Climate & Climate Change

I have become curious about something. The core of the Earth is alleged to be molten. It’s also a fact that the deeper you dig into the Earth, the warmer it gets. Where is that heat coming from… surely not from the Sun. What’s the possibility that the Earth generates some of it’s own heat from geothermal processes?

When I studied a bit of geology, we learned that the Earth is actually oblate, like a pumpkin. That shape apparently comes from the stress of the gravitational pull of the Sun the Moon. As the Earth moves in its orbit about the Sun, it is flexing due to those stresses, and cracks in the Earth heat up as they rub against one another.

There are estimates that the Earth’s core may be in the vicinity of 5,000 to 6,000°C. That heat has to go somewhere. There is also a theory that the core may be turning at a differnt rate than the rest. There would be immense friction in that case, and immense heat generated.

Posted by: Gordon Robertson at August 17, 2008 08:18 AM

Could ‘the greenhouse effect’ be one of those things that everybody claims to understand because it is apparently so important, but in reality it is not supported by a credible scientific literature?

That’s the view of Bill Kininmonth, meteorologist and head of Australia’s National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998.

Furthermore, Mr Kininmonth is of the view that, “the role of greenhouse gases is to cool the atmosphere and this, with the surface warming from solar radiation, generates convective instability. It is the temperature lapse rate required for deep convection that leads to the ‘greenhouse effect’”

Confused?

Well in the following note, Mr Kininmonth explains in more detail:

The closest you will come to an explanation of carbon dioxide and the green house effect is in the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ of the on-line IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

My critique on them follows.

“The IPCC’s most recent assessment attempts to be helpful to the casual enquirer by having a series of explanations for ‘frequently asked questions’, or FAQs. The first FAQ is ‘What factors determine earth’s climate’? We are informed that, on average, the earth emits 240 w m-2 of radiation to space and that this equates to an emission temperature of -19oC. The earth’s temperature, however, is about 14oC and the -19oC temperature is found at a height of about 5 km above the surface. To quote the IPCC: “The reason the earth’s surface is this warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the earth’s surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect”.

This explanation by the IPCC is clearly misleading, if not wrong. The inference that the greenhouse gases are acting like a blanket suggests that they are increasing the insulating properties of the atmosphere. However, the main gases of the atmosphere are oxygen and nitrogen, non-greenhouse gases, and they are also excellent insulators against the conduction of heat (like a blanket); adding additional trace amounts of carbon dioxide will have no appreciable impact on the insulating properties of the atmosphere.

In its third FAQ, ‘What is the greenhouse effect?’ the IPCC comes to the nub of the issue but provides a different and equally misleading explanation. “Much of the thermal radiation emitted by the land and the ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to earth. This is called the greenhouse effect”. According to the IPCC’s global energy budget, the surface emits 390 W m-2 of radiation and the energy radiated back to the surface is 324 W m-2. It is difficult to see how an ongoing net loss of longwave radiation energy from the surface of 66 W m-2 can lead to warming! Indeed, we are all aware that between dusk and dawn the earth’s surface cools.

The IPCC has not explained in a scientifically sound and coherent way, how the ‘greenhouse effect’ is maintained. The greenhouse gases do not increase the insulating properties of the atmosphere and the back radiation does not warm the surface. The IPCC explanation of the greenhouse effect is obfuscation and, even to the mildly scientific literate, reflects ignorance of basic processes of the climate system.”

I am of the view that ‘the greenhouse effect’ is one of those things that is accepted because it is there, everybody claims to understand it because it is so important, but in reality few know how it comes about. My explanation follows (and you will not find this in IPCC publications):

“A credible explanation has no need for smoke and mirrors. The energy flow through the climate system is predominantly by way of four stages: 1) absorption of solar radiation at the surface; 2) conduction of heat and evaporation of latent energy from the surface to the atmospheric boundary layer; 3) convective overturning that distributes heat and latent energy through the troposphere; and 4) radiation of energy from the atmosphere to space. We will see that it is the characteristics of convective overturning that keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be.

The Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) global average energy budget of the earth (see figure, where the units are W m-2) is used by the IPCC and is a useful starting point for explanation of the establishment and maintenance of the greenhouse effect.

Of the 340 units of solar radiation entering the earth’s atmosphere, 67 are absorbed by the atmosphere and 168 are absorbed at the surface. There is thus an ongoing source of solar energy available to the atmosphere and the surface.

At the surface there is a net accumulation of radiation energy because the incoming solar radiation (168 units) exceeds the net loss of longwave radiation (66 units).

In the atmospheric layer there is absorption of 417 units (390 of emission from the surface, less 40 that go directly to space, plus absorption of 67 of solar radiation) and an emission of 519 units (324 back to the surface and 195 direct emission to space). The net effect of the interaction between the greenhouse gases and radiation is a tendency to cool the atmosphere because it is continually losing energy.

Overall there is a dichotomy, with radiation processes firstly tending to warm the earth’s surface and secondly tending to cool the atmosphere. Air is an excellent insulator against conduction of heat and will not transfer heat through the atmosphere, as is necessary for energy balance. Also, the thermodynamic properties of air (potential temperature increases with height) ensure that turbulent motions of the atmosphere will mix energy downward, not upward as required.

The process for transferring energy from the surface to the atmosphere, necessary to achieve overall energy balance of the climate system, was explained by Herbert Riehl and Joanne Malkus (the latter better known as Joanne Simpson) in a 1958 paper, On the heat balance of the equatorial trough zone (Geophysica). Riehl and Malkus noted that boundary layer air, rising buoyantly in the protected updraughts of deep tropical convection clouds, converts heat and latent energy to potential energy. Away from the convection, compensating subsidence converts potential energy to heat.

What is implied in the Riehl and Malkus model is that deep tropical convection, and the transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere, will not take place without buoyant updraughts within deep convection clouds. That is, there is a need for the temperature of the atmosphere to decrease with altitude and that the rate of decrease of temperature must be sufficient to allow buoyancy of the air ascending in the updraughts. From well-known thermodynamic laws, the rate of decrease of temperature must be at least 6.5oC/km to allow the buoyancy forces of convection to overcome the natural stratification of the atmosphere.

The climate system will come into energy equilibrium when temperatures are such that the net solar radiation absorbed is balanced by the longwave radiation to space. At equilibrium, the greenhouse effect (ie, that the average surface temperature of 14oC is greater than the -19oC blackbody emission temperature of earth) is an outcome from the need for convective overturning of the atmosphere.”

Essentially, the role of greenhouse gases is to cool the atmosphere and this, with the surface warming from solar radiation, generates convective instability. It is the temperature lapse rate required for deep convection that leads to the ‘greenhouse effect’. But this takes the wind from the sails of the AGW folk.

William Kininmonth
Melbourne

Mr Kininmonth is the author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard available from Amazons.

—————

“Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the ‘North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer’. Others predicted that the entire ‘polar ice cap would disappear this summer’,” writes Steven Goddard in yesterday’s UK Register.

The article continues, “The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data…

Read more by clicking here.

Radiative equilibrium is one of the foundation stones of radiative forcing theory. But it is not a law of physics, only a rather archaic and untested supposition found in climatology textbooks alone.

“For the Earth to neither warm or cool, the incoming radiation must balance the outgoing.”

Not really.

It’s best to regard radiant energy simply as a finite power source — indeed, that power is expressed as watts per square meter. An object is said to “cool” by radiating, yet this would seem to imply that restricting its radiation will make it get hotter and hotter. That’s the very premise of greenhouse theory, of course, that by disturbing outgoing radiance any magnitude of temperature gain is possible. But this is easy to test.

Confine a lightbulb inside an infrared barrier (like a globular mirror) and electrically feed one watt to it. After a while, will it be generating the heat of a thousand watt bulb? No.

When its temperature is consistent with the input, further heating stops.

It’s like water seeking its own level. Lacking any means to radiate to its surroundings, the lightbulb merely gets as hot as a watt of power can make it, which is not much hotter than what it would be in the open. If not, we’d be able to generate incredible temperatures very cheaply. Just confine, wait, and release.

Conservation of energy: it’s not just a phrase. The theory of radiative equilibrium arose early in the 19th century, before the laws of thermodynamics were understood.

From The Analytical Theory of Heat:
The radiation of the sun in which the planet is incessantly plunged, penetrates the air, the earth, and the waters; its elements are divided, change direction in every way, and, penetrating the mass of the globe, would raise its temperature more and more, if the heat acquired were not exactly balanced by that which escapes in rays from all points of the surface and expands through the sky. — Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)

Alan Siddons
Holden, Massachusetts

Dear Jennifer,

A couple of weeks ago I became quite agitated after reading an article in The Australian’s Higher Education section by Roger Jones of CSIRO. Jones questioned the sceptics drawing attention to flaws in the computer models and then went on to explain what the models were supposed to do, not what they actually do!

I responded to The Australian with the following submission:

Global Warming: Solving an Environmental Problem or Creating a Social Crisis?

Prevention of dangerous climate change, particularly through implementation of a national carbon pollution reduction scheme, has emerged as a primary policy objective of the Rudd government. The rationale for the policy is the scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its computer-based projections of global warming. We are told by the IPCC ‘consensus of scientists’ that continued burning of fossil fuels, and a range of other industry activities that increase the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere, will lead to dangerous climate change, possibly passing a ‘tipping point’ causing ‘runaway global warming’.

What does this all mean, really?

The IPCC’s most recent assessment attempts to be helpful to the casual enquirer by having a series of explanations for ‘frequently asked questions’, or FAQs. The first FAQ is ‘What factors determine earth’s climate’? We are informed that, on average, the earth emits 240 w m-2 of radiation to space and that this equates to an emission temperature of -19oC. The earth’s temperature, however, is about 14oC and the -19oC temperature is found at a height of about 5 km above the surface. To quote the IPCC: “The reason the earth’s surface is this warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the earth’s surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect”.

This explanation by the IPCC is clearly misleading, if not wrong. The inference that the greenhouse gases are acting like a blanket suggests that they are increasing the insulating properties of the atmosphere. However, the main gases of the atmosphere are oxygen and nitrogen, non-greenhouse gases, and they are also excellent insulators against the conduction of heat (like a blanket); adding additional trace amounts of carbon dioxide will have no appreciable impact on the insulating properties of the atmosphere.

In its third FAQ, ‘What is the greenhouse effect?’ the IPCC comes to the nub of the issue but provides a different and equally misleading explanation. “Much of the thermal radiation emitted by the land and the ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to earth. This is called the greenhouse effect”. According to the IPCC’s global energy budget, the surface emits 390 W m-2 of radiation and the energy radiated back to the surface is 324 W m-2. It is difficult to see how an ongoing net loss of longwave radiation energy from the surface of 66 W m-2 can lead to warming! Indeed, we are all aware that between dusk and dawn the earth’s surface cools.

The IPCC has not explained in a scientifically sound and coherent way, how the ‘greenhouse effect’ is maintained. The greenhouse gases do not increase the insulating properties of the atmosphere and the back radiation does not warm the surface. The IPCC explanation of the greenhouse effect is obfuscation and, even to the mildly scientific literate, reflects ignorance of basic processes of the climate system.

How then do we explain to people who are going to be affected by reactionary government policies what are the greenhouse effect and its enhancement by additional carbon dioxide?

A credible explanation has no need for smoke and mirrors. The energy flow through the climate system is predominantly by way of four stages: 1) absorption of solar radiation at the surface; 2) conduction of heat and evaporation of latent energy from the surface to the atmospheric boundary layer; 3) convective overturning that distributes heat and latent energy through the troposphere; and 4) radiation of energy from the atmosphere to space. We will see that it is the characteristics of convective overturning that keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be.

The Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) global average energy budget of the earth is used by the IPCC and is a useful starting point for explanation of the establishment and maintenance of the greenhouse effect.

Of the 340 units of solar radiation entering the earth’s atmosphere, 67 are absorbed by the atmosphere and 168 are absorbed at the surface. There is thus an ongoing source of solar energy available to the atmosphere and the surface.

At the surface there is a net accumulation of radiation energy because the incoming solar radiation (168 units) exceeds the net loss of longwave radiation (66 units).

In the atmospheric layer there is absorption of 417 units (390 of emission from the surface, less 40 that go directly to space, plus absorption of 67 of solar radiation) and an emission of 519 units (324 back to the surface and 195 direct emission to space). The net effect of the interaction between the greenhouse gases and radiation is a tendency to cool the atmosphere because it is continually losing energy.

Overall there is a dichotomy, with radiation processes firstly tending to warm the earth’s surface and secondly tending to cool the atmosphere. Air is an excellent insulator against conduction of heat and will not transfer heat through the atmosphere, as is necessary for energy balance. Also, the thermodynamic properties of air (potential temperature increases with height) ensure that turbulent motions of the atmosphere will mix energy downward, not upward as required.

The process for transferring energy from the surface to the atmosphere, necessary to achieve overall energy balance of the climate system, was explained by Herbert Riehl and Joanne Malkus (the latter better known as Joanne Simpson) in a 1958 paper, On the heat balance of the equatorial trough zone (Geophysica). Riehl and Malkus noted that boundary layer air, rising buoyantly in the protected updraughts of deep tropical convection clouds, converts heat and latent energy to potential energy. Away from the convection, compensating subsidence converts potential energy to heat.

What is implied in the Riehl and Malkus model is that deep tropical convection, and the transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere, will not take place without buoyant updraughts within deep convection clouds. That is, there is a need for the temperature of the atmosphere to decrease with altitude and that the rate of decrease of temperature must be sufficient to allow buoyancy of the air ascending in the updraughts. From well-known thermodynamic laws, the rate of decrease of temperature must be at least 6.5oC/km to allow the buoyancy forces of convection to overcome the natural stratification of the atmosphere.

The climate system will come into energy equilibrium when temperatures are such that the net solar radiation absorbed is balanced by the longwave radiation to space. At equilibrium, the greenhouse effect (ie, that the average surface temperature of 14oC is greater than the -19oC blackbody emission temperature of earth) is an outcome from the need for convective overturning of the atmosphere.

Additional warming of the surface will come about when the greenhouse effect is enhanced. The fundamental question is how much warming will additional greenhouse gas concentrations cause and will it be dangerous?

An increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration reduces the emission of longwave radiation to space and increases the back radiation at the surface. An increase in back radiation adds energy to the surface, which will further warm the surface. However there is a constraint on the surface temperature rise because of the commensurate increase in rate of energy loss from the surface: both the rate of infrared emission and the rate of evaporation of latent heat increase with temperature.

The increase in radiation emission from the surface can be calculated from the well-known Boltzmann equation and is 5.4 units/oC at 15oC. The earth’s surface is mainly ocean or freely transpiring vegetation and evaporation will increase near exponentially with temperature according to the Claussius-Clapeyron relationship and is 6.0 units/oC at 15oC. According to the IPCC, the radiative forcing from doubling of carbon dioxide concentration is 3.7 units.

The actual surface temperature increase is derived from the ratio of the radiation forcing (3.7) to the natural rate of increase in surface energy loss with temperature (5.4 + 6.0). The direct surface temperature rise from a doubling of carbon dioxide is therefore 3.7/(5.4 + 6.0) = 0.3oC.

A 0.3oC global temperature increase towards the end of the 21st century from a doubling of current carbon dioxide concentration is not obviously dangerous. However, what also needs to be taken into account is the positive feedback. A warming of the surface temperature will cause a warming of the overlying atmosphere, an increase in the water vapour concentration (another naturally occurring greenhouse gas), a further increase in back radiation, and an incremental increase in surface temperature. Each successive incremental surface temperature increase will cause another incremental temperature increase through the positive feedback amplification.

The amplification follows standard mathematical treatment and, as long as the ratio r is less than unity, the gain is given by [1 / (1 – r)]. Here r is the ratio of natural increase in back radiation with temperature (4.8 units/oC – estimated from a standard radiation transfer model) to the natural increase of surface energy loss with temperature (as previously, 11.4 units/oC). The natural gain is 1.7 and increases the surface temperature rise from a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration from 0.3oC to 0.5oC.

A 0.5oC increase in global temperature over the coming century is within recent short-term temperature variability and is less than the apparent global temperature rise of the past century. Moreover, both the direct forcing of surface temperature and the amplification gain are tightly constrained by the magnitude of the natural increase of surface energy loss with temperature increase. It is not immediately apparent how ‘runaway global warming’ could come about with such a constraint.

A fundamental question arises as to why the IPCC global temperature projections for doubling carbon dioxide concentration, based on computer models of the climate system, lead to estimates of about 3oC, or about six times the above estimate.

A clue to the conundrum can be found in published descriptions of the performance of the computer models used in the IPCC fourth assessment. Isaac Held and Brian Soden, writing in the Journal of Climate (2006) note that the rate of increase of evaporation in the computer models, on average, only increases at about one-third of the rate expected from the Claussius Clapeyron relationship. Additionally, Frank Wentz and colleagues, writing in the journal Science (2007), have confirmed the under-specification of evaporation increase with temperature and, from satellite based observations, have determined that global evaporation does indeed comply with the Claussius Clapeyron relationship.

It is clear from the above formulation of the surface temperature rise and the associated amplification gain that each is sensitive to the specification of evaporation increase with temperature. Substitution of the average evaporation specification of computer models into the formulation will boost the projected temperature rise from the above expected value of 0.5oC to 1.5oC, the lower end of IPCC projections. When the specification of evaporation increase with temperature is very low, as in the more extreme models, then the feedback amplification gain increases to a value of about ten; the temperature sensitivity of the computer model becomes highly exaggerated and model would likely simulate the behaviour of runaway global warming. The behaviour, of course, is false and arises only because of the significant under-specification of evaporation.

Despite the many claims that the IPCC projections of human-caused global warming are sound, the consensus of climate scientists and that the science is settled, there are disturbing shortcomings to both the essential explanations and to the computer modelling. The shortcomings are disturbing because the projections and their associated predictions of diabolical impacts on environmental systems are the only rational justification given for wholesale government restructuring of our industrial base and lifestyles.

This is the first time in human history that there has been a conscious move at the national level to discard the tools that have underpinned security, wellbeing and comfort. We are deliberately abrogating energy usage from proven and widely available sources on the basis of a perceived environmental threat which is poorly articulated and substantiated only by recourse to obviously deficient computer modelling.

Why am I reminded of Charles MacKay’s 1841 tome, “Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds’?

William Kininmonth
Melbourne, Australia.

William Kininmonth is a former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre; a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization; and author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (2004, Multi-Science Publishing)

P.S. The four important papers underpinning my analysis are:

Riehl, H and J. Malkus, 1958. On the heat balance of the equatorial trough zone. Geophysica, v6, Nos 3-4 pp503-538 (This paper describes how heat and moisture from the tropical boundary layer is distributed through the troposphere by way of deep buoyant convection, thus offsetting net radiation loss of energy of the troposphere. Buoyant convection requires a decrease of temperature with altitude, thus the surface must be warmer than the effective emission temperature of the troposphere – the greenhouse effect!)

Priestley, C.H.B., 1966. The limitation of temperature by evaporation in hot climates. Agricultural Meteorology, 3 pp241-246 (This paper explains, supported by data, why deserts are hotter than vegetated lands. Essentially, the earth’s surface loses energy by way of conduction, evaporation and emission of infrared radiation; for dry surfaces there is a shift in energy loss to conduction and radiation at higher temperatures whereas for wet surfaces there is a shift to evaporation of latent heat at a lower temperature. This analysis clearly makes a nonsense of the IPCC claim of a linear relationship between surface temperature increase ΔTs and radiation forcing ΔF, that is, (ΔTs/ΔF = λ). From surface energy balance (or conservation of energy), ΔTs = ΔF*[4*σ*Ts4 + A*L*(dqs/dT)]. Here (dqs/dT) is the rate of increase of water vapour saturation specific humidity with temperature (the Claussius Clapeyron relationship); the first term in the brackets on the right hand side is the rate of increase of surface infrared emission with temperature; and the second term is the rate of increase of latent heat exchange with temperature. For a dry surface, the rate of increase of infrared emission with temperature is approximately linear over short temperature ranges – earth’s surface happens to be approximately 70 percent water and a large part of the remainder is transpiring vegetation.)

Held, I.M. and B.J. Soden, 2006. Robust response of the hydrological cycle to global warming. J of Climate, v19 pp5686-5699 (The paper identifies that, in the GCM used in the IPCC fourth assessment, the rate of increase of surface evaporation is on average only one third the Claussius Clapeyron relationship (dqs/dT). The authors use this deficiency to explain why the rate of convective overturning of the models decreases as temperature increases. The important point is that the GCM apparently significantly under-estimate surface evaporation and latent heat exchange with temperature increase.)

Wentz, F.J., L. Ricciardulli, K. Hilburn and C. Mears, 2007 How much more rain will global warming bring? ScienceExpress 31 May (published later in Science, 13 July 2007). (This paper confirms, from satellite data over recent decades, that global precipitation (and hence evaporation and latent heat exchange) increases with temperature according to the Claussius Clapeyron relationship. Thus the under-estimation of evaporation in GCM also implies an underestimation of precipitation increase with warming. The authors do not recognise that under-estimation of evaporation and latent heat exchange will also lead to overestimation of surface temperature rise! I have quantified the over-estimation of global temperature rise in the analysis that follows.)

Bishop Hill blog has put together the story of the Amman and Wahl paper that purported to support the ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of paleoclimate, cited in IPCC AR4:

There has been the most extraordinary series of postings at Climate Audit over the last week. As is usual at CA, there is a heavy mathematics burden for the casual reader, which, with a bit of research I think I can now just about follow. The story is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cyncism that is rife among climate scientists, and I’m going to try to tell it in layman’s language so that the average blog reader can understand it. As far as I know it’s the first time the whole story has been set out in a single posting. It’s a long tale – and the longest posting I think I’ve ever written and piecing it together from the individual CA postings has been a long, hard but fascinating struggle. You may want to get a long drink before starting, and those who suffer from heart disorders may wish to take their beta blockers first.

Read the entire blog post entitled: ‘Caspar and the Jesus paper’