## new

There is no missing heat in that scenario. The only heat that needs to be accounted for is the 0.5W/m2 imbalance at TOA because if that number is accurate then the only place it can be going is in the ocean.

A two part question on Energy imbalance .

Can we have a TOA imbalance of -0.5 W/m2? If not why not.

ANSWER we are neither a heat source or a heat sink

Energy in is energy out. In other words we cannot have a TOA imbalance because the TOA is where the energy in equals the energy out.

We can have a warmer atmosphere or ocean without having to violate that principal, but only if the input of energy [Sun] varies due to distance [Summer/Winter locally] North and south hemispheres depending on the elliptical orbit of the sun. Or due to intensity [solar Cycles]
In effect the temperature we have is  balance of  the energy in the ocean, land surface and air. In a mathematical model  where the air and sea remained fixed the amount of heating up, the amount of clouds, would run like a clock  and stay the same from 1 24 hour period to the next apart from the energy input.

In our world of currents and Coriolis forces and winds, erosion volcanoes etc where the heat is varies but if one area becomes hotter SOI, PDO, El Nino etc another becomes colder.

Adding CO2  to the air does not make the total energy in or out change one iota. It does modify where the heat is found and this should be more in the atmosphere [ Gates, Droedge, Mosher etc]. The air should be warmer Gates and when it isn’t for 16 years it is indeed a travesty for your argument and the IPCC.

What it implies is that the earth’s atmosphere is a lot more resistant to intemperate changes  than most people here are prepared to realise.

Over the course of a year the average solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere at any point in time is roughly 1366 watts per square metre[3][4] (see solar constant)

The Sun’s rays are attenuated as they pass through the atmosphere, thus reducing the irradiance at the Earth’s surface to approximately 1000 W /m2 for a surface perpendicular to the Sun’s rays at sea level on a clear day.

, the sunbeam hitting the ground at a 30° angle spreads the same amount of light over twice as much area

Ignoring clouds, the daily average irradiance for the Earth is approximately 250 W/m2 (i.e., a daily irradiation of 6 kWh/m2)

The insolation of the sun can also be expressed in Suns, where one Sun equals 1000 W/m2 at the point of arrival, with kWh/m2/day expressed as hours/day

1. Making stuff up here as I go.
R Gates, R Pielke on ocean heat.
No one has said what the average heat of the 700-2000 meter level is but a wild guess would say in the tropics [sea surface temp up to 25 degrees centigrade] and Arctic ocean [sea surface temp 3 degrees C] that the deeper level would be about 3-5 degrees centigrade. I.e not much difference at all at depth.
There are no deep hot ocean currents, only cold ones and colder ones.
If the hot currents ever come to the surface they will cool it not heat it [See D Springer earlier on heat sinks and why you cannot heat a warmer body with a colder body] as they are cooler than the surface air . The second thing is heat conducts both ways so at anyone time the hot surface water is not only heating the air above but heating the water below. Which has a lot more molecules than air for the heat to transfer to hence the heat diffusion will for most purposes be downwards by large orders of magnitude.
That is not to say that the surface water might not heat up to 30 degrees C or more in the tropics but it cannot make the air hotter than the water and the water will almost always be colder [please leave out objections like hot air over land blowing out to sea/ night time etc which are not relevant to this argument ] than the air.

2. Pekka Pirilä TOA can be a term for the level where radiative energy out equals radiative energy in. Whether one pumps CO2 into the air or not does not change the amount of energy in by the sun , nor the energy radiated out which is at an equilibrium.
Yes the air at surface levels can be warmer but not because the CO2 is trapping more heat. If that were the case the earth would get warmer and warmer, The AGW argument of climate sensitivity and you might as well argue a sensitivity of 30 degrees instead of 3 degrees.
The reflective surface of the earth is a strange combination of solid liquid and gas. At some point incident radiation is stopped then emitted back.
It matters not whether it is a solid metal spacecraft a meteor or moon they all radiate the heat back. If an atmosphere with increasing CO2 is hotter than one without Then somewhere else in the system becomes colder. ie if the CO2 radiates more heat back to space then the oceans and land will not heat up as much.
Hence there is no radiative imbalance just a poor understanding on our part of the actual way the energy movements occur

3. Sea levels rising reminds me I left a tap running overnight last year?
Surely not.
If the ocean measurements were reliable, which they are not yet proven to be, then the ocean heat content rising would be true but it would mean CO2 was not the cause as there has been a hiatus. What a conundrum.

## The mystery of the melting Antarctic

The mystery of the melting Antarctic

Actually 3 mysteries in one.

The measurement of the actual amount of ice on land or at sea is extremely difficult. While we can measure the extent of the land cover very accurately the depth of the ice is very difficult to estimate. Complicating this is the possibility of snow cover which is not as dense as ice but adds to the difficulty in measuring the actual ice thickness and the amount of unfrozen water under the ice in rivers and lakes which does the same.

More complicated is the measurement at sea due to the difficulty in assessing ice edge boundaries and even more so when there are ice floes and packs with clear water in between. In the Arctic it is possible to get measurements by submarine  and icebreakers to give some idea of depth

Conventional measurement depends on using multiple yearly measurements of extent and depth from multiple sources  and combining the best estimates into a volume if ice with quite significant margins for error. The most inputs come from arctic ice measurement,  and are represented by PIOMAS. A second measurement is done by Cryosat 2. The estimated volumes differ quite markedly at times.

In the Antarctic  it is impossible to actually measure the depth accurately, hence a different method GRACE has been developed which works on estimating the gravitational differences  detected by 2 satellites to determine the mass of ice above the land contributing to the gravitational fields. The volume of ice estimated in this way is potentially extremely inaccurate  though  not inexact as it is very dependent on the coefficient in the formula to give the volume of ice. A smidge up and there is more ice in Antarctica, a smidge down and there is less ice in Antarctica.

At different times using the gravitational measurement  there have been suggestions of increasing ice volume in Antarctica but with further interpretation the GRACE measurements state that Antarctica is losing ice volume.

Hence the mystery. Antarctic sea ice has been increasing in the main for 30 years and is well above the average for the last 30 years. Ipso facto the Antarctic itself  should have been definitely colder than normal in recent times. Hence there must be more not less ice in Antarctica.

Sea ice extent is dependent more on the coldness of the water rather than the air temperature itself, hence the second mystery. Measurements of the Antarctic water temperature claim that it has been warming over recent years. This should have resulted in less sea ice extent as predicted by IPCC models.

The third mystery is how has the Antarctic been losing ice volume. This is unexplainable by theory and fact. The Antarctic is too cold for the ice to melt and evaporate from the surface. The glaciers are not getting smaller and shrinking back in from the coast. This would involve less calving  from the glaciers which would in turn be smaller.  As demonstrated by the recent Spirit of Mawson expedition there is more not less ice along most of the coast of Antarctica.

If an adequate explanation cannot be given for how the ice is mysteriously disappearing from Antarctica then attention should be turned to the degree of accuracy of the GRACE measurements and a readjustment of the coefficient done to correct it to the reality of more ice volume in Antarctica.

## The causes of heat in the atmosphere and sea.

Co2 follows warming in the atmosphere is an oft quoted message

This led me to thinking about the known causes of heating for the land sea and atmosphere . The atmosphere at both sea level and higher.

Some atmosphere of course as in mine shafts and deep earth valleys is actually below sea level and help  add some insight into heat movement in air.

Starting from the center of the  earth there are the more obvious nuclear reactions in the core and mantle. There are less obvious atomic reactions due to the vibration of atomic particles causing friction.  Then there is heat generated by the increasing pressure of gravity  as one moves towards the core. These are possibly exacerbated by the gravity changes of a rotating moon in competition with the sun and to a minute extent by the other planets and space matter including any from the sun.

An obvious cause of heating is the wave motion in the oceans especially when hitting the land and along the sea bottom.  The friction here generates a significant amount of heat every day [24 hours]. In fact one could say that if the temperature is hot enough to sustain liquid water there will always be heat generated  in excess of that needed to heat the water in the first place.

Gravity waves in land cause the same friction and may also cause the land to heat up at all levels all the way down to the core.

All this without needing any heat input from the Sun at all. When we talk about the earth being _ 30 degrees  centigrade without green  house gases are we taking all these other effects into play or are they so minuscule that they do not count at all.

with respect to the CO2 question is a warming world releasing more CO2 into the air because of the warming or taking more out because there is more biomass created to use it up.

## missing out on

missing out on putting new ideas down

The first is seeing the universe is infinitely older than we can imagine there must be lots of other background effects from other big bangs, not just the  background noise from the one that may have created our semiverse. These effects should also be detectable. One way of detecting them would be unusual inversion or denting of the universe at the outer limits of what we can see. Could rogue matter exist?

The second is amnesia which we all have to a more or less degree. I am talking about our dreams and their deliberate fading away. I had a great comment the other morning worthy of listing for all time and it has gone.

Write down these thoughts as soon as you have them for they invariably deteriorate and disappear. The other thing that does happen unfortunately when you do write them down is that the do not always appear as great as when you first had them, in fact they can look quite banal but if you do not put them down you will never know.

Lost a trifecta the other day 10 dollars free from TABCORP . Backed Geelong to beat Fremantle, Collingwood to beat Port and Richmond to beat Carlton. Would not have paid much but I would have got my free 10 dollars. All three lost. Not that I now take a lot of bets but this makes it all the more hard to fathom.

As mentioned previously the world takes you on and yo go 2 steps back for everyone forward.

Well that cleared all the dreams away!

Is there any hope of communication on a blog ??

## the pause

Every pause starts with one small step. The step can be backwards or sideways.

But this can be due to a multitude of factors.

The pause is confirmed when a second reading is also sideways or backward.

Mind you it is a very temporary pause and of very little import.

Further readings can be up or down and still be a pause  as long as the average of the readings from the first step remain at or below the last reading that was he start of the pause.

Now comes the interesting part. Defining a pause as the length of time from the initial start point would give a decline instead of a pause if the readings over time continue downwards

A pause is actually a leveling of the readings, which dates from the last reading backwards.

Hence after say 20 readings downwards one has to take extra readings from the upwards part of the graph to balance out or level the new downwards section. The way to do this is to take the line across from the last reading to the new first reading, then evaluate the area above the line and take the average  level here as the length of the pause.

Obviously the start of the pause is not where the line goes across from the last reading but a little higher,

The point is though that the pause extends backwards as well as forwards as long as the last measurement  puts the average below the  initial measurement when the pause started.

When the average starts dropping significantly the pause extends out dramatically.

When does a pause become a reversal or fall?

1929 is a good answer. A fall or reversal starts with a similar change to a pause only it is never a sideways step always down.

The only answer can be in retrospect although a good sign is a preternaturally large fall. The global climate changes constantly and a big fall is only likely through a catastrophic event which mankind cannot ward against.

1. I opened the fridge and found a frozen Schrodinger’s cat. At the same time I note a giant leap upwards on the arctic sea ice extent.[Ice Area NORSEX SSM/I August 1st 2013]
Conclusion.
The world has just done a quantum leap sideways in space in the last few days and both the Arctic and Antarctic are getting less sun.
At least it makes more sense than more heat deciding to go missing in the deep sea.
PS will write further if the cat is alive or dead

2. when it thaws out, that is.

AGW could exist if  Human beings produced enough energy or CO2
to increase the thermal load in the earths atmosphere. Alternative methods could also work e.g. painting/coating the earth’s surface  black to absorb heat [or white if one wanted AG Cooling.]. The amount of heat coming in [and leaving the earth each day is on orders of magnitude so vastly different that human heat output is negligible and always will be.
Steve Mosher believes that CO2 increase of itself must scientifically lead to warming  [AGW]. and technically he is right except…
one, there is no step by step link to show this is happening. The CO2 goes up but the temperature goes up down and sideways and never in kilter with the CO2 rise.Obviously there are “natural variations” but there is no link and he knows this.
secondly  there may be confounding reasons that lead to greater outgoing radiation when the  CO2 levels go up. The extra heat retention may cause more cloud, thinner atmosphere. more reflectiveness of the atmosphere whatever that counter balances the pure physics of CO2 alone.
If such forces exist [a little more likely than the deep heat in the oceans rubbish] He should be prepared to be more skeptical than he currently allows himself to be.
PS better to drag the oceans than beat the bushes to find AGW  believer’s at the moment Steve

## I lost my keys

I lost my keys the other night in the dark, Kept looking for them under that streetlight but no keys.
Q  Where could they be.
A  ?   [not the sea]the other night in the dark, Kept looking for them under that streetlight but no keys. Q Where could they be. A ? [not the sea]

## GIGO

The aim of this piece is to demonstrate that the computer models  used for making predictions on Global Warming  are basically unable to make the predictions they do in any meaningful way.

To do so I will have to show the reasons that  they cannot work for the use they were intended.

The arguments will have to rely on logical reasoning

Analogies to other similar situations will help demonstrate the points used.

The argument will rely on the complexity of the task and the amount of input available at the current moment. It will also depend on the definitions used which will need to be set out clearly.

The topic of Global Warming will also need to be explained in context and history.

Potted version. The earth as a  rotating solid mass revolves around the Sun and has forces exerted upon it by other celestial bodies including the moon, other planets, comets meteors space debris and background radiations of many sorts.

It is presumed to have formed 4 to 5 billion years ago at the same time as the rest of the planetary system. Its composition is unknown  and has had to be inferred from its weight, motion  and chemistry and observation of other planets.

Due to the presence of a strong magnetic field it i s postulated that it has an iron core  and seismic experiments suggest that it has a liquid core with  a more solid covering of iron and then a mantle of other elements.

The earth possesses a degree of internal heat which might be kept going by nuclear fission of radioactive elements in the earths core and crust. Another  cause of heat production is thought to be from compressive forces due to the pressure of the materials themselves as it rises closer to the core. Gravitational forces are also postulated to work  on the material of the earth as in causing waves in water but also in causing storm patterns [Coriolis forces] and land or earth waves. While usually postulated as working on the mantle and crust there is no reason to expect that they might not work on all parts of the earth.

The earth surface is where humanity lives in a space of 2 meters from the surface of the ground up. This living space is broader for other parts of the biosphere.
Bacteria can live to depths of up to 5 kilometers in the earth mantle and seas and can go to thousands of meters in the air

Conditions for life involve a need for water, sunshine and oxygen and carbon dioxide plus numerous other trace and not so trace elements and compounds. Not all components are needed for some life forms eg anaerobic bacteria do not need oxygen and some plants and animals survive without sunshine

For those creatures on the earth’s surface an important element is the surface temperature.

## from the font

Climate Change as an issue is about to get tricky. The stock measurements are converging to an average and about to break out.

Given the cold world [Roy Spencer] after a warm start to the year. Given the Enso Neutral to slightly cold . Given the large amount of ice at both Poles at the start of the melting season north and the freezing season south one would expect a Slowing of the melt north and a large extent plus south but it stops just when you want it to go. I cannot believe the Antarctic has stalled back under 12,000,000 for a week. Or that the DMI 30% is diving at the same time.

Fingers crossed, there are a couple of holes to fill in in the Antarctic  and the northern coastlines still show a lot of traces of ice. Apart from sounding like a warmest [ in reverse ] the best tactic here is lots of wishful thinking to back up the aforesaid facts. Hope it works this year.

## Arctic v Antarctic

A semi scientific perspective.

An article by Tamino on sea ice area and extent  and balancing  has upset my apple cart enough to try to sort out some common sense  debate on the issue of  North and South sea ice.

He states “Despite the fact that the southern ice pack is larger overall than the northern, its increases are much smaller than the decreases noted for the northern hemisphere, 1.96 million km^2 in extent and 1.92 million km^2 of area. This puts the lie to claims (oft repeated) that southern gain even “almost” balances northern loss — the northern extent loss is 3.4 times as great as the southern extent gain while northern area loss is 3.8 times as great as southern area gain. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another, they are certainly not “balanced” and anyone who claims so is either a fool or an outright liar.”

As I am not a mathematician  or a  facts at the finger tips person I would appreciate  any such comments or additions that make sense  [or nonsense of] my statements to be added to this article.

Statements

At maximum extent I believe the volume of the southern ice pack is smaller [16 square million kilometers[ to  than the  northern ice pack [18 square million kilometers]   via eyeballing a graph from climate4you.com

The last 30 years have seen an imbalance in the  total ice balance  to the negative side  but currently the balance is very  positive with only a slight negative southern anomaly. This means that the southern  area gain of 910,000 square kilometers is  3.4 times that of the northern hemisphere  loss of 280,000 square K. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another it pays to check the current facts.

The two areas of ice do not occupy  the same relative areas to their poles so cannot be looked at as  twins or mirrors of each other. The north is part of a circular semi spherical surface, The south is a larger  circumference dough nut or torus shape though also on a semi spherical surface. Furthermore the heat that reaches them from the sun does so at different latitudes  and hence heats and melts them at different rates for the corresponding times of the year.This explains in part why the pattern of the global sea ice area moves up and down and not in a sinusoidal pattern as would be expected .

The two bodies of ice are totally different in the amount of heat that reaches them as most of the ice at the arctic is at a  much higher latitude,  ie over the north pole  whereas the ice in the antarctic  starts 400 [guess only?]  or more kilometers from the south pole.

Because the earth is curved the amount of heat received  at the surface increases cubically [???] as one moves away from the polar area. So if  the ice area  is starting 400 kilometers away from the pole the heat the ice is receiving is very much higher per square kilometer average  than the same area of ice centered around a pole.

The sun is closer to the north pole  in a northern summer than the south pole  in summer  hence the total  heat delivered to the ice is  greater in the North than the South. Hence the rate of melting  at the south pole is always greater naturally , not as an effect of global warming. [Also the rate of refreeze as the sun is further away in  northern winter at the north as to southern winter at the south pole]. The rate of refreeze should also  be slower in the south due to the fact that the energy reaching the outer ice is higher  at the higher southern latitudes than at the northern very high latitudes.

All late winter ice is thin [ Note to Mr Forster et al ] hence will melt quickly whether the ice extent for that year is high or low. The rapid melt at the start  in 2012 was due to the larger extent of ice able to melt and was no more rapid at the start than that in years with a similar ice extent like the late 1990’s.

Ice in the antarctic requires much colder  temperatures to extend the same distance out as the arctic does .

When some one states the melting in the arctic is 3.4 times that of the freezing in the antarctic [by someone who completely understands the maths of what I am talking about] , One can only conclude that he is being disingenuous.

The existence of such a large anomaly of  area of frozen water so far out, increasing over the last 30 years, must be  a  sign that the earth is currently not warming. If it was warming the Antarctic ice should be disappearing quicker than the arctic ice as it is further out [although in the colder hemisphere.]

The fact that the Antarctic ice diminishes to almost nothing  in Summer  should not  be compared to the  ice in that same latitude  at the North Pole in Summer .As a guess  I would say that there is very little  ice at the  Arctic at the same latitudes except for where glaciers in Greenland etc enter the sea.

disclaimers,         always leave some area’s wrong for the critics.

Stats   a

rea of Global Sea Ice varies from   14.5  to 23.5 total combined area. No balance of north and south masses there but a reflection of the distance away from the Sun. Overall  14.5 just after  winter in the north . 23.5  in summer in the north Sun closest to the earth!

arctic ice     Max       16                  Min 3

antarctic   Max        19                           Min   2

there is more antarctic ice out to a further latitude at its maximum due to the disparity in heat reaching the earth’s surface in the north compared to the south. This is due to the northern hemisphere being closer to the sun in summer. If it was the other way around there would be no sea ice around Antarctica in summer .

poles and the sun is closer to the south pole  in the southern winter.  To achieve an increase in  the southern  area anomaly of  1,000,000 square kilometers  at the lower latitude requires roughly  the same amount of heat loss as it does  the heat gain to melt an anomaly area 1.96 square million kilometers in the north..

when the ice is 1,000,000 square kilometers  more in anomaly at the south pole the degree of cooling is up to 2 times as much as as the amount of heating  needed to  create an anomaly of -2,000,000 square kilometers  at the north pole

Due to the statement set out above  a melting anomaly 4 times greater than a freezing anomaly in the South barely  equates.

Arctic versus Antarctic

A semi scientific perspective.

An article on sea ice area and extent  and balancing  has upset my apple cart enough to try to sort out some common sense  debate on the issue of  North and South sea ice.

It states “Despite the fact that the southern ice pack is larger overall than the northern, its increases are much smaller than the decreases noted for the northern hemisphere, 1.96 million km^2 in extent and 1.92 million km^2 of area. This puts the lie to claims (oft repeated) that southern gain even “almost” balances northern loss — the northern extent loss is 3.4 times as great as the southern extent gain while northern area loss is 3.8 times as great as southern area gain. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another, they are certainly not “balanced” and anyone who claims so is either a fool or an outright liar.”

As I am not a mathematician  or a  facts at the finger tips person I would appreciate  any such comments or additions that make sense  [or nonsense of] my statements to be added to this article.

Statements

At maximum extent I believe the volume of the southern ice pack is smaller [16 square million kilometers[ to  than the  northern ice pack [18 square million kilometers]   via eyeballing a graph from climate4you.com

The last 30 years have seen an imbalance in the  total ice balance  to the negative side  but currently the balance is very  positive with only a slight negative southern anomaly. This means that the southern  area gain of 910,000 square kilometers is  3.4 times that of the northern hemisphere  loss of 280,000 square K. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another it pays to check the current facts.

The two areas of ice do not occupy  the same relative areas to their poles so cannot be looked at as  twins or mirrors of each other. The north is part of a circular semi spherical surface, The south is a larger  circumference dough nut or torus shape though also on a semi spherical surface. Furthermore the heat that reaches them from the sun does so at different latitudes  and hence heats and melts them at different rates for the corresponding times of the year.This explains in part why the pattern of the global sea ice area moves up and down and not in a sinusoidal pattern as would be expected .

The two bodies of ice are totally different in the amount of heat that reaches them as most of the ice at the arctic is at a  much higher latitude,  ie over the north pole  whereas the ice in the antarctic  starts 400 [guess only?]  or more kilometers from the south pole.

Because the earth is curved the amount of heat received  at the surface increases cubically [???] as one moves away from the polar area. So if  the ice area  is starting 400 kilometers away from the pole the heat the ice is receiving is very much higher per square kilometer average  than the same area of ice centered around a pole.

The sun is closer to the north pole  in a northern summer than the south pole  in summer  hence the total  heat delivered to the ice is  greater in the North than the South. Hence the rate of melting  at the south pole is always greater naturally , not as an effect of global warming. [Also the rate of refreeze as the sun is further away in  northern winter at the north as to southern winter at the south pole]. The rate of refreeze should also  be slower in the south due to the fact that the energy reaching the outer ice is higher  at the higher southern latitudes than at the northern very high latitudes.

All late winter ice is thin  hence will melt quickly whether the ice extent for that year is high or low. The rapid melt at the start  in 2012 was due to the larger extent of ice able to melt and was no more rapid at the start than that in years with a similar ice extent like the late 1990’s.

Ice in the antarctic requires much colder  temperatures to extend the same distance out as the arctic does .

When some one states the melting in the arctic is 3.4 times that of the freezing in the antarctic [by someone who completely understands the maths of what I am talking about] , One can only conclude that he is being disingenuous.

The existence of such a large anomaly of  area of frozen water so far out, increasing over the last 30 years, must be  a  sign that the earth is currently not warming. If it was warming the Antarctic ice should be disappearing quicker than the arctic ice as it is further out [although in the colder hemisphere.]

The fact that the Antarctic ice diminishes to almost nothing  in Summer  should not  be compared to the  ice in that same latitude  at the North Pole in Summer .As a guess  I would say that there is very little  ice at the  Arctic at the same latitudes except for where glaciers in Greenland etc enter the sea.

disclaimers,         always leave some area’s wrong for the critics.