Leave a Reply

4 Comment threads
12 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)

Showdown at the Hot Topic Corral

Natural ocean heating vs anthropogenic ocean heating (vs Rob Painting, Skeptical Science officionado aka “Dappledwater”) e.g. here:-


Solar vs geothermal vs anthropogenic ocean heating (vs Mike Palin) e.g. here:-


Brings many issues to a head all over the (broken and disjointed) thread.

Among other things.

BTW, I’m saving the page to disk after each comment in case it gets the SkS treatment. Happy to report that has been unnecessary so far.

Richard C (NZ)

From: Richard Cumming To: info@slayingtheskydragon.com Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2012, 10:28 Subject: John O’Sullivan: 24 hour globally averaged solar power – 84,000 TW (84 PW)? This is an enquiry e-mail via http://slayingtheskydragon.com/ from: Richard Cumming Hello John. I am currently embroiled in a dispute over the 24 hour globally averaged solar power value. I am familiar with Joseph Postma’s ‘The Model Atmosphere’ and have previously corresponded with Nasif Nahle on a similar topic. Could you forward this inquiry to Joseph please? I am asking Joseph what his value would be in the following terms?:- 82,000 TW / 510 Tm2 = 161 W.m2 (solar) ‘Absorbed at surface’ TF&K09 Fig 1. 44 TW / 510 Tm2 = 0.086 W.m2 (geo) There is no dispute over geo power that I know of and TF&K09 is Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl 2009, ‘Earth’s Global Energy Budget’. My maths is no where near Joseph’s but I do understand the “P/4” (p-over-four) issue to a degree. Quoting from ‘The Model Atmosphere’ Joseph Postma 2011 (page 10):- ——————————————————————————————————————————————- Dividing the solar flux by a factor of four and thus spreading it instantaneously over the entire surface of the Earth as an… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Rrof G. Bothun, Professor of Physics University of Oregon, responding to request for confirmation of 24 hr globally averaged solar power ——————————————————————————————————————————————— ah yes sorry for propogating bad information and I thought that particular page had been corrected. Indeed its 84,000 TW (84 PW) The way to look at the heat balance is as follows: The earth is in mostly thermal equilibrium with incoming solar radiation. The amount of stored heat coupled with the specific heat of water vs rock necessarily means that the great majority of the heat must be stored in the oceans (which is why OTEC works, conceptually) and not in the crust of the earth. A more proper unit is the average solar incident radiation on the earth’s surface which is 164 watts per square meter. multiply that by 4piR^2 (where R is the radius of the earth in meters) and you get 84,000 TW of incident power. Professor of Physics, University of Oregon —————————————————————————————————————————————– Further response in respect to ‘The Model Atmosphere’ Postma 2010 —————————————————————————————————————————————– I believe this is a very minor detail (in fact I know it is) if you like you can use the 4piR^2 calculation… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

if you after the technical precise planetary energy budget
that is extremely difficult to figure out because you have
to estimate the effects of the ocean as a buffer, changes
in the atmospheric scattering properites, deep ocean
transport, and about 100 other things.

Greg Bothun
I was referring to the technical precise planetary energy budget and I
see the complexity.

Thanks, I will leave it at that.


Richard Cumming

Richard C (NZ)

there are at least 100 different precise planetary
energy budgets and all are approximations.

for example,

how much solar energy is converted into mechanical
energy (i.e. winds)


is a rigorous treatment that gives an upper limit of 1.17%

other studies, with different assumptions, are as high
as 2%

Greg Bothun

Richard C (NZ)

Prof Greg did make the additional comment that I did not reply to because there’s obviously a great divide:-

“……its really the atmospheric balance that probably is important and that can be calculated fairly precisely”

In the global warming debate, anyone with a handle on the heat knows that it is in the oceans. Rob Painting at Skeptical Science knows this (and is adamant about it), so does Roger Pielke Snr (and he’s adamant about too).

What matters I think is the top-down ocean heating by solar and bottom-up by geothermal.

But to Rob Painting, Mike Palin et al, what matters is top-down solar heating AND top-down anthropogenic GHG heating of the ocean.

I dispute that on 2 counts of course.

Richard C (NZ)

Extending Roger’s point about different crust thicknesses (oceanic/continental).

If we think of the mantle as a hot stove element and the crust as an insulator placed on top of it, there will be heat passing though it analogous to the 44 TW geo flux.

But if we slide the insulator off a bit (crustal stretching) exposing the element (mantle), there is considerably MORE heat available.

Therefore I’m wondering if hydrothermal heat from vents, megaplumes, exposed mantle etc shouls be IN ADDITION TO the background flux because there is obviously significant ocean heating in the vicinity of this activity.

Richard C (NZ)

Summarizing the argument (as per request from Roger Dewhurst). It centres around this graph (Figure 4, provenance unknown) that can be accessed via “The Big Picture’ button on the home page of Skeptical Science:- http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg It’s not up-to-date (global warming has taken a break), obviously the heat is in the ocean. What matters to the respective sides – anthro global warmers (AGW) vs natural harmonic cycles (NHC):- NHC: Variations of both TOP-DOWN ocean heating by solar PLUS BOTTOM-UP by geothermal (core and mantle plus hydrothermal). AGW: Increasing TOP-DOWN ocean heating by [supposedly] anthropogenic GHG heating of the ocean (“forcing”) only. Supposedly constant TOP-DOWN ocean heating by solar is neglected as is supposedly BOTTOM-UP heating by geothermal. AGW OHC “forcing” – for (AGW) and against (NHC):- AGW For: IPCC AR4 2007: “Formal attribution studies now suggest that it is likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the observed warming of the upper several hundred metres of the global ocean during the latter half of the 20th century {5.2, 9.5} ” http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-4-1.html So it’s only a suggestion and it’s only likely. No mechanism is found at 5.2 and 9.5. There is conjecture by Peter Minnet… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Summary of each case and link to this thread left at Climate Change Dispatch here:-


Richard C (NZ)

Two Top Climate Professors Openly Trash Greenhouse Gas Theory Written by John O’Sullivan, guest post | March 06 2012 Esteemed German climate experts, Dr. Gerhard Kramm and Dr. Ralph Dlugi have now added their voice to a growing science crescendo asking climatologists to stop modeling Earth as if it were a flat disk greenhouse. […] The admission by Kramm and Dlugi adds further significance to the scathing studies by Professor Nasif Nahle of Mexico, Dr. Matthais Kleespies of Germany, Canadian astrophysicist, Joe Postma and NASA’s Apollo moon mission veteran, Dr. Pierre R. Latour. All four working seperately in their independent specialisms came to very much the same conclusion: the greenhouse gas hypothesis is wrong. […] Postma shows that the incoming solar flux is wrongly divided by a factor of “4” so as to average the Solar energy over the entire planet as a chilly twilight. In effect, climate science turns our watery revolving globe into a flat, ice covered disk by utterly discarding the warming and cooling process of day and night. So which side in this debate are now the real “flat earthers?” […] Twilight Coldness: the Flat Earth of Crumbling Greenhouse… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Where Skeptic Believers of Greenhouse Gas Science Go Wrong John O’Sullivan Even prominent man-made climate change skeptics are ignoring monumental errors in orthodox ‘greenhouse gas theory.’ Critics say it’s time for full public debate on the underlying science. This article presents a challenge to all fair-minded thinkers to meet in debate to discuss where the ‘greenhouse gas warming’ supposition is contradicted by (1) empirical measurements, (2) established laws of science and (3) real-world observations. Critics argue that with the climate alarmist movement in full retreat and temperatures in decline – despite incessant rises in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), climatologists should now come clean about the anomalies. Recently public in-fighting has arisen among ‘skeptics’ of the man-made global narrative due to compelling new science that deftly refutes the greenhouse warming fiction. This ‘new’ science is merely correct adherence to traditional ‘old’ scientific methods by specialists from space science, thermodynamics, mathematics and applied engineering. It is only in recent times that such an array of highly credentialed specialists has formed to collectively critique this cornerstone of the generalist field of climatology. […] Fallacies that Require Open Debate Lord Monckton on blackbody radiation: >>>>>>>… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Compendium of ‘New-Paradigm’ papers 1909 – Professor Wood: Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse 1998 – Ashworth: Helical Travel of Light 2006 – Dr Beck: 180 Years accurate CO2 Gas Analysis of Air 2008 – Professor Gerlich: Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects 2010 – Alan Siddons: A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon? 2010 – Joe Postma, MSc: Understanding the Atmosphere Effect 2011 – Professor Nahle: Carbon dioxide free path length 2011 – Professor Nahle: Repeating Professor Wood’s 1909 Greenhouse Experiment 2011 – Joe Postma: The Model Atmosphere – a more Realistic Approach 2011 – Professor Nahle: Defending Joe Bastardi against false accusations 2011 – Prof. Alexander: Memo 09-11: More droughts ahead 2011 – Joe Postma: Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect 2011 – Prof. Alexander: Memo 10-11: Earth-centred climatology 2011 – Prof. Alexander: Memo 13-11: COP17 Procedures – a MUST READ! 2011 – Dr Jinan Cao: Role of heat reservation of nitrogen and oxygen 2011 – Dr Kleespies: A Short History of Radiation Theories 2011 – Jef Reynen: Atmospheric absorption by IR-sensitive molecules (final version) 2012 – Prof. Kramm: Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact 2012 – Alberto… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Add the names S Fred Singer and Ferenc Miskolczi to the names Lindzen, Spencer and Monckton being taken to task on GHE Theory. Re Miskolczi, see 2011 – Jef Reynen: Atmospheric absorption by IR-sensitive molecules (final version) in the compendium Open Letter from Pierre R Latour to to Dr S Fred Singer, Following your excellent seminar at the University of Houston on February 6, 2012, I introduced myself, indicated Greenhouse Gas Theory (GHG) is a perpetual motion machine to drive anthropogenic global warming (AGW) violating First & Second Laws of thermodynamics, and emailed you my proof at ‘No Virginia.’ I noticed your February 29, 2012 post ‘Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name’ included things you did not cover at the University of Houston: […] Third, you may be interested to learn your younger successors, whom you called skeptical deniers, are moving the debate from simply falsifying GHG Theory with data, which you have already done, to getting it right with physics and engineering. Along that path, we have discovered some striking violations of the laws of engineering in the GHG Theory. Many were reported last year in a book, Johnson,… Read more »


Parachute commenters are impressed with the engineer who has submitted evidence in the NIWA case. They quote a 2009 submission as follows:

“I will aim to show that:

(1) the science behind the global warming/climate change projections is not settled;
(2) there is not a consensus among scientists;
(3) the IPCC’s model projections are proving unsound;
(4) the world’s climate is not responding the way it was predicted it would (it has been cooling over the past decade);
(5) man-made CO, is not capable of affecting the climate to any noticeable degree;
(6) the present climate variations are well within normal bounds;
(7) even if greenhouse gases did have an effect, NZ’s contribution to greenhouse gases is negligible on an international scale anyway;
(8) NZ has not experienced any average temperature increase since the 1870′s.
(9) Our climate is stable and can only benefit from increased C02 levels, due to enhanced plant growth.”

Pretty damn good good for 2009. All proved out by subsequent events.

Craig Thomas


Looks like all this pseudo-science waffle doesn’t wash in a court of law, where they only take account of facts.

Looks like denialism will have to stay in the blogosphere – just doesn’t work in the real world.

Craig, that’s not right. If you read the judgement, you’ll see that the judge specifically left the science alone – he didn’t even try to adjudicate it. That means he didn’t say it was right and didn’t say it was wrong – on either side. So your ungracious assertions are not supported by the judge.

Oh, if you could please justify your expression “pseudo-science waffle” we’d get some value from your visit. You’ve got a nerve dropping in and insulting us as practitioners of “denialism”. Have we offended you in some way? Explain what we “deny”.

Post Navigation