Arguments
Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Posted on 23 March 2024 by John Mason, BaerbelW
The Desmog Climate Disinformation Database documents, "individuals and organisations that have helped to delay and distract the public and our elected leaders from taking needed action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and fight global warming." It's a who's who of the organised climate change denial movement, in other words.
In Martin Durkin's recently released film, entitled, 'Climate - the Movie', 17 academics, retired academics and bloggers were interviewed. How big a proportion of them have their own page in the DeSmog database? Go on, have a guess.
It's 76%.
Climate change denial is like a kind of flying circus. This same old carnival troupe is wheeled out time and again to spread doubt about climate science. Why? Because that's what they are good at doing, with decades of combined experience under their belts.
More than 2 dozen long-debunked myths
The first 42-odd minutes of this 80 minute long festival of misinformation, once the initial 'elevator-pitch' is done with, are dedicated to "The Science". But instead of that, what one is exposed to is a veritable Gish-gallop of climate myths, with the phrase, "we are told" liberally scattered among them. In order of appearance, with the myth's fixed number in our database, here they are - click the links for the details:
With 25 myths (and a few more - see below), the list is rather long, so here is a one image summary with the ones we spotted check-marked:
Fig 1: most of the myths rehashed in the movie in one handy graphic (click for larger version)! To create your own “myth-bingo-card”, download it from here.
It would be fun to turn up at a Chinese takeaway with just the numbers, to see what you get. Mind you, it would be a pretty expensive surprise!
Additional myths and misdirections
There are a few claims that are not in our database. Did you know that at the height of the last glaciation, there was a "CO2 famine" that, had it gotten any worse, would have made life on Earth go extinct? No, neither did we. The claim may have originated from a post at the Wattsupwiththat? blog from June 2017, which doesn't present any actual evidence for it.
After that, the movie drifts off into a mixture of stuff. Apparently, until the 1980s, climate change was just a scare caused by a few radical environmentalists. Then Al Gore came along, there was limitless government money all of a sudden for climate research (so long as you sang to the same hymn-sheet) and a Consensus was formed, with which "to bludgeon opponents". Etcetera etcetera etcetera. Never mind the likes of Foote, Tyndall and Arrhenius, who in the 19th Century had pretty much worked out the greenhouse gas properties of CO2.
Fig 2: The History of Climate Science and how far back it goes. Image source
Next thing, we are subjected to 'Climate versus Freedom', which is a mishmash of populist conspiratorial themes that mention the World Economic Forum, the EU and various other perceived bogeymen. The BBC, who only recently stopped giving deniers equal exposure, are not spared. The environmental movement is, the movie mansplains, the “sworn enemy of free-market industrial capitalism”. Tired old cliches abound, for example the meme that workers, ”don’t attend climate protests because they’re too busy working". Meanwhile, "Big Government" wants nothing more than to control us, with comparisons made to Covid lockdowns. And on and on and on it goes.
Finally, they insist that climate mitigation measures will hurt the poor. Erm, are they forgetting that adverse climate events are already impacting the poor disproportionately? In the final thrashings of the movie, Chinese coal-fired power stations get a mention (no surprises there). When, the film pleads with its viewers, will people realise that climate change is an "invented scare", an assault on, "freedom and prosperity"? If you can get through to the end of this 80-minute assault on reality, medals, or maybe replacement head-vices, should be awarded. Arrhenius must be turning in his grave…
Other debunkings….
For three other takes on this non-documentary, see the review at DeSmog here, the one by Dave Vetter at The Climate Laundry here and a short video by The Disproof here.
Peter Hadfield - potholer54 - published a video debunking the movie on August 10, 2024:
Will changing one small ingredient (0.04%) of the earth's greenhouse gases (CO2) arrest gloabal warming (if that is what is happening)?
If the scientists(?) believe this to be the case, how will it be regulated to adjust the climate to maintain an average that is not too hot or cold?
If all anti-carbon emitting policies were implemented, what says the climate will not be too cool?
The other, obvious hole in the argument for drastic economic change in the name of cooling the planet, is that the sun is not factored into the equation (by the way, I am all for increasing efficiency and reducing waste). How will the climate be regulated (say changing one greenhouse gas does the trick) if the sun's intensity changes (sun spots), the reduction in carbon emission works, and it cools too much?
Another question I have is about other factor's, such as the recent eruption at Hunga Tonga. Apparently water vapor increased by 10% in the stratosphere.
Won't that affect the climate? How do the 'models' account for nature not doing what the computers predict?
There are a myriad of other questions. I haven't watched the movie yet, but will, with interest.
When I searched for the movie, this website popped up right under the movie heading.
It's always interesting to hear from the 'true believers'.
The whole thing is a sham of biblical proportions. You need just a modicum of reasoned thought to tell you so.
Will changing one small ingredient (0.04%) of the earth's greenhouse gases (CO2) arrest gloabal warming (if that is what is happening)?
If the scientists(?) believe this to be the case, how will it be regulated to adjust the climate to maintain an average that is not too hot or cold?
If all anti-carbon emitting policies were implemented, what says the climate will not be too cool?
The other, obvious hole in the argument for drastic economic change in the name of cooling the planet, is that the sun is not factored into the equation (by the way, I am all for increasing efficiency and reducing waste). How will the climate be regulated (say changing one greenhouse gas does the trick) if the sun's intensity changes (sun spots), the reduction in carbon emission works, and it cools too much?
Another question I have is about other factor's, such as the recent eruption at Hunga Tonga. Apparently water vapor increased by 10% in the stratosphere.
Won't that affect the climate? How do the 'models' account for nature not doing what the computers predict?
There are a myriad of other questions. I haven't watched the movie yet, but will, with interest.
When I searched for the movie, this website popped up right under the movie heading.
It's always interesting to hear from the 'true believers'.
The whole thing is a sham of biblical proportions. You need just a modicum of reasoned thought to tell you so.
Just had a quick look at your response regarding 'the sun'.
You say the 'irradiation level' has been measured with accuracy for the last 40 years, and shown little variation.
The sun has been influencing weather on earth for 4 and a half billion years. What about the earth's orbit, and it's distance from the sun?
Re - #51 diff01:
I'll break this up into Q&A because there's a range of questions:
Q. Will changing one small ingredient (0.04%) of the earth's greenhouse gases (CO2) arrest gloabal warming (if that is what is happening)?
A. CO2 has increased 50% since pre-industrial times. Can you imagine if sunshine became 50% stronger?
Q. If the scientists(?) believe this to be the case, how will it be regulated to adjust the climate to maintain an average that is not too hot or cold?
A. We have yet to see!
Q. If all anti-carbon emitting policies were implemented, what says the climate will not be too cool?
A. Already locked into further warming for centuries.
Q. How will the climate be regulated (say changing one greenhouse gas does the trick) if the sun's intensity changes (sun spots), the reduction in carbon emission works, and it cools too much?
A. Changes in total solar irradience across a sunspot cycle are very low, but not neglibible.
Q. Another question I have is about other factor's, such as the recent eruption at Hunga Tonga. Apparently water vapor increased by 10% in the stratosphere. Won't that affect the climate?
A. It may be accoutable for a few tenths of a degree of recent warming, but research continues.
Q. What about the earth's orbit, and it's distance from the sun?
A. You are referring to Milankovitch cycles that affect three orbital parameters. However they do so over tens of thousands of years, not in a couple of centuries.
diff01 @ 51,52:
If you want to apply a "modicum of reasoned thought", the answers to your questions are available if you look. Given your use of labels such as "true believers" and "sham", I doubt that your mind is open to any reasoned discussion, but here are a few pointers. Basically, your short post is kind of like the movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths.
Skeptical Science posts that are already linked in the OP:
Additional Skeptical Science posts:
I hope that if you come back with "a myriad of other questions", that you will have given them more than "a modicum of reasoned thought". So far, what you have said here suggests that your level of thought is at the "trifling" end of "modicum" (per Wictionary). Scientists, on the other had have given these issues a lot of thought.
NigelJ@49
You make the same point I am searching for - namely that "blips" in the temperature record can be driven by natural factors. What puzzles me is others on this thread, whilst they recognize these natural impacts, appear confident that the natural factors that we are aware of are "temporal and not significant" (my words) when pitted against the powerful impact of human GHG emissions. They rely on climate scientists for this - a group who are highly unlikely to admit the strength and frequency of natural factors is unpredicatble and hard to measure.
I think this is where the climate scientists tend to differ from the physicists and geologists, whose very existance does not require them to claim knowledge of all factors that impact the climate.
Two Dog @55,
I offer the following as an example of the incorrectness of your beliefs, and your apparent resistance to learning:
A combination of understood natural factors explain the 'blip' of warm global average surface temperatures in the early 1940s. That warm blip, along with the other aspects shared by others, especially nigelj, for your potential learning benefit, is a significant part of the total understanding of why there 'appeared to be no warming from 1940 to 1970 in spite of CO2 levels increasing'.
Frankly, Two Dog, you are continuing to put words in other people's mouths, and continuing to create strawman caricatures of climate science. Many people working in climate science are actually well-trained (if not primarily trained) in physics and geology. All you are doing is showing your abysmal ignorance of the science and the people involved.
I'll choose one example - in fact, the first example I decided to check. Michael Mann is often a target of the fake "skeptics". He is a well-respected member of the "climate science" community. You can find his biography at realclimate.org. Here is his academic training:
You should be embarrassed at how easy it is for people to show that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Once again, nobody has ever claimed "knowledge of all factors that impact the climate." Nobody has claimed that natural factors are not significant. Nobody has claimed that all natural factors are temporary (which is what I presume you have meant with your use of the term 'temporal').
Natural factors exist on a variety of time scales, from hours to thousands of years, and "climate science" has considered many of them, and found that many of them can be both measurable and predictable. And they have collected evidence to support the position that these factors are having impacts that are much less important that CO2 over the past few decades - and are extremely unlikely to become more important than CO2 in the coming decades.
What you have utterly failed to do is to provide any new "natural factor" that you think has not been considered and can possibly have a large enough impact to explain what is already fairly well-explained by the factors that we do know about and have quantified. It's time to put up, or shut up.
What you have done is refuse to actually engage in discussion with people that have pointed out your errors. You simply re-assert your unfounded and uniformed opinions. As OPOF says, you have an "apparent resistance to learning".
Before you comment again, I suggest that you read the Comments Policy, especially the part about excessive repetition. If you are only going to repeat your uninformed and unfounded strawman arguments, you should expect to see parts or all of your comments subject to moderation.
Two Dog @55
"You make the same point I am searching for - namely that "blips" in the temperature record can be driven by natural factors. What puzzles me is others on this thread, whilst they recognize these natural impacts, appear confident that the natural factors that we are aware of are "temporal and not significant" (my words) when pitted against the powerful impact of human GHG emissions"
Nobody has claimed natural factors are all 'insignificant' forcings. Only that the natural cycles are in a cooling or flat phase in recent decades so cannot explain the recent warming trend. However the solar cycle is not a particularly powerful factor, and if it was in a warming phase it would struggle to explain more than a small amount of the recent warming. Refer to the climate myth "It's the sun" on the left hand side of this page.
"They rely on climate scientists for this - a group who are highly unlikely to admit the strength and frequency of natural factors is unpredicatble and hard to measure."
Incorrect. Climate scientists freely admit that the frequency of natural factors can be unpredictable to an extent. I provided you with data on the solar cycle, ENSO, and The PDO oscillation which depicts the degree of regularity of these cycles. You can see there is a repeating cycle bit its not perfectly regular.This data is prepared by climate scientists.
In addition whether they are not precisely predictable doesnt stop us detecting how they are affecting temperatures at any given time.
Climate scientists are quite open about accuracy of data. If you dig into the details the data has error bars. However the data has generally good accuracy. Solar irradiance in particular is meaured by satellite sensors with reasonable accuracy, and the Sorce network used since 2003 is highly accurate:
www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarirrad.html
ENSO index is not that hard to measure with decent accuracy:
www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/enso/technical-discussion
"I think this is where the climate scientists tend to differ from the physicists and geologists, whose very existance does not require them to claim knowledge of all factors that impact the climate."
Incorrect. Most climate scientists are in fact physicists, geologists, chemistry graduates etc. There is a degree in climatology, but its very recent and not many climate scientists have that degree. It typically has modules in physics and geology anyway. I suggest google it for your local university.
Two Dog,
In 1989 Dr Hansen spoke before congress and warned the USA about Global Warming. He projected the temperature increase expected from human emissions. It is now 45 years after Dr Hansens projections. The temperature has increased almost exactly along the line Dr Hansen forecast. How do you explain the extraordinary accuracy of Dr. Hansens projections if scientists do not understand the climate system? You need to say what are very the strong natural processes causing the climate to change exactly at the time humans started releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere?
I note that the climate had been cooling for the 4,000 years previous to humans starting to release large amounts of greenhouse gasses. Can you explain why the Earth was cooling before humans started releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses but now unknown natural processes have turned into heating at a rate not seen in the geological record for many millions of years? What a wild coincidence!! Human emissions are estimated to have caused 105% of current warming (ie that natural forcings woud have cooled the Earth in the absence of human pollution). You are simply uninformed about the facts of global warming. If you inform yourself you will find out that scientists have investigated everything you question and found out that natural processes currently are cooling the Earth.
Scientists predicted in 1850 that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase surface temperature. Arhennius projected in 1894 the approximate amount of heating from increasing carbon dioxide would be similar to what has been observed. Why are the scientists of the 1800's "a group who are highly unlikely to admit the strength and frequency of natural factors"?
bob Loblaw 35
The evidence for the falling deaths rates are more than just a study.
Deaths stats are hard evidence - and hard to fudge
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters
You say it is because of adaptation and improvmentsin forecasting. I agree. But that is not really the anti alarmists point. Their point is :
If weather disaster deaths are declining and are never likely to return to previous levels . It really isn't much of an emergency
I have yet to hear a convincing rebuttal of that point.
Bob Loblaw at 57
Bobby L, I suggest you have a look at the comments policy and refrain from ad hominem attacks which, as you know, "gets us no closer to understanding the science". It is not my intention to put words in other peoples mouths and I have never professed to be an expert in this area. I am simply trying to understand why "natural factors" appear to be discounted to the extent that they are.
[Argumentative, repetitive claims snipped]
Nigel J - thanks again for a clear and understandable explanation.
[BL] Alas, you have now forced me to recuse myself from the discussion, and switch to moderator role.
Now, you are just trying to pick a fight. It is not one that you will win.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
For all readers:
Note that after posting his comment 60, WIlliam has jumped over to another thread to continue his discussion.
William: In that other thread, people have responded to you, pointing out that "disaster" includes an awful lot more than deaths. If someone hacked into your bank accounts and investments, stole everything, secured title to your home and sold it out from under you, and left you penniless on the streets, would you take the position that it's not an emergency and nothing needs to be done because you did not die?
Bob Loblaw @62 :
Yes, thanks for pointing out that William managed to get his arguments very wrong on two different threads on the same day.
Fingers crossed he doesn't open up in a third thread
. . . and attempt the Triple Whammy ;-)
Two Dog, I don't want to be dog-piling, but I am very curious as to how you assess evidence when you are examining a question like global warming? We are seeing the same information, and yet to my mind you are fixating on the very unlikely or what you seem to think is unknownable rather than the obvious, the observable and the extremely likely. Other commentors have commented on your tendency to push what they see as straw-man arguments - you seem to be confident the scientists say things or work in ways that they dont. I am curious as to what informed assertions like these?
Can I assume that you comfortable with conservation of energy? So that any change in temperature involves moving or transforming energy. Consider total ocean heat content - a much less noisy measure than surface temperature and the ocean is where most of the heat is going.
The blips you see here in the red on this record are the near-surface action of ENSO - when the upwelling of warm water to surface heats the atmosphere but cools the ocean.
Do you agree that all that heat has to come from somewhere whether it is natural or anthrogenic? If your priors are to assume it is natural, then how do you start to think about what might be causing it and what measurements would you like to make to verify or falsify?
Also, you do realise that increased radiation from the CO2 has been directly measured? In terms of likelihood, the match between the amount of excess radiation and increased ocean heat content would be strong evidence for anthropegic warming for most people. I am assuming your priors would try to discount that so again, what do you think happens to excess radiation from the greenhouse effect and what kind of measurements would you use to verify?
Scadd - #64
Thanks for the explanation and appreciate the civility, I don't consider it a dog-pile(on?) to reply - and its nice not to be accused of "abysmal ignorance" and told to "put up or shut up".
I get the fact the planet is warming and your sea temperature chart is more compelling for the reasons you cite, although I would like to understand where this temperature is measured and the average obtained - but I do not doubt the trend. I also agree the heat has to come from somewhere and, to be clear, I have no preference for theories of man-made sources or natural sources. My point remains that we are not dealing with a world in perfect temeprature equilibrium, so I feel uneasy discounting natural sources as significant when their impact is all too obvious when looking at the historical temperature record. I have no idea "which natural sources" I am referring to but I am fairly confident we are unable to accurately measure and predict them. However, so long as the temperature continues to rise in line with C02 emmissions I think the man-made argument becomes more and more compelling but a few years blip and, for me, it becomes open to considerable doubt. That is why the 30 year period of little warming looks suspicious to me (and I now know the explanation some have for this)
I did also read that the warming effect of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases so the warming is expected to reduce over time. Is there any truth in that?
[BL] I tried to give you a gentle nudge to change your behaviour. You are not listening.
The "put up or shut up" challenge was preceded with this statement:
What you have utterly failed to do is to provide any new "natural factor" that you think has not been considered and can possibly have a large enough impact to explain what is already fairly well-explained by the factors that we do know about and have quantified.
You now state:
I have no idea "which natural sources" I am referring to but I am fairly confident we are unable to accurately measure and predict them.
This is your problem: you are "fairly confident" about topics you "have no idea" about. Non-perfection creates "considerable doubt" in your mind. Do you realize how your confidence in the absence of an argument or evidence makes you look?
Two Dog @65. All that additional heat energy accumulating in the oceans has to come from somewhere. Possible candidates are anthropogenic warming, increased solar activity, and an increase in sub sea geothermal or volcanic activity.
Scientists have ruled out solar forcing and geothermal or volcanic activity. It's really hard for me to see where else that quantitiy of energy could come from if not those three possibilities. Just waving your hands and saying there may be something else isnt remotely convincing to me. Its just so implausible and such a vanishingly small possibility and so unlikely.
A Netherlands journalist, Maarten Keulemans, tried to denigrate Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth in about 50 tweets using much of the same arguments posted to here on SkepticalScience. I successfully debunked all of his arguments in 16 tweets (originally I intended 20) listed below, and so I was just honored with being interviewed for a Dutch TV segment regards how the Climate the Movie promotes vital scientific debate. Too often alarmists try to suppress debate with weak arguments or denigrating the opposition as deniers. However I doubt alarmists can refute any of my arguments, but I will gladly entertain your arguments.
1 Denigrating the Climate Reconstruction graph by Ljungqvist https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771929435366940908…
2 Keulemans' Medieval Warm Period lie https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771933673488789868…
3 Contamination of Instrumental by Urbanization https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771939656504062260…
4 The Best USA temperature Statistic! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771947116631580724…
5 Ocean Warming Facts https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771957182407536940…
6 US Heat Waves https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771963700951527487…
7 It is the Sun Stupid! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771977013576024282…
8 Alarmists know better than Nobel Prize Winners ! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771987039631921454…
9 Wildfires: Liar Liar Keulemans' Pants on Fire https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772000151596572844…
10 The Dangers of CO2 Sequestration and CO2 Starvation https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772016867265380795
11 Models Running Hot! Keulemans Disgraceful attack on the most honest Dr John Christy! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772081300884852829…
12 Keulemans’ Blustering Hurricane Fears
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772319957042479298
13. Dishonestly Defining Natural Climate Factors
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1773395443864736058
14. Denying Antarctica’s Lack of Warming
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1773473481637957758
15. Misinformation on CO2’s Role in Warming Interglacials during our Ice Age.
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1773777313924297210
16. Science journalists vs grifting propagandists – Antarctica
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1774428539858907444
Two dog. The OHC content data in red comes from the Argo array. You can find reasonable description here. The old pentadecadal data is ship-based and has much bigger error bars. I cant immediately find the paper that determined the accuracy of the Argo data but if interested I am sure I dig it out.
On interannual and to some extent the decadal scales, variations in surface temperature are strongly influenced by ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, but I think you would agree that the increasing OHC rules that out as cause of global warming?
"I did also read that the warming effect of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases so the warming is expected to reduce over time. Is there any truth in that?"
Sort of - there is a square law. If radiation increase from 200-400 is say 4W/m2, then you have to increase from CO2 from 400 to 800ppm to get 8W/m2. However, that doesnt translate directly into "warming" because of feedbacks. Water vapour is powerful greenhouse gas and its concentration in the atmosphere is directly related to temperature. Also as temperature rises, albedo from ice decreases so less radiation is reflected back. Worse, over century level scales, all that ocean heat reduces the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2. From memory, half of emissions are currently being absorbed there. Hot enough and the oceans de-gas. These are the calculation which have to go into those climate models.
Which brings us to natural sources. Geothermal heat and waste heat are insignificant so would you agree that the only natural source of that extra heat would be the sun? Now impact of sun on temperature has multiple components that climate models take into account. These are:
1/ variations in energy emitted from the sun.
2/ screening by aerosols (natural or manmade). Important in 20th century variations you see.
3/ changes in albedo (especially ice and high cloud)
4/ The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Now climate scientist would say that changes to all of those can account for all past natural climate change using known physics. They would also say very high confidence that 1/ to 3/ are not a significant part of current climate change (you can see the exact amount for each calculated in the IPCC report). Why are they confident? If you were climate scientist investigating those factors, what would you want to measure to investigate there effects? Seriously, think about that and how you might do such investigations.
Is it possible there is something we dont understand at play? Of course, but there is no evidence for other factors. You can explain past and present climate change with known figures so trying to invoke the unknown seems to be clutching at straws.
scaddenp: I am unsure why you claim "On interannual and to some extent the decadal scales, variations in surface temperature are strongly influenced by ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, but I think you would agree that the increasing OHC rules that out as cause of global warming?"
Why?
Most studies I have reviewed, find that most heat flux(98%) leaves the oean and warms the air. I trust the Argo data that the oceans have slightly warmed, but Argo does not determine attribution.
It has been well established that the tropics absorbs more heat locally than it ventilates. And that outside the tropics more heat is ventilated than is absorbed. Because CO2 infrared never penetrates deeper than a few microns compared to deep solar heating, I argue solar heating of the oceans drives atmoispheric warming.
I addressed this in https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771957182407536940
jimsteele - well I havent heard that myth for a decade or so. So solar output isnt increasing but solar heating is?? I suggest that go over to Science of Doom who dealt with subject exhaustively in 2010. (4 parts in the end) If that doesnt convince you then I wont waste my time.
scaddenp: I am unsure why you claim "On interannual and to some extent the decadal scales, variations in surface temperature are strongly influenced by ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, but I think you would agree that the increasing OHC rules that out as cause of global warming?"
rn
Why?
rn
Most studies I have reviewed, find that most heat flux(98%) leaves the oean and warms the air. I trust the Argo data that the oceans have slightly warmed, but Argo does not determine attribution.
rn
It has been well established that the tropics absorbs more heat locally than it ventilates. And that outside the tropics more heat is ventilated than is absorbed. Because CO2 infrared never penetrates deeper than a few microns compared to deep solar heating, I argue solar heating of the oceans drives atmoispheric warming.
rn
I addressed this in https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771957182407536940
rn
rn
LOL you say "I havent heard that myth for a decade or so" Exactly what myth are you insinuating???
You seem unable to distinguish solar irradiance vs solar insolation!?Clouds provide a huge determination of solar insolation but not irradiance . Please explain your viewpoint. Otherwise it appears you dont know what you are talking about!
Jim, the myth that backradiation cant warm the ocean. I freely admit the author of Science of Doom knows more about this than I do, so I suggest you take it up with him if find the argument unconvincing.
Jimsteele : help me understand your position.
m
At the most basic level :- solar radiation at visible wavelengths does penetrate 10's of meters into the ocean. (As a scuba diver, I can vouch for this.)
At other wavelengths, into the infrared & longer, there is shallow or deep penetration, but the actual penetration flux is tiny in comparison to the visible light. (That includes the infrared flux radiated from CO2 in the lowermost few meters of atmosphere.)
Then we have a large flux of energy (both out of and into the ocean) from molecular vibrations at the ocean/air interface ~ vibrations of molecules of water / water vapor / nitrogen / and oxygen. I have not chased down the magnitude of such flux into and out of the ocean ~ but presumably that magnitude is huge.
In summary ; the ocean receives heat predominantly from light energy and from conduction from the atmosphere. CO2 molecules have only a very tiny direct ocean-warming effect ~ but arguably a huge indirect warming effect through CO2's action as a greenhouse gas warming the planet's atmosphere.
Have I understood that correctly ?
scaddenp SCIENCE OF DOOM had many accurate posts but regards heating the ocean he/she failed miserably. So I ould appreciate hearing your understanding, instead of pawning the issue off to someone else.
He first presented the idea of conduction as important for OC2 heating with "Once you establish a temperature difference you inevitably get heat transfer by conduction"
Indeed, the diurnal warm layer created by greater subsurfac heating by the sun created heat conduction towards the skinlayer which is the only layer from which heat can leave the ocean.
Once infrared heats the ocean's coup;le of micron skin surface, the warmer surface begins emitting infrared and cools the skin surface. Basic physics! Heating the skin surface also increases evaporative cooling and 98% of the time the atmosphere is warmed by contact with the ocean's skin surface. Basic physics does not indicate CO2 infrared can heat the ocean.
Hi Eclectic, No you are wrong to claim "In summary ; the ocean receives heat predominantly from light energy and from conduction from the atmosphere."
Conduction is negigible if at all.
The diurnal warm layer created by greater subsurface heating from the sun creates heat conduction out of the ocean and towards the skinlayer which is the only layer from which heat can leave the ocean.
Once infrared heats the ocean's couple of micron thick skin surface, the warmer surface begins emitting infrared and cools the skin surface. Basic physics! Heating the skin surface also increases evaporative cooling and 98% of the time the atmosphere is warmed by contact with the ocean's skin surface. Basic physics does not indicate CO2 infrared can heat the ocean.
Jim, what about turbulent mixing?
Hi John,
Warming the surface stratifies the oceans' upper layers. Turbulent mixing mostly increases the cooling effect by bringing warmer subsurface water to the skin surface. The ocean's mixed layer deepens in the winter as the upper layer cools.
Jimsteele @76 :
You have answered incompletely. Have I missed something basic in physics or in logic ? e.g. ~
Solar shortwave radiation -> ocean
ocean heat -> atmosphere by molecular vibration and by IR radiation
atmospheric heat -> ocean (predominantly by molecular vibration, but a small component of IR radiation too)
CO2 -> greenhouse effect -> lower atmosphere warming [lapse rate]
Ergo, CO2 provides a large (but indirect) amount of ocean warming.
?
Eclectic, you missed something basic in physics and in logic ?
Eclectic to be more complete
First understand, CO2 infrared only penetrates a few microns depth compared to solar heating that warms the sub-surface for several meters depth, creating the diurnal warm layer
Second, the ocean’s skin layer is the only layer where heat can ventilate from the ocean. Absorbed solar heat creates a temperature gradient where conduction moves heat from the diurnal warm layer up towards the skin surface and out to the atmosphere. 98% of the time the ocean heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not heat the ocean.
The skin surface is always the coolest layer because as soon as any downward infrared from greenhouse gases heats the skin surface, the skin surface radiates that heat away as the laws of physics dictate! Furthermore, any heating of the skin surface increases evaporation and promotes evaporative cooling. And finally the skin surface heat is conducted away by the atmosphere. Thus even at night after most solar heat has been ventilaated, the skin surface is cooler than subsurface layers.
Measurements show the skin surface radiates away infrared from the combined inputs of solar heating that rises to the skin surface and infrared heating absorbed in the skin surface. The skin surface cannot trap heat. However subsurface layers trap heat because of the time delay of that heat reaching the skin surface to ventilate. Furthermore, heat is trapped in the ocean where ever solar heated subsurface layers are overlain by fresher water that suppresses convection.
To better understand this dynamic watch or read: Science of Solar Ponds Challenges the Climate Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl3_YQ_Vufo&t=17s
Jimsteele @81 :
Thank you ~ but the analysis is still incomplete. Possibly some semantic obfuscation or confusion is impeding the basic physical picture.
Over a 24 hour cycle or 365 day cycle, the interesting variations in the topmost few microns of ocean are unimportant. What is important is the overall flux of energy into & out of the ocean ~ for that is what maintains the ocean's temperature structure (stratification) and long-term heat content. And the ocean is responsible for a large slice of the atmosphere's heat content & stratification (indirectly). It goes both ways.
Remove CO2 and the lesser greenhouse gasses . . . and the ocean temperature would decrease . . . and the surface few microns would be ice (and the deeper ocean would freeze as well).
Ergo ~ and in straightforward language ~ it can be accurately said that CO2 has a major effect in warming the planetary ocean.
Eclectic, First the skin surface dynamics are essential. The skin surface is the only layer from which heat can leave the ocean.
Second It is your narrative that grossly incomplete! You make a totally unsubstantiated assertion that without CO2 the oceans would freeze. You totally ignore solar heating. However the heat flux into the ocean primarily happens due to tropical solar heating in the eastern oceans, where La Nina like conditions reduce cloud cover and increase solar heating. The ocean sub surface can trap heat but the skin surface cannot.
Jimsteele @83 :
Certainly the ocean skin surface is the gateway through which heat enters & leaves the ocean. (Other than the large flux of solar radiation which penetrates deeply into the ocean ~ we scuba divers can definitely see that occurring ! )
But as I mentioned above, the skin surface dynamics do not disturb the long-term equilibrium of energies, over the course of days and years. Surely that is obvious to you. Please do not confuse & distract yourself with the ephemeral fluctuations in the surface few microns of oceanic water.
Also ~ do not distract yourself with thinking about the different heat fluxes in the tropic / temperate / and polar zones of the planet. Those zones have their own long-term equilibrium positions, and their existence (and fluctuations) won't change the medium-term equilibrium of the total planet.
Second ~ please educate yourself about the paleo history of Earth . . . and its "iceball" phases. Yes, the paleo evidence indicates low armospheric CO2 produces "iceball" oceanic freezing. In addition to that evidence, the basic physics of Earth's planetary orbital distance and the incident solar radiation on Earth . . . indicate that the Earth's oceans would become meters-deep in ice, if the atmospheric "greenhouse" effect were to disappear.
Jim ~ you would lose all scientific credibility if you assert that the so-called greenhouse effect does not exist. Please step back from the brink . . . and reconsider your position.
Gentlemen:
The proper place to be carrying on this discussion about ocean heating is on this thread:
https://skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
Yes, the original post in that link is from 2011, but it is still open for comments.
Scaddenp is correct in pointing out (in comment 70 here) that jimsteele is regurgitating debunked myths from more than a decade ago. Jimsteele: please actually read the appropriate post and comments before you start repeating yourself.
Loblaw, You have said absolutely nothing to refute the science I preented here. Instead you try to eflect and redirect the issue. Not a very scientific approach. I will await your refutation here.
[BL] No, I was trying to give you a polite nudge to post things in places where there are on topic.
Skeptical Science has a Comments Policy. There is a link to it above the edit box you use to type in comments. You agreed to follow that policy when you signed up for an account. The first two sections of it are:
Since you have refused to follow that gentle advice, I have no choice but to enforce it more strongly. Any further off-topic posts will simply be deleted.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
I would also take issue with SkepticalScience claiming Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.
Polar bears are believed to be affected by reduced sea ice because their main prey, the ringed seal, remains in the Arctic all year and they give birth to their pups on the ice where they are very vulnerable to the bears.
• There are 2 types of sea ice. Land-fast ice and pack-ice. Unlike fast-ice, pack ice is mobile. When winds cause pack ice to collide with the shore or other ice slabs, the pack ice thickens as ice slabs are pushed on top of each other. Thick pack ice doesn’t melt completely in the summer. However, shifting winds can blow thick pack ice out of the Arctic, as happened in the 1990s9.
• Ringed seals depend on fast-ice. Thin fast-ice naturally melts completely by July, and then re-forms starting in October.To breathe, ringed seals must create breathing holes by head-butting through any newly forming thin ice. Then gnawing and clawing at the ice as it thickens, keeps their breathing holes open throughout the winter. Multi-year pack ice is too thick for seals to create breathing holes.
• Ringed seals mostly give birth to their pups on land fast-ice in March and April. Pups remain on the ice while nursing and then molting in June. Land-fast ice is thickest during the seals reproduction cycle and remains until late June. Seals then abandon the ice to hunt in open water starting in July and only crawl out on ice unpredictably to bask in the sun for a few hours. Melting ice after July has no effect on how available the seal pups are to bears.
• Polar bears gain almost all of their body fat in the late spring and early summer from feeding on baby ringed seals. In contrast, all bears lose weight during the winter when there is the greatest amount of ice. Feasting on baby seals from March thru June determines if the bears will survive the winter. Unlike feasting on baby seals, any feeding on ice or land after June is purely opportunistic. Pregnant females enter hibernation just as ice begins to reform and emerge only as ringed seals are giving birth
• Ringed Seal are so abundant they are considered a Species of Least Concern, so Arctic climate change does not appear to have had a negative effect.
• More open water from July to September increases sunlight reaching phytoplankton, generating greater photosynthesis and a more productive Arctic Ocean.3 Increased photosynthesis improves the whole Arctic food chain, eventually increasing fish populations that ringed seals depend upon. More ringed seals provide more food for polar bears.
• Since hunting polar bears was restricted, polar bear populations have increased.
[BL] Contents snipped - off topic.
Eclectic, LOL What are you talking about saying " Jim ~ you would lose all scientific credibility if you assert that the so-called greenhouse effect does not exist."
But truth is I have never denied the greenhouse effect. Your allegations are typical of alarmists trying to denigrate skeptics. Every skeptic I know totally understands the greenhouse effect and are grateful for its warming effect. The question is how much does further increased CO2 cause further warming and is that beneficial or not.
Your second funny is telling me not to get distracted by the details of the actual mechanisms of the ocean is warming, simply because you believe ,without ever substantiating, that there are equilibrium points that are unaffected by those proven dynamics.
Please educate yourself Eclectic.
[BL] Contents snipped - off-topic.
Eclectic, LOL What are you talking about saying " Jim ~ you would lose all scientific credibility if you assert that the so-called greenhouse effect does not exist."
But truth is I have never denied the greenhouse effect. Your allegations are typical of alarmists trying to denigrate skeptics. Every skeptic I know totally understands the greenhouse effect and are grateful for its warming effect. The question is how much does further increased CO2 cause further warming and is that beneficial or not.
Your second funny is telling me not to get distracted by the details of the actual mechanisms of the ocean is warming, simply because you believe ,without ever substantiating, that there are equilibrium points that are unaffected by those proven dynamics.
Please educate yourself Eclectic.
[BL] You're not getting the message. Re-post of off-topic deleted comment deleted again.
There are plenty of better threads here to discuss the Greenhouse effect. There is a box on the upper left of each page that says "Search". I'll let you try to figure out on your own what that is for.
Hmmmm. You deleted my polar bear post because you deemed it off topic despite the fact I was responding to SkS' original post calling
"Polar bear numbers are increasing" is a myth and then stating
"Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species."
Clearly I was on topic and your subjectively deleting my post that refuets SkS' claim!
[BL] Every single one of the entries in the table in the OP includes a link to the proper place where the topic can be discussed - and where the myths in the movie have been previously debunked.
I'll repeat the part from the Comments Policy, with added emphasis to the last part.:
Second, when you Bob told me to discuss this elsewheere I didnt know it was said by a moderator. You never made that clear, so it appeared you were just a random commenter deflecting the discussion.
I also believed the topic here was about the Climate the Movie and whether or not the facts presented in it were just refuted myths.
SkS topic 31 greenhouse stated the argument "Increasing CO2 has little to no effect" is a myth and that "The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements."
I had not argued about the greenhouse effect in general, just about how the ocean is warmed. Then Eclectic dishonestly alleged I denied the greenhouse effect. So please explain why his post is still up but my reply gets deleted?
[BL] I'll leave this intact for now, but the original comment advising where to take the discussion was a general comment to all involved.
The only comments of yours that have been deleted are the ones posted after the initial gentle warning. All posts prior to that have been left intact.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
The discussion of the heat transfer mechanisms at the ocean’s surface is irrelevant for understanding the mechanism of global warming caused by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. It neglects infrared radiant energy emitted from the surface and the overall global energy balance.
jimsteele @91 claims that he does not deny the “greenhouse effect”, yet the movie and his initial post @67 direct to myths about “global warming caused by increasing GHG emissions.” He reveals his lack of knowledge about the “greenhouse effect” when, @83, he accuses eclectic: “It is your narrative that grossly incomplete! You make a totally unsubstantiated assertion that without CO2 the oceans would freeze.” It is a correct assertion substantiated by a simple radiant energy balance over the globe: Solar In = Infrared Out.
The surface of the ocean and the land are blackbodies that absorb and emit radiant energy based on Planck’s Distribution Law. Gases, being simple molecules, emit at specific wavelengths as internal energy levels change determined by bending and stretching depending on the molecular structure. CO2 has many strong absorptance/emittance lines in the wavelength band of about 14 to 16 microns and many more weak lines on the shoulders of this band.
Absorptance equals emittance at thermal equilibrium (Kirchoff’s Law). That is the energy balance of a molecule. The condition of thermal equilibrium is important because it is conservation of energy, not conservation of photons at a specific frequency. Because the bottom layer of the stratosphere is cold, the intensity of emitted energy from CO2 is lower than the intensity emitted in the same wavelength band from the surface. Thus, energy emitted to space is reduced. With increasing CO2, the emittance lines fill in and the range of the CO2 emittance band becomes wider. Infrared out is reduced. Energy accumulates. The pre-industrial steady state balance when accumulation was zero is upset. Warming occurs until the energy balance is restored. It is restored when the temperature of the surface increases enough such that the energy emitted by the surface at other wavelengths outside of the CO2 absorptance band matches the reduced energy emitted to space from within the CO2 band.
Gentlemen ~ "Climate The Movie" is currently being featured and featured "bigly" , at the WattsUpWithThat [WUWT] blogsite. WUWT has the topic "pinned" for consideration and comments. Comments are currently numbering 422. Yes, 422.
However, please do not waste your time by seeking through the 422 for any sign of perceptive & intelligent comments. I assure you that I have skimmed the 400-ish . . . and it's merely the typical WUWT "usual suspects" who are angrily venting into the WUWT echochamber.
Jimsteele , it sounds like you are completely unfamiliar with the WUWT website. It is full (well ~ at the 95% level) of commenters who deny the greenhouse effect ~ either directly or indirectly. Yes, I view the website to "educate" myself . . . mostly about the follies of Motivated Reasoning which are on display there daily. WUWT manages to be both interesting and tiresome. But the cynical reader will see some amusing comments there ~ of egregious fatuities & unintended ironies.
Jimsteele @91 ~ please go back and carefully re-read my comment @84. No, I did not state or allege that you "denied the greenhouse effect". But among your convoluted statements on ocean warming/cooling, you both allege and imply that CO2 contributes little or nothing to the (presently unfrozen) temperature of the Earth's ocean. Do you see the irony/incongruity of your position ?
Eclectic - a cursory look will assure you that Jim Steele is extremely familiar with WUWT - and also perhaps indicate whether discussion with him is worth bothering with.
Eclectic - the role infrared radiation in retaining heat in the ocean has some experimental verification. See The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation 2018
Scaddenp @94 :
Thanks for that. What a surprise. Actually, I don't remember seeing Jimsteele's name among the WUWT comments . . . but the WUWT commentariat has a cast of thousands . . . and memorywise I might well be developing some Fronto-Temporal Dementia (sadly, one of my bigly favorite rightwing politicians is showing early signs of that condition. Stay tuned ! )
And perhaps my memory was influenced by Jimsteele saying that every skeptic he knew totally understands the greenhouse effect . . . but that quote would be incongruous with Jimsteele being extremely familiar with WUWT, don't you reckon ?
I would respond to Charlie_Brown and Eclectic, but the moderator will simply remove my comments that refute your comments. Clearly commneting here on SkS is a privelege only given to those who support the CO2 warming narrative. Allowing scientific debate is not something that is honored here as revealed by the "moderator" deleting my post on polar bears, and other trivia. WUWT is clearly offtopic, but is always allowed because it dishonestly trashes skeptics which is the mission of SkS.
[BL] The moderator will simply apply the rules described in the Comments Policy.
Jim, which is it to be?
"But truth is I have never denied the greenhouse effect."
"Clearly commneting here on SkS is a privelege only given to those who support the CO2 warming narrative."
If you have never denied the greenhouse effect, you must surely accept that enhancing its intensity warms the planet. Likewise you must surely accept that reducing its intensity cools the planet.
Both, I must add, based on very old, tried and tested first principles.
There are as we all know other factors that should be taken into account at all times. We are talking about one component, albeit highly significant, of the climate system here.
So I suggest you try and reconcile the two statements above, upon which I have quoted you.
John Mason, I could easily refute your ridiculous post but when I do, only my posts are deleted and deemed off topic. I dont have the privilege posting here that you do
[BL] One last try:
All you need to do is look at the table presented in this blog post, find the topic that you want to discuss, and follow the link to a place where that topic is the key subject. Then your deleted comments will be on topic.
As part of your comment, you can point back to the comment you are responding to. The date/time label at the top of each comment is a link you can use.
Final Warning
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
Jimsteele @97 / 98 :-
John Mason is quite correct, in that the SkS website is open to all-comers. And so, unsurprisingly, as you gaze around the threads, you will occasionally see comments by climate crackpots who have delusional unscientific fixations and who are impervious to reason and scientific facts ~ whereas, at the WUWT website, those sorts of commenters come in droves. (Indeed, they are the 95% majority there.)
But at SkS , you need to comply with the very reasonable rules of posting ~ and you should provide rational fact-based discussion, not pseudo-science & repetitive ranting.
Jimsteele, you have some serious work to do, to reconcile your self-contradictory statements.