THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Except for when it drops……..as it has this decade.
Max,
Who is the ‘we’ in?
“we have established that around 50% of this increase can be attributed to increased 20th century solar activity”
Unless you are using the ‘we’ in the royal sense?
You’ve not fixed up your calculations using the figure 0f 255 degC for the effective ‘black body’ of earth temperature yet.
Also you can’t seem to grasp the fact that when heat is added to an object, the temperature doesn’t jump up immediately. You do have to allow a time for equilibrium to be reached. You do have to allow for that.
And finally, the feedback factor {I used C2 in a previous post} needs to be included.
If C2 is less than 1 the feedback is negative. The log of a number less than 1 being negative. If C2 is 1 the feedback is neutral. If C2 is greater than 1 the feedback is positive.
You’ve assumed C2 =1. I’d say that’s just a guess on your part. If you disagree, I’d like to see some references to real papers to justify your choice.
Brute, your 3877:
If the state legislature and Governator don’t figure out some kind of fix for the state budget, yes, they will issue IOU’s for state tax refunds.
Do you suppose they’ll accept IOU’s from citizens who can’t pay their taxes?
Hi Peter,
Your last post (3902) missed the point completely.
“We” = you + I. You and I have been discussing ACTUAL PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, which show us (you and me) that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is around 0.6 to 0.8C.
These are:
– the Hadley temperature record (with all its flaws and inconsistencies), which tells us that the “globally averaged annual land and sea surface temperature anomaly” has warmed by 0.65C over the 150-year period 1850-2008
– studies by several solar scientists that confirm that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (highest in several thousand years) has resulted in warming of around 0.35C, leaving 0.3C for all other causes, including anthropogenic forcing (CO2)
– atmospheric CO2 levels as estimated by IPCC for 1850 and as measured at Mauna Loa for 2008
These ACTUAL PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS allow us (you and me) to arrive at an estimated additional greenhouse warming by year 2100 of another 0.4C (on top of the 0.3C already physically observed).
We are NOT discussing THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS of the greenhouse impact of CO2, such as “fixing up my calculations using the figure of 255 degC for the effective ‘black body’ of earth temperature”. That is a totally different discussion, which we can take up once we have reached conclusion on the significance of the ACTUAL PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS (noted above).
You wrote: “Also you can’t seem to grasp the fact that when heat is added to an object, the temperature doesn’t jump up immediately. You do have to allow a time for equilibrium to be reached. You do have to allow for that.”
Sorry, Peter, your logic here is flawed. Contrary to what you have written, when heat is added to an object, the temperature does, indeed, “jump up immediately”, as soon as the heat has been added. One does not “have to allow a time for equilibrium to be reached”, as you claim. Do you seriously believe that there is some sort of a “delayed reaction” between the addition of heat to an object and its rise in temperature? If so, what law of thermodynamics forms the basis for your belief?
To your last point: “And finally, the feedback factor {I used C2 in a previous post} needs to be included.”
No, Peter. Let me repeat. We are not talking about THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS with feedback factors, etc. but about ACTUAL PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS. These show that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (including all positive and negative “feedbacks” out there in real life) is around 0.6 to 0.8C.
Is this so difficult for you to grasp? Or are you simply waffling to avoid the subject?
Regards,
Max
The wisdom of Solomon
The big story this morning is this US government (NOAA) study – lead by Susan Solomon – warning that climate change effects are irreversible even if CO2 emissions are halted. It seems global temperatures “could remain high” for 1,000 years.
So we’re all doomed whatever we do.
I liked this comment by Ms Solomon (quoted by the AP news agency):
I wonder when it was “normal”.
There’s an interesting story here. It’s about a study concerning the loss of trees in the western forests of north America. Researchers say that global warming is almost certainly the culprit. And this is how they reached that conclusion:
So once again it seems we have an example of scientists making man-made global warming the default cause of a poorly understood symptom: if we eliminate everything else we can think of, it must be AGW. That seems to settle the issue – without the need to demonstrate any causal relationship. I’m not a scientist, but that seems to be an odd methodology.
Robin, Reur 3906,
I am not an aficionado of TV commercials, but there is one here for a vehicle insurer, that I think is truly excellent. A squadron of swans (black) land on about three lanes of slowly moving traffic which consequently crunches to a stop in absolute mayhem, with many amusing scenes. Swans in open top cars, pulling a man’s beard through an open window, and more.
A second version has come-out with people getting on their mobile (cell) phones about these extraordinary multiple accidents.
Someone says: I don’t know why; global warming maybe.
Pete, that would be right wouldn’t it?
Flash News Release!
IS THE BLACK SWAN A COOKED GOOSE?
The Tasmanian (or Black) Swan, cygnus atratus, is common and widely distributed in Tasmania. It has also been introduced to New Zealand as well as other parts of Australia.
http://tasnature.blogspot.com/2008/07/black-swans.html
Are the breeding and migration habits of these magnificent birds being threatened by anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW)? Scientists report that this may be the case.
These hapless creatures really have nowhere to go to cool off (other than Antarctica) if their natural habitat warms by 6.5°C over the next several decades due to AGW, as projected by a consensus of climate model studies.
Carting them all off en masse to the UK could provide a temporary solution, but temperatures are rising so rapidly there (according to MetOffice model studies) that this would only be a temporary respite, before the birds would need to migrate to the Shetland and Orkney islands to escape the oppressive heat.
Next stop, Iceland?
Who knows…
A leading professor of ornithology at Egghead University, Dr. Archibald Birdbrain, pointed out to this reporter that additional studies are required as soon as possible in order to determine the gravity and urgency of the crisis, before it is too late for these beautiful creatures.
Robin
Ms. Solomon apparently believes that the Earth (like the human body) has a “normal temperature”, above which it is suffering from a “fever” (a signal of illness or infection).
This belief is espoused by the “Goldilocks school of climatology”, whereby the Earth’s temperature is “just right” at one point, to be no longer “just right” if it should change (in an upward direction).
The “just right” concept was first suggested by Ms. Goldilocks in her famous exploration and investigation of the “Three Bears” residence.
Unlike medical doctors who have agreed that the normal human temperature range should be 36.8 ± 0.7 °C, climatologists have, however, been unable to agree on what temperature (i.e. “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature”) is really “just right”.
Was it the (globally and annually averaged land and sea surface) temperature of the late 19th century (prior to large-scale human CO2 emissions)?
Was it the slightly higher (globally and annually averaged land and sea surface) temperature of the mid 20th century (after the first major 20th century warming, but prior to the second)?
Was it the even more slightly higher (globally and annually averaged land and sea surface) temperature reached in the year 2000 (after the second 20th century warming period)?
Is it the (globally and annually averaged land and sea surface) temperature we are currently experiencing, now that it has cooled down from end 20th century levels?
Who can answer this critical question?
Until we can identify the (globally and annually averaged land and sea surface) temperature of our planet that is, was (or will be) “just right”, we are unable to judge whether current and projected future changes will bring us closer or further away from our “just right” ideal temperature.
A true dilemma.
Max
Hi Robin,
Yes, the article (3906) blaming AGW on an observed dying of older western US forests is hogwash.
But this quotation (from “researchers including a forestry professor” who supposedly know something about trees and should know better) is total rubbish:
“But the older trees also help absorb carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases scientists say contributes to global warming. Smaller trees can’t absorb as much carbon dioxide, while decomposing trees release the gas.”
There are many reports confirming that this is untrue (see two below).
http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=5515
“Young trees lock in more carbon dioxide than older trees as they grow more rapidly, and have healthier wood, meaning they absorb more CO2.”
http://robincutson.com/GlobalWarmingTreesnew.html
“Young trees absorb more CO2 than mature trees because they are still growing.”
If these guys can’t even get the facts right in their own specialized field, how in the world can they identify the “root cause” for something as complicated as dying old forests?
A pretty sorry example of agenda-driven “hogwash” being sold as “science”.
Max
Oh my……..
James Hansen
Oh my…..
James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
Robin, Reur 3905, The Wisdom of Solomon
I think I first came across SS when I was reviewing the expert review comments of the IPCC WG1 AR4 report drafts. I was aware that she was a co-chair for WG1 but was surprised that she asked some rather penetrating questions like, (paraphrasing): “when you say unusual, what do you mean?” “when you say it is different to the MBH99 curve, how much different” …. stuff like that, and I thought hey, she’s one cool chick!
I’m not so impressed by this NOAA thingy of hers that you have just cited though! What about the final line, (although probably not her authorship)!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW; I’m reminded she “defined” the Ozone hole, and this is the latest in Wikipedia:
Solomon was chosen to lead the National Ozone Expedition to McMurdo Sound in Antarctica to investigate the hole in the ozone layer in 1986 and another in 1987.[2] Her team discovered higher levels of chlorine oxide than expected in the atmosphere, which had been released by the chlorofluorocarbons.[4]
Solomon also showed that volcanoes could accelerate the reactions caused by chlorofluorocarbons, and so increase the damage to the ozone layer.[4] Her work formed the basis of the U.N. Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to protect the ozone layer by regulating damaging chemicals.[1]
That reference to volcanoes might have something to do with active Mount Erebus, which sits right under the Ozone hole. Dobson mentioned (1980’s) it is very active, and that it chucks out lots of chlorine as it does today, and more recently there has been a report of Nitrous oxide
Ozone hole reached record size in 2006@ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7044
Brute,
I notice that your hate figure of Jim Hansen is predicting that President Obama will see ‘record temperatures’ in his first term of office.
That corresponds very closely with the bet that Max and I have on the topic. I’ve got to hand it to Max – he really does believe that that the earth is starting to cool noticably. I just wonder how you’ll all take it when JH, and I, are proved to be right and all you guys are proved to be wrong.
My guess is that you’ll start squealing that the temperature figures are all part of the great conspiracy.
Max,
Probably, ‘we’ are ever going to agree on the AGW issue any time soon.
One of the few sensible things that Tony B has said on this blog, is that the concept of an average world temperature has its limitations.
The Russians are currently getting much warmer whilst the USA has actually cooled in the last year. See:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif
Nevertheless the graph shows that the land is getting much warmer than ‘average’ while the oceans are soaking up the heat without the temperature changing to the same extent.
If you feel that applying heat changes the temperature instantaneously, you might like to try the following experiment.
Place a saucepan of water on the stove. Light the gas. After 30 secs put your hand in the water. And, then again after 5 minutes.
I don’t think its necessary to have a degree in Physics to know which will hurt the most.
So the question of how much the earth has warmed, and how much warming will follow if CO2 levels double, due to CO2 has different answers in Russia and the USA. Maybe that is why the Americans are leading the world in climate sceptism at the moment.
You also ask what is a normal earth temperature? I do agree that it’s stretching things a bit to compare the earth with a living body. However, there is evidence that human life came very close to extinction during recent ice ages. And also we do know that sea levels do change by hundreds of feet from glacial to interglacial states. If that happens again, particularly if sea levels rise,that might cause humanity just a little more inconvenience than it did the last time it happened.
Even if it could be shown that any major change in climate was natural, but not that I’m arguing that it is, why wouldn’t it make sense to do what was possible to counteract it?
Incidentally, it has just ocurred to me that those religious types who do believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago are unlikely allies for those who do advocate a natural temperature. For them, the earth’s climate was never much different from what it was prior to about 1850.
Peter #3914
“One of the few sensible things thatTony B has said on this blog, is that the concept of an average world temperature has its limitations.”
I mostly quote official data from various bodies such as The Met Office, Hadley, IPCC, Proudman, and numerous others. If I do not quote ‘sensible’ things I suggest you take it up with them. Or by ‘sensible’ do you meean highly theoretical, hypothetical and completely unproven computer models you avidly believe in, that even the IPCC say are flawed? Things that actual observations demonstrate are false?
Peter you have blind faith in this subject but I am glad to see that you are coming round to my assertion regarding world temperatures and hope you will also concede that the data you and Max parse back to 1850 is little better than meaningless.
TonyB
Brute #3912
Hansens ex boss seems to be very unimpressed with Hansen AND computer models. As Peter has admitted that global temperatures don’t mean much and has previousdy agreed that Michael Mann somewhat understated the MWP there doesnt sem a lot left of the theoretical hypothesis of AGW does there?
Doubling Co2 will cause up to 4.8C of warming starts to look the unsupported fantasy it always was. Hope Peter re-engages Max on that point
TonyB
TonyB,
The average world temperature increase isn’t meaningless. I’ll have to take back my comment of you saying at least one sensible thing.
What ‘official data’ supports your rather eccentric notions that CO2 levels have varied in the dramatic way that you claim? Believing all that nonsense does tend to place any individual at the nuttier end the the climate sceptic spectrum. I notice that Climate Audit don’t want a bar of that argument on their website and I can’t criticise them for that.
If Dr Theon has something useful to say on the science of global warming, including the widespread use of these ‘newfangled’ computers, he should use his free time to write up some real scientific publications. If not, he should get on with tending his rose garden or whatever else he does in his retirement, rather than interfering in matters that he has clearly lost touch with.
Peter
Surely if World temperatures has its limitations it is meaningless to use as a key scientific platform to prove AGW, change our lifestyles and spend lots of money when there are other priorities?
If the science is certain we want it to be certain- not have limitations. Do you honestly believe global temperatures-particularly back to 1850- are meaningful, or do you believe they have limitations? If meaningful why, if it has limitations what do you believe them to be?
Co2 wasn’t invented in 1958 by Charles Keeling. If you remember I was highly sceptical when I first came across Becks claims. Having researched them thoroughly I came to realise measuring co2 accurately was a fact of life from around 1820 and posted numerous items relating to this reality.
We have had a law to monitor its levels in factories for over 120 years and by-laws in place for an additional forty-we dont tend to enact laws unless there are the means to monitor them.
As for varying co2 levels, I asked you six times what you believed to be the reason for varying temperatures throughout our history when co2 clearly wasn’t the driver. If co2 isn’t the prime driver -because it has remained static at 280ppm- during all our history, what is it?
A more logical answer-which surely supports the idea that co2 is a warming/cooling factor-is surely that levels in the past have varied?
I dont understand your reluctance to accept this when it supports the consensus that co2 is a driver. Taking the opposite view that you profess-that constant co2 can induce greatly varying temperatures- surely discredits co2 as an important factor? You can’t have it both ways Peter.
I suggest you revist your eventual answer and tell me if you think you gave any sort of reasonable explanation to a reasonable question.
Your ad hom comments on Dr Theon reminds me that James Hansen is way past his retirement age-perhaps we can have a whip round to buy him a leaving present.
tonyB
Yep. All those taxpayer funded scientists working diligently…..crunching the numbers trying to
Yep. All those scientists working diligently…crunching the numbers trying to “save the world” from a .6 degree rise in temperatures averaged over 150 years. The impending disaster is coming if we all don’t start working very hard, right now, no delay. We all have to sacrifice you know……..get to the bottom of this global planetary crisis. No time to waste…..
Grassley launches inquiry
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18070.html
Chuck Grassley knows it when he sees it.
The “it,” of course, is pornography. And Grassley has seen it deep in a demurely titled section of a report from the National Science Foundation — a report that says NSF employees have been spending significant amounts of company time on smut sites and in other explicit pursuits.
Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on Tuesday fired off a letter to the NSF’s inspector general requesting all documents related to the “numerous reports” and seven investigations into “Abuse of NSF IT Resources” cited in the foundation’s 68-page semiannual report.
Despite the less-than-lurid sound of the probes, the employees in question weren’t just logging onto their Facebook accounts or buying birthday gifts on Amazon.com. The report says they were watching, downloading and e-mailing porn, sometimes for significant portions of their workdays, and over periods of months or even years.
In one particularly egregious case, the report says one NSF “senior official” was discovered to have spent as much as 20 percent of his working hours over a two-year interval “viewing sexually explicit images and engaging in sexually explicit online ‘chats’ with various women.”
Investigators calculated the value of the time lost at more than $58,000 — for that employee alone.
Following an initial wave of incidents, the grant-making agency — which has an annual budget of $6.06 billion, and was created by Congress in 1950 to promote the progress of science; advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; secure the national defense — reveals that probers then “selectively sampled” a single internal server and found even more workers harboring everything from software that can allow users to set up camera-to-camera connections to hard-core images and titillatingly titled bookmarks.
Committee investigators also learned from sources that one employee even had camera-to-camera software to facilitate his on-the-job sexcapades – and that the employee had complained to the IT specialist that his camera was working too slowly.
The foundation has since installed filtering software to prevent employees from accessing inappropriate websites and is currently trying to address the fallout from the agency’s adult-entertainment problem. This includes finding ways to support staffers who were “acutely embarrassed” by the filth-filled environment — like the employee who learned of a co-worker’s adventures in porn via sounds overheard from said co-worker’s computer speakers.
Grassley’s office has asked the foundation to turn over all “specific reports of investigations, audit reports, evaluations and information supporting the examination of the NSF network drive” by Thursday in an effort to “ensure that NSF properly fulfills its mission to strengthen scientific and engineering research, and makes responsible use of the public funding provided for these research disciplines.”
“The semiannual report raises real questions about how the National Science Foundation manages its resources, and Congress ought to demand a full accounting before it gives the agency another $3 billion in the stimulus bill,” Grassley said.
An NSF spokeswoman said the agency had no comment on the report or its content.
The UK Climate Impact Programme Forecasting Scoresheet
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/the-uk-climate-impact-programme-forecasting-scoresheet/
Hi Peter,
Let me reply to your 3914 in two parts. (I’ll come back to your “heat transfer” theory and analogy later.)
First, the GISS map you posted does not show the temperature change over the past year (as you seem to believe), but rather the regional temperature anomaly as compared to the 1951-1980 baseline (a period of global cooling). So it shows that 2008 was warmer than the baseline.
A map for 1944 would have also shown that it was warmer than the baseline (in theory, of course, since the 1951-1980 “baseline” did not yet exist).
The map does show, however that Russia (especially Siberia) appears to have the most warming (from the baseline to 2008) – are there any September readings that were carried over into October here? Were there any rural Siberian weather stations that have been shut down since the Soviet Union broke up, distorting this record?
The map shows that most of the southern hemisphere has not warmed significantly over this period, Antarctica has cooled (except for the Antarctic Peninsula, which warmed) and major parts of North America had no change. The graph also shows that 2008 was the coldest in the 21st century.
But the GISS record gets adjusted, corrected and massaged ex post facto so many times that it is hardly a reliable referenced (even though GISS arrogantly reports it to four decimal places!).
So yeah, 2008 was warmer than the 1951-1980 average in most places according to GISS.
But then again, this is not really news.
Humanity near extinction during the last Ice Age? Check:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/100k.html
This tells us that the Ice Age started around 60,000 years before present, peaked around 20,000 YBP with land temperatures 4C colder than today (sea temperatures colder) and ended around 10,000 YBP.
The report cites theories that a relatively small group of modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) could have left Africa 50,000 – 100,000 years ago to populate Europe, Asia, etc., that by 30,000 YBP modern humans thrived in the European climate, replacing the Neanderthals and that the population by 10,000 YBP is estimated to have reached 5 million (I have seen another study estimating this to have been closer to 10 million).
But nowhere do I see “that human life came very close to extinction during recent ice ages”. Human population seems to have grown from a very small number to 5-10 million from the onset of the Ice Age until its end. But human population consisted of a small number of hunters/gatherers that figured out how to wipe out several large mammals over the period.
Now I would agree with you that another big Ice Age would be a major disaster for the billions of people living on Earth today, so one could argue that the “just right” or “normal” temperature for Earth is definitely not 4C colder than today.
But when was the Earth at its “normal” temperature?
In medieval times (900-1000AD), when it was maybe 0.5 to 1C warmer than today and a population of 250 million were doing “just fine” and flourishing?
In the middle of the Little Ice Age (around 1600), when it was maybe 1 to 1.5C colder than today, glaciers were expanding into previously habitable farmland and a population of 450 million suffered from crop failures and resulting starvation?
In 1850, as we were coming out of LIA and a population of 1.1 billion started to improve its standard of living through industrialization, better hygiene and improved medicine?
In 1945, when we had just gone through WWII plus a period of sustained warming lasting 35 years, and a population of 2.3 billion was about to start a major post-war economic boom and the fastest growth rate ever recorded?
During the “baseline” average period (1951-1980), when the planet was going through a cooling cycle, and temperature was 0.44C cooler than it was in 2008 (according to GISS)?
During the record hot year of 1998, when temperature was around 0.15C warmer than in 2008 (according to GISS)?
Or in the year 2100, when the temperature may be as much as 0.4C warmer than today (based on theoretical projected warming from anticipated added human CO2), provided that other factors (solar activity, ENSO, PDO, NOA changes, etc.) do not offset or increase this warming?
Pick your “normal” or “just right” temperature, Peter.
I’ll vote for the year 2100, when we are back up to the MWP temperature level and Greenland again has dairy farms, England again has a viable wine industrycompeting with the French, wild grapes again grow in Newfoundland and central China can again grow oranges. Too bad we won’t be around. (But the sun or some other as yet unknown factor may screw it up for us even if we do our best to keep it alive with record CO2 emissions.)
What’s your vote?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Now to the second part of your 3914, where you discussed the thermodynamic concept of delayed heat transfer with an analogy:
“If you feel that applying heat changes the temperature instantaneously, you might like to try the following experiment.
Place a saucepan of water on the stove. Light the gas. After 30 secs put your hand in the water. And, then again after 5 minutes.
I don’t think its necessary to have a degree in Physics to know which will hurt the most.”
Let us test the validity of your analogy as compared to your theory, as you expressed in 3902:
“you can’t seem to grasp the fact that when heat is added to an object, the temperature doesn’t jump up immediately. You do have to allow a time for equilibrium to be reached. You do have to allow for that.”
So let’s look at your saucepan analogy.
When heat is added to the covered saucepan, the contained water starts to warm immediately as soon as you turn on the gas flame beneath the pan. It continues to warm as additional heat is being put into it from the gas flame, so that after 30 seconds a certain amount of heat has been added, and the water has reached a certain temperature. After 5 minutes 6 times as much heat has been added to the water and it has continued to warm accordingly.
During this entire process, heat is being added to the water, and as soon as it is added the water temperature rises without delay.
As soon as you turn off the gas flame, heat stops entering the water. It no longer gets any warmer, but gradually starts to cool off again until, at some point in the future, it has reached the room temperature again.
The key point is that your statement, “when heat is added to an object, the temperature doesn’t jump up immediately” is incorrect. As you add heat the temperature response of the water is instantaneous and it warms according to its specific heat, the mass of water and the amount of heat added, according to the formula:
Change of temperature =
amount of heat transferred / (mass of water * specific heat of water)
If you have 0.5 liter (500 g) water in the pan
And you add 490,000 cal/hour heat from the gas flame,
The water will warm in the first 30 seconds by:
(0.5 * 490,000 / 60) / 500 * 1 = 8.2 (say from room temperature of 18.3C to 26.5C)
(No problem for your fingers)
If you keep adding heat it will warm over the next 4.5 minutes to:
(4.5 * 490,000 / 60) / 500 * 1 = 73.5C (from 26.5C to 100C and boiling, at sea level)
(Ouch!)
You do not “have to allow a time for equilibrium to be reached”. Every calorie (or joule) added to the water by the gas flame results in an instantaneous increase in the water temperature as soon as it is added.
As soon as you stop putting heat into the water, it stops warming. It does not continue warming after you stop adding heat until an “equilibrium has been reached”. In fact, it starts cooling immediately as the heat from the water is transferred to the cooler air in the room until, some long time later, it has reached “equilibrium” with the ever so slightly warmed room temperature.
So your theory is false and the analogy is flawed.
Now to your other claim that a major portion of the greenhouse warming experienced to date has not warmed the atmosphere, but has instead warmed the ocean. This may well be plausible, although upper ocean temperature trends do not seem to reflect this very closely.
But the next part is pure fantasy. This suggests that the ocean can only absorb so much heat until it starts emitting this heat into the atmosphere, thereby causing more global warming.
I showed you in 3775 that if two-thirds of the anthropogenic global warming experienced from 1850 to 2008 were absorbed by the ocean over this long-term period, this would represent a warming of the ocean equivalent to an atmospheric warming of 0.6C.
This amount of heat would warm the upper ocean by 0.003C, due to the vastly greater mass and heat capacity of the upper ocean compared to that of the atmosphere.
You suggest that this minute amount of ocean warming is going to “lurk” there and (some horrible day in the future) miraculously leap out of the ocean into an already warmer atmosphere where it will fry us all?
Get serious, Peter. Even Steven Spielberg would have a hard time making this script plausible as a sci-fi thriller.
The theory of “in the pipeline” global warming from “ocean heat uptake” does not pass the “reality test”, so you can forget it.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
We have been discussing the observed temperature increase over the entire Hadley record, the amount of increase attributable to solar (natural) effects and CO2 (anthropogenic effects). From these observed data, the record of atmospheric CO2 content and the statement by IPCC that all anthropogenic factors other than CO2 cancel one another out, we have concluded that CO2 has caused an increase in the “globally and annually land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (as recorded by Hadley) of 0.3C from 1850 to 2008. Assuming that atmospheric CO2 will reach a level by year 2100 of twice the level in 1850, we have calculated an additional warming of 0.4C from increased CO2 concentrations until year 2100.
After months of waffling and evading the issue, you need to address some very basic questions so we can resolve this issue, once and for all, and then move on to the many other topics you have suggested along the way.
Here are the very simple and straightforward questions (12 in total).
1. Do you accept that the Hadley record of “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” is a valid indicator of our planet’s temperature?
Yes.
No.
If you have answered “No”, please explain why.
2. Do you agree that this indicator shows a linear warming trend of 0.041C per decade over the entire period?
Yes.
No.
If you have answered “No”, please advise what you believe this linear rate of change should be and how you have arrived at this figure.
3. Do you agree that this linear rate of change has resulted in a total linear warming over the period 1850 to 2008 of 0.65C?
Yes.
No.
If you have answered “No”, please advise what you believe this linear warming over the period 1850 to 2008 should be and why.
4. Do you agree that several studies by solar scientists have concluded that the level of 20th century solar activity has been unusual and the highest in several thousand years?
Yes.
No.
If you have answered “No”, please advise why you believe these solar scientists have incorrectly estimated the level of solar activity , what you believe this level of solar activity has really been and why.
5. Do you agree that these studies by several solar scientists indicate that this unusually high level of 20th century solar activity has been responsible for around 0.35C warming over the entire record?
Yes.
No.
If you have answered “No”, please advise what level of warming you would estimated has resulted from this higher solar activity and why you believe that your estimate is more correct than that of the several solar scientists cited.
6. Do you agree that 0.65C minus 0.35C equals 0.3C?
Yes.
No.
If you have answered “No”, please explain your arithmetic.
7. Do you agree that IPCC estimates the atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1850 to have been around 285 ppmv (based on ice core studies)?
Yes.
No.
If you have answered “No”, please advise what CO2 level IPCC has` estimated for year 1850, providing the basis for your suggestion.
8. Do you agree that the Mauna Loa record shows that the average annual CO2 concentration in 2008 was 385 ppmv?
Yes.
No.
If you have answered “No”, please advise what CO2 level you believe is an accurate estimate for 2008, providing the basis for your suggestion.
9. Do you believe that it is reasonable to project that atmospheric CO2 level by year 2100 will be twice that in 1850, or around 570 ppmv?
Yes.
No.
If you have answered “No”, please advise what CO2 level you believe would be a reasonable forecast for 2100, providing the basis for your suggestion.
10. Do you agree that the observed CO2 increase from 1850 to 2008, and the observed anthropogenic temperature increase of 0.3C over this period tell us that the observed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is somewhere around 0.7C?
Yes.
No.
If you have answered “No”, please advise what “2xCO2 climate sensitivity” you believe the observed increase would indicate, providing the basis and calculations for your suggestion. (Note: Please stick with the observed increase, rather than slipping into theoretical estimates based on model study assumptions.)
11. Do you believe, based on the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity as derived above from the physical observations, that the anthropogenic warming from today to 2100 will be around 0.4C above the warming already experienced to date?
Yes.
No.
If you have answered “No”, please advise how much anthropogenic warming you believe will occur from today to year 2100, providing the basis and calculations for your suggestion. (Note: As the basis for your estimate, please stick with the physical observations listed above, rather than slipping into theoretical estimates based on model study assumptions.)
12. Is there anything in the above logic that you find incorrect?
Yes.
No.
If you have answered “Yes”, please state specifically what you find incorrect and why, giving your suggestion as to how this could have been made “more correct”.
NOTE: Please avoid digressions to theoretical points that are not directly related to the topic at hand, i.e. estimating future anthropogenic warming based on the actually observed records to date on temperature, atmospheric CO2 content and solar activity.
Let’s see if you have the courage to give a straightforward and honest answer to these questions, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Peter Martin, Reur 3914, and further to Max’s 3923addressing the silliness of your following analogy:
Please note that convective heating from the bottom of a fluid is a very different process to that of heating from the surface. For the oceans, the primary source of heating is from direct sunlight. You might care to study the following graphic demonstrating what wavelengths of sunlight penetrate water and how far. (Presumably this is clear water, not typical slightly turbid sea water)
Then you can perhaps consider the following points:
1) The vertical bars for each wavelength (colour) do not indicate intensity (brightness) but extinction depth. The intensity reduces rapidly to the inverse square of depth. Consequently, most of the radiative energy is absorbed in the near-surface layers
2) ~ 40% of sunlight is near infra-red and is absorbed and reemitted within the top~1mm skin.
3) Hot water expands and tends to laminate above colder water below. (the reverse of your convective analogy)
However, ocean water does not only warm, it also cools, very well:
4) Water, in the thermally laminated conditions described in 2) and 3) above substantially radiates heat in the infra red. (at typical ocean temperatures, not unlike the land)
5) According to highest authority in the IPCC, (Kevin Trenberth and his cartoon of Earth‘s energy balance FAQ 1.1, Figure 1. ), 46% of the surface cooling from the planet is by evapo-transpiration. Obviously, because the oceans are mostly wet where it matters, and cover ~71% of the surface, a substantial part of this alleged ~46% cooling must be from the oceans.
6) We also have thermals over the oceans, with conduction at the boundary layer particularly from surface advection, and the cartoon gives thermals as ~14% of the total, leaving only ~39% total to outgoing radiation from the global surface.
I hope this is not too complicated for you Peter, but what with the much higher specific heat, and mass of water, etc as outlined by Max, perhaps you can see better what is going on, rather than guessing, and making silly analogies.