http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/the-models-are-wrong-but-only-by-400/

They say,

“Scientists’ concern is that these greenhouse gases will raise global temperatures…”

Therefore, to “raise global temperatures”, the greenhouse gases must produce extra heat.

Question 1.
How does atmospheric back radiation from the greenhouse gases (Downwelling long-wave infra-red or DLR) produce extra heat in the oceans that cover 70% of the globes surface plus the lakes and rivers?

Given that it is solar short-wave radiation that heats the ocean down to approx. 100m and that DLR is only able to impinge on the top 100 MICROm of the oceans surface, the only heat produced is latent hear of evaporation released on condensation approx. 1km up in the atmosphere – so no extra heat in the oceans.

Question 2.
Where is the evidence that atmospheric DLR from the greenhouse gases is producing extra heat (in Joules) in the top layers of the land-mass that covers 30% of the globes surface and how significant is that evidence compared to geothermal and volcanic heating?

Question 3.
Where is the scientific evidence that atmospheric DLR from the greenhouse gases is increasing in magnitude sufficient to cause the temperature rise shown in the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change graph showing an apparent correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature in the NZ Climate Change brochure? i.e. Present evidence of causation.

It might be helpful to consider the findings of a scientist while answering this question. Dr Roy Clark made “A Null Hypothesis For CO2″ submission to the US EPA that can be viewed here: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf
Quoting from Dr Clarks “California Climate Change Is Caused By The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Not By CO2″ report that can be viewed here: http://www.venturaphotonics.com/CAClimate.html

“In a recent (‘Null Hypothesis’) article, Dr. Clark demonstrated from first principles that it is
impossible for the observed 100 ppm increase in ‘anthropogenic’ atmospheric CO2
concentration to cause any kind of climate change.[1] Only solar radiation can penetrate the
air-ocean interface and heat the oceans to depths of up to 100m. The penetration depth of
long wave infrared (LWIR) radiation into the ocean is less than 100 µm. This is the width of a
typical human hair. The increase in ‘clear sky’ downward LWIR flux from a 100 ppm increase
in atmospheric CO2 concentration is 1.7 Watts per square meter. This is less than the
uncertainty in the estimated long term evaporation rate or latent heat flux from the ocean
surface. Over the ocean, the increase in LWIR flux from CO2 is ‘buried in the noise’ of the
fluctuations in ocean evaporation from wind and surface temperature variations and changes
in downward LWIR flux due to fluctuations in humidity, aerosols and cloud cover. Over land,
the increase of 1.7 Watts per square meter in the LWIR flux is such a small part of the total flux at the surface that it cannot cause any measurable change in surface temperature. The
ground surface temperature depends on the absorption coefficient, the thermal conductivity
and heat capacity of the ground, the surface area and angles of incidence, the balance of the
upward and downward LWIR flux and the direct air convection. If the ground is moist, latent
heat effects also have to be included.”

Will the NZ Climate Change Office dismiss this finding by a scientist in the same manner as the US EPA?

Question 4.
If the NZ Climate Change Office cannot demonstrate extra heat produced by atmospheric DLR from the greenhouse gases in the oceans, lakes, rivers and land-mass (Questions 1 and 2) of the globe then the only place left for extra heat to accumulate is in the atmosphere. Where is the evidence of accumulated heat in the atmosphere?

Given that the International scientific community has searched in vain for this hypothetic heat accumulation the NZ Climate Change Office should alert the world’s climate scientists post-haste if they know the location (Kevin Trenberth would be most interested). Over the last decade there has been no measurable tropospheric “hot spot” above the tropics as prescribed the AGW hypothesis so where is the missing heat?

The NZ Climate Change Office has produced one contentious graph accompanied by a bland unsubstantiated statement in order to justify an ETS and continued promotion of the CAGW hypothesis. This is not good enough, the Office must be able to answer these 4 questions satisfactorily to support their case or if they can’t the ETS must be repealed i.e. put up or shut up.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/earth-energy-budgets-without-greenhouse.html
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/08/energy-budgets-without-backradiation.html

Why Physicists Accept Backradiation

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-physicists-accept-backradiation.html

Relativity of Radiation

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/08/guest-post-alan-siddons-relativity-of.html
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/08/relativity-of-radiation.html

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/earth-energy-budgets-without-greenhouse.html

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/08/energy-budgets-without-backradiation.html

Why Physicists Accept Backradiation

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-physicists-accept-backradiation.html

Relativity of Radiation

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/08/guest-post-alan-siddons-relativity-of.html
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/08/relativity-of-radiation.html

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/08/measuring-downwelling-longwave.html

“What is the problem?

The burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests is changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. CO2 levels are 35 per cent higher than they were before industrialisation. If the current rate of increase continues, we could see a doubling by 2050. Other gases like methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture are also increasing in concentration.

Scientists’ concern is that these greenhouse gases will raise global temperatures, increase sea levels and lead to more extreme weather events. The risk to future generations justifies action now to curb our growth in emissions.”

Firstly, CO2 is not a pollutant in terms of toxicity (or an endangerment to humans as the US EPA states) so a doubling of CO2 is not a problem in terms of pollution unlike say SO2. Similarly there is no threat from the insignificant levels of methane and nitrous oxide i.e. no problem.

Secondly, the significance of CO2 as a contributor to the greenhouse effect and the mechanism by which CO2 might be able to “raise global temperatures” is in dispute among scientists (Physicists, Chemists, Climatologists etc). The issue at stake is “back radiation” and “radiative forcing”.

Because the greenhouse contribution of CO2 is so small, the mechanism of back radiation can only work (raise temps) if it produces a magnifying effect of increased water vapour which at 95% is by far the major greenhouse contributor. The water vapour must be produced by the interaction of back radiation with the surface of the oceans, lakes and rivers. This is problematic in that the wavelength of the back radiation prevents penetration of the water surface. The other major problem with the mechanism lies with the laws of physics: by itself radiation is not heat so is not constrained by the 2nd law of thermodynamics and yes, a molecule of CO2 will re-radiate a component back to a warm earth but the heat produced at the earths surface by the back radiation will conform and will then flow towards cold outer space.

CAGW proponents then say that this extra heat accumulates in the upper troposphere above the tropics. Over the last decade this phenomenon has not been observed or measured i.e. again, no problem. Not only that but a disconnect between CO2 levels and global temperatures has been observed over the last decade i.e. no correlation, no causation, no problem. The proponents cannot grasp that heat is slowed in its progress to outer space by the greenhouse (insulation) effect, not contained by it.

I challenge the NZ Govt office of Climate Change to document in detail (molecularly, chemically, thermodynamically and diagrammatically) the mechanism they describe to give credible and coherent support to their argument, the graph supplied is completely inadequate. Good luck with that by the way, other attempts by NASA, IPCC et al to document the earths heat balance are being mercilessly dissected in science circles (neglecting to account for the night side of a circular globe does not help their cause). Then there is the little matter of radiative balance (Ferenc Miskolczi) vs chaotic imbalance (Vincent Gray). Miskolczi really upsets the proposition by showing that any increase in CO2 is offset by a commensurate reduction in water vapour.

Lastly, it is only the scientists that subscribe to the CAGW hypothesis that are “concerned” that greenhouse gases “will” raise global temperatures. There are plenty of scientists who do not subscribe and are not concerned. For example, Prof Don Easterbrook shows here how there is no correlation between CO2 levels and global warming and therefore not part of a cause-and-effect relationship:

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/CO2_atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.pdf

Roy Clark presented this submission to the EPA CO2 endangerment finding deliberations (subsequently dismissed):

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf

This from the summary:

“The energy transfer processes that occur at the Earth’s surface are examined from first
principles. The effect of small changes in the solar constant caused by variations in the
sunspot cycles and small increases in downward long wave infrared flux due to a 100 ppm
increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on surface temperature are considered in detail.
The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the
Earth’s climate. The effects on surface temperature of small increases in downward LWIR
flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions
underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null
hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.”

There is a full-scale real-time experiment being conducted at present that will test your hypothesis.

Some outcome predictions:
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/189 (A Massive Winter Heading for the Northern Hemisphere?)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/shifting-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-from-its-warm-mode-to-cool-mode-assures-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/

Also see reply to Richard Treadgold August 8, 2010 at 9:35 pm

Pertinent comments from Pielke Snr:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/comments-on-a-new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-by-lin-et-al-2010/

“It is time to scrap the use of the global annual averaged surface temperature as the metric to diagnose global warming and cooling.”

“Until the climate community moves away from the surface temperature trends, with its inaccuracy and unnecessary complexity, and replaces it with the diagnosis of ocean heat content changes in Joules over time, the policy community will continue to be misled as to the actual warming and cooling of the climate system.”

then……..?

Given that the IPCC is already out of the money in their projections of continued (and alarming) warming after the warming of the 90’s in their own correlation/causation leap of faith then what is a sensible projection of the above sequence?

Bryan Leyland asserts that “The chances are that the present warm spell will end quite suddenly before the end of this year” on the strength of the McLean, de Freitas and Carter (2009) paper “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature”. His prediction is documented here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/is-the-cold-weather-coming/#more-9776

Obviously time will tell and in Bryan’s favour 2010 still has time to run even if his graph depiction has been premature.

Don Easterbrook makes a longer term projection where the cycle repeats and contrasts that with the IPCC projections here:

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/coming-century-predictions.pdf
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/glocool_summary.pdf

Found on his website:http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/index.htm

Don analyzes the disconnection between CO2 levels and the warming/cooling cycle over the past century here:

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/CO2_past-century.pdf

At present the departure of temperature trend from CO2 trend over the last decade (i.e. broken correlation) is not apparent in the Dept of Climate Change graph but it will become embarrassing as time progresses and a cooling phase is realized..

Also, the Dept of Climate Change should take a look at the Vostok Ice Core graphs for some perspective. (Dept’s 130 yrs vs Vostok’s 420,000 yrs):

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/

There is a full-scale real-time experiment being conducted currently that will test this hypothesis.

Some preliminary observations:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/03/global-sea-surface-temperature-cooling-continues/

Pertinent comments from Pielke Snr:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/comments-on-a-new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-by-lin-et-al-2010/
(”It is time to scrap the use of the global annual averaged surface temperature as the metric to diagnose global warming and cooling.

Until the climate community moves away from the surface temperature trends, with its inaccuracy and unnecessary complexity, and replaces it with the diagnosis of ocean heat content changes in Joules over time, the policy community will continue to be misled as to the actual warming and cooling of the climate system.”)

Outcome speculation:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/shifting-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-from-its-warm-mode-to-cool-mode-assures-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/

http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/189 (A Massive Winter Heading for the Northern Hemisphere?)

Some anecdotal evidence not to be found in your local fishwrap or other msm:

http://www.boliviabella.com/1-million-fish-dead-in-bolivian-ecological-disaster.html
(story and must view Youtube vid showing what happens when tropical river temps fall below survival level of 12 degrees C to 7-9 degrees C)

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/chilly-in-chile-south-america-hit-by-freak-cold-snap/19583528
(story highlighting the economic impact of severe cold weather e.g. energy use skyrocketing and fruit crops ruined but is it “freak” or a new norm? also a reminder of consequences of being unprepared for same as in warmist Britain last NH winter)

A rare exception from NZ Herald:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10662912 (Hundreds die in Peru’s big freeze)