Yes, Dr Hansen says our oceans will boil

The man is dangerous

This loony scientist-turned-climate-activist is reckless with science and his unfounded claims of peril are a threat to public order. Even his followers cannot believe he really said the oceans will boil, but here is the evidence. Should you not believe my biased sceptical transcript, just read his lips.

James Hansen: The Runaway Greenhouse Effect   (video posted Jan 10, 2012)

At 1:55 (the link goes straight there) Hansen poses the question:

Dr James Hansen

What is the runaway greenhouse effect?

Which he answers concisely and unambiguously:

That means once the planet gets warmer and warmer then the oceans begin to evaporate, and water vapour is a very strong greenhouse gas, even more powerful than carbon dioxide, so you can get to a situation where it just… the oceans will begin to boil and the planet becomes so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere and that happened to Venus. That’s why Venus no longer has carbon in its surface. It’s atmosphere is made up of… basically of carbon dioxide because it had a runaway greenhouse effect.

Up to this point, you might reasonably claim (as his believers will, because they don’t want to think that he’s loony) that Hansen is merely exaggerating the possibility of runaway heating, for drama, without intending that anyone should think it could actually happen. Well, don’t believe it, because he now says that the Earth WILL BE DESTROYED by runaway warming caused by our carbon dioxide emissions if we do nothing to stop it. He spells it out:

Now the Earth, it can go unstable either toward a cool climate or toward a hot climate and the Earth has had a runaway snowball earth situation. This happened most recently about 700 million years ago. The Earth froze all the way to the equator, so the runaway situations can occur. We’ve never had a runaway greenhouse effect, because if we did, that would have been the end. Once… that’s a permanent situation. In the case of a snowball earth, when the Earth becomes ice-covered, then the planet can escape from that situation because volcanoes continue to go off, but the weathering process is greatly reduced. So volcanoes put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and it builds up more and more until there’s enough to melt the ice. But we can’t push the planet off of the runaway greenhouse end of it, that’s… that’s the end for everybody if we do that.

So the end of the world is the first loony part of his climate “science”. But there’s a second loony thing: it could happen within a century. He maintains that the planet’s ice sheets could melt that quickly just from our emissions of greenhouse gases. So the Antarctic ice cap (2000 to 4000 metres thick) and the Greenland ice cap (3000 metres thick) could both be gone within a century—but not according to any scientific study. Estimates I’ve seen are far more conservative and range from about two thousand to ten thousand years and even longer. The amount of warming we might be causing is very small and in fact there’s no proof that we cause any detectable warming at all.

This is the man who admitted it’s impossible to determine the average surface temperature of the earth. He must have forgotten.

Don’t let this idiot near any important committee or panel. Like, say, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change or the US House of Representatives. Oh, too late.

75
Leave a Reply

avatar
74 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
Mike Jowsey4TimesAYearRichard C (NZ)AndyAlexander K Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

… and will we see a retraction from Simon?

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Oh, and this just in… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/26/dr-james-hansens-recent-alarm-of-catastrophic-co2-driven-sea-level-rise-looks-to-just-be-spurious-correlation-in-his-own-mind/

Hansen is lead author.

Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 ◦C global warming is highly dangerous

I think Morano sums up the strategy very well:

Simply put, when current reality fails to alarm, make scarier and scarier predictions of the distant future.

Andy
Guest
Andy

At some point in the past, all the carbon that is currently sequestered as hydrocarbon deposits was, presumably, in the atmosphere

So why didn’t this happen before?

chris y
Guest
chris y

Well now, if the oceans did boil off into the atmosphere, then sea level rise becomes even worse than we thought as well. We could redefine sea surface as the top of the lower troposphere, or maybe the tropopause?

The alarmism writes itself!

Or maybe if defined at the liquid-gas boundary, it is actually catastrophic sea level *drop*.

Not sure why cloud formation ceases or rainfall stops. Does Hansen make the moist adiabatic lapse rate suddenly disappear?

Andy
Guest
Andy

The geological record would suggest that CO2 doesn’t regulate temperature to any significance. I can’t see any correlation and only con men like Al Gore use graphs that have temps lagging CO2 from Vostok which do show good correlation but the other way round.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Nothing James Hansen says is factually incorrect. It is the carbon cycle that stops a runaway greenhouse effect from occurring on this planet. James Lovelock uses it as an example of his Gaia hypothesis, life creates conditions suitable for life.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon.

>”Nothing James Hansen says is factually incorrect”

Well then, you will be able to take us through the physical processes by which this happens:

“it [carbon dioxide] builds up more and more until there’s enough to melt the ice”

I expect your explanation will be in terms of heating effect of some sort i.e. radiative heating, sensible heat etc. Also where the energy has come from (the source), why is doesn’t dissipate etc. And in conventional thermodynamic terminology and definitions.

Remember, the heat is enough to boil water (100 C), not just to melt ice (0 C).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Mike, My most recent reply re CO2 “forcing” went to page 2 in comments so you might miss it. Here’s the link: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2015/07/reminder-your-stubborn-sceptical-mind-will-be-dissected-this-week/comment-page-2/#comment-1352081 Still pertinent to this thread so worth copying here too: >”Therefore any posited forcing of CO2 in between [Sfc and TOA] is invalid.” YES. You have it here. The posited “forcing” is there but it is ineffectual. When I say the forcing is “there” I mean in 2 ways, both of which are theoretical even though the second may lead one to think it is actually effective because there are observations involved: 1) The theoretical CO2 forcing can be estimated for any period using the IPCC’s simplified expression, dF = 5.35 ln (C/Co). Where Co is initial year CO2 level in ppm and C is final year CO2 level in ppm. This expression is at odds with other CO2 forcing expressions used for example in furnace design which are validated expressions. Here is the IPCC’s expression graphed against the Leckner expression for 278 K (typical of lower mid troposphere temperature): The Leckner curve reaches maximum forcing around 200ppm and that’s it – no more. The IPCC curve continues with increased… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Boston couldn’t dump huge amounts of winter snow into the harbour because city rubbish was scooped up with it. So they dumped it in unused carparks. But it didn’t melt. Why not? ‘The science behind why those huge snow piles just won’t melt’ By Eric Levenson @ejleven Boston.com Staff | 05.28.15 | 3:14 PM It’s been a pleasant May and a scorching past few days, and yet some of those no-good-dirty-rotten mounds of this winter’s historic snow still haven’t melted. How is that possible? “The fact that it’s still there is a science experiment waiting to happen,” Michael Dennehy, commissioner of the city’s Department of Public Works, told The Boston Globe . Good thinking, commissioner. We asked Michael Dietze, an associate professor in Boston University’s Earth & Environment department, to explain the science behind why these snow piles are taking so long to liquify. The answer boils down to three main reasons: the incredible energy needed to change a solid to liquid, the lack of rain, and the thickness of the piles. Latent heat of fusion Latent heat refers to the energy needed to change a substance into a different state of matter. Basically,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Hansen] – “That means once the planet gets warmer and warmer then the oceans begin to evaporate,”

The earth’s oceans are already evaporating, they are evaporating continuously. Ocean evaporation is the largest mechanism of heat loss from the ocean:

Earth’s Energy Flows
comment image

Evaporative heat loss: 88 W.m-2
Radiative heat loss: 53.4 W.m-2 (398 – 345.6 = 52.4 W.m-2 OLR Sfc)
Sensible heat loss: 24 W.m-2

The ocean evaporates, surface heat is transferred to the air at altitude, and then it rains. Water is returned to the ocean at a lower temperature than when it left. The heat dissipates to space

But we can infer that in Hansen’s scenario it will stop raining and all the H20 in the ocean will be converted to CO2 somehow:

“the ocean ends up in the atmosphere and that happened to Venus. That’s why Venus no longer has carbon in its surface. It’s atmosphere is made up of… basically of carbon dioxide…”

1) I want to know why it will stop raining on earth.

2) I want to know how water is converted to carbon dioxide,

Andy
Guest
Andy

Hansen did his doctorate on Venus.

That is, he studied Venus, if you get my drift.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Actually, the idea of whether a runaway greenhouse effect is mathematically and physically possible is quite an interesting one, irrespective of the likelihood of such an event

As an analogy, it is apparently unknown (the n-body problem) whether our solar system is in a stable state or whether one or more planets will disappear out of the solar system of its own accord, with no external stimuli, even though the system is almost entirely determinstic

Andy
Guest
Andy

The counter argument is this

More CO2 is like putting another blanket on the bed and less is like taking away a blanket. No CO2 and the earth freezes – temperatures like we had in the South Island in late June would be the norm everywhere, all the time.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/a-tale-of-two-hemispheres/

I realise that that this is the current thinking about the “greenhouse effect”, but I have a little difficulty imagining that removing a gas that forms 0.04 percent of the earth’s atmosphere will turn it into a frigid ice ball.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I realise that that this is the current thinking about the “greenhouse effect”,” Depends where you look, ‘How pressure-dependent atmospheric warming explains the entire 33C greenhouse effect’ The Hockey Schtick, Saturday, February 21, 2015 Nice to see that others are beginning to appreciate the Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect [hotllink], which completely explains the atmospheric temperature profiles from the Earth’s surface all the way to the top of the atmosphere at ~100,000 meters, entirely without radiative forcing from greenhouse gas ‘back-radiation’. [hotlink] The latest is a forthcoming series of articles at the Swedish climate skeptic site Stockholm’s Initiative, the first chapter of which is below [Google translation + editing]. These concepts have been discussed in further detail in the series of Hockey Schtick posts on the ‘greenhouse equation’ [hotlink] and in relation to the Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33K greenhouse effect. [hotlink] ‘The atmosphere from inside out’ 02/18/2015 by Goran Ahlgren . [See Chapter 1] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2015/02/how-pressure-dependent-atmospheric.html # # # Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect was how NASA modeled the standard atmosphere for the space race. CO2 was neglected as insignificant. The model is verified. Weather… Read more »

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Richard C., thanks for elaborating. In conclusion you say:
“But by however means the theoretical CO2 “forcing” is arrived at it is inescapable (undeniable) that the theoretical forcing is having no effect whatsoever on the earth’s energy budget which is the primary critical criteria for climate change.”
I would encourage you to submit a paper on your research in this regard to the Open Atmospheric Association (theoas.org). It would get a wider and more responsive audience that Joanne Nova…..

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I would encourage you to submit a paper on your research in this regard”

There’s no research Mike. All it is is the IPCC’s criteria and 2 bullet points – that’s all. Nothing more is required, no paper, just the simplest comprehension that CO2 (or net anthro) forcing of 1.5+ W.m-2 and increasing is now more than twice the TOA imbalance of 0.6 W.m-2 which is trendless.

That’s it. Period. Game over.

The inclusion of the surface imbalance is not actually necessary but it provides proof of what the actual forcing is i.e. the forcing has already occurred before surface to TOA energy flow.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”More CO2 is like putting another blanket on the bed and less is like taking away a blanket”

CO2 is the flimsiest of sheets, water vapour is the blanket (if the bed analogy must be used). WV is 95% of GHGs.

But what happens when you add or remove the WV blanket?

With WV blanket e.g. humid equatorial: moderated temperatures (no extremes)
Without WV blanket e.g. dry equatorial: extreme temperatures (hot and cold).

The blanket-bed analogy is dopey.

Simon
Guest
Simon

It’s not just CO2 Andy. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas too and the amount of water vapour depends upon air temperature. There is almost no water vapour in a Snowball Earth scenario. Conversely, increasing temperature results in more water vapour which results in more warming; what climate scientists call a forcing.

Andy
Guest
Andy

In the snowball earth scenario, we remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere, so the water drops out and the Earth turns into a snowball.

I imagine that the sun with still cause evaporation during the day, loading the atmosphere with water vapour regardless of whether we have CO2 in the atmosphere.

Are there any academic references to this theory, and is it actually considered as gospel in the climate science community?

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Simon. Increased water vapour can result in more warming but hasn’t, instead it has resulted in more precipitation. Don’t believe me? Check out the data from the IPCC AR5 report:

http://dailymediareview.weebly.com/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-climate-change.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”what climate scientists call a forcing.” Wrong Simon. change in water vapour is what scientists call a feedback. Forcing is another concept we’ve been discussing where the theory of man-made climate change is falsified by the IPCC’s own forcing criteria. You’ve been strangely absent from that discussion I note. >”Conversely, increasing temperature results in more water vapour which results in more warming” That’s the necessary theoretical adjunct to multiply the posited CO2 effect which is minimal by itself (and actually irrelevant to primary climate change criteria). The theory is a miss-application of the Clausius Clapyron relation. As Magoo alludes, the water vapour feedback scenario is not reality. Water vapour precipitates out as rain. Hansen is implying it will stop raining on earth, why will it stop raining? Besides, evaporation is the largest heat loss mechanism from the surface: Earth’s Energy Flows Evaporative heat loss: 88 W.m-2 Radiative heat loss: 53.4 W.m-2 (398 – 345.6 = 52.4 W.m-2 OLR Sfc) Sensible heat loss: 24 W.m-2 More evaporation just means more heat loss i.e. heat transfer from surface to upper troposphere from which it dissipates to space radiatively, eventually. And you might think about why… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

On the “snow ball earth/CO2 control knob hypothesis”, Judith Curry writes here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/20/co2-control-knob-fallacy/ From the perspective of comparative planetology, I think that Lacis makes a plausible argument, from which I infer that without CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth’s climate would more closely resemble the climate of its moon rather than the current Earth’s climate. For reference, the surface temperature of the moon can swing between -150°C during the night and 120°C during the day. (pay attention, greenhouse effect deniers) I can’t buy this argument. The moon exhibits this behaviour because it has a virtually non-existent atmosphere At sea level on Earth, we breathe in an atmosphere where each cubic centimeter contains 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules; by comparison the lunar atmosphere has less than 1,000,000 molecules in the same volume. That still sounds like a lot, but it is what we consider to be a very good vacuum on Earth. In fact, the density of the atmosphere at the moon’s surface is comparable to the density of the outermost fringes of Earth’s atmosphere where the International Space Station orbits https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LADEE/news/lunar-atmosphere.html#.VbgT8hOqpBc So the moon gets warmed almost entirely by solar radiation. There is virtually no contribution… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Mike, forget power and W.m-2 for the following Q and A and just consider numbers. a and b are TOA and Surface respectively

1) There are 2 critical numbers in the primary criteria: 0.6a and 1.5+a

The first number is the criteria bound (the limit). Does the second number fall within the limit?

2) In addition to the primary criteria bound there is a secondary parameter, so now there is a 2 number range and a 3rd number: 0.6a to 0.6b, and 1.5+a

Does the 3rd number fall within the range?

3) The secondary parameter (0.6b) is the fixed precedent in a sequence. Can the third number alter or supersede the precedent?

If you answered NO to 1) then man-made climate change is falsified but there may be lingering doubts.
If you answered NO to 2) then man-made climate change is eliminated from consideration.
If you answered NO to 3) then man-made climate change need not be considered in the first instance.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Greenhouse Gases Warmed the Earth Somewhat, but Additions Now Cool the Earth’ Reblog of a new post by materials physicist Dr. Charles Anderson, which discusses the recent paper by Chilingar et al posted here. Dr. Anderson improves upon some aspects of the paper, but in general comes to the same basic conclusion that additions to the present levels of the greenhouse gases CO2, H2O, and methane will cause cause cooling, not warming, of the Earth surface & atmosphere. 27 July 2015 Greenhouse Gases Warmed the Earth Somewhat, but Additions Now Cool the Earth By Charles R. Anderson, PhD, physics […] So, it is not a foregone conclusion that adding CO2 to the present mix of gases in the Earth atmosphere will cause further warming, just because the additions of the first molecules did cause warming. We do not immediately know whether the so-called greenhouse effect is increasing or decreasing with further additions of greenhouse gases. This is a question I have been discussing for years on this blog and since I wrote a book chapter called “Do IR-Absorbing Gases Warm or Cool the Earth’s Surface?, in Slaying the Sky Dragon — Death of… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

The theory that the Earth would become icebound with no CO2 is proposed by Lacis et al, which Roger Pielke Snr presents here

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/guest-post-co2-the-thermostat-that-controls-earth%E2%80%99s-temperature-by-andy-lacis/

The non-condensing GHGs, mainly CO2, are presumed to drive the condensing GHGs like H2O

That’s the theory, anyway. Since we can’t test this, it would appear to be unfalsifiable

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

Dr Hansen discredited himself thoroughly when he admitted subverting the aircon in the meeting room before his presentation to congress about the imagined evils of CO2. Any person who takes this charlatan seriously needs to study some basic earth sciences.

Andy
Guest
Andy

If he admitted subverting the aircon then I’d give the guy a little credit.
Far worse things have happened for “the cause”.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 2 by Mike Jonas There has also been a lot of discussion about whether climate scientists have tried to “get rid of” the MWP. For example, David Deming’s statement [2] to the US Senate in 2006 includes : “I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change [Jonathan Overpeck] . He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” Figure 3: Contribution of CO2 to global temperature through the MWP and LIA Figure 3 shows very clearly why the promoters of the computer climate models were so keen to get rid of the MWP : it demonstrates that the computer climate models are incapable of representing the climate. The impact of CO2 on the whole of the MWP and LIA periods was utterly trivial. CO2 even went in the opposite direction at times – rising while the temperature fell, and vice-versa. The models’ big upturn in CO2 contribution in the 20th century is not reflected in the temperature after 1939. Conclusion The picture of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Magoo, from your essay:

‘ … we know that if the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere doubles from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv, this will cause an energy imbalance by trapping more outgoing thermal radiation in the atmosphere, enough to directly warm the surface approximately 1.2°C.’

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

I’ve emphasized the critical element of man-made climate change theory.

The theoretical forcing of 280 ppm to 400 ppm is: dF = 5.35 ln(400/280) = 1.9 W.m-2

The current TOA imbalance is 0.6 W.m-2 and trendless. Thus man-made climate change theory is falsified. “more outgoing thermal radiation [is NOT trapped] in the atmosphere”.

Still, good to get a handle on how silly this gets.

The theoretical forcing 280 ppm to 560 ppm is: 3.7 Wm-2.

BTW, I make no apology for highjacking your excellent water vapour case Magoo – sorry.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[SkS] – “this will cause an energy imbalance by trapping more outgoing thermal radiation in the atmosphere” Tom Curtis at SkS preached a beautiful, but completely woolly, sermon to me a couple of years ago complete with an impressive water tank graphic for his analogy (abbreviated below #65), which he launched into after a previous admonition (#60 below) that leaps a giant stride from the above statement: #65 Tom Curtis at 17:35 PM on 6 February, 2013 Richard C, you may becoming confused as the result of a simple, and pervasive analogy. Consider the following diagram: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/taps.jpg It represents a water tank, with the water level within the tank controlled by flow from two taps. Suppose the tank is initially in equilibrium, so that water flowing from the upper tap is exactly matched by water flowing from the lower tap, such that the water level does not change. We then alter the situation by slightly closing the lower tap. That initially results in a decrease in flow. The resulting disequilibrium results in an increase in water level, which in turn results in an increase in pressure at the level of the lower tap.… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

I think it is fair to say (for all of us, sometimes) that there is a “trapping mechanism” that does not enable other thought processes and paradigms to penetrate the “skin effect” that surrounds our various dogmas

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Tom Curtis] – “Suppose the tank is initially in equilibrium”

The theory of man-made climate change (MMCC) presupposes that the TOA energy budget is in balance without forcing of any kind. According to Tom, I have to know this via a water tank analogy.

What the SkS geniuses like Tom attribute to CO2 forcing (ocean heat storage) in the Surface energy budget is simply solar-ocean energy input and time lagged solar energy storage – CO2 forcing has absolutely nothing to do with that (GCM modelers “impute” heat to the ocean by GHG forcing even so). And the chances of the “tank” ever being in equilibrium are remote. The “tank” being the planet’s energy budget, I guess Tom thought I wouldn’t understand that if he stated so plainly, that’s if he understands it himself of course. I doubt that.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>a “trapping mechanism” that does not enable other thought processes and paradigms to penetrate the “skin effect”

Granted. But I would have preferred Tom to elucidate the conventional paradigm directly with recourse to the relevant science (e.g. the IPCC and Stephens et al) rather then via a water tank, but that’s just me. He didn’t trigger my trapping mechanism though, I do understand his paradigm even if I must do so in terms of a water tank rather than planetary energy flows. I can do without the abstraction but that seems to be the warmists way.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Roy Spencer has an interesting post on the role of CO2 and the issue around pressure and lapse rate

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

This has probably been posted before but I thought it worth posting as it explains the thinking behind the greenhouse effect and the energy budget. RC may disagree, I don’t know

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”RC may disagree, I don’t know” It is not just pressure and it is not just me Andy. NASA modeled the entire atmospheric temperature profile without recourse to a greenhouse effect. Roy Spencer is up against a formidable wall of science. The Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect completely explains the atmospheric temperature profiles from the Earth’s surface all the way to the top of the atmosphere at ~100,000 meters (from THS): ‘Why Atmospheric Temperature is a Linear Function of Mass & Gravity, and Not Influenced by Greenhouse Gas Concentrations’ In the previous post of this series, we demonstrated why the US Standard Atmosphere Model & Observations Prove Maxwell’s Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is Correct & Falsifies Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). [Hotlink – see below] We now show why the hundreds of rocket and atmospheric scientists, physicists, and aeronautical engineers who created the gold standard and final 1976 version of the US Standard Atmosphere Database (created during the ice age scare of the 1970’s and just one decade prior to the global warming scare of the 1980’s) in effect were “deniers” of any significant “radiative forcing,” “heat trapping,” or… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Spencer is responding to ‘Expanding the Concept of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Using Thermodynamic Principles: Implications for Predicting Future Climate Change’ – Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. & Karl Zeller, Ph.D. here: ‘Unified Theory of Climate’ 3. The Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement […] Previous studies have noted that the term Greenhouse Effect is a misnomer when applied to the atmosphere, since real greenhouses retain heat through an entirely different mechanism compared to the free atmosphere, i.e. by physically trapping air mass and restricting convective heat exchange. Hence, we propose a new term instead, Near-surface Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) defined as a non-dimensional ratio (NTE) of the planet actual mean surface air temperature (Ts, K) to the average temperature of a Standard Planetary Gray Body (SPGB) with no atmosphere (Tgb, K) receiving the same solar irradiance, i.e. NTE = Ts /Tgb. This new definition emphasizes the essence of GHE, which is the temperature boost at the surface due to the presence of an atmosphere. We employ Eq. (2) to estimate Tgb assuming an albedo αgb = 0.12 and a surface emissivity ϵ = 0.955 for the SPGB based on data for Moon, Mercury, and the Earth surface. Using… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Spencer] – “We [Spencer & Braswell] could initialize the model with an atmosphere at absolute zero, or at an absurdly high temperature, and it would still settle out to about the same temperature profile as is observed in the global average. (I continue to challenge those with alternative theories to do the same).”

“One of the first things you discover when putting numbers to the problem is the overriding importance of infrared radiative absorption and emission to explaining the atmospheric temperature profile. These IR flows would not occur without the presence of “greenhouse gases”, which simply means gases which absorb and emit IR radiation. Without those gases, there would be no way for the atmosphere to cool to outer space in the presence of continuous convective heat transport from the surface.”

# # #

>”I [Dr Roy Spencer] continue to challenge those with alternative theories to do the same”

Well, in the 1950’s, the US Air Force Research Laboratory did exactly that with an alternative theory and model and without recourse to “the overriding importance of infrared radiative absorption and emission to explaining the atmospheric temperature profile”.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Spencer] -“it [S&B’s model] would still settle out to about the same temperature profile as is observed in the global average”

Not sure what Spencer is referring to with “profile” or “global average” here. I assume he means Surface to TOA but it would have been good to be able to see a graph of what he is talking about to be sure.

Except Standard Atmosphere “profile” refers to the entire atmospheric model of Surface to TOA – not just temperature. The commonly available graphs of the Surface to TOA model were all produced without recourse to the greenhouse effect. For example:

Atmosphere of Earth

Graph: Comparison of the 1962 US Standard Atmosphere graph of geometric altitude against air density, pressure, the speed of sound and temperature with approximate altitudes of various objects

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg

Spencer & Braswell’s model needs to do a lot more than just reproduce a temperature profile.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andy. I think the rebuttal to Roy Spencer is, in summary, this: [THS] – “The “Greenhouse Equation” calculates temperature (T) at any location from the surface to the top of the troposphere as a function of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure and radiative forcing from the Sun only, and without any radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Note the pressure (P) divided by 2 in the greenhouse equation is the pressure at the center of mass of the atmosphere, where the temperature and height are equal to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun and average “Effective Radiating Level” or ERL, respectively.” The “Greenhouse Equation” http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xXJOurldG_E/VHjjbD6XinI/AAAAAAAAGx8/8yXlYh8Lcr4/s1600/The%2BGreenhouse%2BEquation%2B-%2BSymbolic%2Bsolution%2BP.png [THS] – “Fig 3 from the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere description document below, with added annotations showing how the center of the tropospheric lapse rate is “triangulated” by the known constants of mass and the center of mass, the height where the center of mass can be calculated which is where the mass above is 1/2 of the total mass and the Pressure (1/2 atm) is 1/2 of the surface pressure (1 atm), and the known constant of equilibrium temperature Te between the Earth and Sun. This is the exact location of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andy. I think the rebuttal to Roy Spencer is, in summary, this: [THS] – “The “Greenhouse Equation” calculates temperature (T) at any location from the surface to the top of the troposphere as a function of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure and radiative forcing from the Sun only, and without any radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Note the pressure (P) divided by 2 in the greenhouse equation is the pressure at the center of mass of the atmosphere, where the temperature and height are equal to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun and average “Effective Radiating Level” or ERL, respectively.” The “Greenhouse Equation” http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xXJOurldG_E/VHjjbD6XinI/AAAAAAAAGx8/8yXlYh8Lcr4/s1600/The%2BGreenhouse%2BEquation%2B-%2BSymbolic%2Bsolution%2BP.png [THS] – “Fig 3 from the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere description document below, with added annotations showing how the center of the tropospheric lapse rate is “triangulated” by the known constants of mass and the center of mass, the height where the center of mass can be calculated which is where the mass above is 1/2 of the total mass and the Pressure (1/2 atm) is 1/2 of the surface pressure (1 atm), and the known constant of equilibrium temperature Te between the Earth and Sun. This is the exact location of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andy. I think the rebuttal to Roy Spencer is, in summary, this: [THS] – “The “Greenhouse Equation” calculates temperature (T) at any location from the surface to the top of the troposphere as a function of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure and radiative forcing from the Sun only, and without any radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Note the pressure (P) divided by 2 in the greenhouse equation is the pressure at the center of mass of the atmosphere, where the temperature and height are equal to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun and average “Effective Radiating Level” or ERL, respectively.” The “Greenhouse Equation” http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xXJOurldG_E/VHjjbD6XinI/AAAAAAAAGx8/8yXlYh8Lcr4/s1600/The%2BGreenhouse%2BEquation%2B-%2BSymbolic%2Bsolution%2BP.png [THS] – “Fig 3 from the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere description document below, with added annotations showing how the center of the tropospheric lapse rate is “triangulated” by the known constants of mass and the center of mass, the height where the center of mass can be calculated which is where the mass above is 1/2 of the total mass and the Pressure (1/2 atm) is 1/2 of the surface pressure (1 atm), and the known constant of equilibrium temperature Te between the Earth and Sun. This is the exact location of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andy. I think the rebuttal to Roy Spencer is, in summary, this: [THS] – “The “Greenhouse Equation” calculates temperature (T) at any location from the surface to the top of the troposphere as a function of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure and radiative forcing from the Sun only, and without any radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Note the pressure (P) divided by 2 in the greenhouse equation is the pressure at the center of mass of the atmosphere, where the temperature and height are equal to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun and average “Effective Radiating Level” or ERL, respectively.” The “Greenhouse Equation” http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xXJOurldG_E/VHjjbD6XinI/AAAAAAAAGx8/8yXlYh8Lcr4/s1600/The%2BGreenhouse%2BEquation%2B-%2BSymbolic%2Bsolution%2BP.png [THS] – “Fig 3 from the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere description document below, with added annotations showing how the center of the tropospheric lapse rate is “triangulated” by the known constants of mass and the center of mass, the height where the center of mass can be calculated which is where the mass above is 1/2 of the total mass and the Pressure (1/2 atm) is 1/2 of the surface pressure (1 atm), and the known constant of equilibrium temperature Te between the Earth and Sun. This is the exact location of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Spencer] – “2) In the process, however, greenhouse gases drastically change the vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere, warming the lower layers, and cooling the upper layers.”

The lower layers are already warmed and the upper layers are already cooled in accordance with mass/gravity/pressure and radiative forcing from the Sun. Subsequent radiative energy transfer adds nothing to this. GHGs are “mere passive IR-radiators & heat sinks” as THC puts it.

Spencer’s misunderstanding is typical of climate science. Proof being that the theoretical radiative forcing by CO2 (now 1.9 W.m-2) does not fit between the Surface energy imbalance (0.6 W.m-2) and the TOA energy imbalance (0.6 W.m-2). The imbalance has already occurred at the surface through sun-ocean energy accumulation. CO2 cannot, and does not, alter this.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”CO2 cannot, and does not, alter this”

“However, mounting evidence against climate change theory and the ‘consensus’ is unlikely to stem the tide of policy designed to combat global warming, thanks to the sheer size of the climate change industry that has built up over the last few decades.

New estimates published by the Climate Change Business Journal put the total size of the industry at $1.5 trillion a year, or $4 billion a day, equivalent to the size of the global online retail market. The figure includes carbon markets, carbon consulting, biofuels, carbon sequestration, renewable technologies, eco buildings and hybrid cars.

The climate change consultancy market alone is worth $1.9 billion worldwide; $670 million in the United States, thanks to businesses need to keep on top of climate policy. And these figures are expected to more than double by 2020.”

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus.html

4TimesAYear
Guest
4TimesAYear

Obama pretty much said the same thing “the planet will boil over” https://twitter.com/4TimesAYear/status/627592590762774528/photo/1

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Spencer’s misunderstanding is typical of climate science.” Case in point – James Renwick (“Jim” at HT): http://hot-topic.co.nz/a-tale-of-two-hemispheres “We live in a golden age of earth observation. With a few clicks of a mouse on a web browser, any of us can see the state of the global ocean surface, the current condition of the Greenland ice sheet, how much rain is falling in the tropics today, and on and on.” Yes, impressive isn’t it Jim. Then why don’t you consult the IPCC’s observation citations in regard to the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria, TOA energy budget? Viz., Stephens et al (2012) and Loeb et al (2012). Both have a trendless 0.6 W.m-2 imbalance from satellite observations. “Carbon dioxide is important because it’s a crucial control on the surface temperature of the earth. It is very good at absorbing heat (infrared radiation) welling up from the earth, then re-radiating both up and down, …..” Actually it is negligible and can be ignored Jim. It is a “passive” absorber, heat sink, and radiator. The sun is the energy input. The surface temperature was reproduced in the 1950s without recourse to a radiative greenhouse effect and… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘The Greenhouse Equation’ THS, Friday, November 28, 2014 A recent series of Hockey Schtick posts ‘Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases’ ‘Derivation of the effective radiating height & entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases’ ‘Why greenhouse gas radiative forcing doesn’t explain Earth’s energy budget’ have derived the entire ~33°C greenhouse effect as a consequence of gravitational forcing rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, and entirely independent of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. We have also determined the effective radiating height (average) or ERL in the troposphere (where T = the equilibrium temperature of Earth with the Sun), and found the ERL to be located as expected at the center of mass of the atmosphere if the ERL height and temperature are a function of mass/gravity/pressure rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. We now join the gravitational greenhouse effect to the only source of energy that the Earth receives, the Sun, and show that solar shortwave radiative forcing plus gravitational forcing calculates the Earth’s surface temperature, ERL height and temperature, and the entire tropospheric temperature profile perfectly, without any contribution from… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Why greenhouse gas radiative forcing doesn’t explain Earth’s energy budget’ THS, Wednesday, November 26, 2014 We have previously demonstrated that the atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C greenhouse effect explains Earth’s surface temperature and the temperatures throughout the troposphere, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. We have also demonstrated why the atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect also perfectly explains the observed greenhouse effect on Titan, the closest Earth analog in our solar system, and the only planet other than Earth with an atmosphere comprised of mostly non-greenhouse gases (Titan: 98.4% Nitrogen, 0.1% hydrogen, and only 1.5% greenhouse gas methane compared to Earth’s 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide). We now address three additional reasons why the conventional anthropogenic CO2 warming theory is flawed due to incorrect assumptions regarding the energy budget. In contrast, the mass/gravity/pressure alternative greenhouse theory is entirely compatible with Earth’s energy budget, physical laws, and observations. The radiative greenhouse theory is commonly represented by the Earth energy budget devised by Kiehl and Trenberth as shown in this diagram from their 2008 publication: Trenberth, Fasullo, Kiehl 2008 Earth energy budget shows “atmospheric window” transmitting only… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”How can a cold body radiating at -80C cause a hotter body at -18C to warm by 6.6C or at all?” The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 4 – WUWT Bernard Lodge August 1, 2015 at 10:26 am OK, I waited until the fourth posting on CO2 for an explanation but I still have an unanswered question: A black body (at any temperature) cannot increase the temperature of a different body to a higher temperature than its own. It doesn’t matter how big the first body is compared to the second, it still cannot raise the temperature of the second body above its own temperature. In other words, you can double the size of the emitting body so that it emits twice as much IR but it does not make any difference to the temperature of the second body. CO2 absorbs IR at the 15 micron wavelength. 15 microns equates to a black body emitting at a temperature of -80c. It doesn’t matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere absorbing 15 micron IR, it still won’t increase the temperature of the earth above -80c. But, it seems that ‘everyone accepts’ doubling CO2… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”thus, the shorter the wavelength/higher the frequency of a photon, the higher the energy it contains.”

Infrared

Near-infrared, IR-A, Wavelength 0.75–1.4 µm, Photon Energy 886-1653 meV [Solar]
Short-wavelength infrared, IR-B, Wavelength 1.4-3 µm, Photon Energy 413-886 meV [Solar]
Mid-wavelength infrared, IR-C, Wavelength 3–8 µm, Photon Energy 155–413 meV
Long-wavelength infrared, IR-C, Wavelength 8–15 µm, Photon Energy 83–155 meV [CO2 centred 15 µm]
Far-infrared, FIR, Wavelength 15–1,000 µm, Photon Energy 1.2–83 meV [CO2 centred 15 µm]

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

# # #

>”there appears to be a collective brain failure among climate scientists”

Climate science thinks, e.g. Earth’s Energy Budget/Flows, 1 W.m-2 IR-C/FIR has the same effect on matter as 1 W.m-2 IR-A/B i.e. 83 meV (CO2) has the same effect as 413 – 1653 meV (solar).

Impossible.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Climate science thinks, e.g. Earth’s Energy Budget/Flows, 1 W.m-2 IR-C/FIR has the same effect on matter as 1 W.m-2 IR-A/B i.e. 83 meV (CO2) has the same effect as 413 – 1653 meV (solar)” 83 meV (CO2) or 413 – 1653 meV (solar) being energy-per-photon rather than energy per metre squared. Many, many, photons per metre squared: ‘How do I convert irradiance into photon flux?’ Commonly the irradiance of a light source is given in [W/m2]. Irradiance is defined as the power of electromagnetic radiation incident per unit area on a surface. For biological processes the quantum flux of light with a distinct wave length has a higher relevance than the irradiance. The quantum flux (also called photon flux) is defined as the number of photons in µmol per second and unit area on a surface and given in µE (µ Einstein). To convert irradiance in quantum flux and vice versa the following points have to be considered: A photon has a distinct energy quanta Ep which is defined by: Ep= h•f = h•(c/λ) (with Plancks constant h=6,63•10-34 [Js]; Speed of light c=2.998•108 [m/s]; Frequency f [1/s]; Wavelength λ [m]) The number of… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Hansen has a go at Clinton’s climate plans, describing them as “silly”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/29/hillary-clinton-climate-change-plan

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Tasman Ocean beginning to boil too! Snow falls to sea level in Hobart, polar change reaches NZ this weekend Posted by WW Forecast Team on Mon, 03/08/2015 – 14:57 Filed in: Australia NZ For the first time in 10 years snow has fallen on Hobart’s beaches and central business district. The polar change across the ditch is connected to the warm weather today in New Zealand, and was forecast by WeatherWatch.co.nz a week ago. “This giant Southern Ocean low has been in the models for some time now, it’s developing well south of New Zealand and Australia over the next few days and it’s affecting both nations at the same time” says head weather analyst Philip Duncan. “The centre of this large area of low pressure is developing between the southern Tasman Sea and Antarctica, pulling air from the ice shelf up to Tasmania and southern Australia, in the form of southerlies, and this pushes the air from Australia over the Tasman Sea to New Zealand in the form of much warmer west to north west winds”. “As of 1pm it was a stunning 23 degrees in Kaikoura, with those north to north… Read more »

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

“pulling air from the ice shelf up to Tasmania and southern Australia”

Remember the ice shelf is at maximum extent – it reaches now to 30 latitude degrees South. If anyone says this is caused by global warming, point south.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Near-infrared, IR-A, Wavelength 0.75–1.4 µm, Photon Energy 886-1653 meV [Solar] Short-wavelength infrared, IR-B, Wavelength 1.4-3 µm, Photon Energy 413-886 meV [Solar]” How Lasers Work [ACRONYM ALERT] “A laser is a device that controls the way that energized atoms release photons. “Laser” is an acronym for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, which describes very succinctly how a laser works.” http://science.howstuffworks.com/laser3.htm ‘2 μm Laser Sources and Their Possible Applications’ Karsten Scholle, Samir Lamrini, Philipp Koopmann and Peter Fuhrberg LISA laser products OHG, Germany 1. Introduction The wavelength range around 2 μm which is covered by the laser systems described in this chapter is part of the so called “eye safe” wavelength region which begins at about 1.4 μm. Laser systems that operate in this region offer exceptional advantages for free space applications compared to conventional systems that operate at shorter wavelengths. This gives them a great market potential for the use in LIDAR and gas sensing systems and for direct optical communication applications. The favourable absorption in water makes such lasers also very useful for medical applications. As it can be seen in figure 1, there is a strong absorption peak near 2… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

There is a letter in today’s Press which claims that one metre SLR by 2100 is the “absolute best case scenario”, and then goes on to cite Hansen

This is of course at odds with the IPCC whose one metre projection is the absolute worst case scenario presented.

Nothing like a bit of truth inversion with your cornflakes to get the day going..

Andy
Guest
Andy

I scanned the Press letter here:

comment image

Andy
Guest
Andy

I googled the writers name, and he runs a company called Applied Physics, and is a former DSIR man.

Andy
Guest
Andy

One metre of sea level rise is incredible

yet this is the basis of NZ coastal management for the next 100 years

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”he runs a company called Applied Physics”

He writes:

“there is definitely a gloomy prospect whem verifiable facts are examined and trends analysed”

No applied brains in this case apparently.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Does anyone know where the “exponential” claim comes from?
This is from the letter, but also evident from the graph shown in the Christchurch City Council pamphlet.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I would add that graphs that exhibit acceleration are not all exponential. For example, y = x*x is not exponential, but might fit the graph shown in the CCC pamphlet.

Andy
Guest
Andy

The latter may be stating the bleeding obvious here, btw, but the term “exponential” gets thrown around willy-nilly

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”the term “exponential” gets thrown around willy-nilly”

As in – “it [SLR] does not stop at whatever figure turns out to be true, as it [SLR] increases exponentially”

Huh?

Right now, the figure that turns out to be true is 1.90mm/yr. From 1990 this gives 0.2m SLR by 2100.

But it doesn’t stop there? It increases exponentially? Is that after 2100 or after now? It was supposed to be from after 1990.

David Beach is one woolly thinker. Of which there are many on this topic unfortunately.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I would add that graphs that exhibit acceleration are not all exponential”

Yes, the issue is the assumption of increasing growth i.e. the rise rate increasing progressively.

The downfall of a lot of infrastructural planning failures can be traced back to assumptions of unrealistic growth rates. SLR planning fits that scenario I think.

Andy
Guest
Andy

The great thing about exponential growth is that it exceeds all polynomial growth at some point. So even if you can’t see any trend now, it will eventually become very large

I don’t suppose it matters that it doesn’t fit any physics. For example, the “forcing” of CO2 is presumed logarithmic, the inverse of exponential

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”For example, the “forcing” of CO2 is presumed logarithmic, the inverse of exponential”

Except when expressed as change in forcing i.e. dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), currently 1.9 W.m-2. This gives an increasing curve that I think is an acceleration.

Haven’t got time to go through this now, got to go to work unfortunately.

Post Navigation