Ocean Warming in Climate Models Varies Far More than Recent Study Suggests

January 17th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I wanted to expand upon something that was mentioned in yesterday’s blog post about the recent Cheng et al. paper which was widely reported with headlines suggesting a newer estimate of the rate of ocean warming is 40% higher than old estimates from the IPCC AR5 report in 2013. I demonstrated that the new dataset was only only 11% warmer when compared to the AR5 best estimate of ocean warming during 1971-2010.

The point I want to reemphasize today is the huge range in ocean warming between the 33 models included in that study. Here’s a plot based upon data from Cheng’s website which, for the period in question (1971-2010) shows a factor of 8 range between the model with the least ocean warming and the model with the most warming, based upon linear trends fitted to the model curves:

Yearly ocean heat content (OHC) changes since 1971 in 33 models versus the recent Cheng reanalysis of XBT and Argo ocean temperature data for the surface to 2,000m layer. The vertical scale is in both ZettaJoules (10^21 Joules) and in deg. C (assuming an ocean area of 3.6 x 10^14 m^2). The Cheng et al. confidence interval has been inflated by 1.43 to account for the difference between the surface area of the Earth (Cheng et al. usage) and the actual ocean surface area.

I have also included Cheng’s reanalysis of ocean heat content (OHC) data over the same period of time, showing how well it fits the *average* of all 33 models included in the study. Cheng’s OHC dataset is now the warmest of all reanalyzed OHC datasets, which means (mark my words) it will gain the greatest favor in the next IPCC report.

Mark. My. Words.

What is disconcerting is the huge (8x) range in ocean warming between models for the period 1971-2010. This is partly due to continuing uncertainty in climate sensitivity (ranging over a factor of ~3 according to the IPCC), but also due to uncertainties in how much aerosol forcing has occurred, especially in the first half of the period in question. The amount of climate system warming in models or in nature is a function of both forcing and the system response to that forcing.

If models are based upon fundamental physical principles, as we are often told, how can they give such a wide range of results? The answer, of course, is that there are some physical processes which are not well known, for example how clouds and upper tropospheric water vapor change with warming. The devil is in the details.

Dodgy Statistics

One of the problems with the results in the Cheng et al. study is how the 90% confidence intervals are computed. Most people will simply assume they are related to how well the stated numbers are known. That is, how good the various observational and model estimates of ocean warming are.

But they would be wrong.

The confidence intervals given in the paper (we are told at the end of the Supplementary Materials section) simply refer to how well each time series of OHC (whether observations or models) is fit by a regression line.

They have nothing to do with how good a certain OHC dataset is. In fact, they assume (as John Christy pointed out to me) each dataset is perfect!

In the above plot I show the difference between the quoted 90% confidence interval in the paper for the models, and the 90% confidence interval I computed which represents the variability between the models warming trends, which is much more informative to most readers. The difference is huge.

What Cheng et al. provided for confidence intervals isn’t “wrong”. It’s simply misleading for most readers who are trying to figure out how good these various observational OHC trends are, or how uncertain the climate model OHC trends are.

Is the Average of the Climate Models Better than the Individual Models?

Cheng et al. only deal with the 33-model average, and don’t mention the huge inter-model differences. One might claim that the average of the 33 models is probably better than the individual models, anyway.

But I’m not so sure one can make such an argument.

The various climate models cannot be viewed as some sort of “truth model” about which the various modeling groups around the world have added noise. If that were the case then, yes, the average of all the models would give the best result.

Instead, each modeling group makes their own best estimate of a wide variety of forcings and physical processes in the models, and they get a wide variety of results. It is not clear which of them is closest to the truth. It could be an outlier model is best. For example, the model with the closest agreement with our (UAH) satellite tropospheric temperatures since 1979 is the Russian model, which wasn’t even included in the new study. That model has the lowest rate of tropospheric warming since 1979 out of over 100 models we have checked.

The new OHC dataset might reduce uncertainty somewhat (although we still don’t know how accurate it is), but one also has to evaluate surface temperature trends, tropospheric temperature trends (which I believe are telling us water vapor feedback isn’t as strong as in the models), as well as uncertainties in forcings which, even if the models contained perfect physics, would still lead to different projected rates of warming.

Given all of the uncertianties, I think we are still far from understanding just how much future warming will occur from increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.


224 Responses to “Ocean Warming in Climate Models Varies Far More than Recent Study Suggests”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. scott allen says:

    You will have to excuse my ignorance in this matter as I am just a lawyer (i did take statistics and physics but just barely).

    My question is, NOAA, ARGO and others now use electronic thermometers, prior to that they used mercury and prior to that alcohol. They switched from alcohol to mercury due to accuracy issues and then switched from mercury to electronic for economic reason. NOAA claims an accuracy of electronic thermometer to a .1 +/-. which means an electronic thermometer can read 50 degree but the true temperature could be as high as 50.1 or as low as 49.9. which is a 66.6% possible error rate.

    No one can accurately determine which way (reading high or low or accurately) a thermometer will read unless it is continuously retested, which raises another set of questions, like at what point do you correct the data from the last known “true “reading.

    But back to my original question. How does anyone claim a greater accuracy in temperature readings then the gauges read, ie. if you thermometer only reads to .1 degrees how does anyone claim that the temperature changed a .01 degrees (and yes I get averages, mean and medium).

    I only question is this, as we just litigated a case in which a steel company had claimed their I-beams were measured to with in 1/16th (+-) of an inch, however all of the beams supplied were short by 1/16 this leads to compounding issues in the construction, now over time an equal number of beams were correct length and others were 1/16 inch over length.

    when researching I came across this article which lead to the above question.

    https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Scott,

      Good link. I’d seen the content before, but many others obviously haven’t.

      Another instance of averages proving fatal was the Bravo Two Zero episode. SAS troopers died from hypothermia, as some dill besotted with averages, averaged temperatures in the Iraq desert, not realising it’s the extremes which kill.

      Being equipped for an average of 20 C doesn’t help if temperatures drop below freezing at night.

      Climatologists love averages. Enough said.

      Cheers.

    • Svante says:

      scott allen says:

      “How does anyone claim a greater accuracy in temperature readings then the gauges read, ie. if you thermometer only reads to .1 degrees how does anyone claim that the temperature changed a .01 degrees (and yes I get averages, mean and medium).”

      It’s the law of large numbers:
      https://tinyurl.com/mpn7b3r

      • Mike Flynn says:

        S,

        No it’s not – that’s just something that witless GHE supporters say, because it sounds sciency.

        Try again. It’s about as stupid as claiming the average of 100 different computer models of a chaotic system (or a million) is correct.

        For example, you may believe that the chance of tossing a head approaches 50% at the limit. Big deal. What good does it do you?

        The law of large numbers states that you are a delusional fool. Disprove this conclusion. Good luck.

        Cheers.

        • Halil Sen says:

          M,
          What you just did is called “Appeal to Ridicule” which is a logical fallacy. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal-to-Ridicule
          This disproves your conclusion.
          I suggest readers of this page to check out other logical fallacies.
          Cheers,
          h.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Halil Sen,

            It wasn’t an appeal to ridicule. I was ridiculing Svante directly, which is a different thing.

            It appears my ridicule may have achieved the desired effect, rather than being perceived as support.

            I ridicule that which appears ridiculous to me. Others may proceed as they wish.

            As well considering Svante to be delusional and foolish, he appears to me to demonstrate stupidity and ignorance on occasion.

            Who cares? Do you?

            Cheers.

        • Alan D. McIntire says:

          The law of large numbers only applies when you are measuring the same thing, the temperature in New York City Central Park at 12:30 AM on December 23, 2018 for instance, taking hundreds or thousands of independent measurements at the same time.

          When you are measuring thousands of things once, the law of large numbers does NOT apply.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Svante,

        You are precisely incorrect!

      • Svante says:

        Better answer by Dr Roy W. Spencer (the error of the average is reduced by the square root of the number of observations):

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/ocean-warming-in-climate-models-varies-far-more-than-recent-study-suggests/#comment-338643

    • Greg61 says:

      Reminds me of when I worked at a large brewery as a ‘brewing project specialist’. The nominal ABV for most regular beers was 5%. The major brands were fermented at 7%-8% (added corn syrup to the mash to get more alcohol). Dilution was done by measuring tank volume and adding water during filtration, but tank volumes were not that accurate so we aimed for 4.9%. We were allowed to go as low as 4.7% and still claim 5% on the label. I did a project where we installed an inline gas chromatograph which measured the alcohol % in real time and controlled water addition during the filtering. Our new target was set to 4.8% because we could be confident of never giong below the limit. I wonder if the steel company was capable of meeting a tighter tolerance than 1/16, and deliberately tried to save on steel.

      • scott allen says:

        The construction company was building a 10 story building using “fast build” methods. They had two different crews and two different cranes. The suppler (of the i beams ran two shifts to meet the demand, the construction company used two different sites to off load the I beams. And from the records the day shift off loaded to the same crane/crew and the afternoon shift off loaded to the other crew.
        The issue wasn’t discovered until about the 8th floor, by that time the difference in height of two side of the building was over 2 inches. needless to say it was expensive to retro fit and the issue was who’s fault was it.

  2. Curious George says:

    Is the average of 33 counterfeit banknotes a real banknote?

    • ossqss says:

      The question would be why were those 33 and not the others used?

      • Roy W. Spencer says:

        It could be the data were not available. The archived CMIP5 output data are notoriously difficult to access and read.

        • steve case says:

          Roy W. Spencer says: “…The archived CMIP5 output data are notoriously difficult to access and read.”

          This isn’t a whole lot different than refusing a Freedom of Information request. I assume that somewhere along the line tax dollars a funding the CMIP5 models. There should be a string attached to the money granted for these things that results shall be published in a straight forward and easily accessible format.

          I gather it’s not happening that way or if there are such requirements they aren’t being followed.

          • Bohous says:

            The accessibility of results is not the only problem. Another problem is that the methods of tuning the models are not published at all.

  3. Myki says:

    Roy, I think you have correctly highlighted an issue with the interpretation of climate model ensembles and I don’t think IPCC have adequately yet addressed this issue yet – especially with regard to estimates for projected warming at 2100 where the published uncertainties may be underestimates. The issue is that the uncertainty with any derived projected value comprises 2 components:
    (1) Uncertainty due to how well each model performs as predictive tool (typically represented by the standard error)
    (2) Uncertainty associated with forming a multi-model mean (typically represented by the spread of model results at any point in time)

    It is theoretically possible to have a situation where all models agree exactly as to an amount of warming (zero spread, zero uncertainty) but all could be completely wrong.
    Or, it is theoretically possible to have an ensemble of models that have been shown to perform perfectly up to some point in time (100% predictive skill) but all violently disagree about future warming.

    The true uncertainty associated with any model-based projections beyond the present therefore needs to combine estimates of these components. This is not simple since model predictive skill (for most climatic variables) will not really be assessable until later this century. However, the Figure shown suggests that the Cheng et al (i.e.smaller) uncertainty bar provides an estimate of overall predictive skill (for OHC) as at 2010 while your (larger) uncertainty bar represents model spread uncertainty.

    Looking at the graph, the true uncertainty (in Zj, beyond 2010) could possibly be estimated as
    (100**2 +300**2)**0.5. or about 320 Zj.

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      yes. Except, as I said in the post, the Cheng uncertainty bar is merely the goodness of fit of a line to the multi-model average time series. It has nothing to do with model accuracy. The model mean could be totally useless for forecasting trends, yet if its 40-year OHC time series increase steadily with time, Cheng’s confidence interval would be vanishingly small. It’s a useless statistic in this context.

      • Myki says:

        Agreed.
        A larger value would be found if they calculated the goodness of fit for each model and then formed an average.

    • Myki says:

      BTW, while I might agree that the uncertainty about future warming may be underestimated, I firmly believe that the impacts of even slight increases in global average temperature will be serious simply because of the shift in extremes. There is far too much evidence suggesting that the current amount of warming is responsible for some nasty events around the globe.

      For example, right now, across much of the Australian continent, the following are being experienced:
      – record temperatures approaching 50 degC !
      – the fact that heat kills more Australians than any natural disaster
      – mass fish kills
      – melting roads, (melting crayons!)
      – fruit cooking on trees
      – delayed monsoon
      – over two days in November, record-breaking heat in Australia’s north wiped out almost one-third of the nation’s spectacled flying foxes
      etc etc.

      https://www.9news.com.au/2019/01/14/13/12/heatweave-to-cause-more-fish-kills-in-nsw

      https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/roads-melt-as-heatwave-escalates-across-parts-of-australia/news-story/ea23d38d583ccafa24c6a42b9574b06f

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Myki,

        And in 1895-96, 435 deaths recorded as due to the heat.

        1939 nearly as fatal.

        From My Country (1908 or so), Dorothea McKellar –

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

        The good ol’ CO2 GHE induced heat wave event mechanism seems a bit mysterious. I suppose if you predict a heat wave every year in a country like Australia, you’ll be right from time time.

        You could predict flooding rains at the same time, too.

        Just more useless jawboning, useless to man nor beast. Carry on regardless.

        Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        mikey…”I firmly believe that the impacts of even slight increases in global average temperature will be serious simply because of the shift in extremes. There is far too much evidence suggesting that the current amount of warming is responsible for some nasty events around the globe”.

        It doesn’t matter what you believe.

        There is no evidence relating current warming to nasty events, that have happened before. There is only conjecture from alarmists like you.

        For example, the two warmest years in North America, with a record for heat waves, were 1934 ans 1936. They were the hottest years by far, hotter than 1998. NOAA has rewritten the record to downplay those years.

        Many graphs showing global warming have started them at 1960 to avoid the embarrassment those two years present, especially when they were followed by cooling in the 1940 – 1960 era.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      mikey…”I don’t think IPCC have adequately yet addressed this issue yet….”

      Or a lot of other problems.

      In TAR, the IPCC stated that future climate states cannot be predicted. They made a lie of that by starting to predict future climate states using the probabilities from climate models. Expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, told them the word ‘prediction’ could not be used with climate models since they are all invalidated.

      So, the IPCC moved the goalposts and called their prediction….projections. In other words, they are guessing using rigged climate models.

      Most of IPCC policy is generated by 50 lead authors who are politically appointed. If the 2500 reviewers put forward a finding, the 50 lead authors can change it arbitrarily to what they think. It’s done using the Summary for Policymakers which is used to amend the findings of 2500 reviewers.

      In other words, the IPCC is a political organization that has no interest in science, only in perpetuating the myth of catastrophic global warming/climate change.

  4. ossqss says:

    I understand that CO2 has a logarithmic relationship with temperature in a lab environment. Where are we on that curve? Would the same hold true for water vapor?

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      First of all, the logarithmic shape is not from a lab environment. It’s from the way that additional layers of a radiation attenutator work… think of sunlight shining through multiple thin layers of styrofoam. Each additional layer attenuates less and less sunlight.

      Next, these models take into account this effect. It’s really not useful to talk about “where we are on that curve”. What really matters is the model-predicted warming curve taking into account not just the logarithmic effect, but the fact that CO2 is increasing in a (mildly) exponential manner (partly cancelling out the logarithmic effect), combined with the delayed response of the climate system due to the huge heat capacity of the oceans. The net result is a roughly linear warming trend.

      • ossqss says:

        Thanks for the clarification.

        Could you expand on saturation levels in the various IR spectrums as it relates to atmospheric CO2?

        • the “saturation” effect is partly what causes the logarithmic effect. But the atmosphere is never totally saturated with an IR absorber… look at Venus, which has 220,00 times as much CO2 as Earth. Even if the lower layers of the atmosphere are essentially 100% saturated, the far upper layers are not. So, as you add more absorber/emitter, the atmosphere continues to warm as the effecting emitting level is pushed ever higher. Also figuring into this is pressure broadening, which causes wavelengths next to absorption lines to become absorbing/emitting as one progresses down through the atmosphere. These are details which are all taken into account in radiative transfer codes used by climate models, which are basically fast-running approximation versions of MODTRAN or HITRAN.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Have any of these fast-running approximation version models been validated to show an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes any rise in global temperature?

            I’m not trying to be cheeky. Many commenters here routinely promote the AGW hypothesis solely based on theoretical convective-radiative models. Despite the difficulties in verifying the hypothesis, by now there should be something better than the average of 33 models to show for it.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Dr. Spencer,

        “The net result is a roughly linear warming trend.”

        Considering your positions on the relative contributions of natural factors, wouldn’t it be more correct to say the net result is a hypothetical roughly linear warming trend?

  5. raygun says:

    All of this fuss over 0.11*C over 40+ years, even with questionable “scientific” theory with modern questionable devices. Give me a real analog thermometer and a place to record the hour-by-hour daily temps and I will be happy.

    Hell, even out weather “experts” have trouble predicting local and regional weather beyond a week or so without satellite data.

    So what makes me think that anything the warmist greenies predict out to months, years, decades, … is/can be half assed reliable. No, I’ll take the Farmers Almanac and reliable hand readings any day. With all of the failed “predictions” over the last several decades, let’s give it a rest for another decade or so and see what actually happens. I would venture to “predict” nothing, much less a small fraction of what the alarmist “predict”.

    Another problem I have is why did they keep changing the name of their religion ???? Answer: Because no body was moved into thinking an emergency was at hand. Now, with the pure socialist in charge of the UN, it’s called racial, social, economic and environ-mental (pun intended) justice. At least it reflects their true intentions. It’s time to wake up and smell the radical lefts stinking utopia pile of crap.

  6. INM-CM4 (the Russian model) wasn’t included likely because it is the slowest of all the models to warm BECAUSE ITS OCEAN HEAT CAPACITY IS TWICE WHAT IT IS IN THE OTHER MODELS, meaning that it has half the warming of what’s implied in the thick black line. It’s also the model that replicates the three-dimensional changes in temperature far better than any other.

    If this paper weren’t primarily a Kevin Trenberth production to hype some nutty model average, the more scientific way to do things would have been to rely on the model that works best.

    • Svante says:

      Surely there is agreement on the ocean heat capacity.
      Do you mean heat uptake?
      Is it more like Cheng et al.?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      patrick…”If this paper werent primarily a Kevin Trenberth production to hype some nutty model average, the more scientific way to do things would have been to rely on the model that works best”.

      Is this ‘THE’ Patrick Michaels, the same PM who booted Hansen’s butt?

      Isn’t the phrase ‘models that work best’ some kind of oxymoron?

  7. Scott allen says:

    My question still stands, how does the accuracy rate get better than the device error rate.
    You would have to assume an error rate that was equally spread out but still cant carry an average past the .1 place

    • Let’s say the standard deviation of the error in measurement is 0.1 deg. C. Let’s further assume the whole network of buoys has some arbitrary bias, say 1 deg. C. Then the average of 100 of their measurements is still accurate for the purpose of monitoring CHANGES in ocean heat content (let’s call that “precision”) to 0.01 deg. C (the error of the average is reduced by the square root of the number of observations). With 1000 buoys the precision of measurement 0.003 deg. C.

      This is not the major source of error. It’s geographic sampling. Because the buoy network is not dense enough, even a 3-month global average of a few thousand buoys is not good enough to get OHC content changes on that time scale. But YEARLY averages seem to be pretty good, as evidenced by the fact they have been fairly steadily climbing for at least 20 years now. The only way that could happen is if the oceans were warming, or if there is a systematic calibration drift in the sensors.

      Which brings up the sensor design. As I understand it, these aren’t your garden variety thermistors. They are Platinum Resistance Thermometers, which can be factory calibrated to an absolute accuracy of around 0.01 deg. C, and have long term stability better than that.

      • scott allen says:

        Thank you for your response.
        And clarification with the words “monitor changes” makes this answer more acceptable.
        Thank you again for taking your valuable time to explain things.

  8. David Young says:

    Hi Roy, Thanks for doing this work. What I think is lacking here is a comprehensive review of all the estimates done on an apples to apples basis. Judith Curry mentioned for example a paper by Wunch who estimated 20% of ocean warming was due to undersea volcanoes and vents.

  9. Mike Flynn says:

    Dr Spencer asked –

    “Is the Average of the Climate Models Better than the Individual Models?”

    Even the IPCC acknowledges that the “climate system” is chaotic, and that future climate states are not predictable.

    The answer to Dr Spencer’s hopefully rhetorical question is no.

    In any case, the abyssal depths do not freeze purely because they sit on rock which is above freezing temperature. Nothing to do with sunlight per se, or CO2. Water has interesting properties, which results in freshwater lakes under thousands of meters of ice with surface temperatures as low as -90 C. Not much sunlight or GHE involved.

    If 97% of scientists believe that chaos is usefully predictable, or that averaging chaos makes for useful predictability, then they are 100% ignorant, and at least partially incompetent. Probably call themselves climate scientists or something equally silly.

    Cheers.

  10. Joz Jonlin says:

    I think this begs the question that when considering everything you’ve gleaned from studying this paper, is it enough to consider it a fraudulent paper?

    Even if it is or isn’t, the 40% warming claim is now out there in the “global warming” zeitgeist. I submit that even painfully wrong papers can serve the movement well because retractions for fraud or mistakes never get the attention like the initial paper does. Therefore, even papers like this serve to effectively advance the narrative.

    • Fraudulent? No, I wouldn’t go that far. It’s just misleading for most readers. And when one adds the misleading use of “40%” headlines, that ends up becoming the sound bite that politicians and activists will use. The damage is done, and it cannot be retracted. No one wants to be bothered understanding that the 40% statistic isn’t what it’s being portrayed to be.

  11. Mike Flynn says:

    Water can be heated. Left to itself, it cools.

    Increasing crustal hotspots under the ocean would result in increased ocean heat content. Seems more likely than oceans being heated by CO2.

    From Oregon State University (re magma plumes being the source of hotspots) –

    “However, keep in mind these are just theories. Nobody really knows the answer. The honest answer is that lots of folks are working on it but haven’t come up with the answer yet.”

    Only climatologists have “settled science”.

    Cheers.

    • Entropic man says:

      Mike Flynn

      Ask a geologistand he will tell you that the upward heat flow through ocean crust is 0.1W/M^2 and that it has been constant for a good few million years. This includes hotspots such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

      There are two reasons why this cannot explain the ongoing 0.5W/M^2 increase in Ocean Heat Content.

      1) The geothermal heat flow is too small.

      2) It has not and is not increasing.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic…”Ask a geologistand he will tell you that the upward heat flow through ocean crust is 0.1W/M^2 …”

        Has any geologist every been down there at the crust measuring the heat flow?

  12. Aaron S says:

    Does heating the oceans necessarily impact the global climate or is it just a long term sink?

    Consider that 125,000 yr ago sea level was 6m higher than today (easily observed in Florida Keys that formed at sea level as a reef then), and CO2 was well below 300 ppm. Im curious what caused the sea level change? Most say orbital forcing. I am unsure how many sextillion Joules of warming can be created by slightly different orbital parameters between this recent peak and the peak at 125k yr bp (about 30 w/m2 insolation over ~ a thousand yrs), but the orbital parameters do not match actual climate response in timing (100,000 yr problem, See agu- Interglacial of the last 800,000 yr, 2015) or magnitude and have transitioned mysteriously from 40k to the 100k cycle without explanation. Big climate responses do not correlate with big orbital forcing. For me, this indicates there are internal climate dynamics and feedbacks that dominate the Earth’s climate system. Thus, if heating the ocean does not trigger those positive feedbacks then the climate sensitivity may be very low to an inceease in CO2 or even a warmer ocean that absorbs >90% of direct atmospheric warming. Also, a weaker process like reduced solar activity (both magnetic and full spectrum irradiance) flux that appears to create climate cooling (little ice age) in North hemisphere could impact a feedback like albedo and greatly impact climate even if subtle in direct warming. The Earth’s climate appears to me to be a system of feedbacks not direct warming like the UN CMIP5 model based hypotheses suggest.

    Citation: https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000482

    • gbaikie says:

      –Aaron S says:
      January 17, 2019 at 11:26 PM
      Does heating the oceans necessarily impact the global climate or is it just a long term sink?–
      I think heating or cooling the ocean determines global climate.
      I think if ocean average temperature was 2 C, then Earth in glacial period. If it’s 4 C, Earth is in interglacial period.
      And in last million years, the average ocean temperature has been about 1 to 5 C.

      But if your ocean increases in average temperature by .5 C [or more] you will have thermal expansion of ocean and get a much higher rise in sea levels.

      –Consider that 125,000 yr ago sea level was 6m higher than today (easily observed in Florida Keys that formed at sea level as a reef then), and CO2 was well below 300 ppm. Im curious what caused the sea level change? —

      Ocean average temperature of about 5 C.
      Currently your ocean average temperature is about 3.5. If our ocean were to warm to 5 C, sea level would rise by about 5 meter due to thermal expansion of ocean.
      Btw, Wiki disagrees:
      “Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today, with Greenland contributing 0.6 to 3.5 m (2.0 to 11.5 ft), thermal expansion and mountain glaciers contributing up to 1 m (3.3 ft)”
      and
      “Global mean sea surface temperatures are thought to have been higher than in the Holocene, but not by enough to explain the rise in sea level through thermal expansion alone, and so melting of polar ice caps must also have occurred. ”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

      Of course global mean sea surface temperature is not clearly about sea level. Though I would say wiki is right but doesn’t know it.

      Or I think one has to have higher average ocean temperature in order to have a higher average ocean surface temperature. Or more precisely in order the have consistently higher ocean surface temperature, one can not have colder average temperature of entire ocean, or having entire ocean having a average temperature of 4 to 5 C, allows there to be higher average surface temperature- or allows it be in a higher range.

      We at about 3.5 C in terms average ocean and our ocean average surface is about 17 C. If our average ocean temperature was to increase by .5 and thereby be 4 C, this allow a higher ocean surface temperature than 17 C- say, it’s 18 C rather than about 17 C.
      And I think having our average global surface cooler or warmer, be at 16 or 18 C rather than be about 17 C has huge effect upon earth average temperature and dramatic effect upon global climate.

      And it seems very unlikely to me, that .5 C increase in average ocean temperature is likely to occur within couple centuries, but possible within several centuries.

      • Aaron S says:

        Gbaikie,
        I keep this short because I dont know if you will be back to this blog. Are you possibly confusing ocean temperature with ocean surface temperature?

        I agree ocean surface is part of global climate, but deep ocean I am not. We seem to be talking apples to oranges. Did you read the paper? Almost nothing is consistent between all the parameters we can measure.

        • gbaikie says:

          Aaron S says:
          January 19, 2019 at 8:29 PM
          Gbaikie,
          I keep this short because I dont know if you will be back to this blog. Are you possibly confusing ocean temperature with ocean surface temperature?

          The entire ocean or average temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C.
          The average temperature of entire ocean has varied during the many glacial and interglacial period and it colder during glacial period and warmer during interglacial period.
          It seems the range is about 1 to 5 C.

          “I agree ocean surface is part of global climate, but deep ocean I am not. We seem to be talking apples to oranges. Did you read the paper? ”
          No.
          but let’s look:
          “Earth’s climate of the last 800 ka (1 ka = 1000 years) is the latest stage in a slow cooling that has been in progress for the last ~50 Ma (1 Ma = 1 million years) [Zachos et al., 2008]. During this cooling, ice sheets formed on the Antarctic continent ~40 Ma ago, while the first signs of Northern Hemisphere (NH) glaciation appeared much more recently. Only at the start of the Quaternary Period and the Pleistocene Epoch, ~2.6 Ma ago, did alternations between cold glacial periods with ice on the NH continents, and warmer intervals with little or no NH continental ice, first appear, reflected in the appearance of ice‐rafted debris [Shackleton et al., 1984; Kleiven et al., 2002] and in enhanced amplitude of cyclicity in benthic oxygen isotopes in marine sediment records (Figure 1) [Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005].”

          I agree or accept it as known.
          And I would say around 2.6 million our ocean [entire ocean average] temperature got cold enough and resulting in the beginning stages of our present Ice Age. Though it terms of earlier than this, with Antarctic moving to the south pole and India was crashing into the Asia continent it was cooling.
          Or Earth’s average temperature was falling well before 2.6 million years age

          Read on…
          “However, we cannot currently give a satisfactory explanation of how the climate system evolved to this state: why we live in an interglacial at this time, or indeed why we live in an interglacial embedded in 100 ka rather than 40 ka cycles.”

          Other than it seems to getting colder, I also don’t have an clue.

          I guess this is interesting:
          –The population of interglacials must be defined before any attempt is made to discuss their individual characteristics, including the statistics of their timing and spacing. Given that interglacial complexes (odd‐numbered Marine Isotope Stages, such as MIS 5, but excluding MIS3 which is not now considered to include an interglacial period) contain a number of temperate intervals within them, a crucial question is how to categorize interglacials and distinguish them from interstadials–

          Hmm:
          “Table 1. Comparison of Different Approaches to Defining Interglacials”
          What do I like?
          Well, regarding this:
          As warm or warmer than the Holocene
          I would say Holocene might be on the cool side.

          Anyhow, not on list but my choice would by temperature of entire ocean.
          Or have said ocean temperature of 4 C has to be interglacial period, and 2 C has to be a glacial period, but perhaps it narrower, like could say glacial period may start somewhere around when ocean is less than 3 C and may end and interglacial begin when more than 3 C.

          Though there is a problem with that, as is it seems possible to me, that glacial period may begin when ocean are at the warmest or there seems to be mechanism which stops the ocean from getting much warmer than 5 C and thereafter ocean temperature decline into glacial period.

          I was hoping they would get around to defining the glacial and interglacial periods.

          Anyhow, I give up.
          Is there particular reason to read this?

          • Aaron S says:

            Well really curious how you know ocean temperature in paleoclimate when we dont know today? In the distant past I think O stable isotopes were used but now we know they are most sensitive and dominated by ice sheet growth and retraction.

            Paper is unfortunately verbose, but if u look at graphs that review most of what we know you see we really struggle to put a finger on what drives climate change. I guess I am waiting for evidence that we know ocean temperature. Cheers. Aaron.

          • gbaikie says:

            —Aaron S says:
            January 20, 2019 at 9:28 AM
            Well really curious how you know ocean temperature in paleoclimate when we dont know today? In the distant past I think O stable isotopes were used but now we know they are most sensitive and dominated by ice sheet growth and retraction.–

            Well I tend to say Earth average temperature is about 15 C, but I would to give a more precise number, but it’s unavailable. And this is a bit annoying when we “measuring” global temperature in hundreds of degrees.
            Same goes for average ocean temperature which is about 3.5 C [and we are “measuring it” in thousandth of degrees}. But I don’t think the ocean is 3 C or colder OR 4 C or warmer.
            Same goes for average ocean surface temperature which is about 17 C.
            Though Berkeley Earth has made an reasonable effort at measuring average land temperature, which currently is pretty close to about 10 C:
            http://berkeleyearth.org/
            And it gives the average temperature for world cities and countries:
            http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/city-list/

            I know there recent “push” to claim ocean average temperature was not as hot in regards to “paleoclimate” in general, but I don’t find it a convincing argument.
            But generally we getting more and more ocean drilling sample of ocean floor which filling in the picture of the past.
            But in terms of paleoclimate the ocean is not as old as continental land masses, the ocean on average is something like 200 million years old- though of course there is old ocean floor on the continents. And generally speaking there seems to be a lot confusion with +300 million years old stuff- but it should get better in the future.

            It seems to me, that if we ever get to point of commercially mining ocean methane hydrates, the mining industry would drive such exploration to a far greater degree.

  13. Stephen P Anderson says:

    Zettajoules? LOL.

    • ftop_t says:

      Was thinking the same thing!!

      The Cheng study is a revision of an ESTIMATE of how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin.

      Is it correlated with changes in average windspeed over the same 40 year span or total volcanic activity across the oceans? How much hotter is the average temperature of the water around Hawaii (with Kilauea) in 2018 over the prior ten years?

      These scientists live in models vs. the real world.

  14. Alick says:

    If the core was experiencing cooling, where would that loss of heat go?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Alick,

      From a uni. course –

      “The first statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics – heat flows spontaneously from a hot to a cold body – tells us that an ice cube must melt on a hot day, rather than becoming colder.”

      The core is apparently above 5500 K.

      Space surrounding the Earth is around 4 K.

      Therefore, as the core cools, its “loss of heat”, as you put it, goes to cooler material surrounding it . . . , and eventually to disappear in outer space.

      Everything in the universe above about 2.7 K will cool to this temperature if allowed to do so.

      Why do you ask?

      Cheers.

      • Alick says:

        Well, it just seemed given a balanced surface, that if the core was experiencing cooling might not the surface experience warming?

  15. Stephen P Anderson says:

    Is there any science and has there ever been where there is so much agreement as there is among climate scientists? For instance if you had a convention of cosmologists or geologists would you have so much agreement, except with the Darwinists I guess?

    • gbaikie says:

      climate scientists want keep their jobs, so there is apparent agreement. But I could point to lot of things which are disagreed about.
      No or few climate scientist think backradiation heats the surface.
      Some climate scientists think without any CO2 in atmosphere Earth average would -18 C- most do not.
      Some science think there was snowball earth in the past- most do not.
      And most climate scientist don’t think Earth will/can be like Venus.

      Most climate scientist don’t know or think that Earth average temperature will be .5 C or higher within next 20 years- some think it’s possible Earth temperature could stay above the same or even cool in the next 20 year. Though over 100 years, one will get large amount agreement that Earth will warm [and they know in 50 or 100 years they will no longer need their jobs].

      • Entropic man says:

        Gbaikie

        Such cynicism.

        Do you tell your employers what they want to hear, rather than what they need to know?

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Gbaikie,
        Why don’t you go get a real science job and redeem yourself? Then, in 50 years if you’re still alive you’ll feel much better about yourself.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          stephen…”Gbaikie,
          Why dont you go get a real science job and redeem yourself? Then, in 50 years if youre still alive youll feel much better about yourself”.

          You might offer that advice to all those butt-kissing climate alarmist scientists who agree with each other.

      • gbaikie says:

        ” What Is Groupthink?
        Groupthink occurs when a group of well-intentioned people make irrational or non-optimal decisions that are spurred by the urge to conform or the discouragement of dissent. This problematic or premature consensus may be fueled by a particular agenda or simply because group members value harmony and coherence above rational thinking. In a groupthink situation, group members refrain from expressing doubts and judgments or disagreeing with the consensus. In the interest of making a decision that furthers their group cause, members may ignore any ethical or moral consequences. Risky or disastrous military maneuvers, such as the escalation of the Vietnam War or the invasion of Iraq are commonly cited as instances of groupthink. The term was first introduced in the November 1971 issue of Psychology Today, in an article by psychologist Irving Janis, who had conducted extensive study of group decision-making under conditions of stress. ”
        https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink

    • Aaron S says:

      There is near consensus agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causing warming. That would be like the consensus about the plates moving through time. But there is no agreement for other points like how much warming will occur, what feedbacks will be like, or catastrophic warming, and that would be equivalent to the strong disagreement on issues like did subduction under Borneo drive the opening of the South China sea or did the collision of India. Point is this is just a normal science but this one has a stronger political- almost religious following by laypeople and media. So your apparent appeal to authority doesn’t have much meaning in the debate.

      • Aaron S says:

        It is actually a really dangerous to have such ideology and is not scientific. Doesn’t matter if it is some person on an internet blog or a former scientist turned activist like Michael Mann- it shows the bias.

  16. Transport by Zeppelin says:

    Greenhouse warming dictates that the upper troposphere has to warm significantly faster than the surface. The IPCC says that in their models, the greater the negative lapse rate feedback the greater the positive water vapour feedback.

    All the measurements show this isn’t happening.

    The IPCC says that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to CO2. Dr Spencer says that netural warming & greenhouse forced warming cannot be distinguished because it cannot be measured.
    Surely the fact that the surface warming being faster than the upper troposphere warming is evidence that we’re seeing natural warming, or at least the majority of warming is natural

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Not correct. The predicted tropospheric hot spot is a consequence of warming due to ANY reason. It’s absence means that the science is not well understood. It does not prove absence of greenhouse warming. Similarly, finding a hot spot would not prove that warming is due to an increased greenhouse effect.

      The actual signature for greenhouse warming, a signature that does not apply to any other cause of warming, is the cooling of the stratosphere as the troposphere warms. If the warming were due to an increase in solar intensity, the stratosphere would warm with the troposphere. The stratosphere is cooling.

      • Transport by Zeppelin says:

        your quite incorrect.
        The ipcc ar4 Working Group I Chapter 9 Figure 9.1 clearly shows shows in this graph negative lapse rate feedback directly due to well-mixed greenhouse gases & nothing else”https://player.slideplayer.com/90/14440596/slides/slide_2.jpg

        IPCC quote
        Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).

        Figure 9.1 C clearly shows that mid tropospheric warming (negative lapse rate feedback) as a result of “well-mixed greenhouse gases”.

        also

        IPCC 8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models’ Climate Sensitivity Estimates?

        Because the water vapour and temperature responses are tightly coupled in the troposphere (see Section 8.6.3.1), models with a larger (negative) lapse rate feedback also have a larger (positive) water vapour feedback.

        You may also like to read this paper

        A Test of the Tropical 200‐ to 300‐hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models
        Ross McKitrick John Christy
        First published: 06 July 2018
        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EA000401
        The paper includes the Canadian model run showing the same negative lapse rate feedback https://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/e742f2c3-88ca-45c4-b3b8-f0200ee9eea4/ess2204-fig-0001-m.jpg

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Your failure to provide a link to the relevant section of the report makes it impossible to put your information in proper context. Perhaps you should do that. And while you’re at it, you might want to learn the difference between “your” and “you’re” … it’s a pretty big giveaway as to which side of politics you follow.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob…”Your failure to provide a link to the relevant section of the report makes it impossible to put your information in proper context”.

            That has more to do with the fact you have no idea what you’re talking about.

  17. Skeptikal says:

    “Given all of the uncertianties, I think we are still far from understanding just how much future warming will occur from increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.”

    What future warming? I still believe that natural cycles are under-estimated in all this global warming madness. I predict a cooler future, regardless of CO2 levels.

    If you think I’m crazy, then think about this… in an El Nino, where does all that heat come from?… and in a La Nina, where does all the heat go? The reality is that Mother Nature has a few secrets that we haven’t figured out yet.

    Putting a trend-line through a relatively short temperature record and blaming a trace gas for the supposedly “catastrophic warming” we’re seeing in the trend-line is kinda simplistic.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      In El Nino, the heat comes from the expanded surface area of warm water exposed to the atmosphere. In La Nina, atmospheric heat is absorbed by the expanded surface area of cool water that is exposed to the atmosphere.

  18. CO2isLife says:

    I have another post that you may enjoy relevant to this topic.

    CO2 Can’t Cause Catastrophic Warming as Long as El Niño, La Niña and Hurricanes Exist
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/01/19/co2-cant-cause-catastrophic-warming-as-long-as-el-nino-la-nina-as-well-and-hurricanes-exist/

    • Bobdesbond says:

      What are the qualifications of the author with respect to climatology?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        B,

        Why do you ask? Any reasonably intelligent 12 year child can compute averages with a slate and a piece of chalk. I’m sure you could do as well.

        Climate is the average of weather, and the IPCC states that future climate states are unpredictable. Maybe you are confusing climatology with science.

        Cheers.

  19. Max Dupilka says:

    I have been forecasting for many many years in Canada. We generally look at two or three different weather models when making the forecast. Very often the models will show large differences in various parameters. like pressure pattern, precipitation, etc. I have found, through much trial and errors, than taking a general average of the models seldom works best. Usually one of the models will be closest to reality. But in a lot of cases, you don’t know beforehand which model may be best. Some situations are pretty obvious. but others are anything but certain.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      max…”I have been forecasting for many many years in Canada. We generally look at two or three different weather models …”

      Let’s not forget Max that your models are validated to the extent they use real data and are programmed based on past real weather experience.

      Climate models use contrived data and they are programmed with sci-fi, like a warming factor for CO2 ranging from 9% – 25% and a positive feedback that recycles heat contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and supporting perpetual motion.

  20. Bobdesbond says:

    Here is what the UAH data really shows:
    https://tinyurl.com/UAH-by-Decade-Presentation

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      bob..”Here is what the UAH data really shows:”

      You ignorant Aussie troll. Imagine trying to peddle propaganda tripe like that on this blog.

      Anyone with half a brain can look at Roy’s graph on this sight and ‘see’ the flat response from 1998 – 2015. The idiot doing your video, ingenuously included the 2016 El Nino to get a warming trend.

  21. Transport by Zeppelin says:

    LOL Bobby boy
    just click on the link to the paper I provided, it will give all the information you’ll choose to ignore.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      I have no interest in your paper. I want the page number of the IPCC report where you got your quote. As you clearly accessed it when you made that post, you shouldn’t find it too difficult.

      Good to see you’ve mastered the skill of hitting the reply button BTW.

      • Transport by Zeppelin says:

        LOL bobby boy, first a slight regarding a spelling mistake, & now another because of a reply mistake. So sad.

        Here’s a link to the IPCC graph clearly showing the tropospheric hot spot, come negative lapse rate feedback, specifically due to “well mixed greenhouse gasses”.

        https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8-m8nXB8GB4C&pg=PA675&lpg=PA675&dq=Figure+9.1.+Zonal+mean+atmospheric+temperature+change+from+1890+to+1999+(%C2%B0C+per+century)+as+simulated+by+the+PCM+model+from+(a)+solar+forcing,+(b)+volcanoes,+(c)+well+mixed+greenhouse+gases,+(d)+tropospheric+and+stratospheric+ozone+changes,+(e)+direct+sulphate+aerosol+forcing+and+(f)+the+sum+of+all+forcings.+Plot+is+from+1,000+hPa+to+10+hPa+(shown+on+left+scale)+and+from+0+km+to+30+km+(shown+on+right).+See+Appendix+9.C+for+additional+information.+Based+on+Santer+et+al.+(2003a)&source=bl&ots=hAitD9veM0&sig=ACfU3U15wHrLI1JlkEoNHKwUB1ExZkopEA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjL_8KAq_zfAhUQfn0KHb0iCloQ6AEwAnoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=Figure%209.1.%20Zonal%20mean%20atmospheric%20temperature%20change%20from%201890%20to%201999%20(%C2%B0C%20per%20century)%20as%20simulated%20by%20the%20PCM%20model%20from%20(a)%20solar%20forcing%2C%20(b)%20volcanoes%2C%20(c)%20well%20mixed%20greenhouse%20gases%2C%20(d)%20tropospheric%20and%20stratospheric%20ozone%20changes%2C%20(e)%20direct%20sulphate%20aerosol%20forcing%20and%20(f)%20the%20sum%20of%20all%20forcings.%20Plot%20is%20from%201%2C000%20hPa%20to%2010%20hPa%20(shown%20on%20left%20scale)%20and%20from%200%20km%20to%2030%20km%20(shown%20on%20right).%20See%20Appendix%209.C%20for%20additional%20information.%20Based%20on%20Santer%20et%20al.%20(2003a)&f=false

        Here it is again with a shorter link bobby boy
        https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Summary-of-the-Climate-Dialogue-on-the-(-missing-)-Crok/3db77cc145311bd2c6fc367f7cab76b13620a0fb/figure/0

        Here’s the Canadian model run again for the mid tropospheric hot spot
        https://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/e742f2c3-88ca-45c4-b3b8-f0200ee9eea4/ess2204-fig-0001-m.jpg

        click on this one for a download of the US, UK, & german models all with the hot spot bobby boy
        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1029%2F2018EA000401&file=ess2204-sup-0001-SI-template_form.docx

        • Transport by Zeppelin says:

          bobby, “The greenhouse gas effect occurs in the bulk atmosphere. Greenhouse gases cannot cause surface warming if the atmosphere is not warming, and the rate of surface warming caused by greenhouse gases cannot be greater than the rate of atmospheric warming. Physicist Will Happer has estimated that if greenhouse gases are causing surface warming, the rate of atmospheric warming must by 20% greater than the rate of surface warming.”

          So again; Greenhouse warming dictates that the upper troposphere has to warm significantly faster than the surface. The IPCC says that in their models, the greater the negative lapse rate feedback the greater the positive water vapour feedback.

          All the measurements show this isnt happening.

          The IPCC says that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to CO2. Dr Spencer says that netural warming & greenhouse forced warming cannot be distinguished because it cannot be measured.
          Surely the fact that the surface warming being faster than the upper troposphere warming is evidence that were seeing natural warming, or at least the majority of warming is natural

          • Entropic man says:

            Transport by Zeppelins

            Your information is obsolete.

            Sherwood and Nishant(2015) confirmed the increased tropospheric warming.

            http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta

            Look particularly at Figure 1 and Figure 2.

          • RealOldOne2 says:

            Entropic man says: “Sherwood and Nishant(2015) confirmed the increased tropospheric warming.”
            No, they refused to accept the measured radiosonde temperature measurements because they didn’t fit their failed tropospheric warming hypothesis, so adjusted the actual measured temperatures using wind plus making up values where no temperature measurement values existed using kriging.

            Real science adjusts a failed hypothesis to fit the observed, measured data. Climate alarmists adjust the data to fit their sacrosanct, inviolable and failed hypothesis. That’s why eminent scientists recognize that climate alarmists aren’t doing science, they’re doing belief, religion, which is pseudoscience.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Apparently you are suffering from comprehension problems. Let me say it again with the relevant part highlighted:

          I want you to give me the page numbers of the IPCC report SO THAT I CAN PUT YOUR QUOTE IN CONTEXT.

          Why is it that you find this to be such an onerous task?

          • Bobdesbond says:

            I’ll make it easy for you. Here is the page where the report can be downloaded. Download it and tell be the page numbers.
            https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/

          • Transport by Zeppelin says:

            LOL yet again Bobby boy.
            You said, quote “Not correct. The predicted tropospheric hot spot is a consequence of warming due to ANY reason.” and you’ve asked me “to provide a link to the relevant section of the report”. Now I have done exactly that with the long link. Can you read? The page above the graph, chapter 9 of working group 1, Its on the very top of page 674, 9.2.2.1 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Response.

            Let me quote this bit especially for you bobby boy, “These figures indicate that the modelled verticle & zonal average signature of the temperature response should depend on the forcings”
            You are wrong bobby, now, go away & be obnoxious to someone else

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob…”I want you to give me the page numbers of the IPCC report SO THAT I CAN PUT YOUR QUOTE IN CONTEXT”.

            I once gave Barry the IPCC reference for their admission that no warming occurred between 1998 – 2012 and he still came back in denial.

            People get tired of the incessant whining by you alarmists, asking for peer review, etc., rather than rebutting the claim with real scientific data.

  22. Transport by Zeppelin says:

    Bobdesbond says:”I have no interest in your paper.”

    that explains why you’re so ignorant

    • Transport by Zeppelin says:

      Entropic man says:
      January 20, 2019 at 8:32 AM
      Transport by Zeppelins

      Your information is obsolete.

      Sherwood and Nishant(2015) confirmed the increased tropospheric warming…..

      Abstract
      We present an updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging <<<

      Sherwood had to manipulate the data to create a hotspot he knew was there, despite the data showing it isn't.
      Stephen Sherwood was so keen to find it in 2008 he published a graph changing the color scales so that “zero degrees warming” was a hot orange red color — that produced a graph that looked like he’d found the hot spot. In another paper he “found” the hot spot by throwing away all the temperature readings from weather balloons and using wind shear data instead. As if measurements of the wind would somehow be more accurate in estimating temperature than the equipment designed and individually calibrated to do exactly that.
      In the latest installment Sherwood has reiteratively homogenized (meaning blurred and smoothed) data for the nth time, adding in data from years when there should be no hot spot, and miraculously finally “found it”.

      Entropic man, read this

      A Test of the Tropical 200‐ to 300‐hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models
      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EA000401

      And Entropic man, both satellite data sets show the surface warming faster than the upper troposphere.

  23. Transport by Zeppelin says:

    Bobdesbond says:
    January 20, 2019 at 8:04 AM
    Ill make it easy for you. Here is the page where the report can be downloaded. Download it and tell >>>> be <<<< the page numbers.

    Who is "be" bobby? Or was that a spelling mistake, hmmmm? Well I can tell which side of politics you follow now, hey bobby,,, LOL,,, again!

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Apparently you can’t tell the difference between a mere typo and a vocabulary error that is made by approximately 50% of conservaturds.

      Read this:
      https://tinyurl.com/ycg3ddzm
      After you’ve read the baby stuff, make sure you click on the ‘Advanced’ tab to check out the stuff that is beyond your understanding.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        The amazing John Cook (self styled cognitive something or other) authored some nonsense about hotspots at his blog site SkepticalScience.

        Here’s what John Cook says –

        “About Skeptical Science

        This site was created by John Cook. I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade.”

        Who needs qualifications to be an expert in pseudoscience?

        As regards hotspots, even after tweaking, adjusting, and making all the usual excuses, he said –

        “Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying – there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend.”

        The advanced tab leads to nothing more substantial.

        I understand why you are too embarrassed to quote any of the nonsense you direct others to read.

        Just another pseudoscientific GHE believer trying to appear authoritative. You might do better to pretend to be dressed as a Nazi. I believe your authoriy (John Cook) supports this sort of thing.

        Cheers.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        Mikey is trying in vain to save you, but I’m sure you are proud enough not to hide behind someone else.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          B,

          I’m just writing a comment. Others may or may not agree, of course.

          John Cook appears to be an unqualified pseudoscientific buffoon.

          You appear to be stupid enough to appeal to the supposed authority of such a person.

          This would make you a gullible follower of a pseudoscientific buffoon.

          Try thinking for yourself. Learn some physics. Maybe you can even figure out why putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer hotter!

          If you need any help with physics – just ask.

          Cheers.

  24. Transport by Zeppelin says:

    Scepticle science? LOL.

    You’re too funny Bobby boy.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Bravo!! Well argued!! We all know how bravado trumps science! Why read science when you have the best fake laugh in the business, right?

      Nice spelling by the way.
      And … even that stationary reply button seems to be fast enough to elude you. Would you like some mouse training?

  25. Transport by Zeppelin says:

    Your constant insults Bobby are just a sign of your weak arguments & a display of antisocial behaviour. Perhaps you suffer from oppositional defiant disorder, I’m not sure.

    I posted what the IPCC say, & a scientific paper as further proof. You provide a link to skeptical science for crying out loud. How pathetic. A statement from fat Al Gore would have more sway, LOL Bobby boy.

    Now run along & play with the other brattish bores.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Oh well – as I was the last person here to post science, I guess I win the debate by default. I do hope that one day you’ll manage to find that reply button.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        B,

        Would you mind restating the debate proposition?

        Presumably, it had nothing to do with facts. Facts cannot be debated away, any more than figments such as the GHE can be debated into becoming facts.

        Carry on regardless, if you wish.

        Cheers.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Unless you’ve changed your name, I don’t believe I was talking to you, honey.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B,

            And I should care because . . . ?

            Cheers.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            That’s exactly what I was asking myself. And yet – here you are.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B,

            It’s a bit desperate when you ask yourself a question and can’t get an answer.

            Are you a foolish Warmist, perhaps?

            The world wonders.

            Cheers.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Oh – I GOT my answer. And you just confirmed it for me by replying.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Eh?

            You told yourself you were mentally deranged? How odd.

            Cheers.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            The fact that YOU replied means that I am mentally deranged?? Keep that ‘sound logic’ coming dear.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B,

            You wrote –

            “The fact that YOU replied means that I am mentally deranged??”

            If you say so, Bobdesbond, if you say so. You can blame me for your mental derangement if you wish.

            I’m always prepared to help those less fortunate than myself.

            Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      transport…”Perhaps you suffer from oppositional defiant disorder, Im not sure”.

      No, Bob is just a certain breed of Australian who loves to argue the opposite for the sake of it.

  26. Aaron S says:

    Changing subjects. Gas hydrates struggle economically. They are common, but just can not compete with shallow methane or onshore methane. Not even close. Methane is a byproduct of most oil fields so supply is high and there are many many 100 billion cubic feet gas discoveries that are discovered hoping to find oil but never produced because gas is just to hard to get from point A to market at point B. US would be wise to invest in methane infrastructure because there are 100s to 1000s of years of mostly clean energy available. But until a bunch more infrastructure is built hthere is a global surplus and very little market for hydrates. But once the easy stuff runs out as u say there is a bunch of methane on the ocean floor.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Yeah – just take us up to the equivalent of 2000ppm CO2.

    • Aaron S says:

      1. Earth was happy at 0.2% CO2.
      2. what other option is there? Africa, Asia, East Asia are all hungry to develop.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        Perhaps you’ve heard of renewables?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          B,

          Perhaps you’re stupid and ignorant?

          Cheers.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Tried Adult Matchmaker yet?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B,

            Do you really think it would make you less stupid and ignorant if I did?

            Are you mad as well as stupid and ignorant?

            Cheers.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            So sorry Mikey – I forgot you were a conservative.
            You would be better to look for your match on ancestry.com.
            Just think of all those juicy cousins …

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B,

            As well as demonstrating stupidity, ignorance, and mental deficit, you seem determined to claim mind reading abilities. Add your claim of forgetfulness, and you might appear slightly confused to some.

            I will ignore your pointless gratuitous advice, as you seem to be in the grip of some strange compulsion to utter incomprehensible random words.

            Feel free to continue, if it makes you feel happy. All part of the rich tapestry of life.

            Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Aaron…”Gas hydrates struggle economically. They are common, but just can not compete with shallow methane or onshore methane”.

      You have to remember, Aaron, that the climate change thing has nothing to do with actual climate change, or fossil fuels. It’s a political game initiated by the UN via the IPCC to put them in charge of gathering funds from world nations. Since the 1960s, the UN has been pushing for a universal taxation system to fund their Pollyanna projects.

      If the projects,aimed at feeding people in poor countries, had any merit, they would have been implemented long ago. However, the UN is a weak-kneed, lip-service organization that has no intention of helping anyone anywhere.

      Even though the UN is inept at collecting taxes, the idea of using bs science to gather income has appealed to governments from the left of the political spectrum to the right. At the same time they are pushing the religious message about climate change they are pushing for pipelines to carry oil, as here in Canada.

  27. Erik Aamot says:

    I don’t think it’s the right timing to admit your collusion with Russia since at least 1979

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Erik…”I dont think its the right timing to admit your collusion with Russia since at least 1979″

      Not all of us are paranoid about Russia. We leave that to the McCarthyists who are currently the Democrats with their Republican sympathizers.

  28. Dr. Strangelove says:

    Question to Dr. Spencer

    The Clausius-Clapeyron equation describes the phase transition of matter.
    dP/dT = L/(T dV)
    dP/dT = derivative of co-existence curve, L = specific latent heat, T = temperature, dV = specific volume

    Expressed in terms of saturation vapor pressure:
    dP/dT = L P/(R T^2)
    P = saturation vapor pressure, R = gas constant

    Solving this equation for P of water gives temperature-dependent values lower than atmospheric pressure. Of course at atmospheric pressure, T = 100 C or the boiling point of water. The question is why does water evaporate at atmospheric pressure below 100 C? According to Clausius-Clapeyron, it should not. But it does!

    • Ball4 says:

      “The question is why does water evaporate at atmospheric pressure below 100 C?”

      Evaporation depends on the state of the liquid; condensation depends on the state of the vapor above the liquid.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ball4…”The question is why does water evaporate at atmospheric pressure below 100 C?”

        I’m surprised you replied to this question since the equation offered has a direct reference to heat. Clausius-Clapyron seem to think heat exists but you do not.

        • Ball4 says:

          Gordon, you continually misuse the actual words of Clausius to reform them to your own incorrect view, this is known around here as putting up a strawman then attacking it.

          There is no kind of heat in existence in any object. As treated by Clausius in his own translated words*, heat is only a measure & heating is a process not a substance.

          *Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Ball4,

            If O2, N2, and CO2 molecules have the same kinetic energy, is their measured heat the same?

            Would those gases in a sample (containing those gases) at a certain temperature, have the same kinetic energy?

            You really have no clue, have you?

            No CO2 heating, no GHE.

            Carry on waffling.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”*Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”

            Here’s the actual quote:

            “We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and of ether, and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva of this motion”.

            Let’s break this down so you can see what is actually being stated.

            part 1…”We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and of ether…

            part 2…”…and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva of this motion”

            Note in part 2 it says ‘THE QUANTITY OF HEAT’ is a measure of the Vis Viva…aka kinetic energy.

            It does not say that heat itself is a measure, it’s the quantity of heat that is the measure. That’s is, the number of calories of heat is the measure.

            In part one it definitively states that heat is the motion of the particles…aka atoms.

            Since kinetic energy is a descriptor of energy in motion, heat becomes the energy of atoms in motion, either externally or internally.

          • Ball4 says:

            Gordon correctly deduces heat is not a substance that can flow: “heat is the motion of the particles…aka atoms.”

            Molecules too Gordon. Though only the total KE of molecules and atoms INTERNAL to an object which is known as the total therm-odynamic intern-al (therm-al) energy.

            Try to stick with your new-found enlightenment Gordon.

            NB: this means when two solid objects are in contact their thermodynamic internal energy is exchanged NOT the physical atoms and molecules. But I predict Gordon will still slip back into his heat exists as a substance that can flow from one object to another object view.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”Gordon correctly deduces heat is not a substance that can flow: heat is the motion of the particlesaka atoms.”

            No bally, heat is the energy of the atoms in motion. Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of the atoms, and that energy can be added and removed. Therefore, heat, as thermal energy, can flow.

            Kinetic energy means only that energy is in motion.

            The motion of atoms as they vibrate in a lattice is mechanical work. However, there is an equivalence between heat and work. If you add heat, as thermal energy, the work rate increases and the atoms vibrate harder. If you remove heat, as thermal energy, the atoms vibrate less, doing less work.

            Therefore you arrive at the famous 1st law of thermodynamics. If you look at (actual) page 21 of the 1979 edition of the Clausius book on the Mechanical Theory of Heat, he develops the 1st law quite neatly.

            He begins by defining any body where its initial conditions are known, like volume, temperature, etc. Then he adds an infinitesimal quantity of heat dQ and asks what becomes of it and what effect does it produce.

            This is incredibly insightful science considering the atom was not yet fully understood. Electrons were not discovered for another 10 years.

            Clausius then defines the quantity of heat in the body as H and any change of H as dH, and dL to represent an incremental amount of work done, like in the vibration of the atoms in a lattice. He postulates,

            dQ = dH + dL

            Then he considers the forces related to the work as the forces between the atoms themselves, J, and the external forces on the body, W.

            Therefore dL = dJ + dW

            and the equation above becomes,

            dQ = dH + dJ + dW.

            He then goes into a brilliant discussion on the relationship between the initial conditions in the body and the path followed to change those condition and return to them. In another part of the book he goes into an explicit explanation of the paths, proving conclusively that heat can never by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.

            After his explanation of initial conditions and the paths followed during a process, he relates the internal heat H and the internal work of the atomic vibrations, J, to internal energy as:

            U = H + J.

            That is the same U in the 1st law, which Clausius coined and he followed that:

            dQ = dU + dW

            Wherein Q and W are respectively external heat added and external work done.

            There you have it, the law governing the conservation of energy in which the energies Q, as heat, and W, as work, affect the internal energy, U.

            Heat is energy. It can flow.

          • Ball4 says:

            Yes Gordon, heat is a measure of the kinetic energy of the object’s INTERNAL atoms and/or molecules in constant motion.

            Heat is a measure of particle avg. kinetic energy. Energy can flow in/out of an object meaning an increase/decrease of total thermodynamic internal energy of an object.

            Nonzero Q is due to a temperature difference between objects.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”Gordon, heat is a measure of the kinetic energy of the object’s INTERNAL atoms and/or molecules in constant motion”.

            Still in deep denial, are you, even after the quote from Clausius you supplied confirms that heat IS the kinetic energy of atoms?

            There is no shame in making a mistake bally, the shame is being unable to admit it. You mistook the ‘quantity of heat’ as a measure for heat itself. You thought Clausius said heat is a measure of KE when in fact he said the ‘quantity of heat’ is a measure of KE.

            Yes, the number of calories describes the quantity of heat and is a measure of kinetic energy. However, the energy that is kinetic, i.e. moving, is thermal energy, aka heat.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”Heat is a measure of particle avg. kinetic energy”.

            Bally…what is the 1st law called? Is it not the conservation of energy law?

            dQ = dU + dW

            Each component is energy, the Q, the U, and the W.

            HEAT IS ENERGY!!!

            The ‘quantity of heat is a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms. The energy IS heat, which IS the KE.

            You still don’t get it. KE is a descriptor for ANY energy in motion. Kinetic means moving. Potential refers to energy at rest.

            All that KE tells you is that some form of energy is moving. It tells you nothing about what kind of energy is moving. That’s motion related to atoms is called thermal energy.

            What kind of kinetic energy describes the motion of atoms? Thermal energy describes that energy because it IS that energy.

          • Ball4 says:

            “HEAT IS ENERGY!!!”

            Not necessary to scream Gordon. Per Clausius heat is H, not Q, not W.

            Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.

            p.225: Let the quantity of heat (alone not including internal work) contained in it be expressed by H

            H is enthalpy. Thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy U describes relevant total energy because it IS that total energy.

            So, Gordon, think this experiment through by using Clausius’ def. of heat H (not Gordon’s) to answer this question:

            Draw a drinking glass of hot tap water out of your faucet. Hold the glass of hot tap water up where you can view it & the Pacific ocean.

            Is there more heat in your glass of hot tap water or out in the Pacific Ocean?

          • Ball4 says:

            “You mistook the ‘quantity of heat’ as a measure for heat itself.”

            A quantity is a measure Gordon. Use Clausius’ def. of heat H ALL the time, Clausius def. of U all the time, not Gordon’s, and Gordon cannot go wrong. It will help Gordon also to use long form “thermodynamic internal” instead of short form “thermal” in these dicussions.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dr…”Of course at atmospheric pressure, T = 100 C or the boiling point of water.”

      Why? Why would T not be the actual temperature?

      If you have a phase change at 100C, where water changes state to steam, then the 100C applies. Water at 40C can produce water vapour through evapouration and at atmospheric pressure.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      DS,

      You have asked a good question. Ask some other climate scientists as well. You’ll probably get a lot of answers similar to Ball4. Sciency sounding, devoid of utility.

      I’ll just point out that the CC equation is an approximation – there are far more accurate ones. None of them address the physics behind the phenomenon.

      You could ask about the reasons why CO2 behaves completely differently from H2O – from first principles, of course. Expect even more waffle. Have fun.

      Cheers.

    • Dr. Strangelove says:

      A simple experiment you can do at home.

      In enclosed bathroom, observe how long for a wet hand towel to dry by evaporation. Wet the towel again. This time use a hair dryer but turn off the heater so the air blown is at ambient temperature. Notice the towel will dry quicker. The air blown has the same humidity as air inside bathroom. This simple experiment proves the result is not due to removal of saturated air.

      A blogger said this is very basic physics. Okay give me links to textbooks or lecture notes that explain this phenomenon. Einstein said we discover new things by asking silly questions that only children ask. We stop learning when we stop asking questions.

      How does wind increase evaporation? Cmon scientists you can answer it if this is really very basic physics.

      • Ball4 says:

        The air blown has the same humidity as air inside bathroom. This simple experiment proves the result is not due to removal of saturated air.

        You are not clear in what is meant by “saturated air”.

        “How does wind increase evaporation?”

        The wind from the unpowered dryer changes the state of the liquid on your towel. Not the state of the vapor above the liquid.

        Any modern text book on Clausius-Clapeyron will show this but I recommend one of your choice specializing in atm. thermodynamics.

        For a fun and enlightening discussion of experimental condensation on a mirror in a humid bathroom I always recommend both of Bohren’s inexpensive or library books:

        “Wonder why steam rises from a bowl of hot soup?”

        https://www.amazon.com/Clouds-Glass-Beer-Experiments-Atmospheric/dp/0486417387/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1548341877&sr=1-2&keywords=bohren

        https://www.amazon.com/Light-Through-Yonder-Window-Breaks-ebook/dp/B00A73IVG0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1548342037&sr=1-1&keywords=bohren+what+light

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Dr. Strangelove,

        Look up Newton’s law of cooling. It describes roughly how the evaporation rate depends on the difference in the concentration of ambient and saturated air. Wind reduces the effective diffusivity of water vapor between the air in the room and at the surface of the towel.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Sorry, that’s “wind increases the effective diffusion ….”

          • Ball4 says:

            “Look up Newton’s law of cooling.”

            Which one? The one Newton annunciated or the one in modern text books that shows a temperature difference. For an unpowered hair dryer, there is no temperature difference in/out so q=0.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Thanks for reminding me that the law applies to cooling. The corresponding mass transfer equation for diffusion describes surface evaporation.

            However, you do not know that the temperature at the surface is the same as in the bulk air. I suspect it will not be and therefore q does not equal 0.

            By the way, if heat does not flow, why do textbooks refer to heat transfer and heat flow interchangeably?

          • Ball4 says:

            In the example: “This time use a hair dryer but turn off the heater so the air blown is at ambient temperature.”

            So the experiment is set up to be conducted at equilibrium, ambient thus q=0.

          • Ball4 says:

            “if heat does not flow, why do textbooks refer to heat transfer and heat flow interchangeably?”

            Somewhere along the line there was drift away from Clausius’ written work by the authors of many texts, but not all. This is not an only example, witness Newton annunciated something different in his writing than what many modern texts call Newton’s Law. Many authors that don’t bother to walk over to the stacks and look up what they should are just a study in error propagation of which there is much in thermodynamics. Cliff Truesdell has a terrific book on the subject.

            If you walk/drive over to the library and look up the original (sometimes translated) writings of both Clapeyron and, 40 years later, by Clausius, you will find Clausius-Clapeyron is appropriately named in modern texts. Unlike the inaccurately named Charles-Gay-Lussac and Boyle-Marriot laws.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “So the experiment is set up to be conducted at equilibrium, ambient thus q=0.”

            As soon as you put a wet towel in a dry room, you no longer have equilibrium nor can you assume constant temperatures between the surface of the towel and the room. You are fired.

            Get your butt out of the library and do some actual experimental work.

          • Ball4 says:

            ”As soon as you put a wet towel in a dry room, you no longer have equilibrim”

            Depends on what is meant by “equilibrium”. In this specific case example, it meant ambient equilibrium. Meaning the towel was not brought in below or above ambient temperature at the start, towel was at ambient, q=0, when the unheated dryer wind was turned on. The local towel temperature thereafter is determined by at least: convective, radiative and conductive energy transfer, vapor condensation and liquid evaporation. If there is a towel temperature change from ambient from totaling all these components, then q .NE. 0 until towel locally equals ambient when again towel q=0.

          • Ball4 says:

            Ugh. “As soon as you put a wet towel in a dry room, you no longer have equilibrim”

            Depends on what is meant by “equilibrium”. In this specific case example, it meant ambient equilibrium. Meaning the towel was not brought in below or above ambient temperature at the start, towel was at ambient, q=0, when the unheated dryer wind was turned on. The local towel temperature thereafter is determined by at least: convective, radiative and conductive energy transfer, vapor condensation and liquid evaporation. If there is a towel temperature change from ambient from totaling all these components, then q .NE. 0 until towel locally equals ambient when again towel q=0.

      • Dr. Strangelove says:

        Since nobody can show me any textbook that explains my hair dryer experiment, I invented my Vortex theory from fluid mechanics and kinetic molecular theory.

        Conservation of energy in fluids is given by Bernoulli’s equation:
        v^2 /2 + g z + P/d = k
        where: v = wind velocity, g = gravitational acceleration, z = elevation, P = static pressure, d = mass density of air, k = constant
        Let: z = 0, multiply the equation by d to obtain the pressure form of Bernoulli’s equation:
        d v^2 /2 + P = k = Pa
        The first term is dynamic pressure. Pa is standard atmospheric pressure (depends on elevation)
        P = Pa – d v^2 /2

        Atmospheric pressure is related to temperature at constant volume by Gay-Lussac’s law:
        Pa/Ts = k = P/Td
        Where: Ts = static air temperature (v = 0), Td = dynamic air temperature (v > 0)
        Substitute P from Bernoulli’s equation:
        Pa/Ts = (Pa – d v^2 /2)/Ta
        Td = Ts/Pa (Pa – d v^2 /2) Eq. 1
        Equation 1 shows that dynamic air temperature (Td) is inversely proportional to wind velocity (v)

        Temperature translates to mean molecular velocity by kinetic molecular theory:
        v^2 = 8/pi k Td/m Eq. 2
        where: v = mean molecular velocity, k = Boltzmann constant, m = mass of water molecule
        Equation 2 shows that mean molecular velocity (v) is proportional to dynamic air temperature (Td). Gas molecules with velocities greater than mean velocity can escape atmospheric pressure and evaporate.

        Kinetic temperature can be derived from ideal gas law:
        Ps V = n R T
        T = Ps/(n/V R)
        Where: T = kinetic temperature, Ps = saturated vapor pressure, n/V = molar density, R = ideal gas constant
        Molar density can be expressed in terms of humidity:
        n/V = Ha/M
        where: Ha = absolute humidity, M = molar mass of water
        Substitute n/V to the gas equation:
        T = Ps/(Ha/M R)
        T = Ps M/(Ha R) Eq. 3

        Gas molecules in water vapor have different velocities given by Maxwell- Boltzmann distribution:
        P = (m/(2 pi k T)^0.5 e^(-m v^2 /2 k T)
        Where: P = probability of gas molecules with velocity v
        Integrating the equation from mean molecular velocity (v) to infinity gives the evaporation ratio (E). This is the ratio of mass of water vapor and mass of water exposed to air before evaporation.
        E = ∫ (m/(2 pi k T)^0.5 e^(-m v^2 /2 k T) ] v to ∞ Eq. 4

        Equation 4 is my Evaporation equation. This integral equation can be expressed as a summation of an infinite series that converge to a finite value equal to the evaporation ratio:
        E = ∑ E1 + E2 + E3 +… + En where n = ∞
        The evaporation ratio can be determined by solving the four equations simultaneously (Equations 1 to 4)

        These four equations describe evaporation for laminar air flow. In Part 2, I will derive the equations for turbulent air flow (where the name Vortex theory comes from). Yup this is very basic physics, except nobody can point to any textbook that discusses it.

        • Ball4 says:

          “nobody can point to any textbook that discusses it.”

          I pointed to two. Ones that use experiment to explain the theory of towel liquid evaporation.

          Evaporation depends on the state of the liquid; condensation depends on the state of the vapor above the liquid.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Gas molecules with velocities greater than mean velocity can escape atmospheric pressure and evaporate.”

            You will want to reword this, water vapor molecules have already evaporated from liquid state. Liquid water is not an ideal gas.

            Evaporation depends on the state of the liquid; condensation depends on the state of the vapor above the liquid.

          • Dr. Strangelove says:

            The saturation point is the co-existence curve in Clausius-Clapeyron equation. At this point, evaporation and condensation are simultaneous and reversible.
            Atmospheric pressure = liquid pressure = vapor pressure

            This corresponds to the mean molecular velocity. For gas molecules with higher velocities, evaporation becomes irreversible (they don’t condense back to liquid) This is what “escape atmospheric pressure and evaporate” means

          • Ball4 says:

            “For gas molecules with higher velocities, evaporation becomes irreversible”

            Gas molecules do not evaporate, liquid molecules evaporate. Condensation then depends on the state of the vapor above the liquid.

      • Dr. Strangelove says:

        Part 2 of my theory
        Turbulent flow occurs when the wind velocity is at angle with a water surface. The collision of wind and water breaks the laminar air flow. In turbulent flow, vortices are formed over the water surface. A vortex is like a tiny tornado where air move in circles at high speed. The center of a vortex is low pressure. Turbulent flow is more complicated than laminar flow because there are many vortices at varying speeds.

        To quantify turbulence, I invented the Strangelove number (s). This is similar to the Reynolds number in fluid mechanics, which differentiates laminar and turbulent flows. Reynolds number applies to fluid flow in pipes whereas Strangelove number applies to air flow over water or wet surfaces.
        s = 1 + tan B + 4 a/y
        where: B = angle between wind velocity and water surface 1 is turbulent. Laminar flow is when wind velocity is parallel to the water surface and no waves. When there are different waves in turbulent flow, s is the average of Strangelove numbers.

        Strangelove equations:
        1) Td = Ts/Pa (Pa d v^2 /2)
        2) v^2 = 8/pi k Td/m
        3) T = Ps/(k Ha/m + Pa/Ts)
        4) E = ∫ (m/(2 pi k T)^0.5 e^(-m v^2 /2 k T) ] v to ∞
        5) e = s (C + D v) (Hs H) A

        (Note: I modified Eq. 3)
        Since turbulent flow creates vortices and my theory has five equations, I will name it the Vortex V theory (pun intended). I invented this theory to answer how a hair dryer works. We discover new things by asking silly questions that only children ask.

        • Ball4 says:

          “Laminar flow is when wind velocity is parallel to the water surface and no waves.”

          Can’t even imagine “no waves” unless wind velocity is zero in which case there is no flow. Turn your hair dryer on over calm water and you immediately get waves in the water.

  29. vinceram (@vinceram) says:

    I believe their Ocean heat uptake “estimates” are far more inaccurate than they realize…

    For example — the temps at the deepest ocean depths (@ approx 30,000 feet, or @ a pressure of approx. 100 MPa) hover around 1-4 degrees C.

    However if you refer to the phase diagram for water — at 100MPa — liquid water can exist at temperatures as low as -10 degrees C! so the heat flux from the ocean floor to the ocean above, at these depths, warms the water up to +14 degrees C!

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Phase_diagram_of_water.svg/700px-Phase_diagram_of_water.svg.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      vinceram…”However if you refer to the phase diagram for water — at 100MPa — liquid water can exist at temperatures as low as -10 degrees C!”

      Good point. It seems climate alarmist scientists are not well versed in the physics/chemistry you describe. I studied very basic phase diagrams and eutectic points for phase changes between molten metal and solid metals, and I am aware of the effect of temperature and pressure on materials.

      It’s the same in the atmosphere where pressure changes in atmospheric gases cause temperature changes. There seems to be far too much of a focus on lapse rate while ignoring the effect of gravity on atmospheric gases.

      In fact, the focus on a trivial gas like CO2 is ingenuous. Sometimes you have to stand back and look at the overall picture. With AGW theory, it’s almost as if the nitrogen and oxygen making up 99% of the atmosphere are considered to play no part in atmospheric warming.

      • Ball4 says:

        “With AGW theory, it’s almost as if the nitrogen and oxygen making up 99% of the atmosphere are considered to play no part in atmospheric warming.”

        “No part” is incorrect Gordon. Gordon is wrong as usual, writing before getting the facts.

        Just another example of a useless strawman put up by Gordon’s imagination without sound reasoning. Huge amount of atm. N2 and O2 are known to contribute a small part to clear sky atm. opacity as multi-annual global OLR from O2,N2 is reduced by 0.28 W/m^2 as observed from space (Hopfner 2012).

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Ball4,

          More pointless sciency waffle?

          What’s your sciency waffling reason for the Earth cooling from a molten state?

          Clear sky atm. opacity, perhaps? 0.28 W/m^2? Maybe more, maybe less?

          What a fool!

          Cheers.

          • Ball4 says:

            Mike, you are guilty of cherry picking again. The whole universe has cooled for a lot longer. And some of the Earth is still molten. Follow my advice to Gordon, look up the known facts before writing incorrectly and cherry picking all the time.

            I will ignore your pointless gratuitous comments, as you seem to be in the grip of some strange compulsion to write incomprehensible random words.

          • Svante says:

            Do not forget it has cooled even more since the Big Bang.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Ball4,

            The Earth’s surface has cooled. The Sun’s has not. So much for your attempt at misdirection.

            You cannot explain why, and still claim the existence of the nonsensical GHE, can you?

            Come now, and explain why you think that the universe is still cooling, but the Earth is getting hotter?

            Have you found a testable GHE hypothesis yet? No? Why am I not surprised?

            Questions, questions. No answers from you. No surprises there!

            Cheers.

          • Ball4 says:

            I will ignore Mike’s pointless gratuitous comment questions, as Mike seems to be in the grip of some strange compulsion to write incomprehensible random words. Mike cannot read minds either as Mike so often claims.

          • Svante says:

            Yeah Mike,
            1) The universe is cooling since the big bang.
            2) The universe is everything.
            3) So nothing can warm.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Ball4,

            Powerful stuff this climatological pseudoscience!

            Heating is due to cooling, snow is due to heat, and replying to comments is ignoring them!

            Do you understand the difference between ignoring and not ignoring?

            If you don’t, you are merely ignorant. If you do, but choose to say one thing while performing a completely opposite fashion, then you are both ignorant and stupid into the bargain.

            Maybe you should take your own advice and actually ignore me. Then you would avoid flattering me by having to use my words in your comments. I don’t blame you – obviously my turn of phrase is far better than anything you can devise.

            Thank you for the flattery through imitation.

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Svante,

            You wrote –

            “Yeah Mike,
            1) The universe is cooling since the big bang.
            2) The universe is everything.
            3) So nothing can warm.”

            If you believe that, you are an excellent prospect to join the GHE cult.

            They believe that the heating effect of CO2 lay dormant for four and a half billion years, allowing the surface to cool. The heating properties of CO2 were only recently conjured forth by the climatological pseudoscientific spells of Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann.

            What a load of rubbish! Shared delusion writ large. Good luck with yours.

            Cheers.

          • Ball4 says:

            “..actually ignore me.”

            Not likely Mike, your folly is to be pointed out occasionally at a time of my choosing. Note I wrote not responding to your silly, pointless, gratuitous comment questions.

            Keep on claiming you can read minds Mike, the entertainment in your nonsense is only slightly less than certain other entertainers around here. Though it is entirely possible Mike can achieve greater nonsense than any other blog commenter with a little more effort on his part.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Ball4,

            Now that you have decided to simultaneously ignore and not ignore my comments (something like climatological pseudoscience believes in the Earth heating while cooling), maybe you could toss in a relevant fact now and then.

            For example you refer to a folly, but you can’t actually describe it.

            Just like pretending to have a testable GHE hypothesis – supposedly explaining a GHE that you also cannot describe.

            Well done. I’m sure you’ll get round to explaining how the rest of the universe is cooling, while the Sun is apparently not, and the Earth is supposedly heating up after four and a half billion years of cooling. All due to the magical properties of CO2, no doubt.

            What is you are trying to say, or don’t you know? Is Gavin Schmidt a climate scientist or an undistinguished mathematician? Is Michael Mann a Nobel Laureate or a deluded fool?

            The world wonders.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”Yeah Mike,
            1) The universe is cooling since the big bang”.

            Good grief, bally not only thinks heat does not exist, he thinks that cooling does exist. I wonder how bally reckons the joint HEATED up in the first place so it could cool down.

            It’s typical that he also believes in a sci-fi concept like the Big Bang, which has absolutely no proof.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”Follow my advice to Gordon, look up the known facts….”

            I do it regularly, and combined with my engineering training it tells me heat does exist as energy, contrary to your uneducated opinion.

          • Ball4 says:

            “I do it regularly”

            “It” being look up the known facts which doesn’t show in Gordon’s comments as in Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”

            Heat is not a substance, Gordon, heat doesn’t exist and heating is only a process.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”

            Nice cherry pick bally.

            You left out the most important wordS, it should read, “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that “THE QUANTITY” OF heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.

            Nowhere does Clausius state that heat is a measure of kinetic energy. He states clearly that heat IS kinetic energy.

          • Ball4 says:

            A quantity is a measure Gordon. Use Clausius’ def. of heat ALL the time, not Gordon’s, and Gordon cannot go wrong.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ball4…”Huge amount of atm. N2 and O2 are known to contribute a small part to clear sky atm.”

          Only by idiot alarmists who fail to comprehend that gases in a mixture have laws governing them.

          Bally and his alarmist crowd believe that 0.04% of the atmosphere can warm the rest while 99% of the gases cannot absorb heat from the surface.

          Bally does not think thermals exist because the word contains ‘therm” a reference to heat which he believes has no existence. Therefore air comprised of 99% N2/O2 cannot be heated by direct conduction at the surface and rise as hot air. All that despite the fact that pretty well every human on the planet knows that hot air rises.

          Bally thinks it’s the 1% of WV and the 0.04% CO2 that is causing the warming of the air so it can rise. Bally also thinks that if you remove all WV and CO2 from room air that the room cannot warm…or cool.

          Bally does not understand Dalton’s law of partial pressures or how temperature is related to pressure. He fails to understand that if two gases make up 99% of the pressure of a mix of gases that temperature is related to pressure according to the gas partial pressures.

          Bally is stuck at the level wherein temperature is the average kinetic energy of a gas mix. He has difficulty extrapolating that concept to individual gases in a mix and their percent mass.

          Bally thinks a gas with a percent mass close to 0.04% of a mix can heat the rest of the mix, with the 0.04% molecules rushing around colliding with the other 99% of the molecules, warming them.

          Bally lives in a sci-fi world like the rest of his alarmist buddies.

          This is way over svante’s head. He is likely to come back with another inane video from a blatant climate alarmist.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Bally and his alarmist crowd believe that 0.04% of the atmosphere can warm the rest while 99% of the gases cannot absorb heat from the surface.”

            I have no alarmist crowd and Gordon misuses my words to create his own strawman then Gordon attacks his own strawman. My words mean 99% of the gases can absorb energy from the surface. Gordon remains very confused about Clausius’ def. & use of the “heat” term.

            Gordon joins Mike Flynn in claiming to be able to read minds: “Bally does not think thermals exist” ( et.al.), in this case thermal is short for “thermodynamic internal” a term which Gordon also misuses.

            The field of basic, introductory atm. thermodynamics remains way over Gordon’s head. Gordon should check the text book facts before commenting.

          • vinceram (@vinceram) says:

            another way to look at N2(and O2) as per IR

            http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/144687

      • Svante says:

        Here’s the science to back it up:
        https://tinyurl.com/y9tnpco7

        • Mike Flynn says:

          S,

          Ho ho! A capital jest!

          See how low the climatological pseudoscientific clowns have fallen!

          Science? Really?

          Cheers.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          svante…Here’s the science to back it up:

          The author of that video…potholer…is a journalist who tried to pass himself off as a bona fide climatologist. He is in fact a rabid alarmist.

          You can see that in the opening analogy of the video in which he tries to belittle Monckton for claiming a teeny amount of CO2 can do no harm. He offers no proof that it can, he simply throws ad homs with no science to back him.

          In fact, Monckton is right. The Ideal Gas Law holds up the fact that 0.04% of atmospheric CO2 can heat the atmosphere no more than a few hundredths C for a 1C rise in global temperature.

          • Svante says:

            0.04% can’t possibly have any effect on plant life.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”0.04% cant possibly have any effect on plant life.”

            Here we go again, comparing apples to oranges.

            The processes in the atmosphere that cause heating have nothing whatsoever to do with the biological processes in plants.

            That old saw has been tried before, using ink in water, or arsenic in coffee, as analogies for CO2 in air.

          • Svante says:

            Yeah Gordon, ink in a bottle is like CO2 in the atmosphere.

            Can it reduce the average IR optical depth do you think?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”Yeah Gordon, ink in a bottle is like CO2 in the atmosphere.

            Can it reduce the average IR optical depth do you think?”

            This has to rank up there with your more stupid replies. You fail to understand that the circulation of a small quantity of ink in a liquid, with many orders of density greater than CO2 in air, is in any way related to 0.04% of CO2 in air.

            Molecules of water are bound together by electrostatic forces and they form essentially a molecule to molecule solid. There are bazillions of ink molecules and ink is a liquid as well with pigments in it. When you mix the two, they mix in an entirely different way than a gas, where the molecules are a great distance apart compared to molecules in a liquid.

            If you run EM through a liquid like water, the liquid will bend the light (diffraction) and it will slow it down. That does not happen in general with EM in air unless there is a lot of water vapour. Air does not slow EM down.

            This is stuff you should know before you make glib remarks about 0.04% CO2 acting as an attentuator of EM as IR. The theory about optical density is nothing more than a theory, as well as a model.

            If you used your head a bit you’d get it that CO2, at 0.04%, can absorb no more than a small fraction of surface IR. Where does the rest go, and how effective is the amount absorbed at raising the temperature of the atmosphere, never mind the surface?

            We know that the 2nd law applies in a liquid, so why does it not apply in a gas? It does. It’s just that you alarmists have created your own pseudo-science to claim it does not.

            To sum it up, CO2 can absorb no more than a tiny fraction of surface IR and the Ideal Gas Law tells us, based on its mass percent, that it cannot warm the atmosphere more than a few hundredths C for a 1C rise in temperature.

            Optical density is a red-herring argument with no evidence to back it.

          • Ball4 says:

            “If you run EM through a liquid like water, the liquid will bend the light (diffraction) and it will slow it down.”

            Gordon means refraction, diffraction is somewhat different and diffraction depends on particle dimension relative to light wavelength.

            “Optical density is a red-herring argument with no evidence to back it.”

            Only Gordon knows what is meant by optical density, optical depth is backed by numerous experiments and papers. This is stuff Gordon should know by consulting a modern text before Gordon makes glib remarks.

            Gordon does get this consistent with modern texts though & it has nothing to do with Dalton laws as it is the total pressure at the planet surface that counts for atm. optical depth:

            “If you used your head a bit you’d get it that CO2, at 0.04%, can absorb no more than a small fraction of surface IR.”

            Yes Gordon, measurements show added CO2 ppm in Earth’s atm. absorbed a small fraction of surface IR over the 75 years as predicted after 1938 which increased global mean temperatures in the period by about 0.7K or “small fraction” of about 0.2%.

          • MIke Flynn says:

            Ball4,

            You are apparently unaware of the well-known phenomenon described here –

            “Optical density is normally, absolute value of the logarithm with base 10 of the power transmission factor of an optical attenuator: OD = -log10 (Pout/Pin).

            What was it you were saying about getting facts straight?

            I know you can’t help being stupid and ignorant, but it’s a bit of a mystery as to why you feel compelled to boast about it.

            Do you have a particular reason, or is it due to some mental defect?

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon Robertson says:

            “To sum it up, CO2 can absorb no more than a tiny fraction of surface IR”.

            So it can absorb just like the ink.
            Will the mixture get more opaque if you add more?
            Will it get more transparent if you remove it all?

          • Ball4 says:

            MIke, you are apparently under some sort of delusion, unaware Gordon did not actually mean a: normally, absolute value of the logarithm with base 10 of the power transmission factor of an optical attenuator: OD = -log10 (Pout/Pin).

            Perhaps Mike believes he is a climate scientist, or has won a Nobel Prize – or both? Nah, Mike is just displaying the usual levels of stupidity and ignorance. Learn some physics Mike, it will be good for your comments.

          • MIke Flynn says:

            Ball4,

            I see you are getting there.

            You are starting to ask questions, which is good. You will have to do your own research. although anyone who claims to be a climate scientist is obviously a fraudster, as there is no such thing as climate science.

            There is no point in asking for a testable GHE hypothesis, as the GHE is an impossible fantasy.

            Feel free to waste your time trying, if you wish.

            Svante asked a couple of useful questions when he wrote –

            “So it can absorb just like the ink.
            Will the mixture get more opaque if you add more?
            Will it get more transparent if you remove it all?”

            I’ll help you both out on this occasion. Yes, adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its IR opacity, resulting in decreased IR transmission. Less IR reaching a thermometer does not increase its temperature.

            I’ll let you work out the rest for yourself.

            No GHE, of course. That is why a testable GHE hypothesis doesn’t exist.

            Foolish Warmist.

            Cheers.

          • Ball4 says:

            “adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its IR opacity, resulting in decreased IR transmission.”

            YES! With less atm. transmissivity, due to increased atm. opacity, more IR in the system reaching a surface thermometer does increase its temperature Mike, you are learning some physics, starting to get this! Keep on trying hard to be a climate scientist Mike, maybe you’ll even claim a Nobel Prize one day, or at least claim to have one.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon, do you agree with Mike here:

            “Yes, adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its IR opacity, resulting in decreased IR transmission.”

      • vinceram (@vinceram) says:

        Yes, an interesting observation concerning CO2. Perhaps you are familiar with Dr. Ned Nikolov’s idea concerning the relationship between a planetary atmosphere and the planet’s gravity — the real source of atmospheric warming — through the simple ideal gas law derivation.

        https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

        • Ball4 says:

          vinceram, a couple of authors now have shown that paper claims fail to be consistent with the 1st law of thermodynamics so should not be relied upon. See:

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach/

          The failure is “warming cannot occur from increasing pressure alone.” as the paper claims in its Fig. 4 and eqn. 10a.

          • vinceram (@vinceram) says:

            Thanks. You write: ” a couple of authors now have shown that paper claims fail to be consistent with the 1st law of thermodynamics” — that’s ironic since it is the greenhouse gas theory postulated by Arrhenius, et al that violates the 1st, and the zeroth law of thermodynamics.

            First of all — the earth’s climate system is a giant Carnot heat engine — any radiative heat transfer through the atmosphere is an “effect” of the adiabatic compression due to pressure from the atmosphere itself as it responds to the heat input(it’s an engine remember… so it is sort of like the radiant heat given off by a real engine) >day into night is the driving mechanism that causes the engine to run (you always need a heat source and a heat sink for an engine to work)… The radiative transfer is a small component when compared to the planetary pressure waves, convection, latent heat changes, etc and their transport of heat(and mass) into the upper atmosphere(where radiative heat transfer then plays it’s role, but it is mitigated by other factors, such as clouds, etc)).

            ironically, since each molecule of CO2 produced replaces a molecule of O2 consumed(theoretically, on a mass basis — in the atmosphere), and since a mixture of CO2 at atmospheric levels, with the average H2O content of the atmosphere, and the amount of O2 in the mix — the emissivity of the MIXTURE is lowered as more CO2 is added! ie CO2 is a COOLANT in the atmosphere!

          • Ball4 says:

            vinceram, CO2 is neither a COOLANT in the total atmosphere nor a HEATANT of the total atm. as it burns no fuel.

            Due to added CO2 (or any IR active gas) increasing the IR opacity of the lower atm. CO2 can increase lower regions global temperatures while equally and incrementally decreasing global temperature in the higher regions of an atm. of any composition for no change in total atm. global mean temperature.

            This is what Arrhenius was (is) trying to tell you (unsuccessfully it appears) and with which the 1LOT and 2LOT are fully in accord because that is what is observed in lab experiments and in the actual atm.s of objects in the solar system.

      • vinceram (@vinceram) says:

        Yes, and they use a 100 year old GHG theory that doesn’t consider quantum mechanics! If one were to consider Raman Spectroscopy, for example — one would see that the major atmospheric gasses (N2, O2) also cause IR to be converted to kinetic/vibrational (heat) energy in the atmosphere as well.

        And that doesn’t even consider the fact that any LWIR absorbed by CO2 is almost instantaneously re-emmitted, and from a probabilistic point of view — this “re-emmitted” IR has many more times a chance of being re-absorbed by the H2O in the atmosphere, and then this energy can be further transported to the upper atmosphere by water vapor — this is more likely to occur, than it does being “back-radiated” to the surface as a “green house gas” back-radiation effect from CO2!

        • Ball4 says:

          I’m curious vinceram, what is meant by a 100 year old GHG theory that doesn’t consider quantum mechanics?

          Today, in Earth’s atm., quantum mechanics processes are well understood and are at work with all the various gases rotational and vibrational modes being excited above the base level absorbing photons then de-excited back to base level by emitting photons. Each month this site reports TLT anomaly from a specificd 30 yr. baseline based on those processes.

          The paper’s discussion of its Fig. 4 and eqn. 10a you linked fails 1LOT thus should not be relied upon.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”quantum mechanics processes are well understood and are at work with all the various gases rotational and vibrational modes being excited above the base level absorbing photons then de-excited back to base level by emitting photons. Each month this site reports TLT anomaly from a specificd 30 yr. baseline based on those processes”.

            Yes…many quantum processes are understood and completely ignored by alarmists. Alarmists like to talk about molecules as magical boxes that absorb and radiate IR while ignoring the basic unit of the molecule related to EM/IR which is the electron.

            There are specific rules by which electrons operate and they cannot be stimulated by EM of a lower frequency from colder objects. When electrons absorb and emit as you have claimed they are doing so with higher frequency/higher energy EM from bodies hotter than the atoms making up the mass from which they radiate.

            UAH data from satellite AMSU’s is from detected microwave radiation from oxygen molecules. That has little to do with quantum theory other than underlying reason why O2 molecules radiate in the microwave region.

            It also has nothing to do with the GHG theory, which is 100 years old and which has never been proved due to new evidence since 100 years ago.

            The GHE theory is based on speculation of what the Earth’s temperature would be with no atmosphere and oceans compared to a fabricated number for its current average temperature.

            It is known that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation but no connection has ever been made between the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming.

            Sheer speculation.

          • Ball4 says:

            “There are specific rules by which electrons operate and they cannot be stimulated by EM of a lower frequency from colder objects.”

            This is observed true Gordon, earth atmosphere is almost entirely too cold to have enough collisional energy to kick an electron from base quantum level up to an excited electronic quantum level. Which is why I wrote: “rotational and vibrational modes being excited above the base level absorbing photons” for which radiation there is plenty of collisional energy in earth atm.

            “The GHE theory is based on speculation of what the Earth’s temperature would be with no atmosphere..”

            Incorrect Gordon, it is speculation what the Earth’s temperature would be with no atmosphere, the GHE/ATE with atmosphere at 1bar theory is not speculation since the theory matches observations.

          • vinceram (@vinceram) says:

            you(and they) are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective, imho.. The “IR active gasses”, ie greenhouse gases are EFFECTED by a temperature change — their “effect” is to emit IR in wavelengths that are then emitted into space, so yes the radiative cooling of the planet at the TOS must be balanced with the incoming Solar TOS irradiance for equilibrium to exist(on various time scales..

            but, you(they) are neglecting the thermal conductance that ALL gases in the atmosphere partake in — N2 and O2 included — just because they are not IR active, doesn’t mean these gases don’t play a role in the mass/heat transfer occurring through our atmosphere…. And for all practical purposes: when we combust carbon based fuels, the O2 in the atmosphere is converted to CO2 — the net effect is a SLIGHT decrease in the overall atmospheric gas heat transfer coefficient, so YES CO2 does slightly slow down heat transfer(conduction/convection) when compared to the oxygen that it replaces, but at the same time, since O2 isn’t IR active — replacing it with the CO2, that does emit IR, will in effect, help the radiative cooling of the planet — all things being equal since the increased heat flux due to the IR emitted is higher than the decreased heat transfer due to CO2’a lower heat transfer coefficient(compared to other atmospheric gases) until equilibrium is reached — hence there is cooling, just on a CO2/O2 concentration change basis..

            But that’s only half of the story, because the CO2 mixed with H2O and O2 in the atmospheric mixing ratios that are seen — in the lab experiments, show a net DECREASE in TOTAL emittance, hence the atmosphere absorbs LESS outgoing LWIR due to this effect, hence more cooling over what would otherwise occur with less CO2…..

          • Ball4 says:

            “because the CO2 mixed with H2O and O2 in the atmospheric mixing ratios that are seen – in the lab experiments, show a net DECREASE in TOTAL emittance”

            This is not correct vinceram.

            Prof. Tyndall’s experiments reported in 1861 (free on the internet) showed the opposite & he was somewhat astonished the clear gas could do so. CO2 mixed with H2O and O2 (and other “olefiant” gas he tested) in the STP atmospheric mixing ratios that were seen in his lab showed an increase in emittance when illuminated by his IR source as evidenced by his needle deflections and increased temperature indicated on his mercury thermometers.

            “you(they) are neglecting the thermal conductance that ALL gases in the atmosphere partake in”

            That is only your strawman, there is no neglecting atm. air conductance which is an integral part of meteorology.

            There IS lower temperature over what would otherwise occur with less CO2 but only above about 600mb and in the stratosphere. Below that level total pressure is such that added IR active gas monotonically increases temperature which is what is observed and basic meteorology text book theory shows how that happens.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          vince…”If one were to consider Raman Spectroscopy, for example one would see that the major atmospheric gasses (N2, O2) also cause IR to be converted to kinetic/vibrational (heat) energy in the atmosphere as well”.

          Oooooohhhh!!! Wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants to AGW theory?

          • MIke Flynn says:

            The foolish Ball4 wrote –

            “Incorrect Gordon, it is speculation what the Earths temperature would be with no atmosphere, the GHE/ATE with atmosphere at 1bar theory is not speculation since the theory matches observations.”

            You fool. You don’t have a GHE theory. You don’t even have a testable GHE hypothesis!

            Only a fool would make such unsubstantiated assertion, and expect anybody to believe they were facts. On the other hand, anybody that believed such nonsense might be a fraudster or delusional psychotic as well as being a fool.

            Are you simply a fool, or do you possess additional personal attributes, Ball4?

            The world wonders.

            Cheers.

          • Ball4 says:

            “and expect anybody to believe they were facts.”

            Tsk, tsk Mike, still claiming to be able to read commenter’s minds will not prove anything. Even a commenter with the handle Mike Flynn has a GHE theory with a testable GHE hypothesis! Mike Flynn is an awesome aspiring climate scientist on the way to claiming he has a Nobel Prize!

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/ocean-warming-in-climate-models-varies-far-more-than-recent-study-suggests/#comment-339531

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Ball4,

            Others may see fit to decide you are a fool. I have made my decision, and it stands until facts demonstrate otherwise.

            Carry on with your blathering evasion, lad. Maybe you can magic a GHE into existence without the benefit of science, but I doubt it. Let us know if you succeed.

            Cheers.

          • Ball4 says:

            vinceram, your linked abstract puts up a classic strawman:

            “Greenhouse theory’s premise, nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases as they do not emit and absorb infrared radiation”

            Then attacks that strange strawman NOT the GHE/ATE. It has been well known O2 and N2 absorb and emit in the IR since the 1920/30s or before and in earth atm. since 1977. GHE/ATE does not have as a premise N2,O2 do not absorb in the IR. Some gases like water vapor (condensing), CO2 & methane (non-condensing), are more IR active than N2, O2 which is an accurate GHE/ATE premise.

            For example:

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4 …”It has been well known O2 and N2 absorb and emit in the IR since the 1920/30s or before and in earth atm. since 1977″.

            Even if the absorp-tion is minor, it involves 99% of the atmosphere and that has been ignored because it does not fit the 100 year old theory that CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming.

            There is no money thrown at studies into how much N2/O2 absorbs, or to what role both play in atmospheric warming, and I doubt if most scientists could discuss the problem intelligently.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Mike…adding to your reply to ball4 re his quote to me…”it is speculation what the Earths temperature would be with no atmosphere, the GHE/ATE with atmosphere at 1bar theory is not speculation since the theory matches observations.”

            The speculation comes from offering a number, say 15C, as an average for the entire planet. What does that number mean?

            When you try to average temperatures across the entire planet into one number, it becomes pseudo-science.

            Even a planet with no oceans and no atmosphere has a number for an average since half its surface is pointed away from the Sun and facing temperatures near 0K. Stefan-Boltzmann was not designed to deal with that.

          • Ball4 says:

            Gordon says: “There is no money thrown at studies into how much N2/O2 absorbs..”

            Not anymore, that money has already been “thrown” (Gordon term) and the results published.

            “The speculation comes from offering a number, say 15C, as an average for the entire planet. What does that number mean?”

            That number means the WMO established 30yr. (1981-2010) baseline from which UAH publishes their monthly temperature anomaly in deg. C.

  30. Mike Flynn says:

    Svante,

    You wrote –

    “0.04% cant possibly have any effect on plant life.”

    Really? Are you quite mad? Or just displaying your usual levels of stupidity and ignorance?

    Maybe you suffer from the same delusionally psychotic state as other GHE believers. Do you believe you are a climate scientist, or have won a Nobel Prize – or both?

    I wish you well.

    Cheers.

  31. Mike Flynn says:

    Dr Strangelove,

    You asked about a wet towel being dried faster using a hair dryer.

    You might be able to find the answer in these introductory physics lectures –

    “This deeper understanding permits us to analyze some things. For example, suppose that we were to pump away the vapor at such a great rate that we removed the vapor as fast as it formed . . .”

    You can find the very basic understanding in the preceding part of the lecture.

    The actual details involved in your observation – type of fabric, weave, fibre constituents, wicking factor, purity of the water, temperature and velocity of impinging air, ambient temperature etc.etc., will affect the outcome.

    However the basics still apply.

    I hope this assists.

    Cheers.

Leave a Reply