to warm up while de-icing my car after a winter night shift to know this. An EV engine doesn’t “warm up” like a petrol engine, there’s no engine heat to defrost the windshield.

    ‘Extreme Weather Affects An Electric Car’s Range’ – How far your electric vehicle can go will vary depending on your region.
    https://www.insidescience.org/content/extreme-weather-affects-electric-cars-range/3396

    “Electric vehicles on average consume about 15 percent more energy per mile when they’re driven in an extreme weather region like Phoenix or Minneapolis … that means if they’re consuming more energy that they will have a lower range,” explained Michalek.

    It gets worse.

    “In fact, during peak days where the temperature is at its extreme, the range could drop by 40 percent or more,” said Michalek. Basically what that means is “a vehicle that normally gets a hundred-mile range, it would only get 60 miles on this extreme weather day,” he said.

    And,

    An important factor that influences battery life is temperature. Batteries are less efficient in extremely cold conditions and degrade more quickly in very hot conditions. Plus, cranking up the heat or air conditioning uses even more energy and drains the battery.

    But there’s things drivers can do during extreme weather days.

    “One of the biggest factors is the use of heating and air conditioning to keep the cabin comfortable. So, if you reduce the use of heating and air conditioning then you can maintain a longer range,” said Michalek.

    But if you “reduce the heating” your windshield remains frosted and you can’t see out (plus you are cold). Might be a solution from the range point of view but not much use if you can’t see out to drive the thing.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on July 14, 2016 at 9:55 am said:

    Response to Democrats name-and-shame “Web of Denial” in US Senate:
    **************************************************************
    Dear Senators:

    We, the undersigned, have long since known that you have a list—an enemies list of intellectual foes you wish to isolate. But our policy differences are not why we write. We write today with grave concern over political leadership in a time of deep national division. We write at a time when free speech and association are more important than ever in our national experiment. How will we, together, solve problems if we cannot speak? How can you lead when you refuse to listen?

    […]

    Your enemies list groups together organizations that themselves maintain differing perspectives. While you have singled us out, labeling us as the enemy, we don’t even always agree with one another. And that’s the point: disagreement breeds solutions.

    We hear you. Your threat is clear: There is a heavy and inconvenient cost to disagreeing with you. Calls for debate will be met with political retribution. That’s called tyranny. And, we reject it.

    At the birth of our nation, patriots asserted their right to speech and broke British law in doing so. King George used the full force of the British crown to suppress the rebellion—to suppress speech. In spite of the tyrant’s commands and because they had put their lives on the line to defend their rights, the patriots enshrined free speech in our founding documents; the same documents that gave you your job.

    In a country where you should be the patriots leading us into a great future, sadly today you are the tyrants.

    Sincerely,

    [22 organizations]
    http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2016-07-12-Coalition-Letter-Senate-Web-of-Denial-Resolution.pdf

    # # #

    Great publicity for the groups if nothing else; how else to get your organization’s name in the public mind via the US Senate?

    But isn’t the notion of a “Web of Denial” what Lewandowsky terms “conspiracy ideation”?

  30. Richard C (NZ) on July 14, 2016 at 11:55 am said:

    ‘Letter: Errors in climate change attack’

    Terry Dunleavy founding chairman and strategic Aaviser (sic) International Climate Science Coalition

    “The writer next claims that International Climate Science Coalition says “CO2 is not a heat trapping gas,” […..]

    But we have never made such claims. They are fabricated charges apparently intended to discredit us.

    http://www.jconline.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/07/12/letter-errors-climate-change-attack/87003470/

    # # #

    Curious because we could infer that ICSC considers “CO2 [IS] a heat trapping gas” if they don’t claim it is not.

    If so, this puts them in the same camp as Naish ans Renwick. I’d like to see the ICSC’s proof that CO2 “traps” heat given the latest El Nino has just proved it doesn’t (no “trapping” – heat has dissipated to space).

    Either that or a clarification of what exactly the ICSC does subscribe to (if anything) in regard to the notion of CO2 “heat trapping”.

  31. Richard Treadgold on July 14, 2016 at 2:14 pm said:

    RC, I’m not sure what anyone means by “heat-trapping” gas, but since CO2 absorbs radiation and re-emits it, with some of the re-emitted radiation travelling downwards, it could be said to be “trapping” that radiative energy, I think.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on July 14, 2016 at 6:37 pm said:

    RT >”I’m not sure what anyone means by “heat-trapping” gas,”

    Yes, that’s why I wondered what Terry Dunleavy was getting at. I think he needs to be very explicit rather than leaving us to draw inferences that may or may not be what he is trying to convey.

    >”since CO2 absorbs radiation and re-emits it,”

    This actually precludes the notion of “heat trapping”. That is describing the process of energy transfer – NOT “trapping”. No heat is retained by the molecule because re-emission occurs within seconds. It is as I said previously (and I’m not alone on this) CO2 is simply a passive heat transfer medium, a coolant by definition, refrigerant code R744. CO2 transfers more energy by collision than it does by radiation at low altitudes in the troposphere but that’s beside the point.

    >”some of the re-emitted radiation travelling downwards”

    Yes except the energy flow is from surface to space. Net LW is an upwards flux from the surface (cooling) so the fact that there’s measurable downward radiation (DLR) is irrelevant. Oceanographers, Fairall et al (1996) for example, are only concerned with the net LW flux (Rnl). Remember too that CO2 is a bit player in DLR (2 – 3%), water vapour is the major component by far (see Wang and Liang (2009) upthread). Even if there was a net flux down, DLR is not a surface heating agent due to low energetics (milli electron Volts (meV) per photon rather than electron Volts (eV) in the solar spectrum) and minimal ocean surface penetration (100 microns max – about the thickness of a human hair).

    The notion in climate science of a downwards energy transfer from cold troposphere to warm surface is a violation of the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (heat does not of itself move from a cold object to a hot object). There’s no evidence of such a transfer as the IPCC’s own citation of the earth’s energy budget shows (Stephens et al (2012) Chapter 2 AR5). Net LW is a -52.4 W.m-2 transfer up from the surface on global average. Neither did the IPCC find their “expected” “air-sea fluxes” in AR5 Chapter 3. They have no basis for their anthropogenic ocean warming attribution but they make false attribution-by-speculation anyway.

    >”it could be said to be “trapping” that radiative energy, I think.”

    I think there’s a misconception going on, even by the ICSC (or maybe just Terry Dunleavy). Interception is not “trapping”. The following (B) describes what “trapping” entails, and then (C) what “transfer” entails but first the initial state (A):

    A) Initial state: The molecule is already energized at ambient temperature due to the mass of gas, gravity, altitude, diurnal solar charge, air constituency etc but radiation plays no part. The US Airforce Labs modeled the surface to TOA temperature profile for the space race without recourse to radiation or CO2 (neglected, negligible). Thus the “greenhouse equation” (see below).

    B) Trapping: The molecule intercepts a photon of radiation, the excess energy is retained (“trapped”), the molecule is energized above the ambient temperature of the surrounding air therefore at is at a higher temperature that the air around it (absurd so far). The molecule intercepts another photon, the excess energy is retained (“trapped”), the molecule gains even more temperature than from the first photon (getting more absurd). By this “trapping” process the molecule gets hotter and hotter but the surrounding air stays at ambient temperature (the height of absurdity). This violates the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which in essence says the excess energy is expelled to a heat sink.

    C) Transfer: The molecule intercepts a photon of radiation, the excess energy is either transferred by collision or emission of a photon within seconds. The temperature of the molecule remains at the ambient level of the surrounding air. The excess energy is expelled to a heat sink (space eventually).

    ******************************************************************************************
    The Greenhouse Equation
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/the-greenhouse-equation.html

    Where:
    T = temperature at height (s) meters above the surface, thus at the surface s = 0
    s = height in meters above the surface to calculate the temperature T, thus at the surface s=0
    S = the solar constant = 1367 W/m2, derivation here
    ε = emissivity = 1 assuming Sun and Earth are blackbodies
    σ = the Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.6704 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4
    g = gravitational acceleration = 9.8 m/s^2
    m = average molar mass of the atmosphere = 29g/mole = 0.029kg/mole
    α = albedo = 0.3 for earth
    C = Cp = the heat capacity of the atmosphere at constant pressure, ~ 1.5077 average for Earth
    P = surface pressure in the unit atmospheres, defined as = 1 atmosphere for latitude of Paris
    R = universal gas constant = 8.3145 J/mol K
    e = the base of the natural logarithm, approximately equal to 2.71828

  33. Richard C (NZ) on July 14, 2016 at 7:22 pm said:

    Climate science is not alone:

    ‘Economic Theory as Ideology’

    by Asad Zaman Vice Chancellor at Pakistan Institute of Development Economics

    Ideology and Science are diametrically opposed to each other. An ideology is a set of beliefs that is maintained even in face of strong empirical evidence to the contrary. Science is primarily concerned with explaining the empirical evidence. Theories which conflict with observations are rejected. This does not mean that ideology is necessarily wrong or bad – we must maintain our belief in justice, morality, honesty, trust, integrity without any empirical evidence; indeed, even when strong empirical evidence suggests that these beliefs will not bring us popularity or personal benefits. However, ideological beliefs in wrong ideas can blind us to the facts and prevent learning which is essential to progress. Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz remarked that modern Economics represents the triumph of ideology over science. This essay explains the reasons for his remarks..

    […]

    For a very long time, economists refused to take results from experiments seriously, because these were in direct conflict with axioms at the heart of economic theories. The empirical failure of economic axioms led to the creation of “Behavioral Economics,” which studies actual behavior of human being. In any scientific field, “behavioral economics” would be the center of attention, since it matches the observational evidence about human behavior. Furthermore, the axiomatic theory, which is contradicted by the empirical evidence, would be a long forgotten idea belonging to the primitive history of economic science. Surprisingly, mainstream economic textbooks, used all over the planet, continue to teach axiomatic theories of human behavior as if they are true, while behavioral economics remains neglected and ignored.

    Continues>>>>>
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/economic-theory-ideology-asad-zaman

  34. Richard C (NZ) on July 15, 2016 at 10:08 am said:

    The letter Terry Dunleavy was replying to:

    ‘Letter: Bunch of climate science cranks’

    Richard Mertens, West Lafayette

    “Both Heartland Institute and International Climate Science Coalition make laughable claims that CO2 is not a heat trapping gas yet continue to produce no papers on the subject.

    http://www.jconline.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/07/11/letter-bunch-climate-science-cranks/86961014/

    # # #

    Laughable is to claim that “CO2 [IS] a heat trapping gas”. I made the distinction between “trapping” and “transfer” in a previous comment. Here’s “trapping” again:

    B) Trapping: The molecule intercepts a photon of radiation, the excess energy is retained (“trapped”), the molecule is energized above the ambient temperature of the surrounding air therefore is at a higher temperature that the air around it (absurd so far). The molecule intercepts another photon, the excess energy is retained (“trapped”), the molecule gains even more temperature than from the first photon (getting more absurd). By this “trapping” process the molecule gets hotter and hotter but the surrounding air stays at ambient temperature (the height of absurdity). This violates the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which in essence says the excess energy is expelled to a heat sink.

    Laughable. CO2 is a heat TRANSFER gas, not a heat “trapping” gas. Here’s “transfer” again from above:

    C) Transfer: The molecule intercepts a photon of radiation, the excess energy is either transferred by collision or emission of a photon within seconds. The temperature of the molecule remains at the ambient level of the surrounding air. The excess energy is expelled to a heat sink (space eventually).

    There’s a lot more details in the process but that’s about it at its simplest. More details in the article below and why there’s no contra “papers on the subject” as Richard Mertens demands:

    ‘CO2 heats the atmosphere…a counter view’

    by Tom Vonk, physicist.

    In the case that somebody asks why there is no peer reviewed paper about this issue , it is because everything what follows is textbook material . We will use results from statistical thermodynamics and quantum mechanics that have been known for some 100 years or more . More specifically the statement that we will prove is :

    “A volume of gas in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE) cannot be heated by CO2.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/

    Note: “Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE)” is equivalent to my “A) Initial state” upthread.

  35. Richard C (NZ) on July 15, 2016 at 10:35 am said:

    [Tom Vonk] >”In the case that somebody asks why there is no peer reviewed paper about this issue , it is because everything what follows is textbook material”

    How many times do we get “publish a paper” from AGW proponents as if thermodynamics is somehow needed to be extended via that medium to prove our argument, it isn’t. Take a thermodynamics course and you will be given a list of (very expensive) textbooks for required reading in which the physics is already established. Tom Vonk being a physicist defers to that literature of course, no need for a “peer reviewed paper”.

    Climate scientists are not qualified in thermodynamics (e.g. applied heat), It is unqualified climate science that has to overturn established physics and thermodynamics laws in order for their enhanced greenhouse conjecture to survive. Not much chance of that I suspect and not going so well observationally either. Last El Nino case in point for example.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on July 15, 2016 at 8:18 pm said:

    ‘Latent Heat and Trapped Heat’

    Published on April 8, 2013. Written by Anthony Bright-Paul

    We have to be careful to distinguish between latent heat and trapped heat, particularly in the sense that Anthropogenic Global Warmers use the term.

    [Latent heat discussion]

    The AGWs use the analogy of sunlight on a stationary car, with windows closed. They aver correctly that the temperature within the car will rise, and they call this ‘trapped heat’. What they omit to add is that this rise of temperature will only occur and continue while heat is being generated. Once the Sun goes down the heat rapidly disperses.

    This demonstrates that all sensible heat has to be generated, that such heat is never trapped, but is either being generated or being dissipated. There is no steady state. In particular, there is no way that Carbon Dioxide can trap heat – such an idea is bizarre!

    Here I hope I have demonstrated the difference between latent heat and sensible heat in a way that is comprehensible to the layman.

    http://principia-scientific.org/latent-heat-and-trapped-heat/

    Also,

    ‘Atmospheric Heat Engines—Global Atmospheric Circulation’

    Published on July 13, 2016. Written by Dr Jerry L Krause

    […]

    The titles of the first five chapters of Physical Chemistry 2nd Ed. by Farrington Daniels and Robert A. Daniels were: 1. Introduction; 2. Gases; 3. First Law of Thermodynamics; 4. Thermochemistry; 5. Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics. In the first chapter I learned that physical chemistry was composed of thermodynamics, kinetics, quantum theory, statistical mechanics, and molecular structure. In the second chapter, while there was considerable mathematical equations and reasoning, about the only thing I could claim to have learned was PV=nRT (The Ideal Gas Law).

    The third chapter began: “This chapter provides an introduction to the applications of the concepts of heat, work, energy, and heat capacity in physical chemistry. It is followed by a chapter on the measurement of the heats of chemical reactions. Much of physical chemistry is based upon thermodynamics, which deals with the heat and work accompanying chemical and physical processes. In this chapter I learned there were five types of work: Mechanical; Volume expansion; Surface increase; Electrical; Gravitational. I learned that “Only work and heat can be measured directly, but it is helpful to define energy, which includes the internal energy of a substance as well as heat and work.” And I learned the First Law of Thermodynamics: “A cyclic process is a process in which a system is carried through a series of steps which eventually bring the system back to its initial conditions. The change in internal energy for a cyclic process is zero since the internal energy is a function only of the state of the system.”

    […]

    What has been lost in this common description of a thunderstorm event is: “that only a fraction of a quantity of heat may be converted into work in a cyclic process.” And I do not know how to find it except by drawing upon our common experiences (observations) of the heat engines that we have invented. For what happens to these heat engines, if the energy of the fuel being consumed that is doing a small amount of work, is not removed from the vicinity of the engine?

    We know, I believe, that the engine will quickly self-destruct. So my answer to the question— Why do thunderstorms have such a short duration?—is that, if they have no process by which the excess heat can be removed from their vicinity, they self-destruct. This is the case if they are isolated from another very important, unique, sometimes feature of the atmosphere.

    This feature is termed a jet stream. So, as the parcel rises into it, the excess heat, as well as some of the cloud, is quickly carried away from the top of the thunderstorm so that atmosphere can be continuously lifted from the surface to the base of this jet stream and the lifetime of the thunderstorm can be much longer. However, jet streams, part of the atmospheric circulation system, are rarely, if ever, observed in tropical regions but thunderstorms certainly are.

    More>>>>
    http://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-heat-engines-global-atmospheric-circulation/

  37. Richard C (NZ) on July 15, 2016 at 9:43 pm said:

    [Bright-Paul] >”The AGWs use the analogy of sunlight on a stationary car, with windows closed. They aver correctly that the temperature within the car will rise, and they call this ‘trapped heat’. What they omit to add is that this rise of temperature will only occur and continue while heat is being generated.”

    A particularly egregious example:

    ‘What is the greenhouse effect? Trapping Heat’

    by Julia Layton & Ed Grabianowski Science | Green Science

    […]

    The sun’s radiation continually strikes the Earth, warming it; the warm Earth emits some of that radiation back into space, cooling itself. The more solar radiation the Earth absorbs, the more radiation it releases.

    Some of that released radiation makes it into space, and the rest of it ends up getting reflected back down to Earth when it hits certain things in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane gas and water vapor — the car windows. The heat that doesn’t make it out through Earth’s atmosphere keeps the planet warmer than it is in outer space, because more energy is coming in through the atmosphere than is going out. This is the greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth warm.

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/question7461.htm

    Apart from the hopelessly incorrect description of the earth’s energy flows in the second paragraph (including dumbo terminology), the gullible amongst us will of course swallow this tripe hook line and sinker.

    The earth’s energy imbalance at TOA is only +0.6 W.m-2 which is the same as the imbalance at the surface 2000 – 2010 (Stephens et al (2012), Loeb et al (2012), IPCC AR5 Chapter 2). The surface is dominated by the oceanic heat sink i.e. the excess energy (+0.6) is simply solar energy accumulation in the ocean. The ocean in turn supports atmospheric temperature but the heat has solar origin in a predominantly sun => ocean => atmosphere system. The temperature profile of the atmosphere from surface to TOA is determined by the “greenhouse equation” (see upthread), none of which relies on the above, incorrect in this case, “greenhouse effect”. The only radiative parameter is the solar constant. The fact that the bulk of solar energy arrives in the atmosphere via the ocean is immaterial to the calculation.

    The only “heat trapping” is in the oceanic heat sink. Even then the heat is not actually “trapped” because the heat is released eventually. The ocean adds “10 – 100 years” to the system according to Dr Kevin Trenberth:

    ‘The Role of the Oceans in Climate’
    Kevin E Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research , Boulder, CO

    “An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response caused by the oceans is 10–100 years.

    http://www.oco.noaa.gov/roleofOcean.html

  38. Richard C (NZ) on July 16, 2016 at 10:58 am said:

    >”The only “heat trapping” is in the oceanic heat sink. Even then the heat is not actually “trapped” because the heat is released eventually”

    Conventional terminology is thermal energy “storage” (TES):

    Energy Storage Water – kWh
    Thermal heat energy stored in water by temperature
    Water is often used to store thermal energy. Energy stored – or available – in hot water can be calculated
    [see examples]
    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/energy-storage-water-d_1463.html

    Thermal energy storage
    Thermal energy storage (TES) is achieved with greatly differing technologies that collectively accommodate a wide range of needs. It allows excess thermal energy to be collected for later use, hours, days or many months later, at individual building, multiuser building, district, town or even regional scale depending on the specific technology. As examples: energy demand can be balanced between day time and night time; summer heat from solar collectors can be stored interseasonally for use in winter; and cold obtained from winter air can be provided for summer air conditioning. Storage mediums include: water or ice-slush tanks ranging from small to massive, masses of native earth or bedrock accessed with heat exchangers in clusters of small-diameter boreholes (sometimes quite deep); deep aquifers contained between impermeable strata; shallow, lined pits filled with gravel and water and top-insulated; and eutectic, phase-change materials.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage

  39. Richard C (NZ) on July 16, 2016 at 2:06 pm said:

    An internally contradictory article from UCAR/NCAR re CO2 a “heat-trapping greenhouse gas”:

    [Title] ‘Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation’

    UCAR Centre For Science Education © 2012 UCAR

    [see CO2 molecule animation]

    Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate.

    Shortly thereafter, [1] the molecule gives up this extra energy [/1] by emitting another infrared photon.Once [2] the extra energy has been removed [/2] by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.

    This [3] ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy [/3] is what makes [4] CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. [/4]

    The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
    http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

    # # #

    The last statement [4] is contradicted by the title [Title] and statements [1], [2] and [3]:

    [Title] ‘Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation’
    [1] the molecule gives up this extra energy
    [2] the extra energy has been removed
    [3] ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy
    [4] CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas.

    [Title] and [1], [2] and [3] describe energy TRANSFER – not “trapping” as stated in [4]. There is NO energy “trapped” in this process whatsoever, the energy has simply been transferred. Therefore, CO2 is an effective and passive energy TRANSFER medium contrary to [4]..

    UCAR are peddling bunk as “science education”. Which might explain why the NSF dissociates itself in the disclaimer.

  40. Richard Treadgold on July 16, 2016 at 2:56 pm said:

    RC,

    There is NO energy “trapped” in this process whatsoever, the energy has simply been transferred.

    I’m flabbergasted at the amount of time you’ve spent on this, Richard, and you’ve posted a huge amount of useful information. Almost too much to read, certainly too much to absorb easily. What you’ve presented also explains how some people can see the interruption of energy flow to space as a kind of trapping. Not that the energy is trapped permanently in the scientific sense, as it’s only held up temporarily. I don’t know how long, as I’ve never seen a quantification of the delay caused by being emitted downwards then eventually to space. But held up enough to cause some measurable increase in temperature. So you can call it trapped and it increases with the increase in CO2.

    So I’m not sure it’s useful to excoriate such as the UCAR as “peddling bunk”. Unless I’ve misunderstood.

  41. Richard C (NZ) on July 16, 2016 at 7:28 pm said:

    RT >”So you can call it trapped and it increases with the increase in CO2. So I’m not sure it’s useful to excoriate such as the UCAR as “peddling bunk”. Unless I’ve misunderstood”

    Yes you sure have misunderstood RT. The UCAR article is specifically in respect to the CO2 molecule absorbing and emitting – nothing else. Nothing at all about what you extrapolate from it. I don’t know how you make the leap you’ve taken. Note too upthread that it is not just me that sees the utter falsity of the CO2 “heat trapping” notion.

    Here’s the UCAR animation of the CO2 molecule again:

    http://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/long-content-page/Create%20Long%20Content%20Page/co2_absorb_emit_infrared_anim_320x240.gif

    This is the sole basis (nothing else) for UCAR’s internally contradictory claim in their article:

    “This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas.

    The first element “this ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy” contradicts the second “makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas”.

    The contradiction is because the first element is describing TRANSFER:

    Heat transfer – Radiation
    Thermal radiation is a direct result of the random movements of atoms and molecules in matter. Since these atoms and molecules are composed of charged particles (protons and electrons), their movement results in the emission of electromagnetic radiation, which carries energy away from the surface.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer

    But the second element is claiming TRAPPING:

    v. trapped, trap·ping, traps
    v.tr.
    1. To catch in a trap; ensnare.
    2. To prevent from escaping or getting free: was trapped in the locked attic.
    3. [N/A]
    4. To seal off (gases) by a trap.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trap

    Clearly “transfer” is NOT “trapping”. UCAR certainly is “peddling bunk”.

    >”Not that the energy is trapped permanently in the scientific sense, as it’s only held up temporarily. I don’t know how long, as I’ve never seen a quantification of the delay caused by being emitted downwards then eventually to space. But held up enough to cause some measurable increase in temperature”

    Well you might be in for a surprise RT (emission is in any direction BTW):

    ‘Thermal Infrared Radiation and Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere’
    Bill Satzer, 3M Company
    http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/presentations/2013-1Spring/20130212ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

    Page 13:

    Receptivity of gas molecules to infrared radiation

    • Excited molecular states have very long lifetimes compared to
    excited electron states – from milliseconds to tenths of seconds.

    • Mean time between collisions with another molecule is roughly
    0.1 microseconds – so, many collisions and efficient energy transfer.

    Transfer by collision (most likely transfer at low altitudes) is in the order of “0.1 microseconds”
    Transfer by radiation is in the order of “milliseconds to tenths of seconds”.

    No change in air temperature results because CO2 is simply a passive transfer medium. Too invoke radiative energy transfer as determining temperature at any altitude is not only redundant but fallacious. The entire temperature profile of the atmosphere (surface to TOA) is determined WITHOUT recourse to radiative transfer as I’ve shown upthread (see “Greenhouse Equation”). The US Airforce Labs first modeled the atmospheric temperature profile from surface to TOA (see Satzer above, page 10) in 1958, revisions l1962, 1966, and the final version 1976 (see below), WITHOUT recourse to radiative transfer. The only radiative input is the solar constant (see “Greenhouse Equation” upthread).

    Access to US Standard Atmosphere Model here (bottom of article):

    US Standard Atmosphere Model & Observations Prove Maxwell’s Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is Correct & Falsifies CAGW
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.html

    James Clerk Maxwell FRS FRSE (13 June 1831 – 5 November 1879) was a Scottish[2][3] scientist in the field of mathematical physics.[4] His most notable achievement was to formulate the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, bringing together for the first time electricity, magnetism, and light as manifestations of the same phenomenon. Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism have been called the “second great unification in physics”[5] after the first one realised by Isaac Newton.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell

  42. Richard Treadgold on July 17, 2016 at 9:54 am said:

    RC,

    Well you might be in for a surprise RT (emission is in any direction BTW)

    This is no surprise, and you should know that my reference to “being emitted downwards then eventually to space” refers specifically only to the downward-facing radiation. The effect being that its journey to space is delayed. This happens at every level of the atmosphere according to the density of CO2 molecules.

    I haven’t said the CO2 molecule “traps” heat energy, only that it could be said to trap it, owing to the delay it causes in the radiation reaching space. I don’t understand your obsession with quoting the dictionary definition of “trapping” as it doesn’t help when people aren’t intending the word in the strict scientific sense you give. They simply mean (and I would hope you agree) that slowing the movement of heat energy to space is like putting a blanket around something, with the accent on “like” or “similar to” — not that CO2 acts exactly like a blanket. Whether the radiation is “held” within the molecule briefly or at length, its journey to TOA is delayed. Please understand that this is how some people express their understanding of the greenhouse effect and your inflexible correction is unhelpful. The point, I guess, is that the delay in radiation reaching space is slightly increased with each increase in atmospheric CO2, since we imagine the number of collisions before TOA increases with increased CO2 levels, slowing the escape. CO2 is not a blanket, but what is the harm in calling it a blanket (not that I’m doing so)?

  43. According to Gareth in his latest comments, the NZ ETS is all John Key’s fault

    I was under the impression that the original ETS was proposed by Labour and then a watered down version was introduced by the Nats

    Herr Thomas claims that the “corrupt” version is the fault of National and ACT, when in fact the ACT party were the only one to campaign against the ETS

    Herr Thomas claims that a carbon tax would be better, and in fact is view is also shared by the ACT party.

    That’s the great thing about being a Leftist; making stuff up and rewriting history is part of the game

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation