Renowden’s foot again finds his mouth

Renowden continually misquotes me.

I wrote about the summer low achieved by Arctic sea ice. He maligns me for saying the ice didn’t melt until winds pushed it away into warmer water.

Gareth, criticise me for giving voice to heresy; and by all means, fault my scholarship, my knowledge of climatic or arctic affairs; feel free to mock my “disconnection from reality”; I hope you even pull out a paper by Notz and Marotzke and share the authors’ speculation that, as is apparently obvious to the rest of you, “the most likely explanation for the linear trend [in sea ice decline] during the satellite era from 1979 onwards is the almost linear increase in CO2 concentration during that period.”

But I didn’t say it. NASA did.

So now please kindly redirect all that rude, inaccurate mockery to the proper quarter.

UPDATE 30 SEP

Renowden’s friend Rob Taylor, in comments below, cites one John Yackel in Science Daily. Yackel makes a couple of howlers.

First, he contradicts NASA and insists on talking about the summer Arctic ice “melt”. Obviously he didn’t get NASA’s memo explaining about the storm that shifted the sea ice before it melted.

Second, he asserts that, with the ice gone and the sea surface exposed to the air, “more moisture off the ocean’s surface” will “get into the atmosphere”, making for more violent storms.

Remarkable. Here’s a geographer who doesn’t know that the amount of water vapour in the air depends on the temperature. I learnt that in high school but somehow he missed it at university.

But he also apparently imagines that “the water vapor in the atmosphere makes for more violent storms” – it doesn’t need a higher temperature at all! Well, it’s a new concept, but I’m not sure how it works.

I think it’s nonsense.

Finally, I observe that Rob Taylor claims I’m wrong about something, but none of our friends from the dark side deny that Renowden disagrees with NASA. Renowden is wrong to call this record ice disappearance a “melt” and blame it on global warming and therefore on our considerable, unforgivable sins.

180 Thoughts on “Renowden’s foot again finds his mouth

  1. Rob Taylor on October 9, 2012 at 9:36 am said:

    RT, before you launch into yet another glorification of the virtues of ignorance, you may like to sit back, engage some neurons, and watch this 10-minute video on climate feedbacks.

    WARNING: Learning may occur

    http://vimeo.com/1709110

  2. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2012 at 9:53 am said:

    We know about the Arctic ocean ice/albedo feedback that brought about the SIE decline thanks to Dr Maslowski in 2006 Rob, set off by the ’98 El Nino – nothing anthropogenic.

  3. Nice pictures. Interesting historical footage, but where was the bit about climate feedbacks?

    Basically, content-free propaganda

  4. Rob Taylor on October 9, 2012 at 10:47 am said:

    Looks like there was some problem with editing the post, and its gone up twice – the second link is the correct one, but the Svalbard video is good, too.

    Here’s the feedbacks link again:

    http://vimeo.com/1709110

  5. Rob Taylor on October 9, 2012 at 10:56 am said:

    Whatever random concatenation of denialist psuedoscience you “know” today is of little interest to me, RC; save it for your therapist.

  6. Since I watched the Svalbard video, here are some comments.

    There was an interesting suggestion that warming started on Svalbard in the early 20th Century, and that some people though it might have been caused by the munitions fired in the world wars

    There was a coal mine set on fire, left to burn for decades. I am not sure of the relevance of this, except that it is *bad*. Maybe some of the soot from the coal burning resulted in some glacial melt?

    The video claimed that Arctic polar bear populations are in decline
    I thought the opposite was true.

    There was mention of the global cooling scare, then the global warming scare, the “consensus” and an allusion to Hansen without mentioning his name

    There was some moralising about how future generations would see us.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2012 at 11:34 am said:

    We’ve long ago figured out that you have “little interest” in evaluating evidence of climate change cause, natural vs anthropogenic Rob – that’s been self evident.

  8. Well your movie shows the theory Rob, but what actual evidence do you have that these positive feedbacks are occurring? So far the theory is failing dismally due to a lack of evidence.

    There is no tropospheric hot spot to show high level atmospheric water vapour which is needed to prove positive feedback, and low level water vapour more than likely has a negative feedback effect. This lack of upper level water vapour and it’s associated positive feedback mechanism is reflected in the failure of the models to accurately predict the future temperature rises.

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-flat.jpg

    The movie has lots of ‘ifs’, ‘coulds’, and ‘potential runaway greenhouse’, but lacks any empirical evidence to back it up. The real empirical evidence points to the fact that there is no positive feedback from water vapour, therefore AGW has only a minor effect on the climate.

    Prove the tropospheric hot spot and maybe people will listen to you, or alternatively, explain how the temperature can rise beyond 1.2C for every doubling of atmospheric CO2 without positive feedback from water vapour. Otherwise the possibility of your movie becoming reality is extremely remote, and there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for catastrophic AGW beyond a mild warming, a warming that is actually more beneficial than harmful.

  9. Rob Taylor on October 9, 2012 at 11:48 am said:

    Re polar bears, Andy:

    http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/what-the-experts-say/expert-q-and-a/are-polar-bear-populations-booming

    Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, chief scientist with Polar Bears International and USGS polar bear project leader for 30 years.

    Q: Why all the fuss about polar bears? Aren’t their populations increasing: in fact, booming?

    A: One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.*

    One Russian extrapolation presented in 1956 suggested a number of 5,000 to 8,000, but that figure was never accepted by scientists. The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. Even now, about half of our population estimates are only educated guesses. Back then, the best we had over most of the polar bear’s range were uneducated guesses. Polar bear science has come a long way since then.

    We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. Some populations were not being hunted back then (or were hunted very little) and those were probably unaffected by these three actions.

    Back then, the sea ice was solid and not noticeably in retreat. With stable habitat, polar bears were a renewable resource that could be harvested on a sustainable basis.

    But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. Polar bear habitat is disappearing due to global warming. Even the most careful on-the-ground management doesn’t matter if polar bears don’t have the required habitat.

    Polar bears depend on the sea ice surface for catching their prey. A shorter duration of ice cover over their productive hunting areas means less opportunity to hunt. A reduction in sea ice has been statistically linked to reduced stature and weight in polar bears and to lower survival rates of cubs. So, it doesn’t really matter that hunting is now largely under control or that we know a lot about other impacts people might have on bears. Without habitat, polar bears will disappear no matter what else we do. If a farmer has 100 cows out in a pasture, and every year he goes out and paves over some of his pasture, pretty soon he won’t have enough habitat to support 100 cows. And, each time he paves over a little more land, his remaining land will hold fewer cattle. There may be some short-term enhancements of the remaining habitat that will forestall the inevitable. But, when his whole pasture is paved there will be no cows! Declining habitat now and the assurance it will decline in the future is why polar bears were listed as a threatened species. Discussions about how many bears may have lived in the past before and after hunting quotas have no bearing on this new situation.

    Planetary physics require the world to warm as greenhouse gas concentrations rise, so without greenhouse gas mitigation, the ice will continue to melt. For an animal dependent on sea ice to survive, the prospects are not good. As the ice decline continues, the plight of the polar bear only can worsen.

  10. Rob Taylor on October 9, 2012 at 12:04 pm said:

    Magoo, it is truly risible that you claim to be the arbiter of what scientific evidence is, or is not available, yet can only quote a journalist to support your claims.

    Do you have any scientific training yourself, or are you just a gullible parrot? What scientific research can you provide to back up your extraordinary claims?

    I suggest that you try to educate yourself, if you dare; start with an introductory climate text, or the following links:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

  11. But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. Polar bear habitat is disappearing due to global warming.

    That has to be a “Quote of the week” candidate

  12. So just to be clear here, even though Polar Bear populations are not on the decline, this is “irrelevant” because what happened in the past is irrelevant.

    Because habitat is decreasing because of “global warming”, we can assume that at some stage in the future Polar Bear populations will decline

    Therefore we can say Polar Bear populations are declining by extrapolation out to a hypothetical period in the future when Polar Bear populations are actually declining.

    The future is relevant, the past is irrelevant, even though we know quite a lot about the past and very little about the future.

  13. Hmm, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than now, and for longer, yet we still have polar bears with us.

  14. Of course, all that happened in the past, so it’s irrelevant.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2012 at 12:50 pm said:

    SkS asks:-

    So, does the “hot spot” actually exist? That is to say, is the tropsosphere (sic) actually warming as expected?

    Their answer is from the um..er..shuffle..cough..no grab bag:-

    Unfortunately, the answer to this is much less cut and dry.

    Just “more or less”:-

    …things are behaving more or less as we’d expect.

    Actually less:-

    http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUTrop.png

  16. Actually Rob, the hot spot graph is from the US Climate Change Science Program’s Synthesis & Assessment Report 1.1 2006, chapter 5, page 116.

    The graphs of the models are from McKitrick, Ross R., Stephen McIntyre and Chad Herman (2010) “Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series” in press at Atmospheric Science Letters. Yet to be debunked as far as I know.

    Those two papers back up my claims. I don’t know why you’re mentioning a journalist for, the fact that Jo Nova mentions them on her website doesn’t mean she wrote them.

    I’m well aware of skepticalscience’s articles on the matter. I also notice that he never mentions the peer-reviewed papers that debunk every one of his papers on the issue, I’ve always wondered why. What Cook is doing is sidetracking the issue into a warming upper troposphere/cooling stratosphere issue which is beside the point – it’s much simpler than that.

    The tropospheric hotspot should be proof of positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour, regardless of the ‘fingerprint’ argument. The tropospheric hot spot does not exist therefore evidence of positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour doesn’t exist either.

    Since you insist on scientific research I assume you can provide some to backup your claims of positive feedback from water vapour. Avoid the papers John Cook at skepticalscience uses on the matter though, they’re all debunked (he should really mention that to his readers).

  17. One other thing Rob, there’s no need to get nasty or rude about it, I’m just the messenger. If you have a problem with the empirical data or those who supply it in peer reviewed articles then I suggest you take it up with them. It’s hardly my fault the water vapour feedback theory has no evidence to back it up.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2012 at 1:10 pm said:

    Temperature change in the upper troposphere 1948 – 2006

    http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/upper-troposphere.jpg?w=500&h=307

    The atmosphere above 400 hPa (the “hotspot” zone) is not storing warmth.

  19. Magoo, you’re a pleasure to read – clarity and restraint exemplified. Thanks.

  20. Rob Taylor on October 9, 2012 at 1:44 pm said:

    I find it amusing that AGW deniers usually dismiss climate modelling out of hand, EXCEPT for that reported in AR4 that indicated a tropospheric hot spot, which they seize upon with squeals of glee, claiming it to be the “smoking gun” that somehow invalidates 150 years of scientific observation and experiment.

    Which it is does not.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

    Here are the basics:

    1) Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824).

    2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus has the capacity to warm the planet (Tyndall, 1858).

    3) By burning fossil fuels, humans activities are increasing the greenhouse gas concentration of the Earth (Arrhenius, 1896).

    4) Increased greenhouse gas concentrations lead to more heat being trapped, warming the planet further (Arrhenius, 1896).

    So, guys, where is the research that contradicts these 19th century results? I’m happy to wait….

  21. The main problem I have with this Polar Bear argument is that there are around 20,000 bears alive. Their habitat is spread around the very large area we know as “The Arctic” which includes parts of Canada, Russia, Norway etc.

    It seems we would have to remove a very large part of this habitat for it to impact a population of 20,000, which I would have thought would migrate to where the food is

  22. So Rob, which among those 19th-century papers conducts their experiments on the earth’s atmosphere as a whole?

    You did claim “150 years of scientific observation and experiment”, didn’t you? So where is the observational evidence?

    And why did you exclude Arrhenius (1906), by the way? It updates 1896.

    I note the quick move on your part to try to divert attention away from the lack of the hot-spot. And it’s not “deniers” who predicted the existence of the hot-spot, Rob, it was the IPCC. Are you wanting to cherry-pick which IPCC predictions you’d like to examine, based purely on their actual outcome?

  23. None of that research makes any statement about positive feedbacks

    A good number of sceptics agree with most of the above. It is the positive feedback argument that leads to high climate sensitivity to CO2 and therefore to dangerous warming

  24. Nobody disputes your points 1 to 4 Rob, but where is proof of the water vapour feedback?

    The temperature can only rise 1.2C (maximum) per doubling of total atmospheric CO2 (not just man’s). The current total atmospheric levels are somewhere around 397 parts per million (ppm) from memory, & to raise the temp by 1.2C the levels will need to rise to 794ppm. After this, for it to rise another 1.2C it will need to rise to 1588ppm, etc.

    CO2 has a diminishing ability to absorb infra red as it’s concentrations rise, and is a weak greenhouse gas as a result. The majority of warming is supposed to be through positive feedbacks which are supposed to amplify the warming by a factor of approximately 3 times, most of which is supposed to be due to water vapour which is a strong greenhouse gas.

    It doesn’t matter what the cause of the hot spot is, whether it is natural, man’s fault, a volcano, or whatever, the fact that it doesn’t exist means there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour. Without the water vapour positive feedback there is no AGW. You need to show the tropospheric hot spot or evidence of positive water vapour feedback for AGW to be valid, otherwise it’s so small that it’s barely noticeable.

    That’s why McKitrick et al’s graph below shows the failure of the models. The warming of the CO2 isn’t being amplified by water vapour positive feedback, something that is reinforced by the failure of 2 satellites and millions of radiosondes to find the hotspot.

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-flat.jpg

  25. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2012 at 2:39 pm said:

    “….where is the research that contradicts these 19th century results?”

    It’s the “results” that are the problem in the first place Rob so there’s not much point looking for contra research. Dr Matthias Kleespies explains:-

    “Tyndall thought he had measured absorption when he experimented with different gases (among them carbon dioxide and air freed from carbon dioxide) but had apparently only measured opacity which, in contrast to absorption, still includes a measure of reflected radiation. Other scientists, like Arrhenius, appear to have misunderstood Tyndall and also Fourier and additionally relied on inappropriate data sets to develop their theory”

    And,

    “According to [Timothy] Casey, Arrhenius had misquoted Fourier, “who maintained that closed spaces such as hotboxes (and by extension greenhouses) retained their heat by cutting off circulation with the cooler atmosphere.” Perhaps it is thus that it took almost 100 years for another scientist to “rediscover” Fourier’s findings and interpretations. In 1909, Robert W. Wood performed a very simple yet clear-cut experiment to determine why a real greenhouse made of glass is warmer than its surroundings. Wood asked himself: “Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere?””

    The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.
    Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
    Consulting Geologist

    First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13
    Revision 5 ISO: 2011-Dec-07

    http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

    I would point out that radiative heat transfer science (what you deny remember Rob) has moved on since 1896 (alert Gareth too), you have to deal with this Rob:-

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png

    And even if the IPCC curve is assumed to be valid, there’s no corroboration from observed DLR.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2012 at 3:01 pm said:

    >”Nobody disputes your points 1 to 4 Rob”

    I do Magoo. Remember that the debate spectrum is (as I see it), Warmist (CO2 forcing + positive feedback on temperature) – Lukewarmer (CO2 forcing, indeterminant feedback on temperature) – Heretic (negligible CO2 forcing, negative feedback on temperature). I’m firmly in the heretic camp and I find the lukewarmer stance more closely aligned with warmists than heretics.

    The 19th century endeavours that Rob cites in 1 to 4 have no bearing on present day radiative heat transfer physics. In terms of CO2, that has been developed by Hottell and Leckner from which we know (or should) that CO2 forcing is all but exhausted by about 200 ppm.

  27. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2012 at 5:13 pm said:

    >”1) Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824)”

    Fast forward to 2010 [Warning: Nahleisms]:-

    ‘Total emissivity of carbon dioxide and Its effect on tropospheric temperature’

    Didactic Article
    By Nasif Nahle
    May 12, 2010

    Abstract:
    By applying generally accepted algorithms on radiative heat transfer, verified through experimentation by Hottel(1), Leckner(2) and other contemporary scientists and engineers(3)(4)(5), I have found that carbon dioxide molecules posses a low total emissivity at the current density of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    http://www.biocab.org/ECO2.pdf

    Quoting page 10:-

    The change of temperature caused by the CO2 at its current concentration in the atmosphere, with the temperature of the air at 308 K:

    To obtain the change of temperature caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere at its current concentration we must apply the following formula:

    ΔT = Q / m (Cp)

    ΔT = Change of temperature
    Q = Amount of thermal energy in transit from the surface to the air
    m = mass of carbon dioxide per cubic meter (taken from its current density which is 0.00069 Kg/m3)
    Cp = Heat Capacity of carbon dioxide

    Known values:
    Q = 0.28 J (from the formula to obtain the energy flux)
    m = 0.00069 Kg
    Cp = 871 J/Kg K at 1 atm and 308 K.

    Introducing magnitudes:
    ΔT = Q / m (Cp)
    ΔT = 0.28 J / 0.00069 Kg (871 J/Kg K) = 0.46 K [or 0.46 °C]

    # # #

    In English, the contribution CO2 makes to temperature at 308 K is 0.46 K

    I think Nasif has an error on page 11, “ca. 4 K” should be ca [0.]4 K or 0.33 K (by eye), so that the reduction is from 35 K to 34.57 K – not 35 to 31.

    CO2 is a refrigerant and is making a comeback in refrigeration, hence (quoting Nahle) “the conclusion is that carbon dioxide operates like a coolant in the atmosphere” and the graph on page 12.

    See ‘CO2 Refrigeration Systems':-

    http://www.coldsystemsllc.com/co2-refrigeration.html

  28. Rob Taylor on October 9, 2012 at 5:24 pm said:

    Too bad, RC, even your own “side” aren’t interested in your raves – you need to either publish, or shut up.

    [mockery removed – RT]

  29. Once again Rob doesn’t answer any questions or engage in intelligent conversation, but merely insults people, and tries to divert attention away from the missing hot-spot.

  30. Rob Taylor on October 9, 2012 at 5:40 pm said:

    At last, a clear exposition of a valid point; thankyou, Mr. Magoo, perhaps you’d like to visit Hot Topic sometime?

    Re climate sensitivity, the lower bound is observationally constrained by several independent lines of evidence, as per:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

    and

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/ice-age-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity/

    As I’m sure you know, a low climate sensitivity disposes of the MWP; I’d be interested in your views on that as well.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2012 at 5:46 pm said:

    “…where is the research that contradicts these 19th century results?”

    Here

    Nahle’s references:-

    1. Hottel, H. C. Radiant Heat Transmission-3rd Edition. 1954. McGraw-Hill, NY.
    2. Leckner, B. The Spectral and Total Emissivity of Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide. Combustion and Flame. Volume 17; Issue 1; August 1971, Pages 37-44.
    3. Manrique, José Ángel V. Transferencia de Calor. 2002. Oxford University Press. England.
    4. Modest, Michael F. Radiative Heat Transfer-Second Edition. 2003. Elsevier Science, USA and Academic Press, UK.
    5. Pitts, Donald and Sissom, Leighton. Heat Transfer. 1998. McGraw-Hill, NY.
    6. Chilingar; G. V., Khilyuk, L. F.; Sorokhtin, O. G. Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects; Volume 30, Issue: 1 January 2008; pages 1 – 9.

    Eggert’s references:-

    i Schumann, Reinhardt, Metallurgical Engineering, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, 1952 (Hottel’s curves)
    ii Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves)

    You just have to look Rob.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2012 at 6:09 pm said:

    “you need….publish”

    No I don’t “need” to publish. There’s already a body of publications (that you’re denying Rob) and it’s just a matter of applying that work to atmospheric conditions. Climate science makes no recourse to that body of established science, needless to say the IPCC have led govts around the world on a merry dance that’s distorting economics based on fallacy.

    8 of those publications are listed here:-

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/09/renowdens-foot-again-finds-his-mouth/#comment-122822

    I’m guessing Gareth Renowden is oblivious to those publications since he subscribes to the “160 years of science” (his words) that you’ve presented (except for anything from 1954 onwards). You might like to alert him Rob – then he can deny them too.

  33. As I’m sure you know, a low climate sensitivity disposes of the MWP

    I didn’t know. Does that work without circular reasoning that CO2 is a major driver of climate?

  34. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2012 at 6:54 pm said:

    SkS – “How sensitive is our climate?”

    Using IPCC CO2 forcing for the 21st century:

    dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

    2000 369.52 Co
    2011 391.57 C

    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

    dF = 5.35 ln(391.57/369.52 )
    dF = 0.3 C

    Climate sensitivity (from SkS)
    dT = λ*dF where dT = 0, λ is climate sensitivity and dF is 0.3 C
    0 = λ*0.3
    λ = 0

    Climate sensitivity to CO2 is 0 this century according to the IPCC CO2 forcing expression. CO2 may not be a forcing of course. Me, I think it’s natural variability doing the forcing.

  35. Have you actually read any of these references Richard? If so perhaps you would consider sharing the relevant parts.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2012 at 7:50 pm said:

    >”Have you actually read any of these references Richard?”

    No I haven’t (but I do have other heat transfer texts than those listed i.e. it’s a huge field) and neither has anyone at the IPCC (or if they have they haven’t let on) but the likes of Eggert and Nahle have. Viskanta and Mengo referenced what was available in 1987, hence:-

    RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER IN COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
    R. VISKANTA and M. P. MENGO, 1987

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/un/ipcc-science/#comment-117639

    Abstract
    An adequate treatment of thermal radiation heat transfer is essential to a mathematical model of the combustion process or to a design of a combustion system. This paper reviews the fundamentals of radiation heat transfer and some recent progress in its modeling in combustion systems. Topics covered include radiative properties of combustion products and their modeling and methods of solving the radiative transfer equations. Examples of sample combustion systems in which radiation has been accounted for in the analysis are presented. In several technologically important, practical combustion systems coupling of radiation to other modes of heat transfer is discussed. Research needs are identified and potentially promising research topics are also suggested.

    Quoting:-

    “An in-depth review of the world literature on the thermal radiation properties of gaseous combustion products (H20, CO2, CO, SO2, NO and N20 ) has recently been prepared. 4″

    4. BLOKH, A. G., Heat TransJer in Steam Boiler Furnaces, Energoatomizdat, Leningrad (1984) (in Russian) (to be published by Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington, D.C.).

    “Detailed reviews of radiation heat transfer in pulverized coal-fired furnaces are available. 4″272″299 Radiation heat transfer in furnaces is due to gaseous and particulate contributions. Emissivity data for the major emitting gaseous species CO2 and H20 are generally adequate. 4.64″

    64. SAROFIM, A. F. and HOTTEL, H. C., Heat Transfer– 1978, Vol. 6, pp. 199-217, Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington, D.C. 11978).

    “The expressions for the total emissivity and absorptivity of a gas in terms of the weighted sum of gray gases are useful especially for the zonal method of analysis of radiative transfer.

    There are several curve-fitted expressions available in the literature for use in computer codes. Some of them are given in terms of polynomials 48- 50 and the others are expressed in terms of the weighted sum-of-gray gases. 51~-54″

    48. LECKNER, B., Combust. Flame 19, 33 (1972).
    49. MODAK, A. T., Fire Res. I, 339 11979).
    50. STEWARD, F R. and KOCAEFE, Y. S., Heat TronsJer– 1986, C. L. Tien, V. P. Carey, and J. K. Ferrell (Eds), Vol. 2, pp. 735-740, Hemisphere Publishing Corp.,Washington, D.C. (1986).
    51. TAYLOR, P. B. and FOSTER, P. J., Int. J. Heat Mass TransJer 17, 1591 11974).
    52. SMrm, T. F., SHEN, Z. F. and FRIEDMAN, J. N., J. Heat Transfer 104. 602 (1982[
    53. FARAG, I. H., Heat Transfer 1982, U. Grigull, E. Hahne, K. Stephan and J. Straub (Eds), VoL 2. pp. 489-492. Hemisphere, Washington, D.C. (1982).
    54. COPALLE, A. and VERVlSCH, P., Combust. Flame 49. 101 11983).

    # # #

    That’s in addition to the 8 that you’ve asked if I’ve read and no I haven’t read any of these either.

    Now Nick, don’t you think it would have been a good idea for the IPCC to have reviewed “the fundamentals of radiation heat transfer” and made “an in-depth review of the world literature on the thermal radiation properties of gaseous combustion products (H20, CO2, ….)” and kept pace with developments over successive years – 1990 onwards – so that their assessment reports would have a basis in state-of-the-art radiative heat transfer science?

  37. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2012 at 12:12 am said:

    >”…perhaps you would consider sharing the relevant parts”

    Not from the texts but this paper is has some relevant parts (for the time being):-

    EVALUATION OF EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS FOR H20-C02-N2/AIR MIXTURES AND COUPLING WITH SOLUTION METHODS OF THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION

    N. Lallemant*, A. Sayret and R. Weber
    1996

    http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/users/papers/engr/ernesto/brazw/Project/Other/Research/Soot/Lallemant_EmissivityCorrelations.pdf

    3. CORRELATIONS FOR PREDICTING THE TOTAL EMISSIVITY AND ABSORPTIVITY OF
    COMBUSTION GASES
    Emissivity correlations are usually limited to calculations of the CO, and H20 total emissivity. Mathematically, these models appear either in the form of the weighted sum of gray gases model (WSGGM)4-‘5 or in the form of polynomials.‘-3 Existing WSGGM are somewhat less general than the polynomial correlations since coefficients for the WSGGM have to be recalculated for each H20/ CO1 partial pressure ratio. Polynomial correlations such as those of Leckner2 and Modak3 do not feature such shortcomings; they involve many more fitted coefficients (e.g. 48 for each species in Modak’s model) but retain all the generality required to model total emissivity of gas mixtures. Both types of correlations are accurate enough and simple to use in engineering calculations. However, they are often limited to total emissivity calculations in volumes of gas with a mean beam length greater than 1 cm. This section surveys the total emissivity correlations presented in Table 2. Only the models which have been widely applied in CFD modeling of flames and engineering combustion problems are described.

    3.2. Polynomial Approximations
    The two most well-known and general total emissivity correlations using polynomials are those developed by L.eckne2 and Modak.3 Prior to these publications, Hadvig’ derived polynomial expressions to calculate the total emissivity of HzO-CO2 gas mixtures for pW/pC = 1 and pW/pC = 2. However, in view of the limited range of applicability of this model, it is excluded from the assessment in Section 4.

    4. ASSESSMENT OF THE ACCURACY OF SEVERAL TOTAL EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS (HOMOGENOUS CALCULATIONS)
    4.1. Generalities
    In this section, the exponential wide band model (EWBM)25,26 is used to provide benchmark data to validate the total emissivity models developed by Johnson6 Leckner,2 Taylor and Foster,’ Modak,3 Smith et a1.,13 Coppale and Vervish14 and Steward and Kocaefe” (see Table 2).

    # # #

    Note that the Leckner and Modak models are simplifications but that the IPCC curve is in effect, a simplification of a simplification.

    The question now is: how do the models implement RT if not by Leckner or Modak models (because they don’t)? I saw this by a GP Alldredge responding to John Eggert:-

    “The one thing they [the models] cannot do in the clear sky parts of their models is do the line-by-line integrations, because those are too compute-intensitive for climate model runs; they must rely on doing the line-by-line integrations offline, and then building look-up tables or parametric interpolating functions to represent the line-by-line effects during the model runs”

    Also, a GCM group can out-source their RT to an external RT module (RTM) specialist e.g. AER. An RTM undergoes extensive V&V e.g. AER’s RRTMG v Observations here:-

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-28767

    The problem then is: what do the GCM modelers do once the faithfully V&V’d RTM is integrated? Ans: they distort RT by IPCC imposed RCP forcing scenarios:-

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-29104

    But the NCAR CAM model for example has a ramping facility (you’ll have to follow your nose through the NCAR CAM links above to the manuals) and I presume others do to. Basically they have a sliding scale to “ramp” up or down in their parameter settings. I’m wondering if the one CMIP5 group that has managed to mimic 21st century absolute temperature and trajectory has ramped GHGs down to 0 i.e. effectively negating the RCP scenarios and relying on the veracity of their RTM.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2012 at 8:20 am said:

    Samoht (Thomas) has made an appearance at #7 (my emphasis):-

    Thomas October 9, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Makka: What counts is your own actions in your own back-yard and your own country. The time to point fingers at others and sit back to watch the climate disaster unfold is over. Unless we make fast pace towards a sustainable future we are hypocrites demanding that others go the mile first. Your arguments are simply cheep straw man points towards a lame attempt to justify inaction which we see all the time from the copy/paste denier trolls.

    BTW Richard C2 is an “old friend” (quotation marks well earned) who’s incoherent pseudo-scientific ramblings many of us have witnessed for years. The man still believes that atmospheric conditions do not contribute to ocean temperature and heat content and has evidently no mental concept of net heat transfer. He typifies the hard core ramblers from the denier circus who will simply not take a step back from their personal beliefs to see the evidence that is accumulating all the time.

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/prat-watch-7-the-unbearable-rightness-of-being-wrong/#comment-34795

    Samoht doesn’t deign to grace us with his presence here anymore – I’m sad. But if he does, I have a long memory.

  39. but then the main post starts with

    The carefully cultivated cocoon of ignorance over at New Zealand’s own tiny corner of the climate crank echo chamber has been glinting in the harsh light of reality in recent weeks

    so I’d hardly expect a polite thread.

  40. Hi Rob. The reason I avoided Richard C’s points was due to the fact that you’d use them to avoid confronting the water vapour positive feedback issue. I’m sure Richard might very well be right, but it’s a distraction from the real issue of AGW theory failing without the water vapour amplification.

    The issue is nothing other than what evidence there is for positive feedback from water vapour. Why is this the only relevant issue? Because without it there is no AGW. You can’t claim AGW without addressing this problem because it’s the major part of the AGW theory – CO2 is just the minor contributor.

    As for Hot Topic, I prefer discussions with manners thank you.

  41. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2012 at 1:54 pm said:

    Correction.

    dF = 5.35 ln(391.57/369.52 )
    dF = 0.3 C

    Should be: dF = 0.3 [W.m2]

  42. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2012 at 3:46 pm said:

    Clive Best had the old GISS Model II running on his PC and there’s also a low-cost EdGCM package that approximates the model that runs on a PC too. Best:-

    “I have installed the model on a MAC mini running OS10.6.8 with a 2.4Ghz Core2 processor and 2 Gbytes of memory. The full model simulation took 33 hours to complete, generated over 2 Gbytes of output”

    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=3669

    The interesting part though – for the purposes of this pursuit – is this:-

    “Radiative transfer through the atmosphere uses profiles for clouds/water vapor, CO2 etc. and a model for ocean and land albedo is included. Much of this is summarised nicely in a (Masters) thesis I found on the Internet by Melissa Kelly”

    2. A Survey of Climate Sensitivity and Response Rates in EdGCM, Mellisa Kelly, Dickinson College, Carlisle PA

    http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?cluster=891358878928738105&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

    It’s the “profiles” for CO2 that are critical – how are they derived, what are they, and how are they applied?

    Kelly page 5:-
    ——————
    In order to reduce the complexity of the climate system enough that it can be simulated on a computer, global climate models divide the Earth into a three-dimensional grid scheme and iterate numeric calculations over each grid cell (Ananthaswamy 2011). The input variables in the system are sorted into two categories: parameters and forcings.

    Parameters are non-dynamic input variables, such as land cover and topography, which are specified within the program and serve as boundary conditions for the grid cell. Some dynamic processes are often approximated by parameterization if the grid resolution in the model is too low to properly calculate them.”

    “Forcings, by contrast, are time-variable input variables which are allowed to change throughout the course of a simulation. Solar radiation is the Earth’s primary forcing, but atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and orbital variations also play essential roles. Output variables are the quantities computed using the program’s underlying equations. These include surface air temperature, sea surface temperature, net radiation, planetary albedo, cloud cover, precipitation, evaporation, and many more which researchers would want to track changes in over the course of a simulation.”
    ———————
    The essential part with respect to forcings being: “Output variables are the quantities computed using the program’s underlying equations”

    GISS base the veracity of models on pre-21st century performance and say:-

    “Some atmosphere-ocean models [Lucarini and Russell, 2002] are able to reproduce the spatial pattern of climate change over the past 40 years by changing greenhouse gases only”

    Problem is: that reproduction no linger holds good in the 21st century (and didn’t around the 1940s either). The quote is from the intro of GISS information sheet:-

    ‘4×3 ATMOSPHERE-OCEAN MODEL FORMULATION’

    http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/DOC4X3/ATMOC4X3.TXT

    Unfortunately, 13. Radiation, tells us nothing of Kelly’s “underlying equations”. We can however, infer a great deal from EdGCM in Kelly’s appendix:-

    b. Table of Global Average Responses (Changes from Baseline) for Equilibrium
    Perturbation Experiments [page 46], and,
    c. Tables of Latitudinal Average Responses [page 47 – 48].

    From b:-

    Perturbation, Surface Air Temperature (deg C)

    +1 ppm 0.03 C
    +5 ppm 0.15 C
    +10 ppm 0.27 C
    +50 ppm 1.17 C

    We can check if EdGCM (and Models II & E) conforms to the IPCC CO2 forcing expression:

    dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) and Co 369.52 2000 in W.m2 at tropopause (with EdGCM implied CS λ)

    +1 ppm 0.014 W.m2 (λ 2.14)
    +5 ppm 0.07 W.m2 (λ 2.14)
    +10 ppm 0.14 W.m2 (λ 1.93)
    +50 ppm 0.68 W.m2 (λ 1.72)

    From 2000 to 2011 there was a 22 ppm CO2 rise (391.57 – 369.52) but no rise in temperature vs EdGCM’s approx 0.67 C for the same period. Kelly tells us the underlying code is the same for EdGCM and Model II and that EdGCM is more sensitive (yields greater temperature) than the new GISS Model E (far better resolution). The respective sensitivities are (2xCO2, e.g. +369.52 ppm from 369.52 at 2000 = 739 ppm) from Kelly:-

    EdGCM CS (λ) +5.18°C
    GISS E CS (λ) +2.7°C

    EdGCM obviously doesn’t conform to dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) because CS (λ) is reducing from 2.14 as concentration approaches 2xCO2 rather than increasing towards 5.18. This divergence and non-conformance will be similar in Model E I suspect.

    From this we can deduce that Model E would probably yield a 2011 temperature of about 0.35 C above 2000 levels on average ignoring other forcings (as GISS implies is possible above). This hasn’t happened therefore the GISS model rationale is flawed beginning with the equations that convert CO2 concentration to forcing.

    From 2000 to 2011 the Model E “underlying equations” yield, on average, an effective CO2-to-temperature forcing factor of 0.016 (0.35/22 but for 2011 only). This factor, although not constant, represents the “ramping” in the model (I think) and the variation of the factor is due to “steps” (I think). If that ramping were set to 0 for period 2000 – 2011, the model would probably mimic the 0C rise. Any steps in that period would have to be set to 0 too.

    But then the CO2 spin-up data to 2000 would have to be replaced with an appropriate forcing too. What would that be I wonder?

  43. Rob Taylor on October 10, 2012 at 5:06 pm said:

    Yes, Magoo, I understood the issue that you raised, and have provided two links that review the evidence for climate feedbacks that act to constrain the lower bound for climate sensitivity to at least 1.5 C for a doubling of CO2.

    Here they are again:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
    and
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/ice-age-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity/

    Of course, we need to distinguish between the fast-feedback sensitivity and the long-term “Earth-system” sensitivity, which paleoclimate studies show is higher than the short-term value.

    From that paleo evidence, we do indeed appear to be heading toward an ice-free world unless we can draw down atmospheric CO2 before the feedbacks become self-sustaining (if they are not already).

    So, what do you now think of the evidence for positive feedbacks? I do not see any support there for the common denialist position that net positive feedbacks are negligible!

  44. The SkS link that Rob provides has a link to Forster and Gregory (2006) which is broken (404).

    This is unfortunate as this is apparently one of the few papers on climate sensitivity that relies on empirical evidence rather than from models

    Furthermore, the F&G sensitivity values were amplified by the IPCC (over and above the original paper’s values) by using some Bayesian “techniques”. Nic Lewis presented this information on Judith Curry’s blog a while back

    This is discussed here amongst other places

  45. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2012 at 9:02 pm said:

    Thus the integrated assessment model (PAGE09 IAM) is distorted from the outset.

    Thanks for this BH link Andy, I hadn’t caught up with this.

  46. Rob, what you’ve given is theory as to what they think the feedbacks should be and why they think it should be that way. In the case of water vapour there is no evidence whatsoever to back up their theory which is why it is wrong. John Cook says the following:

    ‘If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?’

    Cook’s trying to say that it has to be positive feedback from water vapour otherwise we’d still be in the ice age. Empirical evidence proves him wrong in the current circumstances due to a missing hot spot – it isn’t water vapour feedback and the science proves it conclusively. An assumption has been made and it’s been proven wrong, otherwise you’d have to ignore the empirical evidence of 2 satellites, over 30,000,000 radiosondes, and the temperature records that reflect their findings, in preference of baseless speculation for a theory that doesn’t fit the observed reality.

  47. Rob Taylor on October 11, 2012 at 3:37 am said:

    Rob, what you’ve given is theory as to what they think the feedbacks should be and why they think it should be that way. In the case of water vapour there is no evidence whatsoever to back up their theory which is why it is wrong.

    A weak response, Magoo – you merely repeat your original claim, which shows you have either not read, or not understood, the scientific evidence for a lower bound to climate sensitivity.

    Which, I guess, explains why you prefer this intellectual backwater, where “truthiness” reigns supreme.

    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/417670/august-09-2012/who-s-honoring-me-now—-psychonomic-bulletin—review

  48. Rob Taylor on October 11, 2012 at 3:51 am said:

    Indeed it will, Andy, indeed it will…

  49. Rob Taylor:

    A weak response, Magoo – you merely repeat your original claim, which shows you have either not read, or not understood, the scientific evidence for a lower bound to climate sensitivity.

    This is a very typical response from Rob. He himself doesn’t understand his own scientific claims, merely parroting John Cook (a cartoonist) and Real Climate (an activist site).

    How about you discuss the actual science, Rob, as laid out in real scientific papers? That is what everybody else is doing, or hadn’t you noticed?

  50. Example of RealClimate advocacy when threatened by actual science:

    Email 2743
    Meanwhile, I suspect you’ve both seen the latest attack against his Yamal work by McIntyre. Gavin and I (having consulted also w/ Malcolm) are wondering what to make of this, and what sort of response—if any—is necessary and appropriate. So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.

    So when they can’t answer the questions, they delete the questions.

  51. Rob Taylor on October 11, 2012 at 8:14 am said:

    How about you discuss the actual science, Rob, as laid out in real scientific papers? That is what everybody else is doing, or hadn’t you noticed?

    As a matter of fact, Bob, no, I had not noticed any such thing. I do see, however, frequent recourse to the hoary old catechisms of the Church of Denial, such as the “missing hot spot disproves AGW” and the “Arctic ice loss was caused by a storm”.

    Strangely – given the spirit of scientific enquiry that you say pervades this site – none of you seem interested in what powered that storm, which is the same thing that is causing the ice to melt – warmer sea water in the Arctic.

    Perhaps this will help you get up to speed:

    The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean adjacent to Greenland — the warmest water in at least 2,000 years — are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic, says a new international study involving the University of Colorado Boulder.

    The study showed that water from the Fram Strait that runs between Greenland and Svalbard — an archipelago constituting the northernmost part of Norway — has warmed roughly 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century. The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period, which heated the North Atlantic from roughly 900 to 1300 and affected the climate in Northern Europe and northern North America.

    The team believes that the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent are tied to the enhanced heat transfer from the North Atlantic Ocean, said Spielhagen. According to CU-Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center, the total loss of Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 to 2009 was an area larger than the state of Alaska, and some scientists there believe the Arctic will become ice-free during the summers within the next several decades.

    “Such a warming of the Atlantic water in the Fram Strait is significantly different from all climate variations in the last 2,000 years,” said Spielhagen, also of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Keil, Germany.

    According to study co-author Thomas Marchitto, a fellow at CU-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, the new observations are crucial for putting the current warming trend of the North Atlantic in the proper context.

    “We know that the Arctic is the most sensitive region on the Earth when it comes to warming, but there has been some question about how unusual the current Arctic warming is compared to the natural variability of the last thousand years,” said Marchitto, also an associate professor in CU-Boulder’s geological sciences department. “We found that modern Fram Strait water temperatures are well outside the natural bounds.”

    Since continuous meteorological and oceanographic data for the Fram Strait reach back only 150 years, the team drilled ocean sediment cores dating back 2,000 years to determine past water temperatures. The researchers used microscopic, shelled protozoan organisms called foraminifera — which prefer specific water temperatures at depths of roughly 150 to 650 feet — as tiny thermometers.

    In addition, the team used a second, independent method that involved analyzing the chemical composition of the foraminifera shells to reconstruct past water temperatures in the Fram Strait, said Marchitto.

    The Fram Strait branch of the North Atlantic Current is the major carrier of oceanic heat to the Arctic Ocean. In the eastern part of the strait, relatively warm and salty water enters the Arctic. Fed by the Gulf Stream Current, the North Atlantic Current provides ice-free conditions adjacent to Svalbard even in winter, said Marchitto.

    “Cold seawater is critical for the formation of sea ice, which helps to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back to space,” said Marchitto. “Sea ice also allows Arctic air temperatures to be very cold by forming an insulating blanket over the ocean. Warmer waters could lead to major sea ice loss and drastic changes for the Arctic.”

    The rate of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be accelerating due to positive feedbacks between the ice, the Arctic Ocean and the atmosphere, Marchitto said. As Arctic temperatures rise, summer ice cover declines, more solar heat is absorbed by the ocean and additional ice melts. Warmer water may delay freezing in the fall, leading to thinner ice cover in winter and spring, making the sea ice more vulnerable to melting during the next summer.

    Air temperatures in Greenland have risen roughly 7 degrees F in the past several decades, thought to be due primarily to an increase in Earth’s greenhouse gases, according to CU-Boulder scientists.

    http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2011/01/27/warming-north-atlantic-water-tied-heating-arctic-according-new-study

    But you can help me with one thing, Bob; has NZCSET paid NIWA’s $100 K + legal costs yet? Or will you be hiding behind the skirts of your “charitable status”?

  52. Ok Rob. No evidence for positive feedback from water vapour? Nobody else has been able to do so either so it was no surprise.

    No hot spot = no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour = no AGW (no cause therefore no effect). Avoiding the issue by substituting the broader subject of climate sensitivity in the place of evidence for WV positive feedback shows that you have no evidence. How can people believe in AGW theory when there’s no evidence for the biggest part of it? That is why those who believe in AGW avoid this issue like the plague.

    I won’t be back for a while as I have two major papers that I need to complete and will be too busy. In the meantime perhaps you’d like to consider the issue of what evidence there is for water vapour positive feedback alone, and why the broader subject of theoretical climate sensitivity is not a viable substitute for the issue. Find evidence of the hot spot or water vapour positive feedback – without them all the articles in the world on climate sensitivity are nothing but speculative guesses, as are the corresponding failed climate models.

  53. So we see waters in the Arctic have risen over the last 150 years. This is no surprise to anyone, since this has been measured everywhere due to the recovery from the LIA.

    However, nowhere is any observational evidence submitted that Arctic storms have been growing stronger as a result. It is also unlikely to be unprecedented if true, as we know the Arctic was as warm in the 1930/40s (Howat 2007), and also in the MWP, the RWP and the Minoan WP.

    Try again.

  54. But you can help me with one thing, Bob; has NZCSET paid NIWA’s $100 K + legal costs yet?

    I don’t know. You’ll have to ask them.

  55. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2012 at 10:51 am said:

    >”The team believes that the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent are tied to the enhanced heat transfer from the North Atlantic Ocean”

    And where did the NA Ocean heat originate?

    ‘Coupled Response of Global Climate to Solar Cycle Forcing’

    Yafang Zhong
    2005

    http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/resources/publications/pdfs/CCR_917.pdf

    Page 14:-

    “Meanwhile in North Pacific, the solar signals propagate along the subtropical gyre. Negative anomalies emerge with Kuroshio extension at lag 25-year (fig. 13c). They start
    to travel northeastward, and turn southward at lag 30-year (fig. 13d) after bumping onto the eastern boundary. ”

    The “solar signals” originate from cycles described page 4:-

    “The appreciable role of solar forcing is most clear in upper 450-meter ocean heat content in case of Gleissberg cycle. The correlation between Gleissberg cycle and HC450 is high up to .6, in other word, 36% of total variance is attributable to solar forcing. This fairly high correlation is a hint for a plausible role of slow solar variations in ocean-atmosphere coupled system.”

    Hence,

    THE SOLAR WOLF-GLEISSBERG CYCLE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE EARTH

    Shahinaz M. Yousef
    2000

    http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf

    From the abstract:-

    “The Solar Wolf-Gleissberg cycle stimulate solar forcing on terrestrial phenomena’s as evident from the pattern of Global temperature (both air and ocean temperatures). Solar Wolf- Gleissberg periodicity is marked in a wide range of terrestrial evidences since millions of years and is still at work. It is found that climatic fluctuations are induced at the turning points of such cycles.”

    Fig 13: a) Eleven yr. running means of the annual sunspot number (i.e Wolf-Gleissberg cycle) and mean global mean sea surface temperature shown as departures from the 1951-80) average in units of 0.01k (lower light curve). Heavy curves are least squares 7th degree polynomial fits to the data. b) Same as (a) for the three major basins ( after Reid 2000).
    Note the striking control of the solar Wolf- Gleissberg cycle on SST of major oceans as well as global mean SST.

    Fig 14 : The effect of Wolf- Gleissberg cycle (continuous line)on the modulation of El Nino frequency(broken line) for more than 300 years.

    The solar cycles are the explanation of recent ocean heat accumulation AND the explanation of El Nino modulation, a large amplitude occurrence of which set off the recent Arctic SIE decline.

    Also, Lean TSI vs SST, TSI advanced 10 yrs

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/fig4-ra.jpg

    No-one can make correlations anywhere like the above using CO2 concentration AND the anthropogenic component of DLR Rob. And before you can even START talking about causation mechanisms, you must have the correlations. You (of AGW) don’t have those correlations Rob, we (of natural cycles) do.

  56. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2012 at 12:38 pm said:

    >”Perhaps this will help you get up to speed:”

    The title of the article is: ‘Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study’ January 27, 2011

    “up to speed”? “new study”? This is OLD news, just search Google Scholar:-

    arctic+atmosphere+temperature+warming+north+atlantic+ocean

    1st page returned,

    ‘Arctic warming – Evolution and Spreading of the 1990s warm event in the Nordic Seas and the Arctic Ocean’

    Karcher et al 2003 http://epic.awi.de/4807/

    “The focus of the work presented here is on the temperature rise which occurred in the Atlantic layer of the Arctic Ocean in the early 1990s.The model favorably reproduces the development and subsequent propagation of temperature anomalies in the water of Atlantic origin in the Northwest European Shelf area and along the Norwegian coast. These anomalies propagate into the Arctic Ocean via the Barents Sea and the Fram Strait”

    “Intensified boundary currents during the high NAO state in the first half of the 1990s significantly influence amplitude and speed of the temperature anomalies inside the Arctic Ocean”

    # # #

    What new advance of any import was made by Spielhagen et al and reported in 2011 that the work of Karcher et al in 2003 had not already provided?

  57. Rob Taylor on October 11, 2012 at 9:23 pm said:

    BS, Magoo; climate sensitivity parametrises net forcing, including feedbacks, and is constrained by several independent lines of evidence, which I have provided references to.

    Rather than deal with those, you seek refuge in the short-term noise in the system, ignoring the increasingly clear long-term signal, then do a runner… most impressive!

    As for Bob’s invocation of the LIA, what, pray, is the net forcing behind the “rebound”?

    Or does it just, like, um, you know, kinda happen, man…?

  58. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2012 at 11:01 pm said:

    >”As for Bob’s invocation of the LIA, what, pray, is the net forcing behind the “rebound”?”

    A 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity (including 50% rise in UV) since the Maunder minimum (IPCC 0.12 W/m2).

    ‘Reconstruction of solar spectral irradiance since the Maunder minimum’

    Krivova, Vieira and Solanki, 2010

    http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/j317.pdf

  59. Rob Taylor on October 12, 2012 at 12:55 pm said:

    —– the Maunder minimum was in the 17th century!

  60. The Maunder Minimum falls within the climatically cooler period of the “Little Ice Age”, during which temperatures were particularly low over continents in the Northern hemisphere (especially in winter). It has long been suspected that the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum was one of the causes of the Little Ice Age, although other factors like a small drop in greenhouse gas concentrations around 1600 and strong volcanic eruptions during that time likely played a role as well.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Post Navigation