We're getting there Jerry. Rogs last comments really do show his knowledge of all of this is very limited. Surely there are other here lurking that can see this. I suggest that people take what Rog has said here and take it far and wide to troubleshoot because just this small sample is full of flaws in terms of the complete dynamics of what is happening. Give guys like Rog time and they eventually hang themselves rather than just damage their feet. Post this small quote at any science climate blog and see the scrutiny you get;

Rog said,

"Stop worrying Jerry. The top two metres of the ocean have more heat capacity than the entire atmosphere above it. Sunlight penetrates 100 metres into the water. That heat can't escape again quickly enough before dawn until the temperature at the surface rises high enough to convect, conduct and radiate at the rate required for equilibrium. The ocean itself is the reason the temperature of the surface of the planet is what it is, not as the result of some mythical atmospheric greenhouse effect.

You only have to think about why it is that the ocean surface is on average 2C warmer than the air to work it out. The Sun heats the ocean, the ocean heats the air, and the air loses heat to space. If the air gets slightly thicker as a result of increased co2, it will make almost no difference to surface temperature because the atmospheric greenhouse effect is tiny compared to the ocean hot water bottle effect."

Rog also said, "Dan, first of all, thank you for your interest in my website. I started it quite a while after the discussion here began, so that's why you won't have seen me mention it in the earlier part of this debate you've been reading."

I already stated that you started your blog well after this one began. That's why I posted the date of that; November 29, 2009. So you didn't really answer my question. This date also has some other significance.

This in not true either; "At the time we started debate here, the bigger issue was getting the Sun's effect on climate recognised at all".

Edited by wildlife on 02/23/2012 13:07:44 MST.

Here's some expansion on what I'm pointing out, for the interest of people with more insight than Dan. This is pasted from a current debate at my website:

The surface of the ocean is on average 2C warmer than the air above. Solar energy passes through the atmosphere relatively unhindered on its way into the top 100m of the ocean, where it deposits most of the energy the earth absorbs. Joel wants me to believe the ocean is heated from the top down by the air. This is not possible, because:

1) All the heat transfer processes are moving energy and heat upwards not downwards. Net radiation ~60W/m^2 upwards. Convection – upwards. Latent heat of vaporisation and the upward buoyancy of water vapour. Coupled with the inability of longwave to penetrate the surface of the ocean beyond its own wavelength the picture is pretty clear.

2) As joel now agrees, backradiation doesn’t heat the surface. He says now that I’ve called him on it that it slows the rate of cooling. It doesn't do this to anything like the extent that the internal resistance of water to the passage of longwave radiation does however. Water is also a poor conductor of heat. Convection is the main way heat moves upwards in water.

3) The ‘surfaces’ we are interested in are, roughly speaking, the bottom of the well mixed layer in the ocean, and the tropopause. The surface we live at falls between these two. It is at the temperature it is because of the heat retaining effects of liquid water, air and water vapour. Oh, and the 0.039% of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide. ;)

4) By far the biggest heat retainer of these elements is the liquid water in the ocean. The top two metres of it has a heat capacity equal to the entire atmosphere above it. It is at the temperature that it is because it can’t get rid of solar energy as fast as it acquires it unless it gets up to 288K. At that temperature, the water is able to overcome the effect of atmospheric pressure which sets the evaporation rate, and heat the air sufficiently to cause convection and radiation at a rate suitable for equilibrium to be reached. The ocean heats the air, not the other way round. It’s easy to tell that this is true for two principle reasons. (i) On average the ocean surface is 2C warmer than the air above it. (ii) The global average lower troposphere temperature changes lag behind changes in SST by several months.

5) Joel shares with climate scientists like Ray-Pierre Humbert (I use the term loosely) the delusion that only atmospheric gases with radiative properties can lift the temperature of Earth’s surface above 255K – how wrong they are. The thermal capacity of the ocean is the 400lb gorilla in the room.

the 255K ‘effective temperature’ is the temperature seen from space, and is the temperature the earth has to radiate at in order to lose the same 240W/m^2 it receives from the Sun. There isn’t any dispute over that, so far as I know. The point that is contentious is that the warmies claim that is the temperature the surface would be at without the warming effect of greenhouse gases.

They have things upside down as usual.

The inaptly named greenhouse gases radiate the heat accumulated by the oceans away from Earth into space. The downwelling so called 'back radiation' is inconsequential given the upward flow of heat from surface to tropopause caused by convection and evapo-transpiration. The net flow of radiation is upwards to the extent of around 60W/m^2 anyway. The primary role of GHG's is in cooling the planet not warming it. The Sun heats the ocean, the ocean heats the air, the GHG’s help the air lose the heat back to space.

Edit: Typos.

Edited by tallbloke on 02/23/2012 13:37:03 MST.

"1) All the heat transfer processes are moving energy and heat upwards not downwards"

Water in the arctic gets cooler, sinks, flows to the equator, rises, warms, flows back to arctic

If the ocean warms because of CO2, then that water that sinks in the arctic will be warmer than it would have been otherwise. It'll still be cooler than the surrounding water or it wouldn't sink, but it will be warmer than it would have been, so that's an example of a heat transfer process that goes downward.

Dan says:
I already stated that you started your blog well after this one began. That's why I posted the date of that; November 29, 2009. So you didn't really answer my question. This date also has some other significance.


Lol. Dan is still trying to insinuate that I'm the person who copied the CRU's emails from their server. Give it up Dan, the police have said on three occasions I'm not suspected of any crime.

Jerry says:
Water in the arctic gets cooler, sinks, flows to the equator, rises, warms, flows back to arctic

Have a think about this Jerry.

Why does the surface water get cooler? Because it easily conducts its warmth to the cold arctic air, which rapidly convects the heat upwards where it gets radiated to space.

If the ocean warms because of CO2, then that water that sinks in the arctic will be warmer than it would have been otherwise.

Well as I pointed out above, back radiation from the air can't heat water, because it can't penetrate the surface beyond its own wavelength. This is well understood physics. What the pro AGW scientists will tell you is that more co2 theoretically raises the altitude at which the effective height of radiation to space takes place, and that this must cause the surface to warm. What they won't explain is any viable mechanism by which this can occur. If the air got warmer, then it would fractionally affect the rate at which convection would occur, but at the same time it would speed up evaporation, so the effect would cancel. The water cycle has a lot of spare capacity, and there are very strong negative feedbacks which tend to keep the climate system stable.

The ocean did warm in the late C20th though, before it started cooling again around 2003. The cause of this was an active sun and diminished cloud cover over the tropics, as measured by ISCCP satellites. Unlike longwave radiation from co2 molecules, the Sun is very good at heating the ocean, as its rays penetrate 300 feet or so into it and warm the water.

Edited by tallbloke on 02/23/2012 14:13:51 MST.

Rog, it sounds like you accept that more evaporation and precipitation is happening. Although, this dynamic cools things temporarily and locally it does not take the Co2 from the atmosphere and the negative feedback cycle will continue. This is why they call it Climate Change.

Rog, this is a backpacking site, it is not the place for a professional climate denier blogger to set up house. I don't think the people here have the time or the will to fully respond to you - I certainly don't. In that sense you will always have the upper hand and that is not a level playing field. I would at least like some response from others regarding this. I'm not asking for censorship but how many others here are pros and do this full time? How many other here have time to climate blog here as well as all the other climate blogs and even have time to travel to Lisbon and gift Judith Curry with a 'Climate Science in the Trashcan T-Shirt? I think the managers of this site should take a look at this even though this is just CHAFF. I think what is going on here is insidious since the normal people here really don't have the time to continually defend real science.

Edited by wildlife on 02/23/2012 14:23:42 MST.

"This is a backpacking site, it is not the place for a professional climate denier blogger to set up house. I don't think the people here have the time or the will to fully respond to you - I certainly don't. In that sense you will always have the upper hand and that is not a level playing field... I think what is going on here is insidious since the normal people here really don't have the time to continually defend real science."


That's what he relies on. It's much easier to bully folks here, on a fringe backpacking site (of all things). He might find talking to experts a bit more vexing.

By the way, you should try the opposite. It's fun. You can't believe how easy it is to clown climate scientists about their utter lack of ultralight backpacking skills. I go on the forums at www.climatescience.org and absolutely WRECK folks there who don't know a THING about cuben poncho-tarps and using gravel as toilet paper. The heavy-packista and ultralight-deniers over there are simple-minded simpletons who can't hold a tealight to my massive ultralight backpacking intellect! You should try it. You'll feel GREAT about yourself afterwards.

Edited by DaveT on 02/23/2012 14:25:58 MST.

"I go on the forums at www.climatescience.org and absolutely WRECK folks there who don't know a THING about cuben poncho-tarps and using gravel as toilet paper."

Hilarious Dave - I got a good laugh from that

Dan says:
I'm not asking for censorship but

Yes you are.

I've been contributing to this site (not just this thread) for a long time, on diverse subjects across the forums. I design and make ultralight stoves, kettles, tents, packs (much lighter than yours) and clothing.

I've left many trip reports, photos and MYOG tips. I have a lot of friends here.

I don't think you have much interest in learning about how to forecast weather or understand climate. You just want to get me shut down because you disagree with me even though you don't know what you are talking about, or understand what I'm talking about.

If you don't like it, don't read it. Go away and bother someone else.

Anyway Dan, you'll be pleased to know you'll be able to jabber on here unopposed for a couple of weeks, because I'm flying to Spain with my lady on Saturday to backpack around Andalucia and look at some growing land that's for sale on the Costa Tropical.

I'll write and post the trip report before I check in here, so I can spin out the joy for a while longer before I have to deal with whatever you've been dribbling about while I've been away.

"I'm flying to Spain with my lady on Saturday to backpack around Andalucia and look at some growing land that's for sale on the Costa Tropical."

I take it not with your Mchale Pack....; )

of the longest thread in BPL history? Unlikely, but I have been following this thread with interest the last few days. I have to say Dan, it looks like you are waving the white flag. Roger has for the most part been very respectful. You can chose to respond or not. If everyone thinks that all his posts are rubbish then the thread will die. I love to see alternative theories to a subject that is at best only partially understood.

Unfortunately the truth will be hard to find. There is a huge amount of money going toward the "industry" of global warming. Likewise there is an equally upsurd money being spent by those interests that want to maintain the status quo in respect to energy usage.

Yeah, that's funny Dave. :>) That brings things into perspective - swapping fringe for fancy.

I did say a few posts back, "Rog, it sounds like you accept that more evaporation and precipitation is happening. Although, this dynamic cools things temporarily and locally it does not take the Co2 from the atmosphere and the negative feedback cycle will continue. This is why they call it Climate Change."

Rog would rather respond with "Dan is not interested in understanding climate science."

Nevertheless, the negative feedbacks we are getting in rain will not get rid of the ever expanding CO2 mass and bring us back to a previous equilibrium. The negative feedbacks will continue. The warming skeptics feel fine with this because they see it as a win because they can point out that things are not warming as rapidly as predicted, but things are continually warming. The ocean is continually getting warmer for instance, which is what is wrong with one of Rog's other posts. He wants people to think that only the upper reaches are affected that sunlight can reach and radiate the heat back to space, when in fact, the ocean is warming through mixing and convection from the surface down and has been warming for many years now. It is warming because not as much of the ocean's energy sink of heat is radiating back out as before because it is better insulated from a number of added gases, not just CO2.

Edited by wildlife on 02/23/2012 21:40:58 MST.

I enjoy reading this thread, even though i don't understand a lot of the science.
Hopefully Dan will fail in his attempt to curtail free speech.
The day that alternative views are curtailed will be a very sad day indeed.

Hi Dan

> I think the managers of this site should take a look at this even though this is just CHAFF.
I read every posting, out of interest.

> normal people here really don't have the time to continually defend real science.
Ah, real science will look after itself in time. Is RogT right or wrong? Time will tell. I don't know.

> the negative feedbacks we are getting in rain will not get rid of the ever expanding CO2 mass
> and bring us back to a previous equilibrium.
Seems to me there is an assumption here, that just getting rid of the 'excess' CO2 will get us back to the previous state of stability. In essence, that seems to be one of the core items under dispute. I think.

Cheers
Roger Caffin
Online Community Monitor
Backpacking Light

Edited by rcaffin on 02/24/2012 02:15:42 MST.

"The inaptly named greenhouse gases radiate the heat accumulated by the oceans away from Earth into space. The downwelling so called 'back radiation' is inconsequential given the upward flow of heat from surface to tropopause caused by convection and evapo-transpiration. The net flow of radiation is upwards to the extent of around 60W/m^2 anyway. The primary role of GHG's is in cooling the planet not warming it. The Sun heats the ocean, the ocean heats the air, the GHG’s help the air lose the heat back to space"

GHG's cool the planet? Sorry, but that is absurd and demostrably untrue. The 'other' GHG is water vapour and it is obvious to anyone that the air and ground cool much more on a cloudless night than on a cloudy night. The same principle holds for CO2 - the air and earth will lose more heat without it than with it.

Nice one Roger C - thank you.

Indeed, science is eventually self correcting, although as recent revelations around the Gleick FakeGate affair demonstrate, the amount of money being pumped in on either side is very unequal indeed and this may allow the Lysenkoist tendency to maintain a strnaglehold over the science for a while yet.

Heartland Institute taking on the mightily well moneyed NGO and GO's with $6million a year? Small beer compared to Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Soros backed propaganda machine.

Stuart: Yes, nightime clouds retain heat, but daytime clouds block out sunlight. The overall feedback is negative, increased cloud cover makes the surface cooler. When I say GHG's primary function is helping the atmosphere to lose heat to space, I am correct, because radiation is the only means by which the atmosphere can lose heat to space. Only around 80W/m^2 goes direct from ground to space, and that leaves the majority of the heat the Earth has to shed to remain in equilibrium with incoming solar radiation (another 160W/m^2) to be radiated to space by the atmosphere. Oxygen and Nitrogen can't do it with their very limited radiative properties, so it's down to the GHG's, water vapour and co2 and ozone to deal with it.

And they do the job very effectively. On the other hand, the 'back radiation' from the GHG's which is downwelling towards the earth's surface is easily overcome by the fact that more radiation is going up than down. The net flow is ~60W/m^2 upwards. Plus the fact that the free path length for emitted photons is very short, and are absorbed by molecules which are thereby heated , and become more buoyant and rise in convection. The troposphere is dominated by non-radiative processes.

Dan: You say things are still getting hotter, but the global average surface temperature trend is flat over the last decade, during which time, co2 emissions have increased, and the airborne fraction of co2 has increased some 8%. The argument goes:
"Well, natural variation can negate the heating for a decade or more, despite the underlying upward trend due to co2"

But if the negative phase of natural variation can nix the increase due to co2, then how much of the late C20th warming did the positive phase of natural variation account for? Logic says: at least half

Nevertheless Roger, the rain will not get rid of the CO2. You don't have any criticisms of the Rog's post that Robb pointed out? All makes sense to you?

Rog, please show us all where I said "Things are still getting hotter" I think hotter is your word. I said the oceans are still warming and you are probably aware of all the research being done regarding the Ocean soaking up much of the heat, along with cold ocean water upwelling, and there are feedbacks like melting ice. You said the oceans have not heated since 2003 and you believed that data from 'your' trusted sources - but that I think is one source that nobody else seems to trust. This decade that you call flatlined was the hottest decade on record - nice way you have of hiding that.

Keep up the good work Robb Stuart!

Edited by wildlife on 02/24/2012 12:15:09 MST.

dan m, while I admire your patience and perseverence, there's no bigger waste of time than arguing with denialists. It took a long time for the 'truth' that the world is flat and at the center of the universe to finally bend, then break. And that time was filled with probably thuosands of pages of drivel of equal value. I don't bother reading denialists anymore, too much is happening out here in reality to waste that time, and you can rest assured that time is truly wasted, there is zero chance of communication. When I want intelligent climate change analysis I check out realclimate.org, those guys are good at it, not, as is the case with denialists, dabblers (at best) or total charlatans (as the norm). Just as with conspiracy theorists, 'reason' here is used merely to construct the denial, that's why it's so flexible, as the last batch of 'facts' fades from view, new ones are grabbed and inserted into their stead, with nary a whisper of complaint for the old gray matter doing this shuffling. As opposed to real science, which actually builds up data and knowledge then forms conclusions based on that. That's why science per se refused to officially sanction what was obvious to common sense for decades, correctly so, the facts were not in, now they are. Roger, spare your breath, I really don't read guys like you, life is too short, there are professionals out there with time to track the actual reality, which following the general path of of, oh, cr@p, our worst case predictions were too conservative. The game is too big at this stage to expect humans to actually modify their behaviors, that would require change and sacrifice, hard things to negotiate when you are sold greed and other such non-virtues as social virtues. Wasting time at this stage reading such drivel and blather is a poor use of a college education, and yes, that's an ad hominum, but deserved. I agree, I don't want to seee this kind of garbage here, but then again, it's on chaff, and I never view chaff, except gby chance today, so I guess who really cares. Now my method is to say what I have to say when I know I'm talking to someone I know has zero interest in actual communication, then let them babble all they want after that, makes no difference to me, I just ignore it.

But I really do somewhat understand the instinct to preserve the norm one knows and understands, change isn't easy to handle, especially when that change will require huge alterations in behavior. I don't expect that type of change to happen, it's just too radical for our kind at this point in history, which is fine, start a ball rolling down hill like we have and it's hard to stop it, it's just somewhat sad to see people spend so much energy trying to deny it's rolling, doesn't really do anyone any good. Since the tipping points are approaching fast, a few more bytes of online chatter will sadly do nothing to change the facts, so I think it's better to just find more positive avenues if one actually has real passions in this area, bpl isn't one of them as far as I'm concerned. But ideologues always believe they have the truth at their hands, it's not the first time expanding collections of facts have forced prevailing ideologies to bend, andn it won't be the last, that's just how it goes I guess when you have a bunch of talking monkeys trying to make order out of the messes they have made.

Edited by hhope on 02/24/2012 12:36:37 MST.

Thanks very much Harald. One of the reasons I do this is to keep myself updated on the issue - and then I hope it spurs others to do there own research. The research takes much more time than the posting. You have to enter the fight where you find it. This is not new to me even though my recent appearence here makes it look so. I'll read your post more carefully when I have time but thank you and it's good to see the interest.

My forecast for Spain I made when i booked the flights 8 weeks ago seems to be holding good. The ten day forecast says 70f and sunny :-)

Dan says:
I said the oceans are still warming and you are probably aware of all the research being done regarding the Ocean soaking up much of the heat,

Ah yes, the new hiding place for Kevin Trenberth's 'missing heat'. Somehow, it made it down through 700m of cooling upper ocean and hid itself in the depths in full defiance of the second law of thermodynamics. Lol. The truth is, Kevin's 'missing heat' is somewhere past Alpha Centauri by now.

There's not a hope in hades Dan will understand this post on my website, but I'll provide the link anyway for anyone else who might be interested:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/

This decade that you call flatlined was the hottest decade on record

Well, in the modern warm period anyway. Plenty of Roman records of vinyards up by Hadrians Wall on the old border of Scotland. Nobody tried to emulate them in the last decade. Anyway Dan, there is no logical contradiction between a decade being warm, and flat.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2001/trend

The trend is up 0.05C from 0.15C above the average to 0.2C above the average. I won't be putting my down jacket on gear swap yet.

and there are feedbacks like melting ice.

There is no melting trend in the Antarctic over the last 30 years, where there has been the same co2 increase as we've seen in the north.

The trend in the north, which forms the upswing of the sixty year cycle visible for thousands of years in the Greenland ice cores shows a fall in arctic ice to 2007 and a recovery after, with a second low point last year. William Scoresby would have wet himself with excitement.