Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for July 2012

How the Oceans Get Warm? (Rephrased)

By

ACCORDING to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the oceans are warming [1]. But the IPCC does not explain the underlying physical mechanism, the IPCC does not explain from first principles how the oceans warm.

In 2000, in a short article for Science and Technology Magazine, a respected oceanographer, the late Robert E. Stevenson wrote that the popular scientific consensus that greenhouses gases were causing the oceans to warm was incorrect because infrared radiation from greenhouse gases heats only the top few millimetres of the ocean and as a consequence is soon dissipated by evaporation [2]. According to Dr Stevenson, it is only the sun that can warm the oceans.

Indeed incoming solar radiation in the visible spectrum* is mostly short-wave radiation and it is generally accepted, including by those who swim in the ocean, that this radiation can penetrate a significant distance into the water column and is stored as heat.

Physicists that specialize in quantifying heat transfer will generally concur with Dr Stevenson. They explain that evaporation, conduction and long-wave infrared radiation (for example from greenhouse gases) are all surface heat transfer effects. That is, they only heat or cool at the very surface of the water.

[Read more…] about How the Oceans Get Warm? (Rephrased)

Climate4You Update

By

Dear Jennifer,

Please find below a link which will take you directly to a monthly newsletter (ca. 1.5 MB) with global meteorological information updated to June 2012:
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_June_2012.pdf

All temperatures in this newsletter are shown in degrees Celsius.

Previous issues (since March 2009) of this newsletter, diagrams and additional material are available for download on http://www.climate4you.com/

All the best, yours sincerely,
Ole Humlum
Professor of Physical Geography
University of Oslo, Norway

[Read more…] about Climate4You Update

Facebook, And

By

I’ve a Facebook account and I’ve started posting information there that is not about the natural environment, but that I think is important.  A reader of this blog, Neville, sent me a link to a podcast of Alan Jones on 2GB talking this morning about Julia Gillard and her involvement with the AWU.   Alan Jones can go on a bit, but this morning he was unusually specific and focused.

You can hear the podcast at the 2GB website or via my Facebook page.  Following is a simple screenshot of the post at Facebook.  To link directly to my Facebook page look for the photograph of me on the RHS column of this blog home page and click on for the link.  Cheers,

How the Oceans Get Warm: Robert E. Stevenson

By

THERE are only ever a small number of scientists who can explain a phenomenon from first principles and these experts will often speak in jargon that is unintelligible[1]. But every so often one comes across a real expert who appears to not only have a deep understanding of a subject area, but can also write with clarity on that subject.

The oceanographer the late Robert E. Stevenson [2] wrote a short article for Science and Technology Magazine in 2000 disputing the popular consensus on how the oceans warm [3]. In the following extract from ‘Yes, the Ocean has Warmed; No, It’s Not Global Warming’, Dr Stevenson claims that:

1. Sunlight directly heats the ocean to a certain depth, up to 100 metres;
2. The ocean heat balance is maintained by heat loss to the atmosphere, not to the deep ocean; and
3. Infrared radiation from greenhouse gases heats only the top few millimetres of the ocean and as a consequence is soon dissipated by evaporation.
[Read more…] about How the Oceans Get Warm: Robert E. Stevenson

IPCC Commissioned Report Damning of IPCC Processes and Procedures

By

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) commissioned a review of its processes and procedures with a report handed down in October 2010, but only just now made publically available at its website.[1]

I’ve only just started to examine the 100 plus page document, but my first impressions are that finally we have an official report that may impose a level of accountability on the IPCC.

OK. I’m expecting too much!

Well at least the report highlights past errors and acknowledges that they have been significant.

The section on “Evaluation of evidence and treatment of uncertainty” includes comment that:

Authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020. Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be disputed. In these cases the impression was often left, incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented…

Assigning probabilities to an outcome makes little sense unless researchers are confident in the underlying evidence…

The Working Group II Summary for Policy makers in the Fourth Assessment Report contains many vague statements of ‘high confidence’ that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put in perspective, or are difficult to refute. The Committee believes it is not appropriate to assign probabilities to such statements.

[Read more…] about IPCC Commissioned Report Damning of IPCC Processes and Procedures

How Scientific Ideas Become Fashionable (Part 1)

By

THERE is no doubt that many people are susceptible to the repetition of a single message. No matter how stupid the message, if enough people say it often enough, a large percentage of those who hear it will begin to believe it. That’s the basis of advertising and also propaganda: it’s how you make ideas fashionable, even scientific ideas. But just because an idea is fashionable doesn’t make it right and just because an idea is right, well it doesn’t mean it represents the truth.

Fashion is in fact the lowest form of ideology and I have little regard for fashionable ideas – even fashionable scientific ideas. I also have little regard for what many claim to be good and wholesome ideas. My interest is in the facts, the evidence – the truth particularly as it pertains to the natural world.

There is intrinsic good in having a deep understanding, based on truths, of aspects of the natural world. For example, it is through understanding electricity – what it is and how it can be generated – that it many of our basic physical needs are now met at the flick of a switch: the lights come on, the house warms up, the kettle boils water. But not everyone studies science to discover useful things, for some it is the chase after facts and the thrill that comes with their discovery, for others an interest in an aspect of the puzzle that is the natural world in the hope of finding order in the universe.

But to be successful at science there is a need for a particular type of discipline – a discipline that is not necessary in many other intellectual pursuits. There is a need to be honest to reality and to always test theory against reality. In this respect science is different from the modern arts.

But science has not always been so different from art. For example, Leonardo da Vinci studied anatomy to become a better artist. That was during a period in Europe when the artist’s goal was assumed to be the representation of reality – of nature. But then a time came when European artists renounced representation as their goal. Art now is about emotion, culture and fashion – few modern day artists attempt to depict the world as it really is. This may or may not be a good thing for art but it clearly makes art something very different from science.

Science is meant to be about reality – it is meant to be about discovery and understanding and truth. Science is not meant to be about emotion or culture or even fashion. But how can you tell whether a conversation about a scientific issue is based on truth or fashion?

[Read more…] about How Scientific Ideas Become Fashionable (Part 1)