I have a feeling that we are seeing the start of a new wave of climate change denial and misrepresentation of science. At the same time, CEOs of gas and oil companies express optimism for further exploitation of fossil energy in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, at least here in Norway.
Another clue is William Kininmonth’s ‘rethink’ on the greenhouse effect for The Global Warming Policy Foundation. He made some rather strange claims, such as that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) allegedly should have forgotten that the earth is a sphere because “most absorption of solar radiation takes place over the tropics, while there is excess emission of longwave radiation to space over higher latitudes”.
What he hasn’t understood is that the IPCC merely assesses published climate research, much of which is conducted with global climate models that indeed treat the earth as a sphere. This lack of knowledge is surprising from a man who, according to the biography, joined the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in 1960, and retired in 1998 as head of the National Climate Centre.
It is also clear that Kininmonth’s calculations are based on wrong assumptions. When looking at the effect of changes in greenhouse gases, one must look at how their forcing corresponds to the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere. But Kininmonth instead looks at the energy balance at the surface where a lot of other things also happen, and where both tangible and latent energy flows are present and make everything more complicated.
It is easier to deal with the balance at the top of the atmosphere or use a simplified description that includes convection and radiation as discussed here previously on RealClimate and presented in Benestad (2016).
Another weak point is Kininmonth’s assumption of the water vapour being constant and at same concentrations as in the tropics over the whole globe. Focusing on the tropics easily gives too high values for water vapour if applied to the whole planet.
Furthermore, there are important feedback effects that were not taken into account in his calculations. Kininmonth used MODTRAN, but he must show how MODTRAN was used to arrive at figures that differ from other calculations, which also use MODTRAN. It is an important principle in science that others can repeat the same calculations and arrive at the same answer. You can play with MODTRAN on its website, but it is still important to explain how you arrive at your answers.
In contrast to Kininmonth simple estimates, both feedback effects and clouds are captured much better with global climate models that also use the same physics as in MODTRAN (Huang et al., 2007). It is also important that such calculations and models are thoroughly evaluated (Benestad et al., 2015), and this is also applies to Kininmonth’s calculations.
Another surprising claim that Kininmonth made was that ocean currents are the only plausible explanation for the warming of the tropical reservoir, because he somehow thinks that there has been a reduction in the transport of heat to higher latitudes due to a mysterious slow down of ocean currents. It is easy to check trends in sea surface temperatures and look for signs that heat transport towards higher latitudes has weakened. Such a hypothetical slowdown would suggest weaker ocean surface warming in the high latitudes, which is not supported by data (Figure 1).
Kininmonth also explains the warming in the Arctic in terms of increased latent heat transfer from lower latitudes. It’s interesting that he needs to invoke both a slowdown and a speed-up of heat transport from the tropics to higher latitudes this way, and this complicates his concept. And if this were true, then we would expect to see increased cloud cover (and increased precipitation) there. Cloud cover has increased over limited areas where the ice has retreated, but this increase seems to be related to local moisture sources and probably not from increased storm activity or water vapour coming from low latitudes.
We can end on another strange point that Kininmonth makes in his misguided rethink of the greenhouse effect, namely that the sea temperature in the tropics correlates well with the atmospheric temperatures. This is of course connected with ENSO, but this is nothing new and it is hard to see why this would be relevant in this case.
References
- R.E. Benestad, "A mental picture of the greenhouse effect", Theoretical and Applied Climatology, vol. 128, pp. 679-688, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00704-016-1732-y
- Y. Huang, V. Ramaswamy, X. Huang, Q. Fu, and C. Bardeen, "A strict test in climate modeling with spectrally resolved radiances: GCM simulation versus AIRS observations", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031409
- R.E. Benestad, D. Nuccitelli, S. Lewandowsky, K. Hayhoe, H.O. Hygen, R. van Dorland, and J. Cook, "Learning from mistakes in climate research", Theoretical and Applied Climatology, vol. 126, pp. 699-703, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5
The atmosphere-hydrosphere-cryosphere-lithosphere totality is the most complex system we know about, anywhere in the entire Universe. So I say, forget temperatures. The Earth is a thermometer in its own right, whose ‘mercury’ is the level of the world’s one ocean, which is relentlessly rising at ~ 3.3 +/_ 0.4 mm/year, and accelerating.
The rest is high school physics. While there is any ice at the poles or on the high mountains, temperature rise will be insignificant. But after the ice is all gone, and the ocean has risen 70 metres, flooding every port city on the planet, get set for possible catastrophic temperature rise.
EXCEPT that the geosystem may find a new stability, with clouds of water vapour reflecting off enough incoming radiant heat to permanently darken if not blacken the skies as seen from the present sea level, making the Earth as seen from space far more like its sister planet Venus in appearance.
But though many life forms would terminate under these conditions, like unto a permanent and blackest violent worldwide thunderstorm of unimaginable scope and intensity, some would survive and even perhaps thrive. But I doubt that would include most members of our own species.
I do not know if William Kininmonth is a coal shill or not. But if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it could well be an ostrich pretending to be a duck. That is, a fully paid-up member of the Ostrich School of Climatology.
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted#:~:text=There%20is%20still%20some%20uncertainty,coastal%20city%20on%20the%20planet.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Ian MacDougall: –
Current temperature is driving substantial ice sheet melting, accelerating sea level rise.
At the April 2019 General Meeting of the American Philosophical Society, as shown in the YouTube video titled On Sheet Ice Melt in a Warming Climate and What We Should Do About It, glaciologist Professor Eric Rignot confirmed that the whole of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is now committed to melting, and the Greenland Ice Sheet has passed its “tipping point” (in the Q&A) with the current level of warming. Rignot said from time interval 0:02:51:
“So right now, sea level is raising, rising about thirty centimetres per century, but we know there’s the possibility that it could do this ten times faster because it did that in the past and, what causes that is the, is the ice sheets.”
From time interval 0:13:07:
“And if you accumulate all these accelerations from the land ice, you see that it’s accelerating at 440 gigatonnes per year per decade, and if you extrapolate that to the end of the century we raise sea level by 80 centimetres. So you could argue that we are already on the trajectory of one metre per century sea level rise if this trend continues. This is clearly faster than any models that are being used so far to make sea level rise projections, and there are a multitude of reasons for that.”
From time interval 0:21:03:
“So right now, we are on a rate of one metre per century, but an interesting result from paleo-records is that when the climate of the planet was about half a degree warmer than present, or maybe just the same as present, right, during the last interglacial, sea level was six to nine metres higher. That means the main part of Greenland was gone, West Antarctica was gone, and some part of East Antarctica yet-to-be-identified was gone as well. It’s likely that if we bring the climate system to the same level we will also commit ourselves to six to nine metres sea level rise. What the paleo-record doesn’t tell us is how long it’s going to take to do that. Damage doesn’t start at six to nine metres sea level rise, right. The damage on us starts at about a metre sea level rise.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOykSCOf0c
Ian MacDougall: –
It seems to me that’s not what James Hansen, Will Steffen and HJ Schellnhuber have been saying.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/unforced-variations-sep-2022/#comment-806039
With all due respect to those climatologists, it seems to me that your reponse is an appeal to authority. Fossil carbon shills commonly appeal to temperature variation, or lack thereof, to bolster their claims the AGW is garbage. eg https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2022/09/go-ahead-climate-scientists-make-our-day/
Ian MacDougall: –
IMO, when I see people invoke the phrase “with all due respect” that’s usually an indication of minimal (if any) respect.
Ian, are you disagreeing with the comprehensive assessments by Eric Rignot, James Hansen, Will Steffen, HJ Schellnhuber & Co?
Ian, what compelling evidence/data do you have to support your previous statement? –
ITYS.
Ok sounds strange. But actually one of both should be right – an increased or a decreased poleward energy transport. And its the former that is observed. This includes also an increased moisture transport into the Arctic from lower latitudes.
‘
But what is astonishing is that climate warming goes now amok while our economic and political systems keep on emitting (and defending it against any resistance) like there ain’t exist any problem – Idiogracy happened hundreds of years earlier than forecast :D
‘
All the best
‘
Jan
Ht Jan
The horizontal poleward heat exchange through 10 000 Km from pole to eqvator through a very thin layer really, ( i5 Km/ 10 000 km = 0.0015) is 0ld supersticion among the flat eartrhers,
Compared to 85- 90 deg temperature gradient vertically from ground and up to the isoterm or tropopause layer only about 8 to 17 km above you and over a very much larger area.
What about the heat- conductivity of that very much larger and shorter pathway of heat…. that rather big open door or window area of main heat exchange and cooling in the system,.. , also over a quite much higher temperature gradient,… has changed a bit in recent time?
Might that perhaps better explain it?
( think rather vertically, which is where it really happens, and you get it)
If all that solar heat had been transported horizontally to the poles first in order to go out again, which entails that it is the sun that heats us mainly at the lower latitudes and the poles that cool us, then the polar ices would have melted really very long ago by all that heat.
But…. as everyone can see,… they have not!
So that fameous old learning of tropical heat exchange and long way transport i via the poles must be old superstrici0n and simply false.
“Misguided” is very charitable. I was particularly flummoxed by “greenhouse gases emit more radiation – to space and back to Earth – than they absorb” (no ref) and then goes on to conclude this should have a cooling effect. Is there some basis for this, or is this a perpetual motion machine in the making?
We are also witnessing a rebirth of full -throated idiocy as a mode of discourse on Fox TV, which far outreaches Covering Climate Now.’s print campaign:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/09/pride-goeth-before-squall.html
This particular climate denier which the GWPF, a UK educational charity, chooses to publish (& thus the publishing of this particular pack of lies is part-paid by tax breaks from GWPF being a charity) is one of the members of the GWPF Academic Advisory Council. Desmog Blog have a webpage on him which has a link to an archived version of his 2004 denialism. So that might show whether he’s learnt anything in the last 18 years, or perhaps whether he has learnt how to make up better lies since 2018 given his name** has been rubbing shoulders with so many Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy for the last 4 years. (**I can’t imagine this GWPF Academic Advisory Council every meets, or even communicates be able to give ‘advice’.)
Ye’ll have to come up with a better bogey man than a gas that is essential to all life of which man’s contribution to the atmosphere makes up a whopping 0.002%. I’m with the good scientist Kininmonth on this one.
Would you care to ingest 0.002% of a solution of prussic acid, or Covid?
You appear not to want to know or learn anything about science (which is not a belief system, but a way to seeking objective information about the world we live in) or evidence, and display a strong resistance to knowing what you wrote about. Start with the word catalyst. Then look at world weather. Try over 99% of reputable scientists. Look at the reputation of the GWPF for choosing people who promote short-term profits for their wealthy and powerful patrons. Ignorance is not bliss.
Oh dear. Somebody hasn’t gone to the “Srart Here” page. Here’s a hint. The subject is Climate Change. Here’s another. Learn to do math.
And you’ll have to come up with a better argument than the two tired irrelevancies you rebunk.
Are you seriously suggesting that since CO2 is “a gas that is essential to all life,” that it cannot also be harmful? That’s like saying that, since water is essential to life, it is not possible to drown,
As for the 0.002%, that’s simply the old argument from personal incredulity. No need for you or anyone else to give it any credence.
Joe Jones: “Ye’ll have to come up with a better bogey man than a gas that is essential to all life of which man’s contribution to the atmosphere makes up a whopping 0.002%. I’m with the good scientist Kininmonth on this one.
Joe Jones sees a man drowning in a lake. Instead of tossing him a line, he starts lecturing him “ Stop crying for help, you snowflake! Don’t you know that water is essential to all life? Ye’ll die after 3 days without it, you moron!”
Then he walks over to his neighbour and slips 20 grams of arsenic to his drink. The neighbour spots it and protests. Joe shrugs: “Don’t be a sissy – ye’ll add only a completely unwhooping 0.02% to your body weight! I’m with the good princess Lucrezia Borgia on this one !“
No, Kininmonth is another blind believer, flat earther, and desert walker. Abba- Abba… ..
JJ: Ye’ll have to come up with a better bogey man than a gas that is essential to all life of which man’s contribution to the atmosphere makes up a whopping 0.002%.
BPL: 1. It’s essential to all life, but that doesn’t mean too much of it isn’t a problem. Water is essential to life, but you can still drown in it. 2. 33% of the carbon dioxide in the air at this time is man-made, not 0.002%. Don’t just make stuff up. It’s too easy for people to check.
I will accept your figure of 2.33 percent, hence a 2.33 percent increase over the historical norm, if you will accept that CO2 is only one of many many interacting, dynamic variables that regulate climate.
Further, it seems to me that really really complicated, chaotic systems with many many interacting inputs don’t go haywire, as a general rule, because one of those inputs changes by 2.3 percent.
Seriously, any system that sensitive would be too fragile to persist for very long., Certainly it could not have survived for hundreds of millions of years, during which time traumas far worse would have occurred with great regularity. Indeed, a system so fragile would almost certainly have died long, long ago of natural causes.
But in fact we see the opposite. The earth is incredibly resilient. It’s been nearly wiped out at least five times, and each time it came back in better shape than before. It survived. somehow, 600 million years of CO2 levels that were many times the current value.
And yes, without a certain amount of CO2 , life would cease to exist. We came pretty close to that cutoff during the last glacial outbreak. And at 400 ppm were are still uncomfortably close to it, geologically speaking.
Nobody is saying CO2 isn’t a thing, just how much of a thing. And that’s a totally legit question.
S Snell: –
Some life on planet Earth will likely prevail (barring any ‘planet killer’ meteorite impact event) for several hundreds of millions of years more (before the Sun’s steadily increasing luminosity gets too much), but human civilisation is not anywhere near as resilient and is likely facing collapse (and humanity would be greatly diminished as a consequence, with an increasing risk of perhaps species extinction) before the end of this century on our current GHG emissions trajectory.
See Prof Will Steffen’s presentation in the YouTube video referred in my earlier comments, and particularly view from time interval 0:08:26 through to 0:10:15.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/watching-the-detections/#comment-806440
S Snell: –
Who’s “we”?
It depends on what you define as “pretty close”. During the last 800,000 years of Earth’s history, ice core data indicates atmospheric CO₂ concentrations did not fall below about 185 ppm. That’s still adequate for supporting plant life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr84tEbCQSg
Rising global mean surface temperatures will kill many plants and animals long before atmospheric CO₂ concentrations become toxic. See the phase diagram of habitability for residents of the Earth, presented by Dr. Ye Tao in the YouTube video titled Mirrors for Earth’s Energy Rebalancing (MEER:refEction) | Dr. Ye Tao | 2019NSSUS, at around time interval 0:15:30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwvPJnPP9KI
S Snell: –
I’d suggest you get up to speed!
S Snell
“Further, it seems to me that really really complicated, chaotic systems with many many interacting inputs don’t go haywire, as a general rule, because one of those inputs changes by 2.3 percent.”
Thanks for the comments, but nobody cares how things “seem to you”. Your comment is the logical fallacy oif argument from incredulity. Science requires evidence and maths.
And the inputs have not changed by 2%. Concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have increased by approximately 30% since the 1960’s as measured at Mauna Loa. Please provide credible peer reviewed evidence with a link that changes of 30% cannot possibly destablise systems. Perhaps consider that a change of only of 5 degrees sent the earth into an ice age. Small change, huge impact. Its the same in a warming world. A couple of degrees, huge impacts.
“But in fact we see the opposite. The earth is incredibly resilient. It’s been nearly wiped out at least five times, and each time it came back in better shape than before. It survived. somehow, 600 million years of CO2 levels that were many times the current value.”
The earth itself has never been “nearly wiped out”. You presumably mean life on earth has been “nearly wiped out”. And so apparently it doesnt matter to you if human beings get wiped out by anthropogenic climate change, along with all the species we depend on to survive, because the earth may come back with “new forms of life?” I have to say I’m more than a little bit worried about it.
“And yes, without a certain amount of CO2 , life would cease to exist. We came pretty close to that cutoff during the last glacial outbreak. And at 400 ppm were are still uncomfortably close to it, geologically speaking.”
Most plants need 150ppm CO2 to survive. During the last glacial period CO2 levels were approximately 180ppm. Levels of CO2 are more typically around 300 ppm, and increased from approx. 320 ppm in 1960 to 420 ppm presently. You provide no evidence we are uncomfortably close to 180ppm. Why would 200ppm not be uncomfortably close? Or 500 ppm? Or 1000ppm? How do you quantify and calculate such a thing? Its subjective.
Even the most ambitious policy ideas floated only suggest getting back towards 320 ppm which is close to levels that gave us a very stable period of climate and this helped with development of human civilisation. Your implied suggestion we would deliberately go back towards 180ppm is a strawman.
You are also flatly contradicting yourself. You said above “The earth is incredibly resilient. It’s been nearly wiped out at least five times, and each time it came back in better shape than before” so why are you worried about plant life being wiped out? Bacteria would survive.
The title of the article is “new misguided interpretations…”. This perfectly describes your rant.
I did not say 2.33%. I said 33%. 2 meant it was the second point I was making. Start over.
Uh, Dude, the “2.” was an index. What BPL is saying is that 1 in 3 CO2 molecules in the atmosphere now was put there by humans! As to the rest of your diatribe,…well, let’s just say that the skill you demonstrated in reading what BPL wrote makes it much more understandable how you could get everything so damned wrong.
The ‘2’ is a seriation number. 33% is a quantitative value.
Yes, food is essential to life but eating too much of it can cause serious and possibly even fatal health problems over time.
@Rasmus says: –
” When looking at the effect of changes in greenhouse gases, one must look at how their forcing corresponds to the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere. But Kininmonth instead looks at the energy balance at the surface…”
” It is easier to deal with the balance at the top of the atmosphere…”
ms: — My analyses of Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) trend (2000-2020) show:
CO2 is only responsible for ~ +0,06W/m² (7,8%) of 2 decades EEI trend of 0,77W/m².
The GHE is characterized by the fact that it reduces OLR (LW out TOA) and leaves the albedo essentially unchanged.
However, the opposite is observed – a (cooling) increase in OLR by ~ -0.57W/m² which, together with the (warming) albedo loss of +1.4W/m², results in an EEI trend of ~+0.77W/m² per 20y.
The cooling cloud albedo has a known SW effect of 47W/m² (M. Wild et al., 2019) and if we observe 2% cloud loss over the period 2000-2020 then -0.94W/m² is a major part of a total SW loss at TOA of -1.4W/m². Conversely, the well-known warming LW effect of the clouds of +28W/m² has a contribution of +0.56W/m² to the increased OLR at TOA.
You find all values here: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297#
The loss of snow & ice albedo(~0.3W/m²) and reflective aerosols(~1.6W/m²) must be responsible for the remaining ~ 0.46W/m² of albedo loss.
Similar to cloud albedo, the loss of snow & ice albedo and aerosols also has a LW effect as the now exposed land and water surfaces can radiate more heat and also have better evaporation without the insulating snow and ice cover.
The warming effect of fewer aerosols increases the absorbed SW radiation, surface temperature, and LW up surface more evenly over a larger area as aerosols travel in the atmosphere.
The total amount of this additional OLR out TOA due to decreased snow & ice albedo(~0.3W/m²) and reflective aerosols cannot be higher than 0.46W/m² and theoretically represents a possibility to estimate the increased GHE. due to higher greenhouse gas concentrations (2000-2020) of ~
H2O + 0.2g/Kg
CO2 + 40 ppm.
CH4 + 100 ppb.
… & others…
My estimate is 0.2 – 0.3W/m² radiative forcing by total GHE and only ~0,06W/m² for CO² (20%GHE) over the 2 decades.
Look e.g. at the year 2010 in the different graphs that was one of the rather hotter years with peak values in:
El Nino – Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) – https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
specific & relative humidity (? high GHE ?) https://climate.metoffice.cloud/humidity.html
LW out TOA
LW surface down
LW surface up
SW out TOA (high albedo)
Cloud effective temperature
——————————-!!!…but very low EEI close to ZERO.
These graphs do NOT follow with the almost linear increase in CO2 concentrations.
The same applies to other very hot years such as 1998 and 2016.
Hot years reduce the EEI – which sounds logical.
There is simply hardly any room for a dominant GHE in the EEI trend.
I assume an underlying ~0.3W/m² trend for GHE and ~0.06W/m² for CO2.
The real problem is that the IPCC has not yet recognized that ~10% less evaporation (-3,8W/m²) over the land surface has led during the millenias to serious manmade changes and problems in the hydrological cycle and in the atmosphere that still keep on growing rapidly.
The first major human interventions in the natural water balance of the regions took place long before industrialization (1750) ~ 8000 years ago. With settlement, the first wells, slash-and-burn and the ever-increasing surface sealing, canalization of rivers, drainage of moors and wetlands, expansion of agricultural and forestry areas, etc., humanity itself is responsible for today’s water shortage. Water pollution, waste,
overexploitation of natural water reservoirs, and the resulting desertification and stomata closure of vegetation aggravate this plight.
Read on my website ( which has not yet fully incorporated the EEI topic ) to understand the IPCC’s simple but historic error in fully describing water vapor as a feedback on CO² concentrations. https://climateprotectionhardware.wordpress.com/
I’m not with you on this one “GHE is characterized by the fact that it reduces OLR” when you consider that the planet will be in equilibrium and energy input equals the output – regardless of a GHE or not. I suggest you read A mental picture of the greenhouse effect: A pedagogic explanation.
@Rasmus: – “GHE is characterized by the fact that it reduces OLR”
ms: — The very least that one could expect from climate science or the IPCC would be an explanation as to why the CERES satellite data paradoxically do not measure a reduced OLR (2000-2020), but rather a trend & value that is surprisingly 0.56W/m² higher than before 2000.
I have not the slightest doubt that all of the many 3- and multi-atomic molecules in the atmosphere cause a GHE, although observing the change in their specific warming effect on the climate system is difficult as long as the main greenhouse gas H2O is contained in deadlocked, conservative climate models as a CO2 feedback.
So I’m not denying the GHE – but you are denying that a ~10% decrease in evaporation over land within only a few decades will have severe effects on land temperatures, atmosphere and cloud cover. By the way, the link you recommend confirms my assumption in figure 1.
The equilibrium at TOA (EEI = 0) exists exactly when the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is at its highest.
On the other side, the imbalance at the land surface would be much smaller or even zero if humans provided sufficient water and evaporation there. Currently, however, humanity is still driving the reverse trend, continuing to rapidly deforest, seal and encourage desertification.
Maybe you could consider these facts in your future climate models instead of constantly filling them up with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, which unfortunately is only valid in a closed system. ! But the earth’s atmosphere is NOT a closed system !
Our land climate is clearly moving towards clear-sky conditions that have little to nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
In addition to man-made warming due to more climate gases – there is also the man-made trend to reduce (water) cooling.
ms: Our land climate is clearly moving towards clear-sky conditions that have little to nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
BPL: Whatever that means.
@Levenson
— This means that humanity can stop global warming much more efficiently and quickly with more water and evaporation over land than with the woefully bungling efforts to lower greenhouse gas concentrations.
But by the time you’ve understood that with your eternally long line and comprehension – it’s too late. You still / only have 15 years (+/- 14 years of the Putin factor).
ms: humanity can stop global warming much more efficiently and quickly with more water and evaporation over land than with the woefully bungling efforts to lower greenhouse gas concentrations.
BPL: We’re aware of your crackpot thesis. But keep reminding us of it over and over and over again…
Hr Schürle
“… instead of constantly filling them up with the Clausius Clappeyrons equation, which unfortunately is only valid in a closed system….”
Comment:
You , and in your closed system
Question:
which further physical and chemical and biological laws that rule universally are not appliciable because, in your world to your opinion they only rule in closed systems ?
Second question:
How does it feel allways to teach and to enjoin- instruct Madness and Falseness on behalf of your own and closed system?
@carbonito / Genosse Schwachkopf und FFC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation
If you’re having trouble distinguishing between open and closed systems, it’s probably because your brain is an isolated system.
(No exchange of mass, energy and information allowed)
Genosse
Read your own Wiki reference to Claussius Clappeyron better.
They use the example of the condensation point of water and its dependence on temperature. Both matter and energy goes in and out of the system the dewdrops or the water surface then
it is often related to 2 phase systems but rules futher for any material chemical balance of the type A being transformed to B and B back again to A at the same time and there is a reaction or transformation entrophy ( cooling or heating consequenses ) involved.
For instance, Claussius Clappeyrons law rules as well for the temperature dependent solubility and saturation point of a salt in water or a liquid in another liquid.. Or gas solubility and stability in a a liquid regardless of size and container walls of that liquid.
It seems in many ways that you were brought up to another reality with a basically different paradigm of physical and chemical definitions and learning.
Q: Was it the Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät with their “Dia lectic materialism” for instance?
If things rule and can be shown in a closed test tube or a closed chemical glass bottle or in an aqvarium,….. then that does not at all entail or proove or show that it is not valid and is not appliciable elsewhere, as you might perhaps have learnt in school or back home or in the Peoples Republic under closed conditions.. .
That strange perverted idea is not quite uncommon. Such as, when it can be shown in the lab under closed and critical experimental conditions or let us say in the closed courtroom or classroom, then it does damned not rule outdoor and elsewhere and in the atmosphere or in the climate for instance.
Think over your basic learning system and school- & state- religious paradigm there,…..
……………that seems not to rule universally and in the free world and open society.
You may confuse that peculiar paradigm and political system with the climate.
@carbonito / Genosse Schwachkopf & FFC says:
” If things rule and can be shown in a closed test tube or a closed chemical glass bottle or in an aqvarium,….. then that does not at all entail or proove or show that it is not valid and is not appliciable elsewhere, ”
ms: — If you would be so kind as to recognize that the atmosphere is not a closed test tube – that’s what I’m about. It is an open system, which absorbs and releases Gt of matter every second. It is therefore wrong and foolish to claim that a 1°C warmer atmosphere increases the H2O content by 7%.
You still have to learn that constant observation, thinking, knowing and acting are part of the basic tools of science.
If you can now observe that the specific humidity tends to stagnate, especially in higher regions of the troposphere, and the relative humidity even decreases drastically, you will see that the CC equation is not valid. Water on the surface evaporates faster with higher temperatures, but water availability is more and more often not given at all, especially over land areas in drought summers and in expanding deserts.
So the 7% announcement from CC is completely useless for GCM – as are your ears and strained writing. But you’ve made progress with the ABC. lol
ms: It is therefore wrong and foolish to claim that a 1°C warmer atmosphere increases the H2O content by 7%.
BPL: Look again.
Brown, S., S. Desai, S. Keihm, and C. Ruf (2007), Ocean water vapor and cloud burden trends derived from the topex microwave radiometer. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 2007, Barcelona, Spain, IGARSS 2007, IEEE International, 886-889.
Mears, C., J. Wang, S. Ho, L. Zhang, and X. Zhou, 2010: Total column water vapor [in “State
of the Climate in 2009”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91 (6), S79–S82.
A more robust analysis of water vapour changes by Mears et al. (2010) shows that total column water vapour is increasing over the oceans in the period 1988-2009 at a rate of 0.27 +/- 0.08 mm/decade. This corresponds to about 1.2%/decade (IPCC, 2007).
Wang, J.; Dai, A.; Mears, C. 2016. Global water vapor trend from 1988 to 2011 and its diurnal asymmetry based on GPS, radiosonde, and microwave satellite measurements. J. Climate 29, 5205-5222.
“It is found that positive PW trends predominate over the globe, with larger magnitudes over ocean than over land. The PW trend is correlated with surface warming spatially over ocean with a pattern correlation coefficient of 0.51.”
Chen, B., Liu, Z. 2016. Global water vapor variability and trend from the latest 36 year (1979 to 2014) data of ECMWF and NCEP reanalyses, radiosonde, GPS, and microwave satellite. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 11,442-11,462.
The variability and trend in global precipitable water vapor (PWV) from 1979 to 2014 are analyzed using the PWV data sets from the ERA-Interim reanalysis of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), reanalysis of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), radiosonde, Global Positioning System (GPS), and microwave satellite observations. PWV data from the ECMWF and NCEP have been evaluated by radiosonde, GPS, and microwave satellite observations, showing that ECMWF has higher accuracy than NCEP. Over the oceans, ECMWF has a much better agreement with the microwave satellite than NCEP. An upward trend in the global PWV is evident in all the five PWV data sets over three study periods: 1979–2014, 1992–2014, and 2000–2014. Positive global PWV trends, defined as percentage normalized by annual average, of 0.61?±?0.33%?decade-1, 0.57?±?0.28%?decade-1, and 0.17?±?0.35%?decade-1, have been derived from the NCEP, radiosonde, and ECMWF, respectively, for the period 1979–2014. It is found that ECMWF overestimates the PWV over the ocean prior to 1992. Thus, two more periods, 1992–2014 and 2000–2014, are studied. Increasing PWV trends are observed from all the five data sets in the two periods: 1992–2014 and 2000–2014. The linear relationship between PWV and surface temperature is positive over most oceans and the polar region. Steep positive/negative regression slopes are generally found in regions where large regional moisture flux divergence/convergence occurs.
Hr Schürle
“If you can now observe that the specific humidity (we call it absoluten humidity, that means the H2 O vapour partrial pressure) tends to stagnate in higher regions of the troposphere……….
(that is exactly what Claussius clappeyrons law is about. Rising Water vapour meets the condensation point as the temperature is fallinjg)
……….and the relative humidity even decreases…….
( Relative humidity is below 100% wherever the air is clear and not foggy- cloudy, but fogs and clouds may form even high up on scirrus level thus we can guarantee 100% humidity up there also at those heights, low pressures, and low temperatures,.)
………….You will see that the CC equation is not valid”
Question:
Just why do you teach that it is not valid when it is obviously valid and can ex0plain what you see and observe all the way, the very best way?
My suggesten for an answer to that is first of all that you have to fight and to deny science for your own existance, sake profession and career. Secondly that you never had to sit off that laboratory experiment of dewpoint measurement and discussion of air moisture in terms of relative and absolute air moisture and hygrometry and Dewpoint / http://www.Taupunkt at Mittlere Reife examen artium.
Such strange details now and then and all the way enables us to judge and to draw our conclusions about your personal political and social education and backgrounds, when it shows to be consequent enough.
The surrealists often show the same syndrom. quite regularly on tribal congregational (Read Progressive Party) level, which tells us why they have become climate surrealists..
They perform with typical mysterious and frappingly large holes in their compulsary higher education as if they had graduated on the bloody etnical Privileged Party quote in a Peoples Republic, closed society. .
@BPL: – ” …over and over and over again… ”
ms: — For Alzheimer’s patients, I like to repeat everything – until I drop.
If you look at the IPCC table
https://www.realclimate.org/images/AR6_figSPM2c-442×600.png
you may (or may not) notice a cooling contribution under irrigation and land-use reflectance. The IPCC seems to have the same crazy ideas as I do. But the IPCC goes one step further because the table does not contain any values that correspond to any warming due to the drainage & sealing of the landscape. You will also look in vain for cloud or ice albedo.
How crazy and stupid is that? Apparently all forcings that cannot be measured or are difficult to measure are smuggled into the GHE of CO2.
That is as dumb as Levenson.
And please don’t forget that you can even die of stupidity.
ms: all forcings that cannot be measured or are difficult to measure are smuggled into the GHE of CO2.
BPL: No, they are not. You don’t know how to do simple math. Either that, or you don’t pay attention to what you’re reading. This is a typical denier charge, and shows exactly where you’re coming from.
Hr Schürle
your fix ideas and opinion may be your very problem and disaster where you also stumble each time.
I am rather neutral to the case and stand on and build on other fix ideas, that show to be my advantage. Because the levels of my fix ideas are above you in the racial, etnic chosmological social grades.,
You never learnt of and you are subsequently consequently giving a damn to the isoterm layer, the rather cool side of the globe, Genosse Schürle, both here and on Venus.
Thus it comes from the Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät.
They never took, not even the soviet russian Venera- sondes for serious.
Benestad
I have not have the time to interfere too much also here, but again I saw the problem as the flat earthers were participating also.
In fact….. We were forced to a problem at the institute of physics, UiO.no.
In the good old days…..
It was a sphaere of aluminium polished matt by 90 deg sandpaper, Diameter 50 cm rotating in vacuum exactly 1 AU from the sun,
The solar constant is….. and the bolzmann constant is…..
Compute the temperature inside of that sputnik.
Now, paint exactly the half side black with soot and binder,…. I can suggest many recepies but there are sprayboxes and tape on the free market for this.. In any case, Kameraschwarz and Fordschwarz must be known and remembered for such eventual problems I use soot with conventional slime, and whenever appropriate, cheapest lipid oil and heat that gives repeatedly oiled and black burnt smoked off frying pan. That becomes very black, with practically 90% absorbance = emittance at any practical frequencies.
Ford sold all in black, but Henry Ford instead uset coal tar kiln fired. Which is Ford- schwarz a very cheap, exsellent practical, and permanent finish.. “allmost quite black and diffuse enough”
Brushede, pure alu8minium plate diffuse reflection is then the opposite and permanent surface situauion. the very best “light grey metallic”
Now, compute the angle Alpha by which you will have to turn that sphaere against the sun to have comfortable living room temperature inside of it.
It is proably Otto Øgrim and Helmut Ormestad on their very best. I shall never forget that problem. of the early Sputnik ages. Of possible theoretical comfort in a Sputnik.
Readers Digest, Popular Mecxhanics and Scientific American could not be better.
There is still nothing new in space and chosmonautics after Tsiolkovsky,
But Ormestad & Øgrim told us to compute the living room standard temperatures inside of it also, at eqvilibrium..
The moon is another standard reference, a sphareical porous grey stone rotating in vacuum under full sunshine at 1 AU from then sun as seen through 1 atmosphere. Easily remembered.. They will not grasp it and try rather and tell it in %s.
The troubble here is that when we argue with this, the Tsiolkovskiy, Øgrim Ormestad Kirchoff Celsius Planc and Bolzmann- chosmology, the alternatives react by teaching the people on behalf of science that we believe the earth to be flat, …..smile smile.
I have had it at Forskning. no and Klimarealistene.no.
Thus, a W. Kininmoth is nothing new on the websites and in the climate disputes.
The conscept of sun shining in on the moon and the earths global square area and they are radiating out on 4 times that area is strange, unheard of, and ridiculous to that bloodgroup.
So consequent that we can begin assessing their early childhood experiences for possible diagnoses and political racial identification.
They fight and ridicule even the Øgrim Ormestad Sputnik problem.
@carbonito says: – ” alu8minium … Mecxhanics ”
— Are you sure you know what you’re talking about ? – I (un)fortunately do not. Topic missed !
This forum is about climate – not about the bloodgroup of an eccentric, norwegian fuck-frog-clown who, pumped full of Hoffmann’s LSD drops, circles around himself in his Sputnik and doesn’t even have the ABC in his luggage!
Genosse
You fail to see even the Ormestad Øgrim sphaerical metal Sputnikproblem at 1 AU from the sun.
Which is one of many reasons why I dare to discuss social class etnical race bloodgroups.
The fameous bloodgroup P for Pork, Party Pøbel Prole- taaaaaa- r and Pamp.
Whereas Climate is first of all about a sphaere rotating exactly 1AU fom the sun with surface area exactly 4 times its cross sectional area. And scattered in many colours.
Frogn is etymologically an indo- european word probably Sanskrit, that suits Fröya Frau Fru Fron Froh Freude……. Kali/ Durga very well.
It entails easily driven especially fertile ground with typical earliest agriculture. wherever the name is found.
http://www.Frognerparken at Frogner, Oslo.
Fuck is also old Norse. verbum Fike. . German eine Ohrfeige. “Ficken” does betray their less elegant, rather unpolite manners then.
By the way, I was told the same by the chief precident climate surrealist in Oslo http://www.Klimarealistene.no
Are you also of that etnicity / bloodgroup? I dare to ask.
Good morning, Gavin
Could you move this up to be a Featured Story, please, from below the line as a ‘Recent Post”?
Thanks
Richard Hawes, Great White North
” …instead looks at the energy balance at the surface where a lot of other things also happen, and where both tangible and latent energy flows are present and make everything more complicated. It is easier to deal with the balance at the top of the atmosphere or use a simplified description that includes convection and radiation as discussed”
Is it possible that due to the ease of diagnosing the illness at TOA that we miss the suite of causal mechanisms and potential remedial action. Such that we can diagnose cancer, dementia, stroke, multiple sclerosis, and Huntington’s in humans but we yet lack adequate descriptions to cure and prevent such illness.
Instead we focus on symptom control, emotional and spiritual well-being, and planning for the future for now. The parallels to climate are apparent.
While focusing on the simple descriptions is easier, the medical profession would certainly not shy away from areas that are more complicated to better treat and ideally cure such illnesses. It would be inconceivable to shout down someone who tries.
This is where the cutting edge research must happen, where simpler descriptions and diagnoses may not be adequate to reveal the suite of potential remedial actions. Where there may be a variety of factors that culminate in the observable symptoms that which we label the disease.
JCM: “due to the ease of diagnosing the illness […] we miss the suite of causal mechanisms and potential remedial action”
– what said the South African president Thabo Mbeki about the scientific consensus that HIV does cause AIDS, and appointed a health minister, who promoted “ubhejane, garlic, beetroot, and lemon juice” as potential remedial actions for AIDS?
Hr JCM
I rather have the opposite opinion and experience here.
People are so eager at labeling the diseases and telling the causes and recommend the patented cures, that they give mostly a damn to elementary obvious symptoms and biophysical examination. .
Yes of course, and I agree. A foundational tenet of medical science has always been that if there’s no empirical evidence, it is acceptable to resort to consensus expert opinion. By whatever means this consensus has been reached, be-it patent protection or the emotional urge to cure the sick, this has resulted in many curious interventions over the centuries. I’m sure you can think of a few examples.
JCM
Be thorroughly aware that the faculty of medicine is the leading Shaman and Spindoctor Whitchdoctor faculty at any time, anywhere.
Treat them as fur and feather animals along with the Farm Animal Welfare Council
FAWK GOV.UK
rules and regulations of animal welfare,
And in acute cases §4 give them right in all there is as far as possible.
That means room and freedom as far as possibloe to perform and carry out their natural instinctive behaviours.
Dr. JCM
I still do not quite understand.
If there is no empirical evidence, if the patiens carries no symptroms and shows no further empirical evidence,…. is it then acceptable along with consensus to label him / her sick or ill and order or recommend a cure / medication for it?
“I still do not quite understand.”
Surely it’s unethical to intervene in a case with no symptoms!
But, for the longest time MDs did pathologize anything they deemed mysterious, and often had the audacity to intervene in shockingly invasive ways. Net harmful for the subject at times, such as in cases of ‘hysteria’.
Yes, I see.
If you have a person with no symptoms, that will allways be dubious in any case
If that person is rich enough, you can offer a drink “cheers..!” of Etylenglycoll or lead- acetate, that is also very sweet, and the person will develop symptoms.
He must rest and go to bed because of heavy lead – gray depression and must not see any daylight, and cannot receive visitors exept for the very good and caring nurse or doctor.
That will tak eabout 3/4 year , which is enough for also writing a “will” to the housmaid or nurse or doctor who give him a sweet “liqueur” for comfort care and strengthening each day together with arbitrary Homöopatics with “no side effrects” .
You can also cause or induce sufferings and symptoms and diseases you see, and ……. earn your livings from it. That is also quite an art, and it relates at any time to medication cure and care. .
There are further cures and medeicines that are addictive and cause the pacients more and more desperate needs for it. Called “addictive drugs”.
Believe it or not, they tried to sell 1/4 Kg of codeine -pills against “pain” where I had no pains at all. It is probably the habit of some people to earn and to make their profession more important so they can cash. .
Consumerism is discussed here also.
JCM: “”Yes of course, and I agree”
For the record – JCM “of course agrees ” with the former South African president Thabo Mbeki that HIV does not cause AIDS, and that treating it with “ubhejane, garlic, beetroot, and lemon juice” as promoted by his Health minister – as a better alternative to the HIV-drugs..
Whau, I didn’t peg you to be that delusional. Then again – psychologically – if you have built up your ego on the distrust for science and on the belief that you are so brilliant that you can pull out of your arse solutions that scientist working for decades in the field never thought of – then your AiDS opinions shouldn’t have come as a surprise.
So RealClimate censored my attempt to open discussion of that topic July 2021 and then posted this here for discussion between the rest of you (I’ve stopped bothering). Mine must have been waaaaaaaay awful, certainly much worse than whatever the William Kininmonth geezer is on about.
Barry,
You could perhaps start with identifying what “that topic” is, since if your missive didn’t appear, we have no idea what you are talking about.
I would strongly recommend NOT TO PLAY with modtran from spectral sciences. I told them a year ago about the problem, but they never fixed it. The only scenario that works (I guess) is “mid-latitude summer”. All other scenarios feature the atmospheric temperature profile of said mid-latitude summer scenario. For instance sub-arctic winter then has 257.2K surface temperature, but a cosy 294.2K air temperature. Of course it makes no sense and you will only get data garbage.
Use the uchicago modtran instead..
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
I don’t know the quantities with worthwhile accuracy but it does makes sense at least further north at 75N. Through mid 2018 when I had my look at Arctic Ocean centre 75N heating from sunshine & southern air (from a Trenberth plot) and listed it weekly for 52 weeks there was (just from memory) about 40 w/m**2 too much heat through winter to sustain -28 mid winter and -14 average at 75N. The Arctic Ocean ice-air surface S.B. a few degrees warmer with Trenberth hot air (S.B. rephrased maybe) according to my simple calculations. I concluded that the ~40 w/m**2 too much heat (or whatever I actually calculated) was because the warm south air arrives high at top of troposphere causing it to lose more energy to space from its solids, liquids, IR gases before descending & making it either Potential-t warmer than surface below or perhaps even actual-t warmer than surface below before losing that heat to space, like you say U.S. Air Force, UChicago MODTRAN has a bit further south. I didn’t study that because it’s tangential to my Arctic Ocean water heating to 62 m I was calculating.
June 2018 I got reflectances from the SKS plot and found a David Randall Judith Curry paper for Arctic Ocean clouds and I noted they noted much winter thermal inversion so I put that with the overheated air from a Trenberth plot and assumed the Arctic Ocean has a surface colder than the air near its top of troposphere during much of its autumn-winter 6 months.
Also in 2014 I heard Dan Lubin say that aerosols worked backwards in the winter Arctic and wondered whether that meant the “greenhouse effect” worked backwards there during winter then. I don’t recall studying it and getting an answer so I’m giving questions rather than answers about “Of course it makes no sense”. “Of course” ?? (question question). I’m a human climate model – questions not answers.
“the “greenhouse effect” worked backwards there during winter”
S.B.
“the “greenhouse effect” of tropospheric solids worked backwards there during winter”
BE FInch: “wondered whether that meant [that] the “greenhouse effect” of tropospheric solids worked backwards there during winter”
Calling it “greenhouse effect” may be confusing, I’d go with radiative forcing.
The net radiative forcing would be the difference between negative forcing of reflecting (upward) SW from the Sun and positive forcing = absorbing SW + absorbing/reflecting (downward) LW from the ground.
So the “working backward” in winter may have meant that in summer the SW albedo effect dominated, resulting in negative radiative effect (cooling), while in the winter the net effect was the opposite – warming – since not much SW to reflect during polar night …
Piotr
“Tropospheric solids” seems misconsceived and misleading. .
Such particles as far as I can judge, may have more essencial properties than being “solid”.
I tend to understand that carbon for instance, that can be seen and shown in candles as “black Carbon” namely soot, occur in a bi- atomic form C2 that is a gas and shines blue at high temperature, condenses rapidly…. where they have found exotic further nanoparticles in the black soot. So what about all the rest, coal and tar and oil and nitrous and sulphurous smokes?
What sets the limit between gas and dust on particle size level?
Is it dry? The sulphuric and nitrous acids are quite especially not dry solid “dust”.
Oils on the other hand are hydrophobe, but is it liquid drops or is it “dust” on nano and microlevel?
Blue smoke and white smoke….. that is set by the average particle size.
Moral:
Dusts and fumes and smokes and aerosols are obviously more complicated than that.