Friday, May 22, 2015

Greenhouse theory

By Carl Brehmer

Is not the whole “greenhouse effect” hypothesis farrago based on “thought experiments” and “proxy experiments”, e.g., John Tyndall’s apparatus in which he tested the opacity of carbonic acid gas at 80,000 ppm and then projected the results of that experiment onto the greater atmosphere without doing even one experiment on the behavior of “greenhouse gases” in the open atmosphere; Svante Arrhenius’ postulation about the effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of the atmosphere was a mathematical “thought experiment” since he did not himself do any real experiments on the actual atmosphere; the infamous “hockey stick” was based on a “proxy experiment”, which were presumed historical temperatures based on a tree-ring study of the bristlecone pine; studies of the spectrographs of outgoing longwave radiation are “proxy experiments”, because they presume to divine the effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of the surface level atmosphere based on these spectrographs which do not measure “temperature”; some biologist somewhere postulates that “anthropogenic climate change” is going to cause the extinction of some obscure species in the Amazon and the protagonists of the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change meme glom onto that hypothetical as though it is established scientific truth, because it serves their cause.

I have also done other studies using real world measurements that demonstrated that under clear skies surface level air temperatures drop at the same or even greater rate at night when the air is humid vs. when the air is dry.  Meaning that the slowed cooling rate of nighttime air seen in humid climates is the result of cloud cover and is not being caused by a “greenhouse gas” mediated “greenhouse effect”.

Only in a real greenhouse can a greenhouse effect be found.

Via email

British Environmentalist, Peter Taylor, trashes the theory of man-made global warming

Pesky!  CO2 good for the ozone "hole"

Warmist hate CO2 and hate the ozone "hole".  But could that evil CO2 actually plug the ozone "hole?"

Continued emissions of carbon dioxide mean the Earth's ozone layer will grow larger than it has been since 1960 by the end of this century, according to researchers in the US who have performed a computer simulation. The growth, which should not be as drastic as the depletion or "holes" observed in the 1980s and 1990s, raises the question of whether the ozone layer has an optimal thickness.

Ozone (trioxygen, or O3) present in the Earth's stratosphere, known as the ozone layer, is the primary shield that life has from the harmful ultraviolet radiation produced by the Sun. Ozone is also a greenhouse gas, warming not just from its absorption of ultraviolet radiation but also because it absorbs the infrared radiation emitted from the Earth's surface. It's therefore a critical component of the Earth's atmosphere – and one that researchers are keen to understand in detail.

The early 1980s saw a reduction in the thickness of stratospheric ozone so marked that popular accounts told of ozone "holes". That reduction halted after about two decades, largely thanks to the 1989 Montreal Protocol, which regulated the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other substances known to destroy ozone. But ozone can also be affected indirectly by substances outside of the limits of the Montreal Protocol – specifically carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide leads to the production of nitrogen oxides, which react directly with ozone to destroy it, while carbon dioxide cools the stratosphere, boosting ozone in two ways: by depleting nitrogen oxides and by cutting the rate of photochemical reactions that attack ozone.

Now, Darryn Waugh and Richard Stolarski at John Hopkins University, US, together with colleagues from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, also in the US, have run a computer simulation to find out what effect carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide will have on stratospheric ozone in years to come. The simulation is 2D, with one dimension for altitude and one for latitude – a simplification that reflects the smoothing-out of longitudinal variations at stratospheric altitudes – and is based on factors known to affect ozone. These include the presence of various molecules whose atmospheric concentrations are given in different future climate scenarios; "raining out" of water-soluble molecules; and solar radiation.

The researchers found that, regardless of the future scenario of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide employed, there would be a thickening of the ozone layer. That will be due mostly to the predicted increase in carbon-dioxide emissions, although for all scenarios the thickening is neither as large nor as rapid as the thinning witnessed in the 1980s.

The 1980s thinning caused global concern, but Stolarski points out there is no reason to believe a thickening is necessarily a good thing. "One interesting question that is raised by this research is, what is the optimal thickness of the ozone layer?" he said, adding that finding out will entail further investigation of ozone history. "Now that we think that we understand the sensitivity of the ozone layer to many potential perturbations, perhaps we can go back and determine what kind of excursions the thickness of the ozone layer may have exhibited in the past."


That ocean heat sure gets around

Introducing: "global climate variability".  Now the Indian Ocean is the culprit grabbing all that "missing" heat.  But it's just modelling.  So why has guilt now been pinned on the Indian ocean?  For a while it was the Atlantic ocean and then it was the Pacific ocean.  BUT "hydrographic records indicate that Pacific Ocean heat content has been decreasing, not increasing".  Pesky!  So the Indian ocean has got to be where that fictional heat is.  No doubt it will be the Southern ocean next

 Global surface warming has slowed since the start of the twenty-first century, while Pacific heat uptake was enhanced. Analyses of ocean heat content suggest that the warm water was transferred to the Indian Ocean, through the Indonesian straits, reports "Nature".

Scientists reported that the Indian Ocean heat content has risen sharply, accounting for more than 70% of the global ocean heat gain in the upper 700 metres of the Indian Ocean over the past decade.

The scientists conclude the Indian Ocean has become increasingly important in altering *global climate variability*.

A team led by University of Miami and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) researcher Sang-Ki Lee experimented with a global climate model. A computer modeling study by them points to strong easterly trade winds that caused warm water to pile up in the western Pacific and seep into the Indian Ocean, which may now hold more than 70% of the heat absorbed by the upper ocean in the past decade.

Until now, climate scientists believed the slowdown, which has been observed since 1998, was related to declines in surface temperature of Pacific Ocean, and tied to a prevalence of La Nina climate conditions.

“We find that the enhanced heat uptake by the Pacific Ocean has been compensated by an increased heat transport from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean, carried by the Indonesian throughflow,”a paper published in the Nature Geoscience Journal on Tuesday said.

A team of scientists from both the US and the German GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel have demonstrated that the heat content of the Indian Ocean has risen substantially since the late 1990s, even though the global temperature showed only minor changes in the same period.

This increase is very likely caused by a higher heat transfer from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean, as the authors report in the international scientific journal Nature Geoscience.


Pacific origin of the abrupt increase in Indian Ocean heat content during the warming hiatus

By Sang-Ki Lee et al.


Global mean surface warming has stalled since the end of the twentieth century1, 2, but the net radiation imbalance at the top of the atmosphere continues to suggest an increasingly warming planet. This apparent contradiction has been reconciled by an anomalous heat flux into the ocean3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, induced by a shift towards a La Niña-like state with cold sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific over the past decade or so. A significant portion of the heat missing from the atmosphere is therefore expected to be stored in the Pacific Ocean. However, in situ hydrographic records indicate that Pacific Ocean heat content has been decreasing9. Here, we analyse observations along with simulations from a global ocean–sea ice model to track the pathway of heat. We find that the enhanced heat uptake by the Pacific Ocean has been compensated by an increased heat transport from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean, carried by the Indonesian throughflow. As a result, Indian Ocean heat content has increased abruptly, which accounts for more than 70% of the global ocean heat gain in the upper 700 m during the past decade. We conclude that the Indian Ocean has become increasingly important in modulating global climate variability.

Nature Geoscience (2015) doi:10.1038/ngeo2438.

Obama pisses into the wind

Does he really think any of the practical men at the coastguard are going to take  this seriously?  Coming from a Leftist politician it is more likely to make them cynical

President Barack Obama is heading up to New London, Connecticut Wednesday to deliver the commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy, but the president also plans to give an impassioned speech on how graduating guardsmen will be on the front lines of the war on global warming.

“Climate change will impact every country on the planet,” reads Obama’s prepared remarks. “No nation is immune. So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act— and we need to act now.”

“You are part of the first generation of officers to begin your service in a world where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us,” Obama’s speech reads. “Climate change will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip, and protect their infrastructure, today and for the long-term… Climate change poses a threat to the readiness of our forces.”

“Many of our military installations are on the coast, including, of course, our Coast Guard stations,” Obama will tell the guardsmen.

To hit the point home, the White House has released an eleven-page document listing the different ways global warming will affect national security. The White House warns that troops must be ready for extreme weather, sea level rise, droughts, food shortages, violent conflicts, climate refugees and the list goes on.

“Climate change will change the nature of U.S. military missions, demand more resources in the Arctic and other coastal regions vulnerable to rising sea levels and other impacts, and require a multilateral response to the growing humanitarian crises that climate change is predicted to bring,” the White House document reads.

Secretary of State John Kerry joined Obama is highlighting the national security concerns of global warming, also making sure to criticized anyone who “doubts” that man-made global warming was real.

“Anyone who doubts that confronting climate change is a national security issue should have sat in the meetings I just had in Asia, where it was a primary topic of discussion with every one of my interlocutors, alongside other security issues like [North Korea] and violent extremism,” Kerry said in a statement.

“And that’s true around the world,” Kerry added. “So now it’s time to put aside discredited scientific arguments and partisan politics and to focus on the facts — not just for our health and the health of our children but for our planet’s security as well.”

Obama and Kerry’s call for action on global warming comes as other developed nations push for the United Nations to adopt “ambitious” carbon dioxide reduction targets at the next international climate summit in December.

The Wall Street Journal reports that France and Germany have both called for “ambitious, comprehensive and binding” CO2 reduction targets to be adopted by UN delegates in Paris this winter. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande have argued there’s “little time” left to tackle global warming.

Obama and European leaders are hoping they can inspire developing countries like China and India to use more green energy and cut CO2 emissions by highlighting the environmental and national security problems facing the world if warming continues. Despite rising alarm from developed countries, the developing world doesn’t seem to want to listen.

EurActiv reports that the Balkans and Ukraine are making “substantial investments” in coal-fired power plants to support their growing economies and rising demand for reliable energy from Western Europe.

“Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine are planning to build a total of 14.82 GW of new coal power capacity” EurActiv reports, which is a response to the European Union’s bid to become less reliant on Russia for power.

India, the world’s third-largest CO2 emitter, plans to double its coal use by 2020 to provide electricity to the more than 300 million people that lack reliable sources of power. India is also expected to overtake China as the world’s largest thermal coal importer in the next couple of years.

“India will have the largest impact on seaborne thermal coal markets as lofty domestic production targets battle with likely swelling imports due to a wave of new demand from new generation plants,” according to analysts with Bloomberg Intelligence.

Earlier this year, India rejected overtures by the Obama administration to forge an agreement on CO2 cuts– mirroring an agreement made between Obama and China’s government in late 2014.

But even China has been wishy-washy on coal, despite promising Obama it would peak its CO2 emissions by 2030. The Wall Street Journal reports that China is investing $46 billion in new trade routes across central Asia. The lion’s share of the spending will go towards providing “electricity to energy-starved Pakistan, based mostly on building new coal-fired power plants.”

“The plans envisage adding 10,400 megawatts of electricity at a cost of $15.5 billion by 2018,” the Journal reports. “After 2018, adding a further 6,600 megawatts is outlined—at a cost of an additional $18.3 billion—that in cumulative total would double Pakistan’s current electricity output.”


Climate Depot reply to Obama's coastguard speech

Statement by Marc Morano, Climate Depot Publisher:

“It is hard to even take today’s speech by Obama seriously on either a logical, scientific or political level. The speech was so farcical in its claims that it hardly merits a response. It is obvious that the climate establishment is seeking new talking points on ‘global warming’ to change the subject from the simple fact that global temperatures are not cooperating with their claims.

If any Americans actually believe the climate claims linking ‘global warming’ to a rise in conflicts, no amount of evidence, data, logic or scientific studies will likely persuade them. But given the high profile nature of the comments, a rebuttal to the President’s climate claims is necessary.

Claiming that melting ICE is more a threat to the U.S. than ISIS is a hard sell, particular given the latest data on global sea ice. See: Sea Ice Extent – Day 137 – 3rd Highest Global Sea Ice For This Day – Antarctic Sets 49th Daily Record For 2015

Contrary to the President’s claims, it seems ISIS may in fact trump ICE as a bigger concern.

Obama also claimed that climate ‘deniers’ were a huge part of the problem. Obama explained: “Denying it, or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces.”

Obama seems to be borrowing his claims from Rolling Stone Magazine. See: Forget ISIS, skeptics are greatest threat?! – Rolling Stone: Climate ‘Deniers’ Put ‘National Security at Risk’

But actually believing the above statements endangers our capacity for rational thought and evidence based research. Actually believing Obama’s climate claims, undermines our nation’s ability to distinguish real threats from politically contrived nonsense.

UN climate treaties and EPA climate regulations will not prevent wars, conflicts or impact the creation of terrorist groups.

President Obama claimed that man-made climate change was partly responsible for the civil war in Syria. “It’s now believed that drought, crop failures, and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East,” Obama said.

First off, extreme weather is not getting more ‘extreme.’ See: Extreme weather failing to follow ‘global warming’ predictions: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Droughts, Floods, Wildfires, all see no trend or declining trends

But such drought claims are not new or unique to President Obama. In 1933, similar baseless claims were made. See: 1933 claim: ‘YO-YO BANNED IN SYRIA – Blamed For Drought’

In addition, in 1846, in Australia, Aborigines blamed the bad climate on the introduction of the White man in Australia. During World War 2, some blamed the war for causing unusual weather patterns. In the 1970s, the exact same things (bad weather) we are talking about today, were  blamed on man-made global cooling.

Global warming is not a threat to the world, but global warming ‘solutions’ are. The estimated 1.2 billion people in the world without electricity who are leading a nasty, brutish and short life, will be the ones who “will pay” for global warming solutions that prevent them from obtaining cheap and abundant carbon based energy. See: S. African activist slams UN’s ‘Green Climate Fund': ‘Government to govt aid is a reward for being better than anyone else at causing poverty’ — ‘It enriches the people who cause poverty’

Simple historical facts undermine the President’s claims about global warming and national security concerns.


Another counterblast -- from Monckton -- here.  Monckton asks:  "Does the ‘leader’ of the free world really know so little about climate?"


For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: