Climate Coalition conversations

Heating the ocean with a hair dryer

Not a conversation this time, just a snippet — an important one to me, because it’s further confirmation of my layman opinion that man-made emissions cannot significantly heat the ocean, and important for all climate sceptics, since it adds to arguments refuting the climate scare. Note that this scientist’s view applies to greenhouse gases in general, whereas the DAGW scare relies only on mankind’s emissions, which are a tiny fraction of atmospheric carbon dioxide — less than 10% of all CO2, or about 0.004% of the atmosphere.

[Anon]: A while back I went to a couple of presentations by the Aussie team that coined the phrase “ocean heatwave” in relation to their work off the NSW coast. It was pretty obvious that the term was being used to generate funding and fit the narrative, in the same way that “ocean acidification” was conjured up. They felt it was a better term than “The Blob” that was being used for a warm area in the north Pacific. The time series used to justify the heatwave was too short to be meaningful (there are decadal changes in SSTs associated with the PDO/IPO) and really didn’t involve significant amounts of heat.

I find it interesting that the alarmists switch between heat and temperature to exaggerate their argument. A thin layer of extra warm water at the ocean surface doesn’t do much for total ocean heat, but James Shaw can dip his toes in at Wellington and claim the harbour is experiencing a heatwave because the temperature is fractionally higher.

The key issue is explaining how the greenhouse effect heats the ocean, and I haven’t had a plausible answer to this from anybody. The limited amount of literature on the topic shows that there may be an insignificant reduction of the energy loss to the atmosphere through radiative transfer, but this is overwhelmed by variations in latent heat transfer. The only possible link between marine heatwaves and AGW involves changes to wind stress affecting mixing of surface water with colder intermediate and deep water. All of the studies I have seen argue from models that an increase in easterly winds could result in coastal warming in the areas experiencing warming around the Tasman Sea. But James Renwick is pretty wedded to the idea that AGW is causing an increase in westerly winds, which promote cooling in the affected areas. – emphasis added

Three points occur to me

  1. Limited literature is absolute proof that NO RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE into the mechanism of radiative energy transfer into the oceans.
  2. Sea level rise is a major scare in the UN climate narrative, yet NOBODY CAN DESCRIBE HOW IT HAPPENS.
  3. IPCC scientists are guessing.

In the IPCC 5AR, Table 13.1 (p. 1151), recent (1993-2010) thermal expansion of the oceans was a major contribution to observed sea level rise—about 53%. Model projections for 2081-2100 for RCP 2.6 (Figure 13.10, p. 1180) show thermal expansion is expected to be the largest part of sea level rise, contributing 150 mm, or 38%, to the 400 mm total. The range of possibilities at the end of the century under each scenario is stupidly large, far too big to use for planning.

Considering NOBODY CAN DESCRIBE HOW IT HAPPENS, nobody knows how much energy is involved, so how could these figures for thermal expansion have been calculated? I’m being unnecessarily polite. This part of the model projections CANNOT BE TRUE.

The potential additional contribution from the collapse of the marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise (maybe 300 mm to 600 mm).

This would be a huge and improbable surge in sea level, but we mention it in case you’re not scared enough.

3
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
Richard TreadgoldBrett Keane Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

GT: Konrad Hartmann’s experiments (qv at Tallbloke)) demonstrate the inutility of surface IR for evaporation. And much else. I find it sad that folk who should know better, even Roy Spencer, ignore the findings of the greatest Thermodynamicist, James Clerk Maxwell. He found that conduction-convection-Latent Heat Transport by Water Vapour, dominate atmospheric energy movement up to where the air is thin enough for radiation to escape easily. Energy always takes the easiest path. Theory of Heat, start with pp 330-350 and look it all up on the Hockeyschtick blog. Maxwell was an experimentalist, and so must I be, to really understand. But it can be fun…. His Poisson Relationship, the Ideal Gas Laws, means that all gases act as one, like alloys in the Physics of Solids. Gases at STP have about one molecule bouncing round in about 216 times its own volume. So specie means little and the result is no meaningful special effect of eg CO2. Quantum Theory later found that every Photon is scattered without effect unless it has more energy than the molecule it hits. Thus EMF is a vector Flux only and downwelling cannot take place except by… Read more »

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

Well Thanks RT. Chuffed, I am! Real Atmospheric Physicists know that water vapour and the 24hr Heat Cycle have about TEN times the power needed to control our Climate in the Goldilocks Zone. Basically like an old-time evaporating radiator as used on the Schneider Trophy Supermarine Seaplanes, to lessen weight seeing as they only needed enough to run a few minutes. Experiments with CO2 show no special Heating capacity beyond common Specific Heat. The Ideal Gas Law evens that all out as described. But Water as a Condensing Gas half the density of air, rockets up (fast enough to kill some glider pilots) past the one optical depth zone (Beer-lambert Law as used by us Photosynthesis – Optimising Horticulturalists. But from the opposite, bottom side out.). Buoyancy and Latent Heat do the job with greater efficiency, hence bypassing most radiation. CO2 etc. was just a convenient hook to hang their Goebbalesque lie on. Disproven prior to Arrhenius by Maxwell and post by Robert Woods. More recently, Berthold Klein demonstrated GHGs uselessness as batteries etc. using Mylar envelopes so thin they could not hold energy either to any significant degree. That is how real… Read more »

Post Navigation