Latest ‘sick oceans’ report absurd

Global warming making oceans ‘sick’, scientists warn

Global warming is making the oceans sicker than ever before, spreading disease among animals and humans and threatening food security across the planet, a major scientific report said on Monday.

The report lists several consequences of warming they claim are “absolutely massive.” The scientists say we are “making the oceans sick,” “drastically altering the rhythm of life” and “changing the seasons in the ocean.” Yet when we examine the observed warming, these claims are shown to be ridiculous. How can we trust scientists when they make statements like this on the slenderest evidence:

the hotter oceans have killed off coral reefs at an unprecedented rate, reducing fish species by eliminating their habitats.

Earlier this year some bleached coral prompted claims that 93% of the Great Barrier Reef were damaged. But just two weeks ago teams of divers surveyed 300 km of the worst-hit portions of the reef and reported:

Everywhere we have been we have found healthy reefs.

No more than perhaps 7% had been damaged. The Great Barrier Reef was in fine condition, recovering nicely from an entirely natural bleaching event. Maybe a few coral reefs elsewhere have experienced a similar event.

So I don’t believe these claims of apocalyptic damage to the oceans. This graph of ocean temperatures over 35 years shows insignificant warming of just 0.15 °C. The same as 0.42 °C over a century. Not nearly enough for the dramatic changes claimed in this report. The normal diurnal range of surface temperatures can be over 5 °C, which makes 0.15 °C less than trivial.

Since 1980, ocean surface temperatures have risen about 0.15 °C. Note an exaggerated vertical scale gives the appearance of rapid rise.

Also in the report:

It documents evidence of jellyfish, seabirds and plankton shifting toward the cooler poles by up to 10 degrees latitude.

But ten degrees of latitude is only about 1100 km — completely insignificant for many marine species. Some penguins range over territory 6000 km wide and they can travel up to 15,000 km in six months. They’ll all be back when summer is over. Huge numbers of fish and other creatures follow the warmth, not the cold.

Anyway, if movements like these are real and turn out to be permanent, they weren’t caused by the sea water warming, because it hasn’t warmed, which means we didn’t cause it, which means this is all perfectly natural.

239 Thoughts on “Latest ‘sick oceans’ report absurd

  1. Dennis N Horne on September 16, 2016 at 8:24 am said:

    Richard C (NZ). Not a peep. Why?

    I’m guessing of course, but do you think it might be they wonder how they might explain rising temperatures and loss of ice — that is, more energy retained in the climate system — when the greater greenhouse effect from rising CO2 levels does it so nicely?

  2. Dennis, can you explain the rise in temperatures since the Little Ice Age (pre-industrialisation), the MWP., the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period?

    Surely not CO2?

  3. Dennis N Horne on September 16, 2016 at 9:27 am said:

    Andy. Yes, I can. Global VERSUS Internal Variability and Volcanism.

    And yes, the CO2 level does vary naturally. The present high level is man-made. All the fossil fuel we’ve burnt.

    Richard Alley gives a history of CO2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g

    You can watch that while Richard C (NZ) and I discuss his alternative explanation for a warm Earth.

    Not that you’ll ever learn anything…

  4. “Andy. Yes, I can. Global VERSUS Internal Variability and Volcanism.”

    WOW, internal variability and volcanoes caused the MWP?
    what causes internal variability?

  5. Is there no internal variability nowadays? If there is, how much is there? Does anyone know?
    Did internal variability cause The Pause that Doesn’t Exist?

    Can something that doesn’t exist cause something else that doesn’t exist? Is this all explained in The Magic School Bus (that also doesn’t exist) ?

  6. Dennis N Horne on September 16, 2016 at 9:54 am said:

    Andy. Yes, there is internal variability. That’s why the Arctic temperatures went up fast and high compared with other places and the global mean, causing dramatic loss of sea ice.

    Good point, Andy, thank you.

  7. Did internal variability cause the current 30 year sea ice maximum in the Antarctic?

    Did internal variability or something else cause the loss of sea ice in the Arctic?

    I expect Skeptical (sic) Science (sic) has a suitably patronising article about this for “beginners”, so don’t bother to link to it.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on September 16, 2016 at 10:10 am said:

    Dennis

    After all the screeds on this thread you still haven’t learned a thing.

    >”more energy retained in the climate system — when the greater greenhouse effect from rising CO2 levels does it so nicely?”

    It certainly does not Dennis. RF forcing theory is blowing out into an astoundingly embarrassing problem for the IPCC. This in respect to TS TFE.4-1 upthread (more below on this below).

    But first let’s recap on how those Standard Atmosphere’s produce temperature without recourse to any “greenhouse effect”:

    1) Atmospheric air mass: constituents and properties. This simple fact is why there is an atmospheric “greenhouse” i.e. livable conditions; the fact that there is an atmosphere in the first instance (unlike the moon)

    2) Mass/gravity/pressure forcing of the air mass in 1)

    3) Forcing in 2) plus solar SW radiative forcing (i.e. the radiative energy source and input) both direct and via ocean and land, predominantly ocean.

    4) Temperature is a function of 1), 2), and 3). This is established in the Standard Atmospheres without recourse to any radiative “greenhouse effect”

    *****************************************************************************************
    This is the initial static “standard” state before considering secondary LW radiation, convection, air mass movement, heat transfer, weather etc.
    *****************************************************************************************

    5) Radiance, convection, advection, heat transfer, etc, is a function of 4).

    “More energy retained in the climate system” occurs at 3), solar forced in the oceanic heat sink (even the IPCC, Naish and Renwick agree with this except they miss-attribute). This is easy to see in the surface energy budget (see upthread). The opposite is an El Nino i.e. heat release from the ocean => transit through troposphere (temp spike) => exit to space.

    Temperature established at 4) makes the introduction of a radiative “greenhouse effect” redundant. Doing so is a backwards approach. All those analysts of Pouillet/Arrhenius upthread e.g. Tim Casey, The Hockey Schtick (MS), myself and all the other thermodynamically literate or just switched readers can see this.

    Now back to TS TFE.4-1.

    At this point you have to loop back up to the top of the thread Dennis because you haven’t learned anything. Go here:

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/09/latest-sick-oceans-report-absurd/comment-page-1/#comment-1512822

    From that comment for your convenience (but as I’ve already repeated):

    According to the IPCC’s Technical Summary TFE.4-1 (b) “inferred” values (see below), between 16.7% and 75% of JUST their excess GHG-only energy of 1200 ZetaJoules (NOTE the incredible uncertainty- they don’t bother with their “highly precise” satellite measurements of OLR, they “infer” instead) was simply radiated to space i.e. their radiative forcing theory is totally ineffective for that amount – that theoretical heat was NOT retained:

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b)
    TS TFE.4-1 (a) (b)
    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg

    Their theoretical energy they say was retained in the atmosphere is so minimal as to be negligible. Hence their (physically impossible – see below) anthropogenic ocean warming attribution. That’s this energy:

    0-2000m Global Ocean Heat Content
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

    About 300 ZetaJoules of OHC accumulation – only 25% of their 1200 ZJ of excess GHG “forcing”. Most of the rest just dissipated to space apparently, if TFE.4-1 (b) is anything to go by.

    Naish and Renwick contradict this Dennis. They say 93% of theoretical anthro-forced energy went into the ocean – not 25%.

    1200 ZetaJoules is 1,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules that the IPCC have to account for. Highly problematic in view of TFE.4-1 (b).

    And that’s only 1970 – 2011 Dennis.

    This is a massive blowout, already untenable, and getting rapidly more embarrassing for the IPCC by the year.

  9. As an aside, I managed to skive off yesterday morning for a quick ski before the rain sets in today. The ski field owners have lots of stories from the region that date back decades of “internal variability” that drives the snow, good years and bad ones. There are lots of old newspaper clippings in the lunch hut of stories of lean years back in the 80s. These guys depend on the climate for their income and none of them is worried about “global warming”

  10. Dennis N Horne on September 16, 2016 at 10:43 am said:

    Andy. Of course. Warming has caused ice on Antarctica to disintegrate and float away in the sea. Consequently Antarctica is losing ice. Yep, simple explanations at skepticalscience. Clearly not simple enough for you, Andy.

    The ski industry isn’t worried about global warming? Really? Never mind The Magic Bus…

    On Yer Bike!

  11. Dennis N Horne on September 16, 2016 at 10:50 am said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    Can you follow this explanation from Richard Alley:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g

    Oh, I’ve learned a great deal from your screeds and screeds, don’t worry about that.

  12. ” Warming has caused ice on Antarctica to disintegrate and float away in the sea.”

    More “Magic School Bus” science

  13. Dennis N Horne on September 16, 2016 at 11:36 am said:

    Andy. Magic Bus Science too tough for you?

    Doesn’t matter.

    What matters is the global political consensus derived from the wide broad deep scientific consensus.

    Subscribed to by the Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science … and every scientific institution and society on the planet.

    Planet Earth, Andy.

    Remind me, where are you?

  14. “What matters is the global political consensus ”

    Nailed it in one, Dennis

  15. Dennis N Horne on September 16, 2016 at 12:11 pm said:

    “What matters is the global political consensus ”

    Of course. First step towards man reducing his CO2 emissions as determined and required by the science.

    How else? Denying? Praying? Andy-pandering?

  16. Which came first, the political consensus or the science?

  17. Dennis N Horne on September 16, 2016 at 12:54 pm said:

    Science. Since Fourier in 1824.

    Why? Do you think it’s a great big hoax and conspiracy revealed to mankind by the virtuous fossil fuel industry, dominated by altruistic billionaires?

    Ah-hah. Of course you do.

    What am I thinking.

  18. No I don’t think it is a conspiracy. I think there are a lot of rent-seeking opportunist parasites (like for example, the Wind “Industry”) that have a lot of vested interest in milking the alarm.

    That’s it really. There is a very small percentage of humanity I have any respect for, particularly in the so-called elites or intelligentsia.

  19. Having been lectured to by sanctimonious half-wits for several years does have its drawbacks. These Boy Scouts of the IPCC seem to think they sound smart, where in fact they sound to me like indoctrinated cretins

    It is a shame because all science ends up getting tarred with the same brush

    I live in world of nostalgia, harking back to the “golden age” of Physics when Quantum mechanics, relativity and particle physics was an exciting time. Nowadays, science is infested with dim-witted but possible well-intentioned nihilists

  20. Dennis N Horne on September 16, 2016 at 1:10 pm said:

    Andy. Question. If there’s no conspiracy and the science is not correct how do tens of thousands of scientists come to the same conclusion?

    Would you like to phone a physicist? Statistician?

  21. Tens of thousands of scientists do not come to the same conclusion. There is your fallacy

    Even within so-called “mainstream” CO2 driven AGW science, there is much disagreement on the climate’s sensitivity to CO2.

    There are very few active scientists working in this field.

    In AR5, the IPCC gave the range of ECS of 1.5-4.5 degrees C for a doubling of CO2, which was previously 2-4.5C

    They didn’t give a central estimate of ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) in AR5, because of disagreement. (See Summary for Policymakers)

  22. Dennis N Horne on September 16, 2016 at 1:35 pm said:

    Andy. No, wrong. There is total agreement
    about the greenhouse effect,
    Earth is warming,
    due to man,
    with uncertainty in measurements,
    and projections depend on paths taken.

  23. “Andy. No, wrong. There is total agreement”

    No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

    Page 14 footnote
    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

  24. Mind you there is total agreement about our lack of agreement. At least we can agree on that

  25. Richard Treadgold on September 16, 2016 at 2:05 pm said:

    Andy,

    No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

    Nice job. Dennis assumes nothing wrong with the orthodox line on CAGW, therefore nothing to examine.

  26. Dennis N Horne on September 16, 2016 at 2:14 pm said:

    Andy. Do you understand what uncertainty means?

    Just because there was no agreement at the time on ONE particular value WITHIN THE RANGE doesn’t mean there was no agreement on the range or that there is no central value, or that informed people don’t have a good idea what it is.

    The fact is, due to our CO2, Earth is warmer and ice has melted, much gone for good. Much of the heat has gone in to the oceans and the mean global surface temperature has gone up ~1C, mostly in the last 50 years.

    You don’t want the truth, just deny it. Easy Peasy.

  27. Just because there was no agreement at the time on ONE particular value WITHIN THE RANGE….

    The range has actually increased. In AR4 the lower bound was 2 degrees, in AR5 1.5 degrees.

    Also the theoretical CO2 forcing is logarithmic with increasing CO2, so has progressively less effect.

    Therefore, even if the world has become a little warmer, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will continue or it will be a problem

  28. I should also add that more recent studies on climate sensitivity bring the number down to closer to 1.2 degrees, which is the theoretical no-feedback “black body” sensitivity

    These are all theoretical figures of course, but I am just trying to point out the issues in the orthodox worldview

  29. Richard C (NZ) on September 16, 2016 at 2:32 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”Since Fourier in 1824.”

    Huh? Fourier?

    Casey:

    Arrhenius’ first error was to assume that greenhouses and hotboxes work as a radiation trap. Fourier explained quite clearly that such structures simply prevent the replenishment of the air inside, allowing it to reach much higher temperatures than are possible in circulating air (Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12; Fourier, 1827, p. 586). Yet, as we have seen in the previous quotation of Arrhenius, this fundamental misunderstanding of greenhouses is attributed by Arrhenius to Fourier.

    Wasn’t Fourier Dennis. Wasn’t Arrhenius either. It was Pouillet. Arrhenius got it all wrong, that’s all.

    Casey:

    Arrhenius’ original proposition, which revolves around the backradiation notion first proposed by Pouillet […]. However, Pouillet used this idea to explain rather than add to the thermal gradient measured in transparent envelopes while, as we shall see, Arrhenius treated backradiation as an addition to the conductive (i.e. net) heat flow indicated by the thermal gradient.

    And so the fallacy was born.

    >”with uncertainty in measurements”

    Heh. When they use them. The IPCC had “highly precise” satellite measurements (as they describe them) at their disposal to determine OLR for TS TFE.4-1 (b) (see upthread) but did they use them?

    Nooooo……… of course not. They “infer” OLR from GMST.

    Consequently, they have humongous OLR uncertainty – about 540 ZetaJoules. That’s 45% of their theoretical GHG-forced 1200 ZetaJoule blowout just from 1970 to 2011.

    Their highly uncertain theoretical GHG-forced energy just dissipated to space apparently (Naish and Renwick disagree with this of course) i.e between 500 and 1040 ZetaJoules of their 1200 ZetaJoules of theoretical GHG forced energy was NOT retained in the climate system.

    Naish and Renwick disagree with the IPCC on this. They say 93% of the theoretical GHG-forced energy went into the ocean.

    Now THAT is uncertainty Dennis.

  30. Richard Treadgold on September 16, 2016 at 3:26 pm said:

    Dennis,

    Warming has caused ice on Antarctica to disintegrate and float away in the sea. Consequently Antarctica is losing ice.

    Sounds plausible, until you discover that before any solid H2O could melt on the Antarctic continent temperatures would have to rise anywhere between 18 °C and 56 °C just to reach zero. It doesn’t all melt as soon as the air temperature gets up to zero.

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/AntarcticTemperatures.gif

    Remember that there’s natural warming, too. According to the IPCC AR5, from 1950 to 2010, humankind MIGHT have been responsible for about 0.3 °C of the warming. Which doesn’t cut any ice with me.

    So a) warming has been quite inadequate and b) not enough ice has been “lost”, anyway. Every study I’ve seen of ice mass “loss” from Greenland and Antarctica has shown minuscule quantities of no concern.

    Not really close to calamity, are we? Of course, there’s always ablation (which is even smaller, and how could you blame yourself for that?).

  31. Some parts of Antarctica are accumulating mass, others are losing it. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet seems to be shedding most

  32. Richard Treadgold on September 16, 2016 at 4:27 pm said:

    “Some parts of Antarctica are accumulating mass, others are losing it.”

    Yes, and the quantities are trivial. Also (I should have mentioned this) there are several other causes of mass imbalance than temperature, such as topography, atmospheric water vapour, precipitation, insolation, aerosols, wind currents and ablation.

  33. Dennis N Horne on September 16, 2016 at 6:05 pm said:

    Warmer water from the north is undermining the ice shelves and chunks are breaking off and floating away.

    As I say, if you don’t like the truth just deny it. Easy peasy.

  34. Richard C (NZ) on September 16, 2016 at 6:24 pm said:

    >”Warmer water from the north”

    Solar forced in the tropics.

    There is no other physical possibility. The sun heats the ocean in the tropics – Period.

  35. Richard Treadgold on September 16, 2016 at 6:25 pm said:

    Oh, sorry Dennis, you’re right. I forgot to mention water currents. Which are not caused by global atmospheric warming. Though you might fill in the odd gap without prompting.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on September 16, 2016 at 6:40 pm said:

    Dennis, you could read this:

    2.1.5.2 Heat transport
    http://www.elic.ucl.ac.be/textbook/chapter2_node7_2.xml

    But as you say, if you don’t like the truth just deny it. Easy peasy

  37. Dennis N Horne on September 16, 2016 at 8:37 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ). Oh I like the truth all right…

    http://www.elic.ucl.ac.be/textbook/chapter2_node4.xml
    © The authors 2008 – Universite catholique de Louvain
    2.1.2 The greenhouse effect
    “The atmosphere is nearly transparent to visible light, absorbing about 20% of the incoming solar radiation. As a consequence, the majority of the absorption takes place at Earth’s surface (see section 2.1.6). On the other hand, the atmosphere is almost opaque across most of the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is related to the radiative properties of some minor constituents of the atmosphere, especially water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone. Those gases constitute only a small fraction of the atmospheric composition, while the two dominant components (molecular nitrogen and oxygen, see section 1.2.1) play nearly no part in this opacity. Nevertheless, a significant fraction of the energy emitted by the Earth’s surface is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-emitted, significantly increasing the temperature of the system.”

  38. Dennis N Horne on September 17, 2016 at 6:07 am said:

    Richard Treadgold: “I forgot to mention water currents. Which are not caused by global atmospheric warming”

    I put a nice piece of topside in the oven and turn the knob to 180C.

    Can I reasonably expect the meat to roast? I mean, it takes heat to cook meat and “180” is not heat, “180” is a number. If the timer pings after an hour and a half, does that mean it’s done? I mean, a ping is just a disturbance in the air.

    The surface and the seas are warming, ice melting ice lost. Predicted. Observed. Measured.

  39. If I shine a torch at a bathtub, does it heat the water?

  40. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 8:32 am said:

    Dennis

    “The truth” was in respect to “heat transport” i.e. equator to poles temperature gradient (EPTG) and warm water from the north reaching Antarctica – not “greenhouse effect”

    What you quote (UCL “greenhouse effect”)) is highly problematic because it attempts to explain in tiny part by “greenhouse effect” (surface temperature) what is already explained in entirety (atm temperature from below MSL to TOA including surface) by mass, gravity, pressure, solar input etc, but without recourse to any “greenhouse effect.

    Their “Heat balance of the Earth” budgets (Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5) are NOT heat budgets – where’s the heat?

    Here’s Figure 2.4:

    Figure 2.4: Heat balance of the Earth with an atmosphere represented by a single layer which is totally transparent to solar radiation and opaque to infrared radiations (modified from Marshall and Plumb, 2007).
    http://www.elic.ucl.ac.be/textbook/images/image(3).png

    The values for energy “Radiated up from ground” and “Radiated down from ground” are missing i.e. no power in Watts (Joules per second). SH and LH are missing too.

    The IPCC cite the earth’s energy budget at surface WITH power in Watts:

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    398.0 W.m-2 “Radiated up from ground”
    345.6 W.m-1 “Radiated down from ground”

    The heat flux is therefore 52.4 W.m-2 “Radiated up from ground” i.e. a COOLING flux of OLR.

    The LWdown can never heat surface materials because the required conditions of radiation-matter “tuning” are not met for say, water.

    Notice Dennis, that their (UCL) “greenhouse effect” calcs (simplified) ONLY provide temperature at ONE level – 303 K (30°C) at surface.

    Standard Atmospheres provide the temperature anywhere you want without recourse to any “greenhouse effect”:

    US Standard Atmosphere 1976
    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770009539.pdf

    Table 1 temperature begins page 65 pdf at 5000m below MSL.

    (-ve)5000m 47.500 C
    0m 15.000 C
    2300m 0.050 C
    1000000m 726.85 C

    Atmosphere temperature profile produced is this:

    Mean Atmospheric Temperature Profile
    http://www.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m465/m465f001.gif

    Can’t do that with “greenhouse effect” calcs Dennis.

  41. Richard Treadgold on September 17, 2016 at 8:33 am said:

    We just had weather systems in place for a few days drawing Antarctic air north over New Zealand, giving us a chill. Did we experience global cooling? A few weeks earlier, the systems were in slightly different places and drew tropical air south over New Zealand, giving us a few days of balmy temperatures. Did we experience global warming?

    I’m not sure your situation awareness is very good, Dennis.

  42. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 8:36 am said:

    Should of course be:

    “Radiated down [to] ground”

  43. Dennis N Horne on September 17, 2016 at 9:01 am said:

    Richard Treadgold: “We just had weather systems in place for a few days drawing Antarctic air north over New Zealand, giving us a chill. Did we experience global cooling? A few weeks earlier, the systems were in slightly different places and drew tropical air south over New Zealand, giving us a few days of balmy temperatures. Did we experience global warming?

    As you say, we experienced local weather. Not global warming/climate change although this has an effect on local weather.

    “I’m not sure your situation awareness is very good, Dennis.”

    I’m on planet Earth, Richard, looking and learning. Not sure where you are … but you’re not looking or learning!

  44. The indoctrination is pretty strong here,

  45. How long have we got Dennis? 10 years, 20?

    It’s worse than we thought.
    Do you have any plans for the End Days? Big euthanasia party ?

  46. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 9:05 am said:

    Dennis N Horne on September 17, 2016 at 6:07 am said:

    >”it takes heat to cook meat and “180” is not heat, “180” is a number”

    Immediately prior to that comment on September 16, 2016 at 8:37 pm you refer to non-heat LW budgets (no heat fluxes) that (supposedly) explain surface heating.

    Temperature only (red LW) – no heat as referred to by Dennis
    http://www.elic.ucl.ac.be/textbook/images/image(3).png

    So according to you Dennis, it takes “heat to cook meat” but it does not take heat to heat the earth’s surface, temperature does that in the LW, somehow.

    Your respective arguments are contradictory Dennis.

  47. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 9:17 am said:

    >”The surface and the seas are warming, ice melting ice lost. Predicted. Observed. Measured.”

    To be expected given…….

    Glacial Advance During The Little Ice Age
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/glacial-advance-during-the-little-ice-age/

    Unless the LIA was “normal” climate. I don’t think it was but I stand to be corrected.

  48. Dennis N Horne on September 17, 2016 at 9:48 am said:

    Richard C (NZ). “Unless the LIA was “normal” climate. I don’t think it was but I stand to be corrected.”

    Basic physics: No forcing no change.

    No you don’t stand to be corrected. You think the standard textbook you referred me to is wrong and you are right. You think the global community of scientists is wrong and you are right.

    You don’t stand. You lie down.

  49. “Basic physics: No forcing no change.”

    There was no change between the LIA and now?

  50. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 11:09 am said:

    Dennis

    >”Basic physics: No forcing no change.”

    So you are saying there was NO climate change from the regime prior to the LIA (MWP) – to the to LIA – and from the LIA.

    Odd, because the IPCC say the MWP was as warm in regions as the late 20th century

    IPCC WG1 SPM

    Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multi-decadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century. These regional warm periods did not occur as coherently across regions as the warming in the late 20th century (high confidence). {5.5}

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

    How did “regions as warm as in the late 20th century” occur 950 to 1250 AD without forcing?

    I would point out , pre-emptively, that current Southern Hemisphere warming does not correspond to Northern Hemispherre warming i.e. what you see in the SPM GMST plot (HadCRUT4) is basically just Northern Hemisphere skew. The Southern Hemisphere anomaly is very much less than Northern Hemisphere:

    HadCRUT4 NH vs SH 60 month smoothing
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/every:60/plot/hadcrut4sh/every:60

    1850 -0.845 NH
    1850 -0.556 SH

    2015 0.993 NH
    2015 0.38 SH

    1.838 diff NH
    0.936 diff SH

    Northern Hemisphere warming 2x Southern Hemisphere roughly.

    Seems to be a differential forcing in the NH twice what it is in SH. How is that Dennis?

  51. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 11:29 am said:

    Dennis

    >”You think the standard textbook you referred me to is wrong and you are right.”

    No Dennis. The Standard Atmosphere’s published by NASA, NOAA, US Air Force Labs, ISO etc, are right.

    The “standard textbook” (UCL only) is wholly inadequate.

    I would point out that thermodynamic calcs are in terms of “Standard” which has nothing whatsoever to do with “greenhouse effect”

    ***************************************************************************************
    ‘STP – Standard Temperature and Pressure & NTP – Normal Temperature and Pressure’

    The definition of STP – Standard Temperature and Pressure and NTP – Normal Temperature and Pressure

    Since temperature and air pressure vary from place to place it is necessary with a standard reference condition to compare testing and documentation of chemical and physical processes.

    Note! There is a variety of alternative definitions for the standard reference conditions of temperature and pressure. STP, NTP and other definitions should therefore be used with care. It is always important to know the reference temperature and reference pressure for the actual definition used.

    STP – Standard Temperature and Pressure

    STP is commonly used to define standard conditions for temperature and pressure which is important for the measurements and documentation of chemical and physical processes:

    STP – Standard Temperature and Pressure – is defined by IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) as air at 0oC (273.15 K, 32 oF) and 105 pascals
    STP – commonly used in the Imperial and USA system of units – as air at 60oF (520oR) and 14.696 psia (15.6oC, 1 atm)

    Note that the earlier IUAPC definition of STP to 273.15 K and 1 atm (1.01325 105 Pa) is discontinued.

    1 Pa = 10-6 N/mm2 = 10-5 bar = 0.1020 kp/m2 = 1.02×10-4 m H2O = 9.869×10-6 atm = 1.45×10-4 psi (lbf/in2)

    Standard volume of 1 mole of an ideal gas at STP is 22.4 liters.

    NTP – Normal Temperature and Pressure

    NTP is commonly used as a standard condition for testing and documentation of fan capacities:

    NTP – Normal Temperature and Pressure – is defined as air at 20oC (293.15 K, 68oF) and 1 atm (101.325 kN/m2, 101.325 kPa, 14.7 psia, 0 psig, 29.92 in Hg, 407 in H2O, 760 torr). Density 1.204 kg/m3 (0.075 pounds per cubic foot)

    Example – Fan Pressure Increase

    A fan producing a static pressure of 3 in H2O (a good average value) – will increase the absolute air pressure by

    100 (3 in H2O) / (407 in H2O) = 0.74 %

    Compressors, Blowers and Fans [hotlink]

    SATP – Standard Ambient Temperature and Pressure

    SATP – Standard Ambient Temperature and Pressure is also used in chemistry as a reference:

    SATP – Standard Ambient Temperature and Pressure is a reference with temperature of 25oC (298.15 K) and pressure of 101 kPa.

    ISA – International Standard Atmosphere

    ISA – International Standard Atmosphere is used as a reference to aircraft performance:

    ISA – International Standard Atmosphere is defined to 101.325 kPa, 15oC and 0% humidity.

    ICAO Standard Atmosphere

    Standard model of the atmosphere adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO):

    Atmospheric pressure: 760 mmHg = 14.7 lbs-force/sq inch
    Temperature: 15oC = 288.15 K = 59oF

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stp-standard-ntp-normal-air-d_772.html

  52. Dennis N Horne on September 17, 2016 at 1:06 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ) NASA, NOAA (and others) publish data showing global warming due to CO2.

    The scientific community accepts the greenhouse effect. Your rigmarole about the standard atmosphere is irrelevant.

  53. Dennis N Horne on September 17, 2016 at 1:10 pm said:

    Andy. There are proper explanations for the so-called MWP and LIA. I know you can’t believe that, but there you go. Not my problem.

    No force/forcing = No change.

  54. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 1:29 pm said:

    Dennis N Horne on September 14, 2016 at 9:33 pm said:

    >”I’m left wondering: ………….why Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry don’t endorse your explanation.”

    It’s in Georgia Tech’s course Dennis, Judith Curry may even teach the relevant module (maybe, maybe not).

    From Judith Curry’s server “Courses” “6140”:

    EAS 6140 Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and oceans – Reading

    Chapter 1 Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences

    Evolution of Atmospheric Oxygen
    Evolution of Earth’s Atmospheric
    Observation Platforms – Balloons
    Radiosondes
    Standard Atmosphere [hotlink – see below]

    More>>>>>
    http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/readings.html

    STANDARD ATMOSPHERE
    W W Vaughan, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, USA
    Copyright 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

    “The first ‘standard atmospheres’ established by international agreement were developed in the 1920s
    primarily for the purposes of pressure altimeter calibrations and aircraft performance calculations.”

    http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter1/Ency_Atmos/Standard_Atmos.pdf

    EAS 6140 Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and oceans

    Georgia Institute of Technology – Fall 2007

    Course Description: Syllabus [hotlink]

    Text:
    Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, by Curry and Webster [hotlink]
    Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, by Curry and Webster, Errata. Download as Word 98 file or as a PDF File. [hotlinks]

    http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/

    EAS 6140 Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and oceans – Syllabus

    Course Outline:
    Composition, Structure, and State
    1 Introduction: thermodynamic systems
    14.1 Planetary composition; atmospheric composition and mass
    1.1 Composition of the Ocean
    1.4 Pressure
    1.5 Density
    1.6 Temperature
    14.2 Planetary vertical temperature structure [<<<<<<<<< Standard Atmosphere]
    1.6 Kinetic-molecular model of the ideal gas
    1.7 Equation of State for Air
    1.8 Equation of State for Seawater
    1.9 Compressibility and Expansion Coefficients
    1.10a Hydrostatic equilibrium; ocean, constant density atmosphere
    1.10b Hypsometric equation

    First Law of Thermodynamics
    2 Basic concepts
    2.1 Work
    2.2 Heat
    2.9 Heat capacity
    3, 3.2, 3.3 Basics of heat transfer, radiant energy
    11.1 Radiative transfer in the ocean
    2.3 First Law
    2.4 Applications of the First Law to Ideal Gases
    2.10 Dry Adiabatic Processes in the Atmosphere
    2.11 Adiabatic Processes in the Ocean
    14.2b Adiabatic processes in the Venusian atmosphere
    3.1 Time dependent thermodynamics

    Second Law of Thermodynamics
    2.5 Entropy
    2.6 Second Law
    2.7 Equilibrium and the Combined First and Second Laws
    2.8 Calculation of Thermodynamic Relations
    3.4 Entropy and Diffusive Transfer Processes
    10.7.1 Heat conduction in sea ice
    3.5 Turbulent Transport
    3.6 Time-dependent Equations for the Ocean and Atmosphere

    Exam I
    Phase Equilibria and the Thermodynamics of Water
    4.1 Molecular Structure and Properties of Water
    4.2 Thermodynamic Degrees of Freedom
    4.3 Phase Equilibria
    14.4 Water on the terrestrial planets
    4.5 Colligative Properties of Water Solutions
    4.6 Simple Eutectics

    Nucleation and Diffusional Growth
    5.1 Surface Tension
    5.2 Nucleation of the Liquid Phase
    5.3 Nucleation of the Ice Phase
    5.4 Diffusional Growth of Cloud Drops
    5.5 Ice Crystal Morphology and Growth

    Moist Thermodynamic Processes in the Atmosphere
    4.4 Atmospheric Humidity Variables
    6.1 Applications of the Combined First and Second Laws
    6.2 Isobaric Cooling
    6.3 Cooling and Moistening by Evaporation of Water
    6.4 Saturation by Adiabatic, Isobaric Mixing
    6.5 Saturated Adiabatic Cooling
    6.6 The Ice Phase
    6.7 Conserved Moist Thermodynamic Variables
    6.8 Thermodynamic Diagrams
    7.1,7.2 Static stability

    Exam II
    Cloud Characteristics and Processes
    8.1 Cloud Classification and Characteristics
    8.2 Precipitation Processes
    8.3 Radiative Transfer in a Cloudy Atmosphere
    8.4 Fogs, Stratus, and Stratocumulus Clouds
    8.5 Cumuliform Clouds
    14.5 Clouds on the Terrestrial Planets
    14.6 Cloud Physics on Jupiter

    Surface Exchanges of Heat and Freshwater
    9.1 Surface Energy Budget
    10.6 Surface Energy Balance over Snow and Sea Ice
    9.2 Surface Salinity Budget
    9.3 Surface Buoyancy Flux
    9.4 Air Mass and Upper Water Mass Modification
    11.2 Ocean Surface Layer
    11.3 Surface Density Changes and the Ocean Mixed Layer

    Planetary Energy and Entropy Balances
    12.1 Planetary Radiation Balance
    14.3 Planetary Energy Balances
    12.2 Global Heat Engine
    12.3 Entropy and Climate
    12.4 Global Hydrologic Cycle

    Exam III

    http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/syl.html

    # # #

    I don't see "greenhouse effect" as a topic.

  55. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 1:35 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”Richard C (NZ) NASA, NOAA (and others) publish data showing global warming due to CO2.”

    No Dennis, they publish (adjusted) data showing differential warming in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere’s. Attribution by the IPCC only applies to a fraction of it when averaged.

    >”Your rigmarole about the standard atmosphere is irrelevant.”

    Heh. DENY DENY DENY Dennis Horne.

  56. Andy. There are proper explanations for the so-called MWP and LIA

    Solar forcing, I believe

    I know you can’t believe that,

    why not? I like to think I am a fairly rational person. I know you can’t believe that

  57. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 1:59 pm said:

    EAS 6140 Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and oceans – Course description

    Web Links: Ocean Surface Exchanges of Heat and Freshwater [hotlink – see below]

    http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/

    OCEAN SURFACE EXCHANGES OF HEAT AND FRESHWATER

    In Situ Flux Datasets: The SOC Global Air-Sea Heat, Momentum and Freshwater Flux Climatology [hotlink – see below (redirects]

    http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/exchanges.html

    NOC Surface Flux Dataset = Summary

    The NOC Surface Flux Dataset contains estimates of the following parameters (including uncertainty) on a 1° monthly mean grid for the global ice-free ocean:

    Air temperature (at 10 m)
    Specific Humidity (at 10 m)
    Wind Speed (at 10 m)
    Sea level pressure
    Sea surface temperature (bulk)
    Latent heat flux
    Sensible heat flux
    Net longwave radiation
    Net shortwave radiation

    The dataset covers the period 1973 – end of last full calendar year.

    This web page describes the need for these parameters, the way we have estimated, the observations used and how to access the data.

    Schematic showing the different components of the ocean heat fluxes.

    Net heat flux (W m-2) over the oceans during the northern winter (Dec – Feb)(top) and northern summer (Jun – Aug)(bottom) months. Negative values indicate a cooling of the ocean surface.
    http://noc.ac.uk/f/staff/dyb/net_flux_for_web.jpg

    Introduction

    The oceans and atmosphere are strongly linked by the transfer of energy (momentum and heat), water, and gases (e.g. carbon dioxide) between them. For example, the wind blows over the ocean transferring energy to the surface. This is turn slows down the wind and creates waves.

    Similarly, as the air blows over the oceans it is warmed or cooled by the underlying sea surface, with a transfer of energy between them. Similar processes drive the transfer of water and gases between the oceans and atmosphere.

    At the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) we try to understand and estimate these transfers (called fluxes) and the net energy budget on a global scale. This helps us to understand the link between the oceans, the Earth’s energy budget and the climate system. The net energy budget of the oceans surface includes contributions from:

    Solar (shortwave) heating of the sea surface.
    Thermal and evaporative cooling of the surface (sensible and latent heat fluxes).
    Radiative (longwave) cooling of the surface.

    Continues>>>>>>
    http://noc.ac.uk/f/staff/dyb/net_flux_for_web.jpg

    # # #

    >”Radiative (longwave) cooling of the surface.”

    Game over

  58. Dennis N Horne on September 17, 2016 at 2:44 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    http://noc.ac.uk/science-technology/earth-ocean-system/atmosphere-ocean/noc-surface-flux-dataset
    NOC Surface Flux Dataset
    Summary
    The NOC Surface Flux Dataset contains estimates of the following parameters (including uncertainty) on a 1° monthly mean grid for the global ice-free ocean:
    Air temperature (at 10 m)
    Specific Humidity (at 10 m)
    Wind Speed (at 10 m)
    Sea level pressure
    Sea surface temperature (bulk)
    Latent heat flux
    Sensible heat flux
    Net longwave radiation
    Net shortwave radiation

    Yes, Richard C (NZ), note the NET longwave radiation.

    Game over? Okay. You tripped jumping over the net…?

  59. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 2:55 pm said:

    >”Radiative (longwave) cooling of the surface.” Game over

    CHAPTER 7: Introduction to the Atmosphere [PhysicalGeography.net]

    (i). Net Radiation and the Planetary Energy

    […]

    NASA’s Surface Radiation Budget Project has used satellite data, computer models, and meteorological data to determine surface net shortwave radiation, net longwave radiation, and net radiation balances for the period July 1983 to June 1991. The following links display these balances for January and July globally:

    Average Net Shortwave Radiation at the Earth’s Surface: January 1984-1991 (K*)

    Average Net Shortwave Radiation at the Earth’s Surface: July 1983-1990 (K*)

    Average Net Longwave Radiation at the Earth’s Surface: January 1984-1991 (L*)

    Average Net Longwave Radiation at the Earth’s Surface: July 1983-1990 (L*)

    Average Net Radiation at the Earth’s Surface: January 1984-1991 (Q*)

    Average Net Radiation at the Earth’s Surface: July 1983-1990 (Q*)

    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7i.html

    Average Net Longwave Radiation at the Earth’s Surface

    Figure 7i-5: Average net longwave radiation at the Earth’s surface: January 1984-1991. Net longwave loss is a negative quantity. Highest values of longwave loss occurs where surface temperatures are high and cloud cover is minimal, such as the subtropical deserts of the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. Cold surfaces have low values of loss. Color range: white – red – blue, Values: -100 to 0 W/m2. Global mean = -48 W/m2, Minimum = -125 W/m2, Maximum = -11 W/m2. (Source: NASA Surface Radiation Budget Project).
    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7i_3.html

    Figure 7i-6: Average net longwave radiation at the Earth’s surface: July 1983-1990. Net longwave loss is a negative quantity. Highest values of longwave loss occurs where surface temperatures are high and cloud cover is minimal, such as the subtropical deserts of the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. Cold surfaces have low values of loss. Color range: white – red – blue, Values: -100 to 0 W/m2. Global mean = -47 W/m2, Minimum = -144 W/m2, Maximum = -4 W/m2. (Source: NASA Surface Radiation Budget Project).
    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7i_4.html

    # # #

    There are NO positive (+ve) values in either of these spacial plots.

    Maximums
    -11 W/m2 January
    -4 W/m2 July

    Minimums
    -125 W/m2 January
    -144 W/m2 Julay

    ”Radiative (longwave) cooling of the surface.”

    Game over

  60. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 3:05 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”Yes, Richard C (NZ), note the NET longwave radiation. Game over? Okay. You tripped jumping over the net…?”

    Yes Dennis. I was actually pointing it out that “NET longwave radiation” is the parameter of interest (not DLR and OLR). But good that you are paying attention Dennis.

    In terms of heat TRANSFER it is only “NET longwave radiation” that is of any relevance.

    And see my previous comment with NASA’s observations of “NET longwave radiation”.

    NO positive (+ve) values in either of those 2 spacial plots.

    Maximums
    -11 W/m2 January
    -4 W/m2 July

    Minimums
    -125 W/m2 January
    -144 W/m2 Julay

    ”Radiative (longwave) cooling of the surface.”

    Game over

  61. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 3:21 pm said:

    Wrong link. Should be:

    NOC Surface Flux Dataset

    The net energy budget of the oceans surface includes contributions from:

    Solar (shortwave) heating of the sea surface.
    Thermal and evaporative cooling of the surface (sensible and latent heat fluxes).
    Radiative (longwave) cooling of the surface.

    http://noc.ac.uk/science-technology/earth-ocean-system/atmosphere-ocean/noc-surface-flux-dataset

    Shortwave solar radiation heats the surface (sea predominantly).

    Sensible and latent heat fluxes cool the surface

    Longwave radiation cools the surface.

    Game over.

  62. Dennis N Horne on September 17, 2016 at 3:27 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ). Yeah yeah the game was up ages ago… (Never mind!)

    Ask yourself, what cools a surface quicker, blowing cool air over it or blowing warmer air over it?

  63. Dennis N Horne on September 17, 2016 at 3:41 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    “The net energy budget of the oceans surface includes contributions from”
    Note the word “includes” (not excludes).

    “Shortwave solar radiation heats the surface (sea predominantly).”
    So?

    “Longwave radiation cools the surface.”
    So? If the surface didn’t radiate LW it would heat up more than it does now, wouldn’t it.

    Really, can’t someone find you some play dough or something? Sit in the corner and play quietly…

  64. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 3:59 pm said:

    Dennis

    Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget (Earth Observatory – NASA]

    Bottom line:

    However, as long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, the amount of absorbed solar energy will continue to exceed the amount of thermal infrared energy that can escape to space. The energy imbalance will continue to grow, and surface temperatures will continue to rise.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page1.php

    Oops, BIG PROBLEM. The energy imbalance is NOT growing as cited by the IPCC in AR5 WG1 Chapter 2:

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg

    The IPCC admit there is NO trend, NO increase, 2000 – 2010. Imbalance is only 0.6 W.m-2 and static. Their theoretical GHG forcing and effective forcing (ERF) has blown out. Theoretical forcing exceeds actual imbalance by 4x.

    Values as percentages: (Earth Observatory – NASA]

    Confirms ”Radiative (longwave) cooling of the surface”

    5% convection cooling
    25% evaporative cooling
    17% longwave radiative cooling

    Values as measured: [Out of date NASA Earth’s Energy Budget not as cited by IPCC]

    Confirms ”Radiative (longwave) cooling of the surface”

    18.4 W.m-2 conduction and convection cooling
    86.4 W.m-2 evaporative latent heat cooling
    -57.9 W.m-2 longwave radiative cooling

    Up to date IPCC earth’s energy budget is here:

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    -52.4 W.m-2 longwave radiative cooling of surface

    # # #

    ”Radiative (longwave) cooling of the surface” confirmed by your references Thank you Dennis

    Game over.

  65. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 4:17 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”Ask yourself, what cools a surface quicker, blowing cool air over it or blowing warmer air over it?”

    Nonsensical but Ok, blowing cooler air obviously. Wind speed is the major factor though, read about that here:

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

    And here:

    Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature, Fairall, Bradley, Godfrey, Wick, Edson & Young, Journal of Geophysical Research (1996)
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JC03190/abstract

    See “Compensating depth”.

    >“The net energy budget of the oceans surface includes contributions from” Note the word “includes” (not excludes).

    And the inclusion is of……

    “Radiative (longwave) cooling of the surface”
    http://noc.ac.uk/science-technology/earth-ocean-system/atmosphere-ocean/noc-surface-flux-dataset

    “Shortwave solar radiation heats the surface (sea predominantly).” So?

    So Dennis, that is the only surface heating flux – Period.

    “Longwave radiation cools the surface.” So? If the surface didn’t radiate LW it would heat up more than it does now, wouldn’t it.

    Exactly. Longwave radiation is a surface COOLING agent Dennis – NOT a surface heating agent.

    Shortwave solar radiation heats the surface (sea predominantly).

    Sensible and latent heat fluxes cool the surface

    Longwave radiation cools the surface.

    Game over.

  66. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 4:41 pm said:

    >”Values as measured: [Out of date NASA Earth’s Energy Budget not as cited by IPCC]”

    Dated 2010 from 2009 papers by Loeb et al and Trenberth et al:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

    The update was 2012 by Stephens et al and Loeb et al:

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg

  67. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 4:53 pm said:

    Heh, Dennis’ out of date 2009 earth’s energy balance gives an imbalance of 0.6 W.m-2. Same as the 2012 update for 2000 – 2010.

    By IPCC definition – NO climate change this century. And a blowout of IPCC RF theory by 4x actual and getting worse by the year.

    The TOA imbalance is same as surface i.e. the 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance can only be solar-ocean forcing at the surface. There is no room for any other forcing (e.g. GhGs) between surface and TOA.

    Game over.

  68. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 4:55 pm said:

    Should be:

    “Dennis’ out of date 2009 earth’s energy balance gives an imbalance of 0.6 W.m-2 [at TOA]”

  69. Dennis N Horne on September 17, 2016 at 6:12 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ). Yes, I think the game is up for the man-made climate change deniers. Whoever they are.

    Because the surface and the seas are warming; ice is melting and missing.

    Predicted. Observed. Measured.

    Due to increased greenhouse effect caused by increased greenhouse gases in particular CO2.

    Write it out 100 times. Maybe that will help.

  70. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 6:51 pm said:

    >”the surface and the seas are warming; ice is melting and missing. Predicted. Observed. Measured. Due to increased greenhouse effect caused by increased greenhouse gases in particular CO2.”

    Ground Hog day again in Warmer World Dennis?

    Did Punxsutawney Phil Sowerby see his shadow today or was there too much “carbon pollution” in the air?

  71. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 7:11 pm said:

    The back of NASA’s earth’s energy budget poster says this in Section 1:

    Bottom Line:
    According to the best available data from the CERES satellite instrument, along with information from other data sources, the radiation budget at the top-of-atmosphere was not balanced during the five years from 2000-2005. Approximately 0.85 Watts of energy were added to the Earth system, on average, for each square meter of the Earth’s surface. A continued imbalance of the radiation budget would mean a change in Earth’s climate.

    Grey Scale Version Section 1 (copyable)
    http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/prss.html

    A continued imbalance at 0.85 W.m-2 doesn’t mean climate change according to the IPCC. On the contrary, means no climate change whatsoever. Climate forcing is increasing according to them. Just from the AR5 report in 2013 theoretical CO2 forcing increased from 1.83 W.m-2 to 1.9 W.m-2 in 2015. Total ERF in AR5 was 2.33 W.m-2, 3.88 times actual. RF theory produces a blowout in the TOA imbalance.

    Latest update is a REDUCTION in the imbalance to 0.6 W.m-2 i.e change in the OPPOSITE direction to that required for increased warming according to IPCC rationale.

    Game over.

  72. Dennis N Horne on September 17, 2016 at 7:44 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    The IPCC reports are not infallible, but reviews of the literature in a vast and complex science by experts giving their opinions based on available evidence.

    The diagrams are just diagrams with best measurements at some point in time.

    What is agreed is the fundamental physics and chemistry. This is not disputed by anyone who matters. So whatever you think you’ve proved or demonstrated, you haven’t. Because it doesn’t explain or match the real world data.

    Of course you can express an opinion on this site, and try to have a dig at me. I don’t mind at all. It reminds me of doctor fish in a foot bath nibbling away at your feet to remove dead skin.

    So, keep nibbling, Richard C. (By the way, I just got a “handle” on what “C” stands for.)

  73. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 7:49 pm said:

    The NASA Earth’s Energy Budget Poster – Poster Reverse Side Sections.

    Energy Budget Changes Since 1950
    Grey Scale Version Section 3
    http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/pdf/page3_BW_508.pdf

    Figure (a)

    Figure (a) depicts items that have caused changes in the energy budget since 1950. Called forcing agents, these absorb additional energy in the atmosphere (enhanced greenhouse effect). The greenhouse gasses shown in the figure: carbon dioxide – CO2 methane – CH4 halocarbons, nitrous oxide – N2O stratospheric + tropospheric ozone – O3have increased in the atmosphere mostly due to human activities. A natural change from variations in the Sun’s output is also shown along the bottom of the graph. This figure shows the cumulative effect of small changes. The additional heat trapped each year continues to add up to a warmer Earth.

    Figure (b)

    Knowing how much additional heat was absorbed (because we know how much of these gasses were emitted) the question becomes: where did the energy go? Figure (b) partitions the added energy shown above based on observed changes in the Earth system. So far, a small amount of the energy has gone into warming the ocean – the part of the Earth that stores the most energy. Some has escaped Earth in the form of increased IR emission because of warmer temperatures. Some was reflected to space by aerosols (mostly volcanic in origin) in the stratosphere. The remainder (white band) is inferred to have been reflected due to aerosols (mostly pollution) in the troposphere, and other effects such as a changing reflection of the land surface due to deforestation, for example.

    This is similar, but contradictory, to IPCC TS TFE.4-1 (a) (b):

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b)
    TS TFE.4-1 (a) (b)
    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg

    The anthro ocean heating attribution is assumed in both cases but physically impossible according to the earth’s energy budgets of both NASA and IPCC.

    NASA says 20.6% of GHG-forced energy went to OLR 1950 – 2004

    IPCC says between 16.7% and 75% of GHG-forced energy went to OlR 1970 – 2011.

    NASA says – “So far, a small amount [11.8%] of the energy has gone into warming the ocean” 1950 – 2004.

    Naish and Renwick say 93% warmed the ocean since 1750 (implied)

    IPCC says 25% warmed the ocean 1970 – 2011.

    This has developed into an absurd situation. They have no idea where their theoretical energy has gone. They are scrabbling to sink it SOMEWHERE because it doesn’t actually exist.

    The actual imbalance is just “energy storage” “ocean heating”. Obvious given the earth’s energy budgets, and it is solar-forced at the surface (SSR).

  74. Dennis N Horne on September 17, 2016 at 8:24 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ): “The actual imbalance is just “energy storage” “ocean heating”. Obvious given the earth’s energy budgets, and it is solar-forced at the surface (SSR).”

    Indeed. Same energy in. Less energy radiated to space. More energy stored. Temperatures up: ice melting ice lost.

    I’m proud of you, Richard C. You’ve been working hard and you got there in the end. Congratulations. Well done!

  75. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 8:49 pm said:

    For reference

    NASA Figures as per The NASA Earth’s Energy Budget Poster Reverse Side Section 3 from Murphy et al., 2009 in Geophysical Research Letters.

    NASA Energy Budget Changes 1950 – 2004 Figure (a) (Theoretical forcing)
    http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/cumulative_forcing.gif

    NASA Energy Budget Changes 1950 – 2004 Figure (b) (Budget closure of Figure a)
    http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/cumulative_neg_forcing.gif

    NASA Cumulative energy storage of the ocean compared to land + atmosphere 1950 – 2004
    http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/land_vs_ocean.gif

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b)
    Energy Budget Changes 1970 – 2011
    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg

    Earth’s Energy Balance 1950 – 2001 derived from OHC
    http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Energy-Flow.gif

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
    Earth;s Energy Balance 2000 – 2010
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    # # #

    >”Cumulative energy storage of the ocean compared to land + atmosphere.
    http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/land_vs_ocean.gif

    Energy into Land+Atmosphere is negligible. Something like 0.6% (10/1700) of total theoretical forcing.

  76. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 8:52 pm said:

    Corrections

    NASA says [21.9%] of GHG-forced energy went to OLR 1950 – 2004

    NASA says – “So far, a small amount [11.9%] of the energy has gone into warming the ocean” 1950 – 2004.

    Minimal changes.

  77. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2016 at 9:13 pm said:

    Dennis

    >” Same energy in”

    Yes. Solar forcing at surface (SSR). The only NET heat flux into the surface (0.6 W.m-2 solar forcing SSR)

    >”Less energy radiated to space.”

    Not just radiation at surface Dennis. Solar forcing at surface (0.6 W.m-2 solar forcing SSR) overwhelms SH and LH too. Solar forcing at the surface is also (obviously) the TOA energy imbalance (0.6 W.m-2 solar forcing).

    >”More energy stored”

    Yes, in the ocean (land+atmosphere negligible). Solar forced at surface (SSR). The only NET heat flux into the surface (0.6 W.m-2 solar forcing SSR)

    >”Temperatures up: ice melting ice lost”

    Yes, Solar forced at surface (SSR). The only NET heat flux into the surface (0.6 W.m-2 solar forcing SSR) ,and also (obviously) the TOA imbalance (0.6 W.m-2 solar forcing).

    Game over.

  78. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 7:40 am said:

    Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’

    By Kenneth Richard on 13. September 2016

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.lyKFogWB.Ck8PwqCL.dpbs

    Massive Cover-Up Exposed: Lying Alarmists Rebranded 70s Global Cooling Scare as a Myth

    by James Delingpole 14 Sep 2016

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/14/massive-cover-exposed-lying-alarmists-rebranded-70s-global-cooling-scare-myth/

  79. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 8:13 am said:

    Arctic Sea Ice Rebounds

    Currently the ice area is well over 4 Wadhams (1 million sq kilometers) thick. (One reader suggested using “Wadhams” as a unit for sea ice area in order to honor Peter Wadhams’s spectacularly failed prediction of an ice free Arctic by now.)

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/17/arctic-ice-stabilized-over-past-10-years-sea-surface-temps-plummet-3c-with-approaching-la-nina/

    # # #

    A while back in Australia after the drought broke in buckets, rainfall was measured in “Flannerys” in honour of Tim Flannery’s spectacularly failed predictions of a permanent drought and such like.

    OZ spent billlions on desal plants on the strength of those predictions. Good thing they did, hard to get clean water with all that flooding…….

  80. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 8:29 am said:

    Snowfall in units of “Viners” obviously, in honour of Dr Robert Viner.

    NZ cold temperature in “Renwicks”, in honour of Dr James Renwick.

    New Zealand drops to 20C below freezing – June 23 2015
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/69617329/new-zealand-drops-to-22c-below-freezing

    That’s 20 Renwicks.

  81. Dennis N Horne on September 18, 2016 at 8:49 am said:

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/14/massive-cover-exposed-lying-alarmists-rebranded-70s-global-cooling-scare-myth/
    ” … shows that during the 1960s and 1970s, there was an 86 percent scientific consensus that the planet was on a cooling path.”

    Do you believe that?

    Scientific consensus? Agreement by, statements and warnings from the Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Physical Society, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society … and every scientific institution and society on the planet?

    “Scientization is, of course, what climate alarmists do all the time in order to support their bankrupt (but highly lucrative) thesis. Such is their brazen shamelessness, indeed, that you can’t help wondering whether – along with a worthless degree in something like environmental sciences from somewhere like the University of East Anglia – the main requirement for thriving in the world of climate science is the personality of a psychopath.”

    Do you believe that?

    Is James Upthepole?

  82. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 9:10 am said:

    Arctic SIE turnaround is spectacular in this plot from XMETMAN via WUWT:

    http://xmetman.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Capture5.jpg

    From,

    ‘Second lowest Arctic sea ice minimum on the 10th or was that the 7th? (updated)’
    By xmetman | September 16, 2016
    http://xmetman.com/wp/2016/09/16/10th-or-7th/

    Two Arctic storms produced the lessor area (similar to 2012) but the Arctic has gone a lot colder than what it has been, hence the quick turnaround.

  83. There was a “global cooling” conjecture during the 1970s, promoted amongst others by Steven Schneider was later promoted the more popular global warming conjecture

    According to the highly reliable respectable and impartial source Wikipedia, the Global Cooling conjecture had little support in the scientific community

  84. Dennis N Horne on September 18, 2016 at 10:06 am said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    National Snow and Ice Data Center
    Conditions in context

    “Weather in early September was warm along the Siberian coast (up to 9 degrees Celsius or 16 degrees Fahrenheit above average), with high pressure over the same region and strong winds across the central Arctic. However, as discussed in previous posts, weather over the Arctic Ocean this past summer has been generally stormy, cool, and cloudy—conditions that previous studies have shown to generally limit the rate of summer ice loss. That September ice extent nevertheless fell to second lowest in the satellite record is hence surprising. Averaged for July through August, air temperatures at the 925 hPa level (about 2,500 feet above sea level) were 0.5 to 2 degrees Celsius (1 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average over much of the central Arctic Ocean, and near average to slightly higher than average near the North American and easternmost Siberian coasts. Reflecting the stormy conditions, sea level pressures were much lower than average in the central Arctic during these months.

    “Why did extent fall to a tie for second lowest with 2007? The 2016 Arctic melt season started with a record low maximum extent in March, and sea ice was measured at record low monthly extents well into June. Computer models of ice thickness, and maps of sea ice age both indicated a much thinner ice pack at the end of winter. Statistically, there is little relationship between May and September sea ice extents after removing the long-term trend, indicating the strong role of summer weather patterns in controlling sea ice loss. However, the initial ice thickness may play a significant role. As noted in our mid-August post, the upper ocean was quite warm this summer and ocean-driven melting is important during late summer. The science community will be examining these issues in more detail in coming months.”

    NOTE: [This year] “warm … up to 9 degrees Celsius above average…”

    NOTE: [This year] “conditions that previous studies have shown to generally limit the rate of summer ice loss”

    NOTE: Richard C prefers Crank sites.

    NOTE: NET LOSS OF ICE. ICE GONE FOREVER.

  85. “Ice gone forever”

    Except in Antarctica where sea ice is at a 30 year high

  86. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 11:03 am said:

    NSIDC: ‘two very strong storms’ failed to make a repeat of 2012 record low Arctic sea ice extent

    National Snow and Ice Data Center

    Past studies have shown that stormy summers tend to end up with more sea ice at the end of the melt season than summers with high pressure over the central Arctic Ocean, primarily because stormy summers are both fairly cool and the wind pattern tends to spread the ice out. However, the impact of strong individual storms may be different—the 2012 event appears to have temporarily boosted ice loss by breaking up the ice cover, with the wave action tending to mix warmer waters from below to hasten melt. It may also be that, as the ice cover thins, its response to storms is changing.

    It indeed appears that the August 2016 storms helped to break up the ice and spread it out, contributing to the development of several large embayments and polynyas. Some of this ice divergence likely led to fragmented ice being transported into warmer ocean waters, hastening melt. Whether warmer waters from below were mixed upwards to hasten melt remains to be determined, but as discussed below, these storms were associated with very high wave heights.

    Link to NSIDC “Crank site” report:
    https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/09/arctic-sea-ice-nears-its-minimum-extent-for-the-year/

  87. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 11:15 am said:

    “ICE GONE FOREVER”

    Except for well over 4 “Wadhams” and growing fast.

  88. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 11:22 am said:

    What Dennis failed to mention

    National Snow and Ice Data Center – Conditions in context

    The late season ice loss appears to have been greatest in an extended area of patchy ice reaching from the eastern Beaufort Sea to the northern Chukchi Sea. This is in the area influenced by the two strong cyclones discussed in our August posts—the strong winds appear to have compacted the ice cover and may have led to an upward mixing of warm ocean water.

    “Crank site” link:
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  89. Richard Treadgold on September 18, 2016 at 11:26 am said:

    Dennis,
    NOTE: NET LOSS OF ICE. GONE FOREVER.
    Do you believe that? Did you know that water might melt but it can refreeze? Yes, it’s amazing. We might get our ice back. By the way, we argue like four-year-olds about warming this much, but no there’s been cooling of this many smidgeons but my scientist says you lot never check your rear-view mirror, hah! None of this is relevant without showing a human or natural cause of the temperature changes. Please stop going on about this unless you make a sober attempt to elucidate the cause. Thanks.

    And SHOUTING DOESN’T HELP YOUR ARGUMENT (such as it is).

  90. Dennis N Horne on September 18, 2016 at 11:35 am said:

    Richard Treadgold.

    Ice. Yes, net loss means gone. Forever in human terms. (Millions of years.)

    Due to a warming Earth. That’s the science.

    So that’s the reality.

    SHOUTING BECAUSE YOU LOT ARE DEAF…

  91. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 11:48 am said:

    “NET LOSS OF ICE. ICE GONE FOREVER”

    Global SIE over 18 “Wadhams” with 2 peaks to come before the end of the year.

    “Crank site” link:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    “Forever” being approximately 1 year since mid 2015.

  92. Dennis N Horne on September 18, 2016 at 12:02 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ).

    Do you understand what NET loss means?

    It means less over time.

    How can there be a (net) gain over time in a warming Earth?

    Oh, I know. Deny global warming.

  93. At this stage there is conjecture that the Arctic will be sea ice free for some months of the summer.

    I think the claim “all the ice gone forever” is a bit of a stretch

  94. Richard Treadgold on September 18, 2016 at 12:12 pm said:

    Dennis,

    Forever in human terms. (Millions of years.)
    Due to a warming Earth. That’s the science.

    You’re looking at a seasonal cycle, during which the sea ice waxes and wanes every year. What is the evidence the latest minimum extent will never be exceeded? Is that what you mean? The convention in establishing a warming or cooling climate regime is to gather observations over 30 years or so, and for the last 20 years or so there’s been precious little trend. So I need to ask what evidence you have of a warming trend, and of course to quantify it. In any case, it’s nonsense to predict events millions of years in the future. Sea ice will return at the first cold winter.

  95. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 12:27 pm said:

    >”Do you understand what NET loss means? It means less over time”

    The global SIE anomaly is fluctuating around 0

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

  96. Dennis N Horne on September 18, 2016 at 12:34 pm said:

    Millions of years is based on a business-as-usual increase of CO2 with the concomitant warming; staying warmer as it has in the past with high levels of CO2.

    Study the science.

    Or deny it.

    Your choice.

  97. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 12:38 pm said:

    >”increase of CO2 with the concomitant warming”

    Not this century on this planet Dennis:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation.png

    Or were you referring to Warmer World ?

  98. Dennis N Horne on September 18, 2016 at 12:46 pm said:

    Clever Kiwi’s homepage:
    http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/

    http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/more-on-carbon-dioxide.html
    “So what does all this mean for us humans? Fossil-fuel burning turns passive into active carbon. Unless we remove it the extra active carbon will stay forever in the atmosphere, plants, soil, and oceans, all of them critical parts of our life support system. Ways to slow the buildup of active carbon are set out in two more outstanding books. One is from an eminent scientist: Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air by David J. C. MacKay FRS, free online at http://withouthotair.com) …”

    Link for free download of the late David MacKay’s book.

  99. Dennis N Horne on September 18, 2016 at 12:50 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ). Roy Spencer!

    Loony Christians think praying to one of many imaginary gods will save us.

    If you can believe that you can believe anything.

    Even global warming and climate change is a conspiracy …

  100. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 12:56 pm said:

    WARMER WORLD.COM
    http://ru.warmer-world.com/#

  101. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 1:28 pm said:

    Warmer World weather report

    Sobering 2050 weather reports are dispatches from a warmer world
    http://www.iatp.org/blog/201409/sobering-2050-weather-reports-are-dispatches-from-a-warmer-world

    “Imagined” and “Frightening”

  102. Dennis N Horne on September 18, 2016 at 2:05 pm said:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Australia
    “The water supply and sanitation in Australia is universal and of good quality. As the country’s supply of freshwater is increasingly vulnerable to droughts, possibly as a result of climate change, there is an emphasis on water conservation and various regions have imposed restrictions on the use of water.
    In 2006, Perth became the first Australian city to operate a seawater desalination plant, the Kwinana Desalination Plant, to reduce the city’s vulnerability to droughts. More plants are planned or are under construction in Sydney, the Gold Coast, Melbourne, and Adelaide. The use of reclaimed water is also increasingly common. However, some desalination plants were put in stand-by modes in 2010 following above average rainfall levels and floods in 2010.”

    NOTE: … supply of fresh water is increasingly vulnerable to droughts, possibly as a result of climate change … and floods …

    Real and happening.

    But can’t be due to burning fossil fuel … that’s a scientific conspiracy!

    Thank goodness for those oil billionaires … who uncovered it!

  103. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 2:39 pm said:

    Droughtfloods in Australia

    Emergency: Queensland flood crisis
    http://www.abc.net.au/emergency/flood/queensland2010/

    South Australia weather: More rain expected as flood clean-up continues
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-15/more-rain-expected-across-south-australia-after-floods/7849298

    3 Dead as Heavy Rains, Flooding Inundate Parts of Australia .
    https://weather.com/photos/news/australia-sydney-flooding-queensland-june-2016

    Farms devastated by flooding in Western Australia’s Great Southern
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/great-southern-devastated-by-flooding/7102734

    Build more desal plants and put them on standby – ASAP

  104. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 2:48 pm said:

    My Country – by Dorothea Mackeller 1908

    The love of field and coppice
    Of green and shaded lanes,
    Of ordered woods and gardens
    Is running in your veins.
    Strong love of grey-blue distance,
    Brown streams and soft, dim skies
    I know, but cannot share it,
    My love is otherwise.

    I love a sunburnt country,
    A land of sweeping plains,
    Of ragged mountain ranges,
    Of droughts and flooding rains.
    I love her far horizons,
    I love her jewel-sea,
    Her beauty and her terror
    The wide brown land for me!

    The stark white ring-barked forests,
    All tragic to the moon,
    The sapphire-misted mountains,
    The hot gold hush of noon,
    Green tangle of the brushes
    Where lithe lianas coil,
    And orchids deck the tree-tops,
    And ferns the warm dark soil.

    Core of my heart, my country!
    Her pitiless blue sky,
    When, sick at heart, around us
    We see the cattle die
    But then the grey clouds gather,
    And we can bless again
    The drumming of an army,
    The steady soaking rain.

    Core of my heart, my country!
    Land of the rainbow gold,
    For flood and fire and famine
    She pays us back threefold.
    Over the thirsty paddocks,
    Watch, after many days,
    The filmy veil of greenness
    That thickens as we gaze …

    An opal-hearted country,
    A wilful, lavish land
    All you who have not loved her,
    You will not understand
    though Earth holds many splendours,
    Wherever I may die,
    I know to what brown country
    My homing thoughts will fly.

    **

  105. Dennis N Horne on September 18, 2016 at 3:57 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    Global Warming and Climate Change.

    Meaning: Climate change

    YES! Climate change means climate change!

    You know. Worse floods more often than usual. As you kindly pointed out.

    Thank you.

  106. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 6:36 pm said:

    Tim Flannery flannelisms

    “Furthermore, the computer models predict that as the Pacific Ocean warms, rainfall across eastern Australia will reduce until a semi-permanent el-Nino-like state is induced.” – Article 2nd January 2007

    “the ongoing drought could leave Sydney’s dams dry in just two years.” – Quoted on ABC News Online June 11, 2005

    “We can only project that if this summer’s melt trajectory follows recent decades, by September this year the Arctic ice cap will have lost around half of its remaining ice, and be just 2.2m square kilometres…” – Article for the Guardian August 2008

    http://www.users.on.net/~rjfenwickelliott/Flannely.html

  107. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 6:46 pm said:

    [Flannery] >“the ongoing drought could leave Sydney’s dams dry in just two years.” – Quoted on ABC News Online June 11, 2005

    ‘The hairiest question’: Sydney’s dams may spill if rains lift water levels – June 16 2016
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/the-hairiest-question-sydneys-dams-may-spill-if-rains-lift-water-levels-20160616-gpkazp.html

    Dam and Rainfall Levels: Latest Total Storage and Supply Info – All Dams 96.0 %
    Sunday 18 September
    http://www.waternsw.com.au/supply/dam-levels/greater-sydneys-dam-levels

  108. Dennis N Horne on September 18, 2016 at 7:19 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    Climate change is not caused by predictions, it’s caused by global warming — more CO2.

    More energy Cranks up the climate system.

    I thought you would know that.

  109. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 7:21 pm said:

    Flannery

    “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems” – Landline 2007

    Flannery again in 2007,

    “But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain …”

    Flannery “clarifying” his comments in 2007 – by confirming them:

    “As the soil warms up more of the rain that falls evaporates and less goes into the dams and the point that I was trying to make was that even the rain that was falling then previously that was able to fill the dams in future wouldn’t do that.”

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/flannery-denies-what-he-actually-said/news-story/8f9ac2ed71c5b01470299510ce0de7f2

  110. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 7:40 pm said:

    >”Climate change is not caused by predictions, it’s caused by global warming”

    According to the IPCC it’s caused by a forcing changing the energy balance at the top of atmosphere:

    IPCC’s primary climate change criteria (abbreviated):

    FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?

    What is radiative forcing? The influence of a factor that can cause climate change, such as a greenhouse gas, is often evaluated in terms of its radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that affect climate are altered. The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature. The term forcing is used to indicate that Earth’s radiative balance is being pushed away from its normal state.

    Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’, and is expressed in units of ‘Watts per square metre’ (see Figure 2). When radiative forcing from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system. Important challenges for climate scientists are to identify all the factors that affect climate and the mechanisms by which they exert a forcing, to quantify the radiative forcing of each factor and to evaluate the total radiative forcing from the group of factors. ”

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html

    # # #

    Anthro forcing is increasing rapidly but the TOA energy balance has not changed this century. Therefore, by definition, no climate “change” this century.

    Earth’s Energy Balance 1950 – 2001 derived from OHC
    http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Energy-Flow.gif

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
    Earth;s Energy Balance 2000 – 2010
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg

    Imbalance 0.6 W.m-2 and trendless. CO2 “forcing” 1.9 W.m-2 @ 400ppm and increasing. Theory is 3x actual just by CO2 alone. The difference between theory and actual when multiplied by the area of the TOA is a massive blowout (a couple of thousand ZetaJoules since 1750).

    Theory’s busted.

    Game over.

  111. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 7:50 pm said:

    At the surface the only net heat flux into the surface is solar power (SSR) regulated by cloudiness changes (“dimming and brightening”).

    But the IPCC dismiss ‘surface forcing” because it doesn’t fit their TOA forcing paradigm.

    So then they just assume, in the case of ocean warming, that GHGs dunnit. Then the IPCC, NASA, and likes of Naish and Renwick disagree on how much the GHGs dunnit.

    Numpties.

  112. Dennis N Horne on September 18, 2016 at 8:56 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    Greenhouses gases around Earth warm up with longwave radiation just as surely as a sphere of copper. (Or a sheet of copper in front of a radiant heater.)

    And just as surely as they absorb radiation, GHGs re-radiate it, up into space and down and around back to Earth’s surface. Warming it.

    Totally vacuous to claim otherwise.


  113. Loony Christians think praying to one of many imaginary gods will save us.

    If you can believe that you can believe anything.”

    I’m enjoying the open display of bigotry from Dennis, although nothing surprises me anymore

    Presumably if I were to make an off colour comments about Islam then I would be shot down in flames as an Islamophobe
    Christians and Jews are all fair game for the warmist creed though

    Funny how they get all excited about old Popey and his climate prouncements though

    The key difference between the Judeo Christian religions and the death cult of neo pagan environmentalism is that the former works on a basis of hope, empathy and compassion towards fellow humans (at least in the modern interpretation) whilst the environmentalists preach a message of doom, hopelessness and hatred

    I can see why leftists and Islamists are bedfellows in this respect

  114. Dennis N Horne on September 19, 2016 at 8:05 am said:

    Andy. Christy and Spencer are loony Muslims?

    Get a new stick, Andy. You need another wrong end to grasp.

  115. Katharine Hayhoe is a practicing Christian and a director of climate change centre at Texas Tech
    http://katharinehayhoe.com/wp2016/biography/

    Is she a “looney”?

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation