Bishop Hill Silliest climate paper ever?
Apr 15, 2015 Climate: WG2 In what looks to be one of the silliest climate papers known to man, researchers at the University of St Andrews are claiming that the 0.1°C warming in ocean temperatures that is alleged to have been caused by human activity has caused whales to migrate one month earlier than they did 30 years ago.
A long-term study conducted between 1984 and 2010, now published in scientific journal PLoS-ONE, has documented for the first time how whales have adapted to increases in sea surface temperature over recent decades.
The research, conducted with Canadian research body the Mingan Island Cetacean Study, has found that over the 27-year period the whales arrived at feeding grounds on average one day earlier each year, suggesting a remarkable ability to react to small fluctuations in sea temperature.
Remarkable indeed. But not so remarkable as the idea that anyone would take this nonsense seriously.
Reader Comments (121)
TinyCO2
No, I'm not saying that. More than likely it has been drafted rather quickly who has then run it past the authors of the paper on a tight deadline, which they may or may not have been able to respond by….. ;) In contrast, the paper itself will have taken weeks or months to write and go through the review process.
Often press offices and comms experts can do a great job at summarising the complexities of a scientific paper in a simple and accessible way, but also often the simplification goes too far. Then journalists get involved and simplify it further, often adding their own slant. And then the sub-editors write a headline which only bears a passing resemblance to the journalist's article….
So that's why it's always important to go back to the original paper to see what the authors are really saying, rather than what other people say they are saying (or, occasionally, what the authors themselves say they are saying…!)
Richad Betts, I don't doubt that that is often the case. But often we also see the authors themselves quoted "interpreting" the paper in an exaggerated fashion which would not have got past the reviewers.
If the press sillies-up a paper, the best counter would be for the authors to respond and point out any sillifying. If they - or anyone else, for that matter - don't, they thereby implicitly give it the thumbs-up.
In most climate science, what probably happens is that even if they disagree with the sillifying, they are loathe to be seen undermining any alarmist spin, however untrue.
Interesting that ATTP has licence to post here, given that on his own site he summarily bans anyone who dares to criticise consensus positions and/or the politics that underpins and pays for them.
How about is Bish : only let him continue posting here if he opens his own mind and own blog to criticism ?.
Interesting that ATTP has licence to post here, given that on his own site he summarily bans anyone who dares to criticise consensus positions and/or the politics that underpins and pays for them.
BH has banned very few people from the blog, most of the trolls give up before they are banned and they are banned only after multiple warnings. My preference would be to allow aTTP one post per thread until he opens up his own blog by adopting BH's ban policy. So he is never given the opportunity to say he was banned on BH (which i suspect is his plan) but may one day allow people to post on his site who are not one of his sycophants.
Yes, much like with Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate et al, what the ATTP site presents is a supposed interest in "the science", which is but a cover for a deep refusal to dig any deeper - into the integrity of "the science", how it is funded and produced, what the likely process is, and how this might corrupt the results.
How, for example, given the huge vested interest the funder of climate science - the state - has in a preordained outcome of alarmism, this might relate to events like Climategate, the numerous ensuing official tax-funded self-exonerations and coverups of it, and the continuing deafening silence of the greater part of the the government-funded climate science establishment towards it.
He does say there somewhere that he is himself a government-funded (climate?) scientist, so such deviousness is not entirely unexpected..
So not the silliest climate paper ever, as to press releases, well Eli has seen a few that are a lot worse than this one. Good to see agreement, even if there are grumbles.
Well Eli Rabbet ( AKA Josh Halpern) is much to modest .
I think he himself is an excellent candidate for the worst paper ever.
The paper that he jointly authored said that HEAT can spontaneously flow from a colder to a hotter object.
Which is about the dumbest thing anyone can say in the realm of thermodynamics.
One of his co-authors Joel Shore later admitted that it was a gross error.
Even ATTP will be unlikely to put his head above the parapet to support Eli on this one.
However copies of the Halpern paper have disappeared from the internet
Perhaps Eli will supply a copy so that readers can decide for themselves.
The original paper by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner passes every test of robust thermodynamic theory and is readily available.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
Obviously Brian does not have a refrigerator. (There is a more serious answer, but later)
The more serious answer can be found in Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, Fourth Edition By Robert Siegel ~p300.
Bottom line is that if the amount of heat that is radiated to space is kept constant with n absorbing levels then the temperature of the surface level increases as (n+1)^1/4 when there are n shielding levels (assuming that each level has equivalent emissivity, but that is a complication which does not change the basic principle).
Thermal radiation shields do not violate the second law, they do affect the rate at which energy flows into and out of a system. If you have some trouble with the derivation at the link, that can be discussed.
Eli I said,
"The paper that he jointly authored said that HEAT can spontaneously flow from a colder to a hotter object."
Did you notice the word " spontaneously"?
That means without any work being done to force the transfer
Now in the paper that you criticized (obviously now without reading or understanding it) G&T explain the difference between a Heat Engine (fig 29) and a Refrigerator (fig30)
In the case of a refrigerator the electrical supply forces the heat transfer.
If that's still not clear try switching off the power to your fridge.
Siegal does not say anywhere that HEAT spontaneously transfers from colder to warmer surface.
You are getting mixed up with the definitions of heat and radiation!
In a purely radiative exchange between a hot and a colder object there is a two way exchange of radiation.
However the hotter object emits radiation of a higher intensity with higher frequency components than the colder.
The difference (or net) of the two radiation flows is called Heat.
The heat transfer is always spontaneously from a higher to a lower temperature
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4.pdf
The 0.1C number, where does that come from? Is that the global change in the thirty years of the study? That would be wrong, of course
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html
The global change in SST in the last 30 years is more like 0.5 C
Is that the local change in the Gulf of St. Lawrence? How does that relate to the amount of sea ice in the Gulf in the early and late winters?
In short, what are people blathering about when they keep writing 0.1 C
Bryan, what absorption of IR in the atmosphere does, is it slows the rate of heat flow from the surface, which results in a warming of the surface. Eli has simplified this for you
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/04/eli-and-merry-elves.html
the bottom line if one models the atmosphere as a single layer is that if the temperature of the layer is T<sub>2</sub>, with an emissivity e, the temperature of the surface T<sub>1</sub> and the temperature of the surface without the absorbing layer T<sub>o</sub>. The surface emissivity is taken as 1, and this is a pretty good estimate of reality
1/e To^4 + T<sub>2</sub> ^4 = T<sub>1</sub>
A prettified version of this can be seen at the link below
http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=\left&space;(1/\epsilon&space;_{2}&space;\right&space;)&space;T_{1o}^{4}+&space;T_{2}^{4}&space;=&space;T_{1}^{4}
Since e is less than or equal to 1 (for the atmosphere it varies between .5 and .15 depending on altitude) that means that the temperature of the surface with an absorbing level T<sub>1</sub> is greater than T<sub>o</sub>, the temperature without it.
Do pay attention.
Eli says
" what absorption of IR in the atmosphere does, is it slows the rate of heat flow from the surface, which results in a warming of the surface. "
Yes I agree, the question is how significant is this effect!
For nearly 20 years atmospheric CO2 has increased significantly without a corresponding near surface air temperature increase.
In fact the temperature change is as near zero as to be classed as insignificant.
The smart thing now is put a bit of distance between yourself and the main body of alarmism.
That is if you want to be thought of as being ahead of the curve.
Eli says
"Eli has simplified this for you"
That is your biggest problem;
You cannot say that the radiation from the colder object is 'heat' even to simplify the situation
The back radiation is a form of radiative insulation.
An insulator is not a heat source it merely impedes the heat transfer
However you seem to be moving away from your previous position as set out in the reply to the G&T paper.
This belated recognition of your mistake is welcome news.
Before your G&T paper was published I pointed this out to Joel Shore during a discussion at WUWT.
Joel quickly realized I was correct.
Its a pity that he did not insist on the removal of the error in the pre-publication period.
Anyone with a physics background like Joel will cover the laws of thermodynamics.
The second law is developed from the Carnot Cycle.
Heat always has the property of partly being transformed into useful forms of energy such as mechanical or electrical in the given situation.
The radiation from the colder object cannot achieve this, and so cannot be considered as heat.
I believe your background is from chemistry and perhaps this explains your misunderstanding.
Chemists might not cover the Carnot Cycle in their undergraduate days.
I asked the same question from Judith Curry at Climate Etc.
She said that Climate Science students study the aspects of thermodynamics that relate to climate.
I took that to mean that the climate students did not cover the Carnot Cycle .
However the scientific method now demands that you now write to the journal that posted your reply paper and make the appropriate corrections.
Eli can say it that both the colder and the hotter body emit radiation whose intensity and spectrum is characterized by the temperature of the emitter if you want to get picky. Thermal radiation is energy transfer via this radiation. When there are two bodies they will interchange energy by thermal radiation and the NET (notice that word) transfer will be from the hotter to the colder, however thermal energy will be sent from the colder to the warmer and from the warmer to the colder.
WTH, that is exactly what Eli and the elves did say about G&T, even in the abstract
They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed.
It is the NET transfer that is constrained by the second law in its modern form. As a practical matter, the Carnot cycle does not deal with thermal radiation for a simple reason which you should be able to figure out.
Please don't try and get all Krammy on the Bunny, you will only look foolish.
Science of Doom got it right about G&T
So Bryan, how many thermo texts do Eli and SoD have to send you?
Eli your reading comprehension sucks!
I said above
"The difference (or net) of the two radiation flows is called Heat."
Apr 20, 2015 at 9:46 PM
Now Eli says
" When there are two bodies they will interchange energy by thermal radiation and the NET (notice that word) transfer will be from the hotter to the colder, however thermal energy will be sent from the colder to the warmer and from the warmer to the colder"
Both say the same thing only difference is that my quote identifies the correct direction of the HEAT transfer!
Eli claims that G&T say that radiation cannot move towards or be absorbed by a higher temperature surface.
Yet here is what G&T actually say in their reply to Eli
“(a) We never claimed – allegedly with reference to Clausius – that a colder body does not send radiation to a warmer one. Rather, we cite a paper, in which Clausius treats the radiative exchange [19, 20]. The correct question is, whether the colder body that radiates less intensively than the warmer body warms up the warmer one.
The answer is: It does not.”
It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our "Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifcally vacuous.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421v1.pdf
Nowhere in either of the G&T publications will you find evidence that they say absorption of radiation from a colder object cannot be absorbed by the warmer.
There are several examples of heat transfer by radiation and the thermodynamic properties analised by the Carnot Cycle for example;
http://www.appropedia.org/images/f/f8/09_05_28_testing_procedures_for_solar_air_heaters,_a_review.pdf
Bryan, you do realize that the Clausius statement derived from the Carnot cycle had to be modified by Planck after the discovery of thermal radiation.
Still, in one of the diagrams in G&T claimed that
Figure 32: A machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir (e.g. stratosphere) to a high temperature reservoir (e.g. atmosphere) without external work applied, cannot exist - even if it is radiatively coupled to an environment to which it is radiatively balanced. A MODERN CLIMATE MODEL IS SUPPOSED TO BE SUCH A VARIANT OF A PERPETUUM MOBLE OF THE SECOND KIND
Emphasis added. Bunnies can look at the pretty pictures on SoD<\a>
Now this is an explicit claim by G&T that climate models violate the second law (and since they only quote the Clausius statement, well, they need to get up to date). As Eli and the elves showed in Mod Phys B, climate models do no such thing. A warmer surface is the result of the interchange of thermal radiation between the surface and the atmosphere.
While the figure caption said stratosphere and atmosphere, the labels on the figure were stratosphere and surface. Some, not Eli to be sure might also point out that the greenhouse effect takes place pretty much in the troposphere, that stratosphere is warmer than much of the troposphere and that the exchange of thermal radiation between the stratosphere, and the troposphere/surface can be essentially neglected.
Clausius tested for heat transfer by (light and IR) although the concept of the photon was unknown to him.
In the tests he found that radiation behaved in line with the second law.
This is because Clausius fortunately (although unknowingly) was using the net of energy flows as his definition of heat
Clausius and indeed Carnot were practical men.
Their main motivation was to extract as much useful energy (.also called work) from thermal energy.
This property of the ability of the fraction of thermal energy to be transformed in this way in the given situation can be used to determine if we are dealing with heat.
Later Mark Zemansky (Heat and Thermodynamics Textbook) integrated the concept of photon flow into a more modern understanding of thermodynamics.
He kept intact the Clausius definition of Heat.
He is also responsible for recommending that the term ' Internal Energy' should replace the term 'Heat Energy' in certain situations.
This is the version of Thermodynamics that is currently in use in the worlds physics departments
G&T said that only certain versions of the 'greenhouse theory' would contradict the second law.
Other versions might violate other laws of physics or be inconsistent for other reasons.
Unfortunately for you in your 'reply paper' you have clearly labelled diagrams with the word 'HEAT' leaving a cold region and transferring to a hotter region.
This radiation energy cannot be intercepted to do work and so cannot be labelled 'HEAT'
It does not matter that you have also labelled 'HEAT' leaving the hot region pointing to the colder region as the two streams cannot be dealt with separately
No competent physicist such as Robert Siegel would say that heat spontaneously leaves a colder region for a hotter region
You guys were looking for something sillier? I think I found it:
"Can climate change affect our taste in music?"
http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/society-culture/89873-climate-change-music-tastes-influence