Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > GHG Theory step by step

It was on GWPF but has now gone. Another post, linked below, covers the same story.

Sep 19, 2017 at 7:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

During recent days I have been posting comments about the role of the oceans in controlling our climate. I find it more logical than the the role of a trace gas. I'm not sure if this has many supporters because it is impossible to tell if there are visitors to this who do not choose to post anything.

Nevertheless, I find it useful to commit thoughts to words and print as a means of ordering my own ideas so I'm going to carry on a little bit longer on this topic.

Sep 20, 2017 at 8:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Solar energy penetrates the oceans, warming them to the temperatures we are familiar with. This is the equivalent of the CO2 greenhouse effect in the sense that it provides a sort of warm blanket. for the planet. I argued above that this is the real warming mechanism because the oceans have the heat capacity to warm the planet and atmosphere. The atmosphere does not warm the oceans.

All of this is possible because the oceans are opaque to IR radiation. Although the oceans can radiate heat from their surfaces as black bodies, the heat takes a long time to reach the surface.

So the oceans store solar radiation. Small changes in TSI, such as during solar cycles, result in these small changes in TSI being stored. When a succession of, say, higher TSI energies are stored, there is a cumulative effect such that the oceans become warmer than usual. The reverse happens when there is a succession of lower TSI values during extended periods of low solar activity.

This is not immediately apparent in our climate because this stored heat (or lack of it) is delayed. However it does at some stage need to exit the oceans and the planet, and during this process the warming or cooling affects the surface sea temperatures and atmospheric temperatures and therefore the climate temperature record.

Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 PM | Schrodinger's Cat

The link with ocean temperature is being blamed on this year's hurricane season, even though the temperature of the Atlantic this year is not exceptional.

Is there any correlation between solar cycles and warming/cooling trends, perhaps with a lag time running into many years? Or Nino/Nina cycles? Or polar ice?

If Climate Science claims to have found Trenberth's missing heat, and they have been monitoring ocean temperatures without having a "Eureka!" moment, is it because they did not find what they wanted, or even found what they didn't want to find?

Sep 20, 2017 at 11:11 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Schrodinger's cat

You suggest that TSI is driving ocean heat content and hence global temperature.

The problem is that solar activity has been weakening since 1980 , yet the last three years have had record surface temperatures and ocean heat content continues to increase.

That implies a delay of at least 37 years.

I once calculated the temperature curve you would expect if


The curve matched the observed record with a 25 year lag.

If the TSI lag were 25 years the solar cycles would be too short to show and we should be showing a sustained cooling trend by now. Since that is not happening, I think your hypothesis fails.

Sep 20, 2017 at 11:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

gc - Trenberth's heat never existed.

Em -TSI follows every 11 year cycle and the last peak was October 2015.

Sep 21, 2017 at 10:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

gc - Trenberth's heat never existed.

Sep 21, 2017 at 10:27 AM | Schrodinger's Cat

The evidence used to find CO2 guilty, having ruled out other possible causes for previous Global Warming and Cooling, never existed.

Climate Science never told Trenberth he was looking for a Unicorn, because they believed the myths and legends they had fabricated, and they still do.

Sep 21, 2017 at 11:26 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Entropic man- I would like to return to something I pointed out much earlier in this discussion.

The models effectively base the sensitivity of the climate on the warming that results when a doubling of CO2 reduces the outgoing IR radiation to space. Do you agree?

However, molecular collisions are likely to dissipate some of this vibrational energy as kinetic energy of other gas molecules. The result will be convection to higher altitudes. In addition, water vapour, which is much more abundant than CO2 will participate in the cooling process.

The CO2 centric models seem to ignore the radiative properties of water vapour and the black body characteristics of liquid water in clouds. This is why the models always show high climate sensitivity and why observations do not.

A contributing factor to this error was the rapid warming in the Eighties which was wrongly attributed to CO2. Many papers now show that most of this warming had natural causes. It is also a fact that the rate of warming was identical to warming in the period 1930-1945.

Sep 21, 2017 at 2:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Models work by solving the Navier-Stokes equations for a grid representing the Earth's atmosphere, surface and oceans. The effects of water vapour, , convection, thermalization etc are included.

Essentially they model fluid flow and heat transfer. Energy flows into the system, around the system and out of the system. No energy is created or destroyed. From the energy content of each grid element temperatures are derived.

In a balanced climate system net input and output match. In a warming system net input exceeds net output.

Your aim is to produce a model which starts with the measured inputs and outputs from the system and produces the observed energy contents and temperatures, but without those processes you do not believe in. A lot of the work has been done for you. For example, the code for model E is available to download from NASA.

Some of the variables in the Navier-Stokes equations have negligible effect and can be left out to simplify the model. If you have IT skills it should be easy enough for you to modify the code to reduce or remove the greenhouse effect.

What no sceptic has achieved so far is to produce a Navier-Stokes model which matches observations without the greenhouse effect.

Have fun.

Sep 21, 2017 at 10:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Sep 21, 2017 at 10:32 PM | Entropic man

No Climate Science model has matched the reality of observations, nor managed to explain past variations. Climate Science has based all models and Science on variations in CO2.

What has Climate Science wasted other people's money on?

Sep 21, 2017 at 10:54 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

…and ocean heat content continues to increase.
Does it? What evidence is there that this is happening? Sources, please... and the readings from a few thousand sensors in 1.3 BILLION cubic kilometres of water? Hmmm… how scientific… So, by your logic, Entropic man, one thermometer to monitor the temperatures in the UK would be… well, roughly ONE too many. For the whole of Europe, we would only need about 100. Now, where could we place them? Obviously, up mountains will not give us the results we seek; let’s put them in urban areas, and known heat traps, and your case will be proved!

Sep 23, 2017 at 11:55 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent

"Models work by solving the Navier-Stokes equations for a grid representing the Earth's atmosphere, surface and oceans. The effects of water vapour, , convection, thermalization etc are included. Sep 21, 2017 at 10:32 PM | Entropic man"

No Climate Science model has solved the Navier-Stokes equation, despite claiming to include known variables. The observed unpredicted behaviour of the Climate and observed irrational behaviour of Climate Scientists tends to prove it.

Sep 24, 2017 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Radical Rodent

The top link is ocean heat content from 1960, the second link is the Phys-Org press release and the third link is to the original paper.

An interesting snippet. The authors compared the total ARGO dataset with a smaller sample and got a similar pattern. This indicates that the ARGO data is a large enough sample to reliably reflect the whole ocean.

You can stop worrying.

Sep 24, 2017 at 12:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Radical Rodent

You might also find this of interest.

Sep 24, 2017 at 1:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM: I’m not worried; I am just somewhat sceptical about the claims being made in the name of “science.” Now… where to begin…

Let’s start with EOS: taking the pulse of the planet. It starts with the headline: “How fast is Earth warming? Ocean heat content and sea level rise measurements may provide a more reliable answer than atmospheric measurements.” and basically goes downhill from there. Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age; no problem there… but… what happened when the Earth cooled from the mediæval warm period into the little ice age? Were sea levels rising then? Do we have any reliable records from then? Are there any reliable proxies that could be used? More to the point, what is the datum level from which sea levels are measured? What of those areas where there is an observable reduction in sea-levels? If, as may be the case, there was no significant reduction in the rise, then the world can cool while sea levels are rising, thus denting that hypothesis of EOS. Mind you, it is quite easily observed that, since the Holocene Optimum, when the present interglacial peaked a few degrees above our present temperatures, the world has cooled, yet the sea levels have continued to rise! How curious… no wonder my scepticism that sea levels are a reliable indicator of ocean heat content is cranked up to 11!

Pah… I’ll leave it there, and leave you to your insistence that the numbers must be right and are scaring you about what is going to happen in the future unless we de-industrialise the world, while I will continue to observe what is really happening, and be unconcerned about any catastrophes that you fear, as they are unlikely to occur from our continued use of Nature’s bounty. A meteor strike is more likely, and I have no worries about that, either.

Sep 24, 2017 at 3:10 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Sep 24, 2017 at 12:41 PM | Entropic man

1.^^The oceans may be storing 13 percent more heat than previously estimated, according to a new study co-authored by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).^^

2. ^^The finding, published in the journal Science Advances, is based on a new analysis of how ocean temperatures have changed since 1960. The research team, led by Lijing Cheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, compared their results to estimates published in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2013.^^

3.^^ "In other words, the planet is warming quite a lot more than we thought," said NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, a study co-author.^^

1, Oceans MAY be storing more heat than was previously ESTIMATED (guessed/assumed based on what factual evidence?). Alternatively, oceans were previously not measured very well, so fudge factors can be used to make up for errors and assumptions.

2. We don't actually know very much about ocean temperatures before 1990, even less before 1960.

3. Trenberth is still trying to prove there IS some missing heat somewhere. It did not occur to him, to look in the sea when he had successfully convinced Governments to waste money examining fresh air.

Sep 24, 2017 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I mentioned specifically that some of the outgoing energy allegedly blocked by CO2 will, in fact have been shared with other molecules via collisions, including water vapour which radiates the energy to space. That is just one of the errors in the climate models.

Sep 24, 2017 at 5:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Radical Rodent

So full of rhetorical questions!

You seem to be hooked on the uncertainty straw man, the belief that you always need more measurements. What I wonder is how you decide how many measurements you need. Do you guess or do you have some method of calculating?

If you use a rational method I would like to hear it. I would hate to think that you have none and are just blathering prejudice.

Scientists nowadays use statistical methods. Data samples spread either side of a mean value. A measure of the spread is confidence limits (+/-2 standard deviations SD)

This has two components.

One (call it 2SDs) gets smaller as sample size n increases in proportion to 1/√n. If the uncertainty of a single measurement is +/-1, the mean of 100 measurements has a 2SDs uncertainty of +/- 0.1. For a sample size of 10,000 the 2SDs is +/- 0.01.

The other (call it 2SDv) depends on how much the thing you are measuring varies from one measurement to another. Think of it as noise in the system. This stays the same regardless of sample size.

For a small sample the overall confidence limits are 2SDs + 2SDv. If you plot confidence limits against sample size the graph drops steeply as sample size initially increases.This is because 2SDs decreases.

The graph levels off when the sample size is large enough that 2SDv controls the confidence limits. This is the optimum sample size. If it is smaller you can increase the reliability of your mean by making the sample bigger. If you increase the sample size further you get no further improvement, so you are putting in more effort for no gain.

As I said, the authors tested this by comparing smaller samples with the full Argo dataset to mimic the effect of limited sampling in years past. They found comparable confidence limits, indicating that the 1960 level of sampling gave reliability comparable to the ARGO data.

If you used a different method of calculation, please describe it.

Sep 24, 2017 at 8:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Schrodinger's cat

I think you are describing the mechanism underlying band spreading. Yes, it is a known effect.

In the OLR spectrum the big CO2 absorbtion peak is at 15 micrometres. Band spreading due to interaction with other molecules in the atmosphere spreads that to 13 and 17 micrometres.

Sep 24, 2017 at 10:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Band spreading can be attributed to a number of factors such as interference by other molecules. Here I am talking about energy radiated to space by water vapour as a consequence of an excited carbon dioxide molecule transferring kinetic energy to the water molecule via a collision.

As you say, GCMs apply fluid mechanics and thermodynamics to each cell in a grid with the key forcing being the increased carbon dioxide induced radiative physics. That is fine, but the point I am making is that the models have flaws.

Everyone has known for a decade that the models do not match observation and finally this was admitted by Myles Allan last week. I shall mention just a few of the problems. The missing hot spot, the failed humidity predictions, the lack of evidence to support positive water vapour feedback.

The models contain some wrong assumptions. The specific flaw I refer to here is an omission described in the second sentence of this comment.

Sep 25, 2017 at 1:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

You do understand what the term “rhetorical question” means, EM?

What is rhetorical about wondering if sea levels rose as global temperatures fell?

What is rhetorical about wondering if we have any reliable records from then?

What is rhetorical about questioning the existence of reliable proxies?

What is rhetorical about asking what the datum level from which sea levels are measured?

What is rhetorical about wondering about those areas where there is an observable reduction in sea-levels?

Are you able to provide answers for any of those questions? (Now, that could be a rhetorical question…)

Sep 25, 2017 at 2:10 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Another failure of the scientists is that the famous greenhouse effect is quantified as 288k - 255k=33k.

This relates to the atmosphere only and ignores the heat content of the oceans, which is estimated to be 93% of the energy according to the IPCC, Levitus et al. 2012.

Sep 25, 2017 at 3:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

according to the IPCC, Levitus et al. 2012.
Sep 25, 2017 at 3:09 PM | Schrodinger's Cat

The World was perfect, until Mann turned up. The Bible, Genesis et al

Myles Allen is nw saying he was misquoted about Climate Models being inaccurate:

"On Monday, we published a paper in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience that re-evaluated how much carbon dioxide we can still afford, collectively, to emit into the atmosphere and still retain some hope of achieving the ambitious goals of the Paris climate agreement to “pursue efforts” to keep global temperatures to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. The carbon budget we found, to yield a two-in-three chance of meeting this goal, was equivalent to starting CO2 emission reductions immediately and continuing in a straight line to zero in less than 40 years: a formidable challenge."

So do we still have 1,000-10,000 days to come up with trustworthy Climate Models based on reliable Climate Science?

Sep 25, 2017 at 4:52 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Radical rodent

Why ask me?

You are, or should be, entirely capable of answering these questions yourself.

Sep 25, 2017 at 8:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

The very first criticism listed is, by itself, worth expounding upon in detail. Here it is:
(1) “Only a planetary radiation budget of the Earth in the absence of an atmosphere is considered, i.e., any heat storage in the oceans (if at all existing in such a case) and land masses is neglected.”

Sep 25, 2017 at 10:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterclipe