Gareth, who has nothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

43
Leave a Reply

avatar
43 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
AndyMike JowseyRichard TreadgoldRichard C (NZ)Alexander K Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

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

UAH Southern Hemisphere Extratropics
comment image?w=675

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

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Check out UAH Southern Hemisphere Extratropics profile”

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

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

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

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

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

> ‘vapid change’

Heh. 5 stars.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Naish and Renwick blowing hot air too: ‘Ten things New Zealand can learn about climate change’ – Tim Naish and James Renwick http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11669116 “3 ……the radiative effects of carbon dioxide and methane as powerful greenhouse gases has been known for more than a century. The physics is beyond question.” Yes the physics of “the radiative effects of carbon dioxide and methane” is “beyond question” depending on the scope of the statement (e.g. absorption and emission, and surface measurement of DLR by BSRN and SurfRad stations, except CO2/CH4 are minor components of DLR). But so what? That is NOT the issue. There are 2 issues: 1) Is theoretical GHG forcing a valid climate driver? No, as demonstrated by theory (Chapter 8) vs observations (Chapter 2) in the IPCC’s own AR5 report but they ignore their own climate change criteria and the obs-theory discrepancy in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution: ‘IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria’ https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/IPCCIgnoresIPCCClimateChangeCriteria.pdf 2) Is downwelling longwave radiation (IR-C, DLR) a surface material heating agent? No, The net LW flux is UP (-52.4 W.m-2) from the surface i.e. a COOLING flux of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). The CO2 component of DLR… Read more »

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Naish and Renwick] >”3 ……the radiative effects of carbon dioxide and methane as powerful greenhouse gases has been known for more than a century. The physics is beyond question.” What they omit to mention is that carbon dioxide is a minor contributor to DLR. Water vapour (H2O) is greater by far and there’s plenty of literature on this. For example: ‘Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008’ Wang and Liang (2009) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/full 4. Evaluation [15] Our validation results summarized in Table 2 demonstrate that equation (4) accurately estimates instantaneous Ld under all-sky conditions. Table 2.Average of all sites 337.0 [W.m-2] 5. Decadal Variation in Global Ld [DLR over land sites surveyed] [27] ……..The global averaged [Ld, DLR] trend is 1.9 W m−2 per decade. [29] The dominant emitters of longwave radiation in the atmosphere are water vapor, and to a lesser extent, carbon dioxide. The water vapor effect is parameterized in this study, while the CO2 effect on Ld is not. The effect of CO2 can be accurately calculated with an atmosphere radiative transfer model given the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Prata [2008] showed that… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

by Dr. Tim Ball

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

# # #

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

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

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

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

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

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

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

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

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

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

This is the “thesis” you were asking for.

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Thanks for reiterating those links, RC.

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

In March 2013 I wrote this series: Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 1: Skeptical Science Offside https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart1SkepticalScienceOffside.pdf Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart2TheImprobableIPCCMechanism.pdf Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 3: Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart3RahmstorfSchmittnerandNuccitelli.pdf At the end of Part 2 I wrote in respect to ocean heat: The acid test for the IPCC then, is that following close behind the 21st century negative phase of the relatively less consequential 60 year cycle, a negative phase of the very much more consequential quasi 200 year cycle is looming. The 21st century “standstill” in atmospheric temperatures is entirely consistent with the 60 year climate cycle (think PDO/ENSO) but given the difficulty climate science has had explaining that relatively minor discontinuity in the context of continuously rising GHG levels, we can assume the IPCC would be even less able to explain the much more radical changes to climate that can be expected if the accelerating decrease of solar luminosity settles to a steady downward trajectory by the end of 2014. The IPCC has about 18 months to prepare for the awkward questions that will inevitably ensue post September 2014 in that event. Being caught… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

The specific Chapter 10 OHC attribution statement is:

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

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

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

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

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

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Sorry, RT. [chuckles]

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Note that the major basins exhibit differently i.e. global average OHC is not typical of all 3 basins.” And certainly NOT typical zonally in the ARGO data: Change in ocean heat content by zone. Units are 10^22 joules. Graph from the presentation linked to below. NO heat gain in the tropics (loss). NO heat gain 20N – 60N (loss). See presentation: Argo and Ocean Heat Content: Progress and Issues Dean Roemmich, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA, October 2013, CERES Meeting http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2013-10/14_Global_averages.pdf Page 9: Sea level and heat content trends are strongly regional, mainly due to temperature changes, often caused by wind-­‐forcing. Not by GHG forcing apparently. Page 10: Heating rate (W/m2, 0/2000 dbar), 2006-­‐2013 [see graph] Note the strong hemispheric asymmetry. Sea surface height trend (cm/year), 2006-­‐2013 [see graph] What was that? “Strong hemispheric asymmetry”? ALL of the green and blue area is heat LOSS. That is the greater part of the Pacific ocean and corresponds with areas of sea level FALL. The yellow and red areas of heat gain are relatively smaller.There is obviously no way GHGs can be involved in OHC. Page 11: The southern hemisphere dominates the increases in SH,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Santa Pause may be coming to town… The “pause” might be back by December.’ David Middleton / July 12, 2016 A funny thing may have happened on the way to 2016 being the hottest year in the history of “life, the universe and everything”… https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/12/santa-pause-may-be-coming-to-town-the-pause-might-be-back-by-december/ # # # What happened to Naish and Renwick’s “powerful greenhouse gases” ? So much for the “heat trapping greenhouse gases” meme. The 2015/16 El Nino heat has NOT been “trapped” in the troposphere. And climate scientists Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Sherwood, Foster, Mann, and the UK Met Office (see their 2015 Decadal Forecast page below) who attributed the bulk of th El Nino spike to AGW now look like idiots. UKMO Decadal Forecast http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc Figure 3: Observed (black, from Met Office Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted (blue) global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1981-2010. Previous predictions starting from November 1960, 1965, …, 2005 are shown in red, and 22 model simulations, from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5), that have not been initialised with observations are shown in green. In all cases, the shading represents the probable range, such that the observations are… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”What happened to Naish and Renwick’s “powerful greenhouse gases” ? So much for the “heat trapping greenhouse gases” meme.” CO2 is being put to good use as a refrigerant: Engineering Thermodynamics by Israel Urieli, Chapter 9: Carbon Dioxide (R744) – The New Refrigerant Introduction and Discussion In the early days of refrigeration the two refrigerants in common use were ammonia and carbon dioxide. Both were problematic – ammonia is toxic and carbon dioxide requires extremely high presures (from around 30 to 200 atmospheres!) to operate in a refrigeration cycle, and since it operates on a transcritical cycle the compressor outlet temperature is extremely high (around 160°C). When Freon 12 (dichloro-diflouro-methane) was discovered it totally took over as the refrigerant of choice. It is an extremely stable, non toxic fluid, which does not interact with the compressor lubricant, and operates at pressures always somewhat higher than atmospheric, so that if any leakage occured, air would not leak into the system, thus one could recharge without having to apply vacuum. Unfortunately when the refrigerant does ultimately leak and make its way up to the ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation breaks up the molecule releasing the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Furthermore the high outlet temperature [from CO2 MAC] will allow instant defrosting of automobile windshields (we don’t have to wait until the car engine warms up)” This being a problem for electric vehicles (EVs). I’ve spent enough time waiting for my petrol engine to warm up while de-icing my car after a winter night shift to know this. An EV engine doesn’t “warm up” like a petrol engine, there’s no engine heat to defrost the windshield. ‘Extreme Weather Affects An Electric Car’s Range’ – How far your electric vehicle can go will vary depending on your region. https://www.insidescience.org/content/extreme-weather-affects-electric-cars-range/3396 “Electric vehicles on average consume about 15 percent more energy per mile when they’re driven in an extreme weather region like Phoenix or Minneapolis … that means if they’re consuming more energy that they will have a lower range,” explained Michalek. It gets worse. “In fact, during peak days where the temperature is at its extreme, the range could drop by 40 percent or more,” said Michalek. Basically what that means is “a vehicle that normally gets a hundred-mile range, it would only get 60 miles on this extreme weather day,” he said. And, An… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Response to Democrats name-and-shame “Web of Denial” in US Senate: ************************************************************** Dear Senators: We, the undersigned, have long since known that you have a list—an enemies list of intellectual foes you wish to isolate. But our policy differences are not why we write. We write today with grave concern over political leadership in a time of deep national division. We write at a time when free speech and association are more important than ever in our national experiment. How will we, together, solve problems if we cannot speak? How can you lead when you refuse to listen? […] Your enemies list groups together organizations that themselves maintain differing perspectives. While you have singled us out, labeling us as the enemy, we don’t even always agree with one another. And that’s the point: disagreement breeds solutions. We hear you. Your threat is clear: There is a heavy and inconvenient cost to disagreeing with you. Calls for debate will be met with political retribution. That’s called tyranny. And, we reject it. At the birth of our nation, patriots asserted their right to speech and broke British law in doing so. King George used the full… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Letter: Errors in climate change attack’

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

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

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

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

# # #

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

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

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

RT >”I’m not sure what anyone means by “heat-trapping” gas,” Yes, that’s why I wondered what Terry Dunleavy was getting at. I think he needs to be very explicit rather than leaving us to draw inferences that may or may not be what he is trying to convey. >”since CO2 absorbs radiation and re-emits it,” This actually precludes the notion of “heat trapping”. That is describing the process of energy transfer – NOT “trapping”. No heat is retained by the molecule because re-emission occurs within seconds. It is as I said previously (and I’m not alone on this) CO2 is simply a passive heat transfer medium, a coolant by definition, refrigerant code R744. CO2 transfers more energy by collision than it does by radiation at low altitudes in the troposphere but that’s beside the point. >”some of the re-emitted radiation travelling downwards” Yes except the energy flow is from surface to space. Net LW is an upwards flux from the surface (cooling) so the fact that there’s measurable downward radiation (DLR) is irrelevant. Oceanographers, Fairall et al (1996) for example, are only concerned with the net LW flux (Rnl). Remember too that CO2… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Climate science is not alone: ‘Economic Theory as Ideology’ by Asad Zaman Vice Chancellor at Pakistan Institute of Development Economics Ideology and Science are diametrically opposed to each other. An ideology is a set of beliefs that is maintained even in face of strong empirical evidence to the contrary. Science is primarily concerned with explaining the empirical evidence. Theories which conflict with observations are rejected. This does not mean that ideology is necessarily wrong or bad – we must maintain our belief in justice, morality, honesty, trust, integrity without any empirical evidence; indeed, even when strong empirical evidence suggests that these beliefs will not bring us popularity or personal benefits. However, ideological beliefs in wrong ideas can blind us to the facts and prevent learning which is essential to progress. Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz remarked that modern Economics represents the triumph of ideology over science. This essay explains the reasons for his remarks.. […] For a very long time, economists refused to take results from experiments seriously, because these were in direct conflict with axioms at the heart of economic theories. The empirical failure of economic axioms led to the creation of “Behavioral… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The letter Terry Dunleavy was replying to: ‘Letter: Bunch of climate science cranks’ Richard Mertens, West Lafayette “Both Heartland Institute and International Climate Science Coalition make laughable claims that CO2 is not a heat trapping gas yet continue to produce no papers on the subject. http://www.jconline.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/07/11/letter-bunch-climate-science-cranks/86961014/ # # # Laughable is to claim that “CO2 [IS] a heat trapping gas”. I made the distinction between “trapping” and “transfer” in a previous comment. Here’s “trapping” again: B) Trapping: The molecule intercepts a photon of radiation, the excess energy is retained (“trapped”), the molecule is energized above the ambient temperature of the surrounding air therefore is at a higher temperature that the air around it (absurd so far). The molecule intercepts another photon, the excess energy is retained (“trapped”), the molecule gains even more temperature than from the first photon (getting more absurd). By this “trapping” process the molecule gets hotter and hotter but the surrounding air stays at ambient temperature (the height of absurdity). This violates the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which in essence says the excess energy is expelled to a heat sink. Laughable. CO2 is a heat TRANSFER… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

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

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Latent Heat and Trapped Heat’ Published on April 8, 2013. Written by Anthony Bright-Paul We have to be careful to distinguish between latent heat and trapped heat, particularly in the sense that Anthropogenic Global Warmers use the term. [Latent heat discussion] The AGWs use the analogy of sunlight on a stationary car, with windows closed. They aver correctly that the temperature within the car will rise, and they call this ‘trapped heat’. What they omit to add is that this rise of temperature will only occur and continue while heat is being generated. Once the Sun goes down the heat rapidly disperses. This demonstrates that all sensible heat has to be generated, that such heat is never trapped, but is either being generated or being dissipated. There is no steady state. In particular, there is no way that Carbon Dioxide can trap heat – such an idea is bizarre! Here I hope I have demonstrated the difference between latent heat and sensible heat in a way that is comprehensible to the layman. http://principia-scientific.org/latent-heat-and-trapped-heat/ Also, ‘Atmospheric Heat Engines—Global Atmospheric Circulation’ Published on July 13, 2016. Written by Dr Jerry L Krause […] The titles… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Bright-Paul] >”The AGWs use the analogy of sunlight on a stationary car, with windows closed. They aver correctly that the temperature within the car will rise, and they call this ‘trapped heat’. What they omit to add is that this rise of temperature will only occur and continue while heat is being generated.” A particularly egregious example: ‘What is the greenhouse effect? Trapping Heat’ by Julia Layton & Ed Grabianowski Science | Green Science […] The sun’s radiation continually strikes the Earth, warming it; the warm Earth emits some of that radiation back into space, cooling itself. The more solar radiation the Earth absorbs, the more radiation it releases. Some of that released radiation makes it into space, and the rest of it ends up getting reflected back down to Earth when it hits certain things in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane gas and water vapor — the car windows. The heat that doesn’t make it out through Earth’s atmosphere keeps the planet warmer than it is in outer space, because more energy is coming in through the atmosphere than is going out. This is the greenhouse effect that keeps the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The only “heat trapping” is in the oceanic heat sink. Even then the heat is not actually “trapped” because the heat is released eventually” Conventional terminology is thermal energy “storage” (TES): Energy Storage Water – kWh Thermal heat energy stored in water by temperature Water is often used to store thermal energy. Energy stored – or available – in hot water can be calculated [see examples] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/energy-storage-water-d_1463.html Thermal energy storage Thermal energy storage (TES) is achieved with greatly differing technologies that collectively accommodate a wide range of needs. It allows excess thermal energy to be collected for later use, hours, days or many months later, at individual building, multiuser building, district, town or even regional scale depending on the specific technology. As examples: energy demand can be balanced between day time and night time; summer heat from solar collectors can be stored interseasonally for use in winter; and cold obtained from winter air can be provided for summer air conditioning. Storage mediums include: water or ice-slush tanks ranging from small to massive, masses of native earth or bedrock accessed with heat exchangers in clusters of small-diameter boreholes (sometimes quite deep); deep aquifers contained… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

An internally contradictory article from UCAR/NCAR re CO2 a “heat-trapping greenhouse gas”: [Title] ‘Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation’ UCAR Centre For Science Education © 2012 UCAR [see CO2 molecule animation] Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, [1] the molecule gives up this extra energy [/1] by emitting another infrared photon.Once [2] the extra energy has been removed [/2] by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating. This [3] ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy [/3] is what makes [4] CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. [/4] The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation # # # The last statement [4] is contradicted by the title [Title] and statements [1], [2] and [3]: [Title] ‘Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation’ [1]… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

RT >”So you can call it trapped and it increases with the increase in CO2. So I’m not sure it’s useful to excoriate such as the UCAR as “peddling bunk”. Unless I’ve misunderstood” Yes you sure have misunderstood RT. The UCAR article is specifically in respect to the CO2 molecule absorbing and emitting – nothing else. Nothing at all about what you extrapolate from it. I don’t know how you make the leap you’ve taken. Note too upthread that it is not just me that sees the utter falsity of the CO2 “heat trapping” notion. Here’s the UCAR animation of the CO2 molecule again: http://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/long-content-page/Create%20Long%20Content%20Page/co2_absorb_emit_infrared_anim_320x240.gif This is the sole basis (nothing else) for UCAR’s internally contradictory claim in their article: “This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. The first element “this ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy” contradicts the second “makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas”. The contradiction is because the first element is describing TRANSFER: Heat transfer – Radiation Thermal radiation is a direct result of the random movements of atoms and molecules in matter. Since these atoms and molecules… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

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

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

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

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

Post Navigation