I should think that when enough time has passed, the current leaders of the free world – but especially the scientists who advise them – will be remembered in the history books as rather deceitful. That after a few hundred years of a period of Enlightenment there was a transition back to a period of ignorance. This must especially be the case when it comes to how they explain that energy moves in the atmosphere, especially heat.
It doesn’t matter whether I am referring to the right or left of politics, they are choosing to be political rather than thoughtful. Of course there are always exceptions, and I have particularly enjoyed recent email exchanges with Christopher Game.
It doesn’t matter whether they are referring to convection or some other method of energy transfer, the modern scientist, especially the consensus scientist, but also for example, Peter Ridd, usually insist on referring to it as heat.
After Will Happer visited Australia last year and gave his lectures about ‘integrity in science and attacks on carbon dioxide’ at the invitation of the Institute of Public Affairs, I was curious to know where he sourced the key charts that he showed, specifically charts about expected radiant energy loss from Earth at different wavelengths. There was no attribution, and Happer was vague when I emailed him. For sure the charts had been redrawn, but from where was he sourcing the essence of this narrative and these numbers.
Eventually I found versions of key charts in a book by one of his colleagues from Princeton University, S. George Philander.
There is a chart on page 113 of this same book (Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming) that Happer didn’t show in his presentation that purports to show ‘heat that Earth radiates to space’ as relatively constant never mind the latitude.
I have been thinking about this issue of where most radiant energy is lost, from which latitudes and how.
It is my understanding that an altitude of about 5 kilometres the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that ‘heat’ can be radiated freely to space irrespective of the latitude.
I also understand that at this altitude the temperature is rather cold, that it will be well below zero degrees Celsius, which begs the question of why it is referred to as heat loss at all. I guess all of this is in keeping with the underlying paradigm that is about average temperatures and overheating.
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/state-of-the-climate
Responding to 'Herman A (Alex) Pope says October 30, 2024 at 6:21 am'
Thank for your comment.
you wrote:
I read that it isn’t fully understood how much tropics-to-polar energy transport is atmospheric/oceanic?
I look at the relative Mass of the Ocean compared to the Mass of the Atmosphere. The energy carried by the atmosphere is carried in the water vapor and clouds and that can precipitate out and be replenished by more evaporation. Storms dump precipitation and gather more water vapor from evaporation. A storm can go from a tropical ocean all the way to Canada, all the way it is dumping precipitation and picking more energy up from the ocean. Fifty million years ago, climate was warmer because energy was not transported to polar regions. If warm ocean currents don't go, atmosphere cannot suck energy out of the oceans. Atmosphere energy is fed by ocean evaporation. Streaming storms originate over evaporating oceans.
Responding to 'Herman A (Alex) Pope says October 30, 2024 at 2:18 am'
Thank you. You are being precise in observing that there is a kind of cyclic stability, not a stable nodal centre. Perhaps even a kind of 'limit cycle'? But still, perhaps a rough estimate of the unstable 'centre' of the cycle?
A question that interests me. It is insisted that the winds partly drive the grand cyclic oceanic currents, kinetic energy flowing from atmosphere to sea, making the atmosphere more or less fit the definition of a 'heat engine', at least to a small extent. I suppose that the consequent motion of the seawater will be dissipated to heat by friction. By definition, this constituent part of the motion is not driven by gravity and density difference. Another constituent part is driven by gravity and density difference, salt being left in the water when sea ice is formed, as well as the remaining water being colder and denser. I forget the detail of the density maximum of the unfrozen water just above freezing? Is it true that the gravity/density driver and the wind driver work neatly together? Why and how? I read that it isn't fully understood how much tropics-to-polar energy transport is atmospheric/oceanic?
?? −2°C ?? Your estimate
The temperature of the chilled salt water varies depending on the salt and the turbulence.
The water entering polar oceans from the tropics is always warm enough to remove sea ice, when land ice is pushed onto and into the turbulent currents the salt-water thaws ice fast enough to lower the temperature to below freezing, the temperature depends on the condition at the time. When cold enough sea ice builds ice layers on the bottom of the ice layer, when not cold enough ice layers are removed.
When there is enough land ice pushed in, sea ice forms and stops the evaporation, when there is not enough land ice pushed in, sea ice is removed and evaporation, snowfall and ice rebuilding occurs. This is a very stable dynamic process.
Milankovitch alternates heating the different hemispheres. When the sun heats the north more, more ice is built in the north to counter it, when the sun heats the south more, less ice is built in the north because less is needed. There is no stable midpoint, this is dynamic stability, there are alternating cycles of more than enough ice alternating with less than enough ice.