Overheated Ocean Update

One year ago, climate experts said red sea surface temperature maps were the most powerful evidence that a one part per ten thousand increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century is burning up the planet.  They also said you should send them money to stop this.

The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global Warming | InsideClimate News

Over the past year, the red has turned to blue – but they still need you to send them money.

anomnight.8.27.2018.gif (1174×640)

With temperatures of -30C over the Greenland ice sheet and -60C over the Antarctic ice sheet, there can be little doubt that urgent action is required.

 

Climate Reanalyzer

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to Overheated Ocean Update

  1. CO2isLife says:

    Tony, more importantly, the wavelengths CO2 absorbs DON’T WARM WATER. The warming oceans is evidence of more visible radiation reaching the oceans, not more CO2. Warming oceans is evidence CO2 ISN’T THE CAUSE. The oceans control the climate and CO2 doesn’t impact the oceans. If you can’t explain how CO2 warms the oceans you can’t explain how CO2 controls the climate. This is a smoking gun.

    Read More:
    The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global Warming…Rules Out CO2 as the Cause
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/the-most-powerful-evidence-climate-scientists-have-of-global-warming-rules-out-co2-as-the-cause/

    • Phil. says:

      more importantly, the wavelengths CO2 absorbs DON’T WARM WATER.
      Rubbish, of course they do!

      • Martin says:

        “Rubbish, of course they do!”

        It is the variations in UV-light intensity that causes warming not visible light. CO2 can be ignored as cause of atmospheric warming.

        • Phil. says:

          Really, care to give some physical basis for that assertion?

          • Anon says:

            Phil,

            I think Martin is talking about this, when referencing “UV”:

            Willie Soon – Could it be The Sun?

            https://youtu.be/SvCNF0vCUoI

            Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

            http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022/meta

          • Phil. says:

            I think Martin is talking about this, when referencing “UV”:

            Really, no reference to UV there?

          • Al Shelton says:

            Phil ….
            Pleases read this. All sections.
            http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

          • paul courtney says:

            Read a kid’s book today, called See Phil. Went like this-
            See Phil.
            See Phil type assertion with no basis.
            See Martin reply.
            See Phil demand that Martin do what Phil doesn’t do.
            See Phil tr0ll. Troll, Phil, tr0ll.

          • Anon says:

            Phil,

            Sorry, I took Martin’s reference to “UV” as a generic reference to the high energy side of the electromagnetic spectrum.

            UV and and Visible radiation are linked with electron orbital transitions. IR radiation is a molecular vibrational phenomenon.

            Given this fact, I assumed Martin was referring to Willie Soon’s work and was not to be taken as a verbatim reference.

            However, if you do want to go into, and determine if IR radiation will transfer between carbon dioxide and water, (ie: are resonant with each other) you can do it from first principles:

            Carbon Dioxide:

            As CO2 is a linear molecule, with no dipole moment, it has 3n-5 vibrational modes. 1 asymmetric stretch, 2 bending and 1 symmetrical stretch. The 2 bending modalities can be seen as degenerate, thus the molecules is IR active at two frequencies (excluding the third, smaller low energy combination band). The symmetrical stretch, which does not produce an instantaneous dipole is Raman Active not IR active. Thus carbon dioxide has two IR bands at approximately 2350cm-1 and 667cm-1 due to asymmetrical stretching and bending, respectively.

            Water:

            As you had no problem with the statistics the other day, I will leave the water calculation to you. But as water is bent, it has a permanent dipole, so you will need to use “3n-6” to calculate the number of vibrational frequencies.
            Because it has a permanent dipole, it is a much better GHG.

            That said, when we superimpose the two spectra together (see below) we can observe that they don’t overlap and therefore the two molecules are not resonant with each other.

            Therefore, I would hesitate to employ the word “rubbish” categorically, as the topic is quite nuanced.

          • Johansen says:

            Very interesting, Anon, thanks.
            So now get to the point: can CO2 transfer its KE to something else in the atm. which then transfers it to ocean water….. or can CO2 transfer its KE to something else *in the water* first, like other dissolved substances and the like, which in turn warm the water

          • Phil. says:

            Phil ….
            Pleases read this. All sections.

            I didn’t get past the first line which contained a fundamental error.

            “Heat cannot be trapped in the atmosphere, because it radiates away in femto seconds.”

          • Phil. says:

            That said, when we superimpose the two spectra together (see below) we can observe that they don’t overlap and therefore the two molecules are not resonant with each other.

            Therefore, I would hesitate to employ the word “rubbish” categorically, as the topic is quite nuanced.

            The original poster was talking about warming the oceans, in which case the transfer is to liquid water which has a totally different absorption spectrum.
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png

          • Anon says:

            Hi Johansen

            Sorry, to be so technical here. But this is a lot more complicated than it appears.

            You mentioned KE, which now requires us to change the scientific discipline from spectroscopy (radiative transfer) to thermodynamics (convective heating).

            See:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer#Mechanisms

            There is a difference between a molecule that is bending or stretching vs one that is moving slowly or rapidly through a space.

            To answer the question, yes, the kinetic energy will transfer, but by simply irradiating carbon dioxide at an excitation wavelength, you are not changing the molecule’s KE as it pertains to displacement / velocity.

            Carbon Dioxide itself, is a rather poor GHG, due to the fact that it is a straight molecule without a dipole moment. The energy it captures this way, is not enough to heat the atmosphere directly.

            So the effect (so CAGW proponents say) is through a “Feedback Mechanism” involving water. But as I have just shown above, CO2 does not radiatively transfer energy to water directly. However, the extra energy has to go someplace and so by internal conversion, relaxation and collision, the energy makes its way to water. This is enough to cause an increase in water evaporation and as water is a much better GHG, when additional molecules of water enter the atmosphere, it increases the ability of the atmosphere to absorb heat… and so on, and so on.

            So one might ask, why does not the feedback process go on forever? First, the atmosphere can only carry so much water. Second, each individual molecule of water can only trap so much radiation. So if the molecule is already vibrating, it cannot absorb more incoming IR radiation. Molecules like this are called “saturated”. And it turns out that most molecules of water and carbon dioxide near the Earth’s surface are already saturated. So they will have no additional green house effect. This is why scientists are so interested in recording temperatures in the Troposphere, away from the surface. The 18 year “pause / hiatus” refers to troposphere warming.

            The other MAJOR complication is that there is not an unlimited supply of IR radiation around (especially at the CO2 frequencies of 2350cm-1 and 667cm-1). So this means that there is also a “capping effect” to be considered. The best way to think about that is with sun screen. If you are using SPF 50 and I am using SPF 50000, does that mean I am blocking 1000 times more UV than you are? Or if I put on two pairs of UV-blocker sunglasses, am I blocking twice the UV you are? No! – as there is only so much UV radiation from the sun (a limited amount), SPF 50 or one pair of sun glasses is enough to block it all. So, as you pump the atmosphere full of carbon dioxide, (or water vapor) you are not going to get a proportional amount of absorption, but eventually reach a “cap”, the same as you would with lathering on sunscreen.

            Sorry I did not provide an answer here, but really more questions, but I hope you can see how complicated this all is and how the debate about CAGW is far from “settled science”.

          • Anon says:

            Phil,

            I have a PhD in spectroscopy. I will tell you politely here, you are way out of you depth.
            A glibly posted spectrum or a wiki article is insufficient. Vide infra:

            IR and Raman spectra of liquid water: Theory and interpretation
            IR and Raman (parallel- and perpendicular-polarized) spectra in the OH stretch region for liquid water were measured some years ago, but their interpretation is still controversial. In part, this is because theoretical calculation of such spectra for a neat liquid presents a formidable challenge due to the coupling between vibrational chromophores and the effects of motional narrowing.

            https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.2925258?journalCode=jcp

            Your comments on statistics were interesting the other day, but I find what you are commenting today to be “off putting” to others who are here to actually exchange ideas and learn something.

            Think about what you are actually doing: it is exactly this caustic attitude of yours that is responsible for the political decline of the CAGW movement.

            So, I suppose congratulations are in order? If that is your aim?

          • Phil. says:

            Phil,

            I have a PhD in spectroscopy. I will tell you politely here, you are way out of you depth.

            Really, well since you mention your credentials, my PhD is in Physical Chemistry and I ran a laser diagnostics laboratory for a couple of decades, so I’ll politely disagree with you.

            A glibly posted spectrum or a wiki article is insufficient.

            Usually I prefer to post images that don’t require access to pay sites since not everyone has the ability to see them. The wikipedia image is well documented, and unlike the reference you gave which is talking about the the interpretation of the spectrum we’re talking about the spectrum itself. Here’s an alternative version:
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Water_infrared_absorption_coefficient.gif
            Absorption spectrum (attenuation coefficient vs. wavelength) of liquid water (red),
            Bertie J. E.; Lan Z. (1996). “Infrared Intensities of Liquids XX: The Intensity of the OH Stretching Band of Liquid Water Revisited, and the Best Current Values of the Optical Constants of H2O(l) at 25°C between 15,000 and 1 cm−1”. Applied Spectroscopy. 50 (8): 1047–1057. Bibcode:1996ApSpe..50.1047B. doi:10.1366/0003702963905385.
            Jonasz, Miroslaw (2006). “Absorption coefficient of water: Data sources (www.tpdsci.com/Tpc/AbsCfOfWaterDat.php, data of Bertie JE and Lan 1996).

          • Anon says:

            Al Shelton

            I read the link you posted. It looked intriguing, but I am not sure I can make out what he is saying about CAGW on that page. It is possible that I don’t understand it, or that he has some of it muddled?

            I eventually switched over to his “quantum mechanics” page, which is a topic I do understand and was not convinced / impressed, especially in regard the the frequency / amplitude issue.

            So, with that I would not hang my hat on everything the guys says on the website, even if some of it is correct.

            Anyway… IMHO.

          • Johansen says:

            Thank you Anon, you have a knack for teaching, or a teacher’s heart as they say. You covered everything I was looking for, there… many thanks… and it’s been printed out for further study

          • Johansen says:

            Anon, I would like to tack one more question on this thread if you have a minute….
            How does methane perform as a GHG? It is perfectly symmetrical, but not linear like CO2. Why is it being bandied about? Is it capable of absorbing many bands of IR, or are there other reasons from a spectro or thermo standpoint?

          • Anon says:

            Phil,

            I’ll politely disagree with you.

            That is pretty much all we want. That CAGW is up for debate.

            I was teaching CAGW at the University up to 2016, and from what I have seen when I went back to reconstruct the theory from first principles, I was appalled. The only word I can summon to describe it is UNETHICAL.

            So, keep working on the proof and we all will keep vetting what you produce.

            Good luck to you.

          • Anon says:

            Johansen

            It is difficult for me to give you a definitive answer as to why methane has become the latest bête noire of the CAGW community.

            As you correctly pointed out, it is non-polar molecule and therefore a weak IR absorber.

            However, if you compare methane to carbon dioxide: I have seen the literature report that methane is a better absorber of IR than CO2 by twenty-fold.

            So, lets assume the x20 factor is true. On the other side, to offset this we have:

            1]Concentration: CO2 = ~ 400ppm CH4 = ~2ppm

            2] Methane is not a very stable molecule and it is reported to have a residence time in the atmosphere of 12 years.

            So how do you report this (or hype it, if you are cynical)?

            Lets assume that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural. And for the sake of argument, lets say that 80 ppm is anthropogenic. So the ratio of man made GH gasses in the atmosphere (CH4 / CO2) is 2/80. (2.5%). That is not very alarming, right?

            But lets mess around a bit now and factor back in the 20 /1 ratio I cited above. We can call it “global warming power”, to make something up.

            GWP = gas concentration x IR absorption factor

            CO2 = 80 ppm x 1 = 80 GWP

            CH4 = 2 ppm x 20 = 40 GWP

            Total GWP of man made gases = 120 GWP

            So now we have a situation where methane is responsible for 1/3 of global warming. (40/120)

            A voila… there it is.

            Just imagine the number you could report if the atmospheric methane concentration doubled or tripled now. Jaw dropping, right?

            This is off the top of my head, it is not impossible to imagine that this is why it is being “bandied about”… however, I really need to go into the literature to verify what I am saying above. I will check into it over the next few days. Just no time tonight.

          • Phil. says:

            How does methane perform as a GHG? It is perfectly symmetrical, but not linear like CO2.

            Methane is a three dimensional molecule and while it has no net dipole when it is stationary, but as all the bonds are vibrating the molecule can become asymmetric and therefore absorb radiation. Just like CO2 which is linear if stationary and has no permanent dipole but actually is never stationary. Here’s a site which shows some useful illustrations.
            http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~schauble/MoleculeHTML/CH4_html/CH4_page.html

          • Anon says:

            Johansen

            Phil has some good diagrams in the link above. (thanks Phil) The v1 and v2 (A1 & E) vibrations are Raman Active and v3 and v4 (F2s) are IR active. So, if you do the calculation, 3n-6 = 9, then 9 – 2 Raman, you end up with 7 IR vibrational modes. As these modes are degenerate, you end up with just two absorption frequencies, hence, CH4 is a stronger IR absorber than Co2.

          • Anon says:

            Johansen

            Above, with the methane, I just postulated about how they might be doing the calculation. But just because you can calculate something like that, does not make it “real”. Right now, all of the models, like CMIP5 are way over-estimating the warming, just from CO2, by like 50-100%. So now some CAGW group insists methane also needs to be included in the models, which has the same warming effect as increasing the current CO2 level by another 50%. OMG! The last thing the models need are more gases that indicate increased warming, because the real world is just not delivering it. So, something fundamentally is wrong with all this. IMHO

          • Caleb Shaw says:

            Another quality of methane that seldom gets considered is that some bacteria find it delicious.

            Glaciers tend to scour and wash away all topsoil, leaving behind rock and sand that is very sterile. One of the first steps in making that soil fertile again after the retreat of massive glaciers involves a bacteria that needs no food in the soil, for it grabs methane out of the air. Therefore any increase in methane in arctic regions is a good thing, as it will speed the fertilization of the soil.

            The problem with a focus on chemistry is that it sometimes misses the biology involved. Micro-critters may not have a degree in chemistry, but they play a big part in the chemistry of the planet.

          • Phil. says:

            Anon says:
            August 30, 2018 at 3:47 am
            Phil,

            I’ll politely disagree with you.

            That is pretty much all we want. That CAGW is up for debate.

            So can we get back to the original point?
            With an attenuation coefficient of 100,000 m-1 at 15 ?m would you agree, with your expertise in spectroscopy, that liquid water will strongly absorb IR at that frequency?

          • Gator says:

            Angels dancing on the head of a pin. Forget 4.5 billon years of set precedents, and the obvious, and let’s play with models while we navel gaze.

            This is the alarmist rabbit hole. Mathematical mental masturbation.

          • spike55 says:

            ZERO evidence of atmospheric CO2 warming anything, anywhere, anytime

            GET OVER IT. !!

            you are a flop !!!

          • Phil. says:

            Ah, as expected the resident trolls have returned.

          • Gator says:

            Ah, as expected the resident trolls have returned.

            Classic psychological projection from Phil! The only yapping dog here, and the commenter who refuses to criticize wildly inaccurate predictions by alarmists. Phil will nitpick, cherry pick, pick his tiny brain, but never pick a fight with an alarmist. He has an agenda and a religion that demands that he deny science and natural climate change.

            Speak Phil! LOL

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Phil,

            You are much smarter than Tony’s resident troll Ms Griff though that could be understood as damnation with faint praise.

            Besides that:

            You don’t mind using the same methods she’s using.
            You demand that your opponents do what you do not do.
            You ignore points made that are inconvenient to you.
            You demand debate on selected topics only and call those that call you out on it trolls.

            I’ll let the readership decide who is the troll here.

          • Anon says:

            Phil

            My take is that liquid water is ubiquitous in the environment and makes up 70% of the Earth’s surface, so it is an obvious energy sink. However, considering water column depth, temperature gradient, hydrogen bond quenching, and all the soluble contaminates, insoluble contaminates, the effect of a potential immiscible surface layer, and that the sun continuously radiates it thus producing saturation of certain bands, etc., ….it is mechanistically complicated and potentially intractable given the number of variables involved. So, I am not going to go there mechanistically. As I pointed out above, there are many other ways to transfer energy, kinetically as well as through processes like molecular internal conversions, relaxations and collisions. So, I won’t speculate on what the transfer mechanism is, but lets just say that the energy gets there, by whatever mechanism. That is as far as I will go. (I am not interested in scoring glib comment points here.)

            As CO2 is considered a trace gas in the atmosphere, it’s overall warming effect is proportional to it’s concentration. So we are talking about a minute amount of energy. But that does not preclude warming, as a feedback mechanism(s) is/are generally accepted to be involved, where a slight perturbation in the atmospheric energy has an amplification effect.

            However, we are now getting into a whole other area of atmospheric research science: what is the sensitivity of the atmosphere and hydrosphere to the energy perturbation of carbon dioxide? You have positive feedbacks possible (as well as negative feedbacks, like the deep ocean). You also have to consider “time scales” as well, as these feedback mechanism operate over hours and days to millennia.

            Of particular interest to me is what the Monckton group just recently published.

            On an Error in Applying Feedback Theory to Climate

            https://cornwallalliance.org/2018/01/on-an-error-in-applying-feedback-theory-to-climate-paper-by-christopher-monckton-of-brenchley-willie-soon-david-legates-william-m-briggs-michael-limburg-dietrich-jeschke-john-whitfield-alex-h/

            Greatly simplified here:

            The Error in Climatology – Lord Monckton – June 24, 2018

            https://youtu.be/kcxcZ8LEm2A

            This is something I am nowhere near ready to weigh in on. It is going to take me a lot of time to digest. As you well aware, from your degree in the fundamental sciences, the peer review process in our fields is no joke. So, I hoping, and it is my expectation that Monckton et.al. will be scrutinized with that same kind of rigor. I am going to need to see the comments they receive and how they respond to them. And from what I have seen of Willie Soon, he will take them seriously.

          • Johansen says:

            Thank you for taking the time!

          • Phil. says:

            As CO2 is considered a trace gas in the atmosphere, it’s overall warming effect is proportional to it’s concentration. So we are talking about a minute amount of energy.

            Actually not a minute amount, if you look at the emission from the Earth:
            http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Iraq2.jpg
            The absorption band is clearly the dominant feature. If you do a MODTRAN calculation for a tropical atmosphere with 400ppm of CO2 you get ~299W/m2 upward heat flux, remove the CO2 and you get 330W/m2. So ~10% of the total absorbed by CO2, definitely not minute.

            Of particular interest to me is what the Monckton group just recently published.
            This is something I am nowhere near ready to weigh in on. It is going to take me a lot of time to digest. As you well aware, from your degree in the fundamental sciences, the peer review process in our fields is no joke. So, I hoping, and it is my expectation that Monckton et.al. will be scrutinized with that same kind of rigor. I am going to need to see the comments they receive and how they respond to them. And from what I have seen of Willie Soon, he will take them seriously.

            My thesis involved feedback systems and even used analog computers (it was a long time ago) and I don’t think that the op amp feedback circuit is a proper model of the atmospheric, Monckton is not willing to discuss it though.

          • Johansen says:

            But what if you compared, say, 400ppm vs 350ppm, or 500ppm vs 400ppm atm. CO2. What would the upward flux show?

          • Phil. says:

            Phil, you all that you alarmists have are models.

            Yes scientists do have models, it’s part of the scientific method.

            And if you look upthread here, it’s models again. But then poor Phil does not understand that HITRAN is a model…
            Actually it’s a database. However I didn’t refer to it, I referred to the experimental data of Bertie and Lan.

          • Phil. says:

            Johansen says:
            August 30, 2018 at 6:04 pm
            But what if you compared, say, 400ppm vs 350ppm, or 500ppm vs 400ppm atm. CO2. What would the upward flux show?

            At 350 gives 299.15 & 400 gives 298.5, consistent with the expected log dependence.

          • Anon says:

            Johansen

            You have a good eye, that is the most obvious error and sadly typical of the CAGW proponents. Just publish whatever large number suits your purposes and reference a random graph out of context. (face palm)

            I am not going to bother with Phil further, but if you want to fix Phil’s numbers, factor out the natural vs anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

            Here is a reference to help you do that:

            https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/quantifying-the-anthropogenic-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2/

            Then, using the anthropogenic component, redo Phil’s calculations and see what you get.
            ——————-
            As for Monckton not wanting to talk to Phil, I can see why. Phil has the indisputable truth. This has to be what talking to Tomas de Torquemada was like back in the day, before science.

            If it were me on Phil’s side, I would immediately quit debating here on RCS and try to spend my talents on producing climate models that actually work and then try to make predictions about Arctic Ice, Sea Level and Drought that actually come true.

            I think the only thing Phil is accomplishing here at RCS is to graphically remind people why they voted for Trump and Brexit in the first place.

          • Phil. says:

            Excuse me Anon but please recall what you said which was what I responded to:
            As CO2 is considered a trace gas in the atmosphere, it’s overall warming effect is proportional to it’s concentration. So we are talking about a minute amount of energy.

            Which I correctly addressed, when Johansen asked about the differential effect I answered him, but you made the original incorrect statement which I responded to accurately. If you meant something different you should have clarified.

            Monckton does respond but won’t discuss the op amp model.

          • spike55 says:

            “Ah, as expected the resident trolls have returned.”

            So you ADMIT there is NO EVIDENCE of CO2 warming anything, anywhere. Thanks phlop.

            Instead of providing evidence, you just ad hom.

            So typical.

          • spike55 says:

            “I don’t think that the op amp feedback circuit is a proper model of the atmospheric”

            It most certainly isn’t

            To get feedback, you have to have an initial trigger. No evidence CO2 is that trigger.

          • Anon says:

            Phil

            Ah yes, sorry, my bad, precision in language. That happened at the beginning of the thread too, with “UV”. But I knew what Martin meant and Johansen knew what I meant.

            So, when you say something like the Arctic will be “Ice Free” in 2008 or that Tuvalu is “disappearing” or that the Climate “tipping point” is 2020 or that snow fall is a thing of the past in the UK. How should we read those? (lol)

            Thanks for the tidbit about Monckton. He is a lot smarter than I am, I see. :(

          • Anon says:

            Phil

            I don’t think that the op amp feedback circuit is a proper model…

            As compared to what? CMIP5?

            It looks to me that Monckton’s cheap gadget that you object to does a better job at predicting the current temperature than CMIP5.

            So, please note my “results based” objection to the much more expensive CMIP5 climate model – naturally, for the record, of course.

          • Gator says:

            Anon, you will enjoy this.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA

            Best laughs… hand held calculators match super-computer models… 12:28, climate model uncertainty (error bars)… 24:25

            “Cloud error is 114 times larger than the variable they are trying to detect”

            Dr Patrick Frank has presented his paper to 6 Journals, has had 16 reviewers, 13 of which were modelers. The count is 13 to 3 against publication, all 13 modelers voted against it. All 13 critics were incompetent in their reviews, making basic errors in comprehension.

          • Squidly says:

            @Gator,

            That’s awesome!

          • Phil. says:

            Anon says:
            August 30, 2018 at 9:58 pm
            Phil

            I don’t think that the op amp feedback circuit is a proper model…

            As compared to what? CMIP5?

            No, I don’t believe that the characteristics of that circuit properly replicates the physics of the atmosphere

          • Phil. says:

            So, when you say something like the Arctic will be “Ice Free” in 2008 or that Tuvalu is “disappearing” or that the Climate “tipping point” is 2020 or that snow fall is a thing of the past in the UK. How should we read those? (lol)

            First of all in context.
            I think the Arctic ocean is likely to become ice free in the next couple of decades, I think that the claims that it will happen in a few years are exaggerated. As for Tuvalu I believe that the studies have shown that some of the islands are in fact decreasing. The one about snow fall in England is usually misquoted and out of context, they rarely quote his other comment in the same interview:
            Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

            I prefer to confine myself to the science.

        • Phil. says:

          Colorado Wellington says:
          August 30, 2018 at 2:11 pm
          You demand debate on selected topics only and call those that call you out on it trolls.

          On the contrary, Anon, Johansen and I were discussing the science then along come Gator and Spike with unrelated, content free nonsense, they did not address any of the material raised. That certainly meets my definition of a troll, and others incidentally:
          ” a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community”

          • Gator says:

            No Phil, my comment was right on point and part of this thread, as well as a follow up to other threads in which you have been trolling. As I have said on these multiple threads, you are a troll who only comes here to sow doubt. I have asked you many times for an example to prove me wrong, and as Colorado has pointed out, you never reply to our requests as you only demand of others.

            If I were to visit an alarmist site and nitpick, cherry pick, the way that you do here I would definitely be a troll.

            Wear it with pride Phil!

          • Anon says:

            Gator

            This place is actually quite tolerant. You can push Tony quite far, before he has finally had enough.

            I got my self banned, I thought completely accidentally and innocently, from a pro CAGW site when I just mentioned the proximity of the Solar Panels and AC exhaust fan to the Death Valley temperature station. (where a recent record temperature was recorded this year)

            It was a summary execution… that I thought came out of nowhere.

            So there is a double standard…

          • Gator says:

            Anon, I have been on this site for years (Thank you Tony), and I have seen every shape and size of troll that the climastrologists can conjure. I have zero tolerance for anti-science and anti-human scumbags, they lie, cheat, steal and kill. I would have the utmost respect for Phil if he was an honest broker, but he is not.

            I have been banned from virtually every alarmist site known, and not for bombastic comments, but for posting the truth. I even had one alarmist bet me that he could post one of my comments under his name and have it posted. I submitted my comment to him, he agreed it was not controversial or adversarial at all and tried to post it. He was banned.

            Alarmists are fascists who oppose all open debate, and for good reason.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Carry on, Phil, you choice.

            You just provided more evidence for my claims above. Anyone reading this and previous threads can decide for himself.

          • Phil. says:

            Angels dancing on the head of a pin. Forget 4.5 billon years of set precedents, and the obvious, and let’s play with models while we navel gaze.

            This is the alarmist rabbit hole. Mathematical mental masturbation.

            How is that ‘right on point’? The discussion was about absorption of IR by liquid water. Physical chemistry being discussed by two physical chemists not mathematical modeling.

          • Gator says:

            Phil, if you do not understand simple English, let’s try again…

            Engel, die auf dem Kopf eines Stiftes tanzen. Vergessen Sie 4,5 Billionen Jahre Präzedenzfälle und das Offensichtliche, und lassen Sie uns mit Modellen spielen, während wir den Blick schweifen lassen.

            Dies ist das alarmistische Kaninchenloch. Mathematische mentale Masturbation.

            If German is also unintelligible to you, we can try again, troll.

          • Gator says:

            Wow! I just realized that Phil does not know what math is (among many other things)…

            Phil says:
            If you do a MODTRAN calculation for a tropical atmosphere with 400ppm of CO2 you get ~299W/m2 upward heat flux, remove the CO2 and you get 330W/m2. So ~10% of the total absorbed by CO2, definitely not minute.

            So Phil adds this odd and wrong comment (if he is able, really not sure about his math skills)…

            Physical chemistry being discussed by two physical chemists not mathematical modeling.

            So far we have established that Phil does not understand math, models, honesty, or even plain English. Poor Phil! No wonder he is so very confused.

          • Phil. says:

            Gator appears to be unable to tell the time (or else he’s a time traveller) because he claims to have responded to my post 4 hrs before I made it!
            Phil. says:
            August 30, 2018 at 4:01 pm
            ” If you do a MODTRAN calculation…….”

            Gator says:
            August 30, 2018 at 12:09 pm
            “Angels dancing on the head of a pin.”

            Gator is clearly confused.

          • Gator says:

            Another swing and a miss! LOL

            Phil, you all that you alarmists have are models. So of course every discussion with alarmists involves models. And this is not the first thread you have trolled here. Did you hit your head?

            Nice attempt at deflecting what was an on point observation, Phil. And if you look upthread here, it’s models again. But then poor Phil does not understand that HITRAN is a model…

            HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database. HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere.

            Even though he referenced HITRAN here…

            https://realclimatescience.com/2018/08/overheated-ocean-update-2/#comment-137366

            Poor confused and deluded Phil, he cannot even manage to make one relevant attack on my comments. I guess when one is up to their eyeballs in models, they cannot see the data for the code.

            But then I never have expected any better from alarmist trolls.

          • Phil. says:

            Sorry this got posted in the wrong place.
            Phil, you all that you alarmists have are models.

            Yes scientists do have models, it’s part of the scientific method.

            And if you look upthread here, it’s models again. But then poor Phil does not understand that HITRAN is a model…
            Actually it’s a database. However I didn’t refer to it, I referred to the experimental data of Bertie and Lan.

          • Gator says:

            Again, all you have are models. And the Scientific Method is much, much more than models, maybe that is why you alarmists trolls ignore it.

            HITRAN is used for modeling, and is a human construct (model). And when you referred to the experimental data of Bertie and Lan, you referenced a model. I know you guys think models are reality, and this really confuses you to no end.

            Another swing and a miss, Phil.

          • spike55 says:

            “they did not address any of the material raised.”

            I asked for evidence of CO2 warming. you were unable to provide any.

            Who’s the troll ?

            That is your PURPOSE here, isn’t it?

      • Squidly says:

        Phil, you said:

        more importantly, the wavelengths CO2 absorbs DON’T WARM WATER.
        Rubbish, of course they do!

        The primary bandwidth that CO2 absorbs is in the 15µ range.

        Do you know what temperature that IR bandwidth correspond to Phil? … of course you don’t. It’s around -79.94°C or -111.91°F … tell me what water “that” is going to heat Phil.

        Furthermore, do you realize that sea water absorbs 100% of IR within those bands and within the first 3µ to 4µ depth of water? … yes, nothing but the very tiny skin layer of water has the potential to be excited by IR from CO2. It is impossible to heat the oceans from so-called “back radiation” from CO2. IMPOSSIBLE!

        Now, given this information, and the added information that CO2 has an extremely high emissivity in the IR bandwidth (re-emits almost instantaneously, which is why it has such a high emissivity), are you aware that CO2 is the most widely used industrial collant in the world? .. are you also aware that virtually all skating rinks in Canada and the US use CO2 to freeze their ice, and in doing so they save more than 40% of their energy costs.

        The bottom line is Phil, the so-called “greenhouse effect” is not possible in this universe. There is no gas in our universe that can perform such a magical function as CO2 has been claimed to do. If a “greenhouse effect” were possible, then you could not exist. Our very universe could not exist. Our universe and the so-called “greenhouse effect” cannot co-exist.

        Game over .. go home you little troll…

        • Phil. says:

          Squidly says:
          August 30, 2018 at 11:03 pm
          Phil, you said:

          more importantly, the wavelengths CO2 absorbs DON’T WARM WATER.
          Rubbish, of course they do!

          The primary bandwidth that CO2 absorbs is in the 15µ range.

          Do you know what temperature that IR bandwidth correspond to Phil? … of course you don’t. It’s around -79.94°C or -111.91°F … tell me what water “that” is going to heat Phil.

          There is no such relationship, the photon has no relationship with temperature. The energy of a 15?m photon is ~0.08 eV regardless of the temperature of the CO2. That is more energy than the average kinetic energy of an air molecule in the atmosphere, only a few percent of the air molecules at 300K have that much energy. So it’s certainly capable of transferring heat to liquid water!

          Furthermore, do you realize that sea water absorbs 100% of IR within those bands and within the first 3µ to 4µ depth of water? … yes, nothing but the very tiny skin layer of water has the potential to be excited by IR from CO2.
          If you’d followed the discussion above you would have seen that I linked to a source for the extinction coefficient for liquid water which showed it to be ~100,000m-1 so down to ~2% in 40?m. Conduction and convection are capable of transferring energy from the surface down into the lower levels.

          Now, given this information, and the added information that CO2 has an extremely high emissivity in the IR bandwidth (re-emits almost instantaneously, which is why it has such a high emissivity),

          Are you aware that the Einstein A coefficient for the excited state of CO2 means that the time for emission of a 15?m photon is ~msec (far from instantaneously) during which time it will collide millions of times with the surrounding molecules.

          are you aware that CO2 is the most widely used industrial collant in the world? .. are you also aware that virtually all skating rinks in Canada and the US use CO2 to freeze their ice, and in doing so they save more than 40% of their energy costs.

          Yes, which has nothing to do with the optical properties of CO2, in order to be used as a coolant CO2 has to be compressed above its triple point (5.1 atm), needless to say that doesn’t happen in our atmosphere.

          The bottom line is that you do not know what you’re talking about.

    • Johansen says:

      CO2 is for Life…. the ‘smoking gun’ is the simple fact that man simply doesn’t generate enough heat to warm the oceans….

      Heat Capacity of oceans = 6 x 10^27 KJ/C
      Anthropogenic heat ‘stored up’ since 1960 = 30 x 10^19 KJ (per the trenberth, cheng piece linked above)
      That feeble amount of energy caused a temperature rise of 0.000,000,05 degrees C in the oceans. WOW let’s rip up the Constitution and go back to the stone age

      Meanwhile, life expectancies are much higher, GDP per capita continues to rise, etc

      • spike55 says:

        NOAA has the top 0-2000m of the oceans warming at 0.08ºC in 60 or so years.

        SOLAR RULES. !!!

        And its still barely a tiny squiggle in time.

      • Squidly says:

        I am glad you brought that up. The shear heat capacity of the water on our planet (more than 326 million trillion gallons) is mind boggling. There is no way that any amount of “back radiation” could possibly affect the temperature of our oceans. Not even possible. For one, our oceans cannot heat from IR in the first place. Water requires Short Wave Radiation to become excited (I present to you empirical evidence via your Microwave Oven). On this planet, only solar radiation and volcanism can heat our planets water.

        As for the Trenberth and Cheng paper, it is total bullshit, for the reasons I stated above. Water on this planet is not capable of absorbing IR re-emitted from CO2 molecules. It is impossible.

        The actual conclusion that Trenberth and Cheng had to derive was 0°C, not 0.00000005°C … they were off by a margin of 0.00000005°C.

        • Phil. says:

          Water requires Short Wave Radiation to become excited (I present to you empirical evidence via your Microwave Oven).

          Apparently you don’t know what short wave radiation is, your microwave has a wavelength of ~12cm

  2. Norilsk says:

    This is an update on how not hot the Arctic Ocean is. Last December 9, I stood on the Arctic Ocean and shot this video at Tuktoyaktuk, NWT.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C9Bn61Vpyk

  3. Caleb Shaw says:

    The “overheated” water of the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska is threatening to grind up three sailors who are desperately attempting to get back to shore after an aborted attempt to sail across the North Pole in an iceboat-catamaran.

    https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2018/08/29/arctic-sea-ice-beaufort-gale-endangers-sailors/

    • Anon says:

      In 2013 these same people needed to be rescued by a Russian Ice Breaker. And here we are again:

      https://www.sebroubinet.eu/

      They say things are looking bad, so we need to have Griff explain to them the real situation. lol

    • Johansen says:

      Caleb…
      Your upstream comment on ‘biology’ wasn’t ignored. Methane-eaters are a fascinating topic from the standpoint of earth science. They are the basis of 1 of the 2 theories for how we got so much oil & gas in the earth’s crust. If you have expertise there, please share….!

      • Phil. says:

        Another quality of methane that seldom gets considered is that some bacteria find it delicious.

        Yes termed methanotrophs one reason that methane released from the methane released from clathrates on the sea bed doesn’t all make it to the surface. Of course there are also methanogens which are bacteria which produce methane.

  4. Anon says:

    What caught my eye the most about Tony’s post was this line:

    They also said you should send them money to stop this.

    But the example that really takes the cake is this one:

    Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga says climate change ‘like a weapon of mass destruction’ aimed at his island.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-15/an-tuvalu-president-is-climate-change-27like-a-weapon-of-mass-/5672696

    And that the people being flooded out need to leave:

    Tuvalu refugees may get special visas for Australia

    http://www.visabureau.com/australia/news/27-10-2008/tuvalu-refugees-may-get-special-visas-for-australia.aspx

    And then the money pours in to fix the problem:

    Tuvalu’s climate resilience shored up with launch of US$38.9 million adaptation project

    http://www.pacific.undp.org/content/pacific/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2017/08/30/tuvalu-s-climate-resilience-shored-up-with-launch-of-us-38-9-million-adaptation-project-.html

    And then you find out that no one bothered to go out to the harbor to check the tide gauge:

    ‘Sinking’ Pacific nation Tuvalu is actually getting bigger, new research reveals.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5371535/Sinking-Pacific-nation-getting-bigger-study.html

    Tuvalu Tide gauge with no sign of sea level rise:

    http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1839.php

    I have no problem if Griff wants to give his own money the the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, but requiring others to do the same is the problem. To a lot of sane minded people, this would be called a “scam”, but I don’t think we should exclude the voluntary participation of individuals; if it makes them feel better psychologically, giving to Tuvalu might actually be cheaper than seeing a psychotherapist.

    But, if they just changed the title of the first article from Weapon of Mass Destruction” to “Weapon of Mass Construction” that would clarify a lot of things.

  5. Anon says:

    What caught my eye the most about Tony’s post was this line:

    They also said you should send them money to stop this.

    But the example that really takes the cake is this one:

    Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga says climate change ‘like a weapon of mass destruction’ aimed at his island.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-15/an-tuvalu-president-is-climate-change-27like-a-weapon-of-mass-/5672696

    And that the people being flooded out need to leave:

    Tuvalu refugees may get special visas for Australia

    h**p://www.visabureau.com/australia/news/27-10-2008/tuvalu-refugees-may-get-special-visas-for-australia.aspx

    And then the money pours in to fix the problem:

    Tuvalu’s climate resilience shored up with launch of US$38.9 million adaptation project

    h**p://www.pacific.undp.org/content/pacific/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2017/08/30/tuvalu-s-climate-resilience-shored-up-with-launch-of-us-38-9-million-adaptation-project-.html

    And then you find out that no one bothered to go out to the harbor to check the tide gauge:

    ‘Sinking’ Pacific nation Tuvalu is actually getting bigger, new research reveals.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5371535/Sinking-Pacific-nation-getting-bigger-study.html

    Tuvalu Tide gauge with no sign of sea level rise:

    http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1839.php

    I have no problem if Griff wants to give his own money the the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, but requiring others to do the same is the problem. To a lot of sane minded people, this would be called a “scam”, but I don’t think we should exclude the voluntary participation of individuals; if it makes them feel better psychologically, giving to Tuvalu might actually be cheaper than seeing a psychotherapist.

    But, if they just changed the title of the first article from Weapon of Mass Destruction” to “Weapon of Mass Construction” that would clarify a lot of things.

    • Anon says:

      The above post gives the impression that Australia will take in the Tuvalu refugees, but that is not where most of them are going:

      Climate change study predicts refugees fleeing into Antarctica

      Climate change will force refugees to move to Antarctica by 2030, researchers have predicted.

      Refugees are expected to move to Antarctica because of the rising temperatures that will see the population of the continent increase to 3.5 million people by 2040.

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3353247/Climate-change-study-predicts-refugees-fleeing-into-Antarctica.html

      Just to put that in perspective, 3.5 million people is the current population of the State of Connecticut. So I imagine the migration is well underway by now, as they will need to have all the infrastructure set up to accommodate the people. People should check the RE/MAX website for the real estate listings. I imagine they are cheap now, but will get much more expensive when the majority of people arrive. This could be a good investment if anyone hear has some spare cash around to play with.

      • Johansen says:

        Yep, you would already be able to invest in an Antarctic ‘Real Estate Investment Trust’ (REIT) and trade your shares online if anybody was taking this seriously. The Caterpillar Company would already be highlighting it in their 10Q’s and 10K’s reports as required by law. Since none of this is happening on Wall Street or at the SEC, that tells us it’s just more “creative storytelling”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.