SOURCE:
Quote of the Week: “A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true.”― Sir Isaac Newton
SUMMARY:
Last week’s TWTW incorrectly stated the percent of surface-air stations the team of volunteers organized by Anthony Watts found that violated NOAA’s siting standards in 2009. The team found about 96 89 percent of U.S. stations failed to meet the standards NOAA considered “acceptable.” The 2022 survey found that 96 percent now fail to meet these standards. These are not the stations used in the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) which has 137 commissioned stations in the United States. The USCRN stations should be used in reports such as the National Climate Assessment, not the deficient ones. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/overview.html
Discussed below is a solid presentation by Jim Steele on why ocean warming is caused by the sun, not by greenhouse gases.
Climate modelers fail to test their models against all physical evidence and greatly overestimate the current warming. Now climate modelers are calling for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to emphasize the most extreme. At what point does exaggeration of physical evidence become science fiction?
... Earlier this year the Australian government pledged $700 million to protect the Great Barrier Reef against climate change and global warming. Now, it is in the best conditions it has been in 36 years of monitoring. This and other examples of the power of money are discussed.
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory reported that the December 20 to January 15, 2022, eruption of the Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano sent a great deal of water (unprecedented) into the stratosphere that may result in a warming of the atmosphere and the surface.
*****************
Heating the Oceans: An issue with addressing how the earth cools is the mental concept of time. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the earth is continuously emitting infrared energy depending on temperature. Some atmospheric gases, greenhouse gases, continuously interfere with the release of this energy to space in specific wavenumbers (number of wavelengths per centimeter, sometimes called frequency).
In clear skies near the surface, most of the gases are well mixed except for water vapor, which varies significantly by region. The entire process of release of energy from the surface, the greenhouse effect, and release of energy to space is continuous, similar to time. Like time, it can be divided into discrete units for mental convenience. But it remains continuous.
Between 1666 to 1672, Isaac Newton developed a set of experiments to understand color. He used a prism to divide a beam of light into the spectrum of colors, then recombined the colors back to white light (colorless light). Thus, Newton demonstrated that the prism does not color light. Clear ocean separates sunlight by wavelengths or colors. The first to go is infrared energy, which is emitted by the earth into the atmosphere and bounced around. It does not penetrate into the ocean by more than a millimeter, thus cannot warm it at depth.
Although addressed somewhat differently, the fact that oceans separate light by wavelengths is a key part of Jim Steele’s presentation on “Why the Sun, Not CO2, Heats the Oceans.” He begins:
“About a decade ago there was a heated and unresolved debate on whether infrared back radiation from greenhouse gases is heating the oceans. Because infrared penetrates less than a millimeter into the ocean’s surface, many skeptics argued it is impossible to blame rising CO2 for ocean warming. However, several prominent skeptic scientists, people who I have great respect for, also weighed in arguing it was silly and useless to argue infrared heat can’t warm the ocean.
“After analyzing the physics detailed in this video, I’m convinced it is solar energy that drives the observed ocean heating, and any infrared ocean heating is insignificant at best. If this analysis holds, it is another significant strike against the prevailing CO2 driven global warming theory.
“To ensure lay people are brought up to speed, here’s a quick summary of where consensus climate science stands today.”
After giving background, Steele discusses research that shows the thin skin layer of the ocean warms during the day but cools back at night. There is no greenhouse gas warming deeper than a millimeter. Steele gives a good graph showing how different colors of visible light penetrate into the ocean as well as the difference between the land surface and the oceans. He discusses the Stefan-Boltzmann law and changing ocean temperatures with changing El Niños and La Niñas (changing El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)). Steele concludes:
“The obvious clue to the primary driver of ocean warming is that the regions of greatest solar flux into the ocean are the same regions created by Pacific and Atlantic La Ninas. That solar heated water is transported westward and then poleward along ocean currents where the greatest amount heat is vented “
“To date there has been no provable mechanism illustrating how heating from CO2 can heat anything more than the ocean’s skin surface. In contrast the combined climate effects of solar heating, the ITCZ [Intertropical Convergence Zone] migrations and La Ninas are strongly supported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
“So, I will ignore the click bait news media’s fear mongering that our oceans are “on the boil” due to rising CO2. There is simply no scientific proof to support such dishonest narratives.
And I will sleep well. There is no climate crisis.”
The above shows that ocean warming is not proof of global warming. Of course, a general warming of the globe, including the lower atmosphere, will result in a warming of the top layer of the ocean.
*****************
Fact or Fiction? Generally, climate studies, including those government sponsored, are not a physical science. They are contradicted by the best physical evidence available – including over forty years of atmospheric temperature trends and measurements of the impact of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Humans adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere are not causing dangerous warming. Except for the West, much of the world does not believe the results of climate models
A paper edited by Professor Emeritus Kerry Emanuel of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calls for bolder studies of extreme claims. An expert on tropical cyclones, Emanuel is a strong supporter of the IPCC and its models. The ACE index of tropical cyclones shows that intensities of storms are declining, not increasing, for whatever the reason. The abstract of the paper states:
Prudent risk management requires consideration of bad-to-worst-case scenarios. Yet, for climate change, such potential futures are poorly understood. Could anthropogenic climate change result in worldwide societal collapse or even eventual human extinction? At present, this is a dangerously underexplored topic. Yet there are ample reasons to suspect that climate change could result in a global catastrophe. Analyzing the mechanisms for these extreme consequences could help galvanize action, improve resilience, and inform policy, including emergency responses. We outline current knowledge about the likelihood of extreme climate change, discuss why understanding bad-to-worst cases is vital, articulate reasons for concern about catastrophic outcomes, define key terms, and put forward a research agenda.
The proposed agenda covers four main questions: 1) What is the potential for climate change to drive mass extinction events? 2) What are the mechanisms that could result in human mass mortality and morbidity? 3) What are human societies’ vulnerabilities to climate-triggered risk cascades, such as from conflict, political instability, and systemic financial risk? 4) How can these multiple strands of evidence—together with other global dangers—be usefully synthesized into an ‘integrated catastrophe assessment’? It is time for the scientific community to grapple with the challenge of better understanding catastrophic climate change.
The paper then states:
How bad could climate change get? As early as 1988, the landmark Toronto Conference declaration described the ultimate consequences of climate change as potentially ‘second only to a global nuclear war.’ Despite such proclamations decades ago, climate catastrophe is relatively under-studied and poorly understood. [Boldface added]
This is complete non-science, based on speculation, not physical evidence. Over the past 40 years, there have been great advances in understanding what is occurring in the atmosphere. This physical evidence does not support the claims of catastrophic climate change. The exaggerations are mindless. Accepting this advice is as foolish as accepting the advice of a heart specialist who has ignored the advances in understanding heart disease over the past 40 years.
In 1980 the US death rate from heart diseases was 412 per 100,000 in population; in 2018 164 per 100,000, a decline of 60%. ...
*****************
The Power of Money – Australia: For years, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) has produced reports of the decline of the Great Barrier Reef, which is called as proof of dangerous global warming. According to reports, the government of Australia pledged $700 million to protect the reef against climate change and global warming. The just released Annual Summary Report of Coral Reef Conditions by AMS shows that the Reef is in the best conditions it has been in 36 years of monitoring. Amazing how fast corals can recover with money!
The new study includes observations from divers in addition to observations from airplanes and on-board ship. As Jo Nova states:
“We know that corals bleached all the way back in 1862, and probably have for millions of years, there were just not many scuba divers to record it.
“This study is an absolute blockbuster in terms of busting the myth that corals are on the verge of extinction. Spread the word.”
Jennifer Marohasy, a diver who has long stated that observations from airplanes and ships are highly biased, gives a little background using John Brewer Reef:
“I found it impossible to reconcile what I had observed with the results of their aerial survey claiming major coral bleaching. The aerial survey was undertaken by Neil Cantin.
“The results from the aerial surveys, as reported in a series of social media posts by David Wachenfeld from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), generated worldwide media headlines suggesting that this coral reef (John Brewer Reef) was dead and dying.
“Yet I had never seen a more colourful coral reef, and the fish were exquisite not to mention the white tipped reef shark, nudibranchs, sea anemones and so on.
Marohasy requested but never was given aerial photographic evidence of coral bleaching.
*****************
More Water Vapor: The eruption of Tonga-Hunga may be the greatest disturbance of the atmosphere since the Krakatoa eruption of 1883, greater than disturbances caused by testing nuclear weapons. The plain language summary of the paper states:
“Using measurements from the Microwave Limb Sounder on NASA’s Aura satellite, we estimate that the excess water vapor is equivalent to around 10% of the amount of water vapor typically residing in the stratosphere. Unlike previous strong eruptions, this event may not cool the surface, but rather it could potentially warm the surface due to the excess water vapor.”
The stratosphere is above the tropopause where most water freezes out. It is characterized by temperature layers, with temperatures increasing with altitude. Will NASA’s climate modelers include this disturbance in their calculations? See links under Changing Earth.
*****************
Number of the Week: 3.7 W/m2 equals?? AMO physicist Howard Hayden points out that the IPCC in the Fourth Assessment Report, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change” (AR4, 2014, Chapter 9) asserts that the climate forcing from a doubling of carbon dioxide will be 3.7 watts per square meter (3.7 W/m2). However, based on graphs presented (Fig 9.20 p 720), but without necessary numbers on the top line for increased Surface Radiation (W/m2), the 3.7 W/m2 works out to be less than 1 °C, less than the lowest estimate in the written text. In grammar, we learned not to have dangling modifiers. Is this an example of dangling a number (or noun)? See https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter9-1.pdf