Last Build Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:13:55 +0000
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:13:55 +0000The "renowned professor of physics and expert on spectroscopy Dr. Hermann Harde," as he is described on the planet Wattsupia, has quite a history of modelling the GHG effect on climate. He evidently suffers from a particularly high level of wanton ingnorance to persist in such arrant stupidity. Hermann Harde (2014) [PDF] ''Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2' OPEN JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND CLIMATE CHANGE, Volume1,Number3.
ABSTRACT "We present an advanced two-layer climate model, especially appropriate to calculate the inﬂuence of an increasing CO2-concentration and a varying solar activity on global warming. The model describes the atmosphere and the ground as two layers acting simultaneously as absorbers and Planck radiators, and it includes additional heat transfer between these layers due to convection and evaporation. The model considers all relevant feedback processes caused by changes of water vapour, lapse-rate, surface albedo or convection and evaporation. In particular, the inﬂuence of clouds with a thermally or solar induced feedback is investigated in some detail. The short- and long-wave absorptivities of the most important greenhouse gases water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone are derived from line-by-line calculations based on the HITRAN08-databasis and are integrated in the model. Simulations including an increased solar activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2˚C and a solar inﬂuence of 0.54˚C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6˚C (doubling of CO2) and a solar sensitivity of 0.5˚C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant). "Hermann Harde (2013) [PDF] 'Radiation and Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere: A Comprehensive Approach on a Molecular Basis' International Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 2013.
ABSTRACT "We investigate the interaction of infrared active molecules in the atmosphere with their own thermal background radiation as well as with radiation from an external blackbody radiator. We show that the background radiation can be well understood only in terms of the spontaneous emission of the molecules. The radiation and heat transfer processes in the atmosphere are described by rate equations which are solved numerically for typical conditions as found in the troposphere and stratosphere, showing the conversion of heat to radiation and vice versa. Consideration of the interaction processes on a molecular scale allows to develop a comprehensive theoretical concept for the description of the radiation transfer in the atmosphere. A generalized form of the radiation transfer equation is presented, which covers both limiting cases of thin and dense atmospheres and allows a continuous transition from low to high densities, controlled by a density dependent parameter. Simulations of the up- and down-welling radiation and its interaction with the most prominent greenhouse gases water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone in the atmosphere are presented. The radiative forcing at doubled CO2 concentration is found to be 30% smaller than the IPCC value."Hermann Harde (2011) ABSTRACT 'How much CO2 really contributes to global warming? Spectroscopic studies and modelling of the influence of H2O, CO2 and CH4 on our climate', Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 13.
CONCLUSION The values for the global climate sensitivity p[...]
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 10:10:53 +0000I would start with the mass balance equation, as Harde says it is a "fundamental law that must be obeyed by any legitimate model of CO2", with which I would agree, dCO2/dt = En + Ea - An where En and Ea are natural and anthropogenic emissions respectively and An = Ap + deltaA is absorption by natural sinks. Rearranging dCO2 - Ea = En - An We know the LHS is negative (atmospheric CO2 is rising more slowly than the rate of anthropogenic emissions), so the RHS must be negative as well, so we know natural uptake is greater than natural emissions, so nature is a net carbon sink and is opposing the rise, not causing it. Harde makes an obvious error here "Nevertheless, > 98% of the total actual emission per year can be characterized by a residence time [4.1 years] ... For the remaining 1.9%, which are not re-absorbed, the IPCC assumes that they cumulate in the atmosphere..." This implies that most CO2 is removed from the atmosphere within about 4 years, but it isn't, it is mostly just replaced by CO2 from natural sources, which doesn't change atmospheric concentrations. The difference between residence (turnover) time and adjustment time is a bit counterintuitive (and IMHO made more difficult to understand in the terminology used in AR5), but if you are going to write a paper suggesting that the carbon cycle scientists are wrong, then the onus is on you to make sure you really understand it first. There is a very small chance you are Galileo, but a rather larger probability that it is you that is wrong. I somehow doubt Harde discussed this with any of the AR5 authors (just Prof. Salby). I suspect one of the reasons the paper made it through peer review is: "'Referees Please submit, with the manuscript, the names, addresses and e-mail addresses of five potential referees. Note that the editor retains the sole right to decide whether or not the suggested reviewers are used." I really think journals shouldn't do this. If the action editors are suitably qualified, they ought to be able to identify suitable reviewers for themselves, and suggesting reviewers is likely to lead to friendly review of weak papers by reviewers that also suffer from the same misunderstandings.
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 07:43:36 +0000I can't recall how many times I've been reminded that replication of someone else's work, while certainly worthwhile either in lending further strength or accuracy to earlier work, provides almost no advancement for researchers. Often, it is almost as much work as the original research required, and perhaps even more work, and if the results confirm the earlier work then at best it might go into a 6th rate publication somewhere. Sure, if the work disputes earlier work then its own importance I suppose would be consistent with the importance of the earlier work their paper challenges. But it still doesn't show that the researchers are capable of unique, imaginative contributions to the field. Instead, it just shows that they can poke holes and find fault. It's not going to advance the individuals involved that much, though it might injure others. (Which gets to your point about needing some extra scrutiny about motivations for submitted papers.) I think the idea is going to be a long road of learning where the sweet spot is in making it work well for all concerned, and a hard sell along the way, besides. It's needed, no question. I'd like to see some professional credit (though perhaps not as much as adding truly creative, novel contributions -- whether the results are negative [that 6th rate publication again] or affirmative [chances at some fame, perhaps]) go for those either confirming or refuting difficult to challenge results. If the results of the effort improve the accuracy or breadth of application for earlier work or otherwise refute important parts of important earlier work, then that's worth something substantial. Not sure how that plays out in the end, though. I'd imagine that everyone has a limited life span and limited resources and replicating the work of others is pretty much always going to figure low. On the other hand, this might be a great option somewhere along the way towards becoming proficient and sufficiently comprehensive to be independently productive. Where along that path, I'm not sure. But perhaps. Regarding the idea that "‘everyone’ already knows" (or doesn't), it seems to me that anyone staying current, productive, and comprehensive within their profession should probably know. If they don't, then that's a problem for their own work, isn't it? (Certainly, those who are in a position to guide research directions and/or periodically involved in making decisions about research funding.)
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 06:18:27 +0000re 226 Victor IN 2016 China cancelled 30 coal fired power stations and 30 coal stations/electricity projects. This means China is stopping work on the equivalent of the combined coal-fired capacity of UK and Spain. Up to now, the Chinese government had avoided interfering in projects that had already been contracted and financed, and where construction had started. The cancellations will be painful, and entail major commercial losses and disputes. http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal-crackdown-cancel-new-power-plants/ IN 2017 via Victor url " China cancels 103 projects that were planned or under construction, eliminating 120 gigawatts of future coal-fired capacity. China has about 3 times the coal fired capacity of the USA, but are expecting to only use 50% of that capacity, with that decreasing over time and more and more renewable low carbon energy comes online. But it is still huge chunk of global emissions between now and say 2040 by both China and the US alone over the next 25 years.
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 06:04:03 +0000231 mike asks Aren’t there some better, more attractive options? As far as I have seen via govt news et al they are moving positively on all options - and have struck a balance that works for them, perhaps.(?) India is rolling out very large projects in PV solar, thermal solar, nuclear power stations, wind, gas and coal fired power stations. It's an energy hungry fast developing nation. India's population 1 billion 278 Million 457 Thousand 7 hundred and counting. Births today 15,848 and counting Births this year: 66 million and counting It's only February btw. This is the reality. China has 1,373,731,086 souls and counting. Plus 600 Million 44% of those are now at reasonable 'middle class' incomes or above. The European Union is the next largest group of nations with an estimated combined population of over ~510 Million souls and counting. 3rd in Population by Nation is the United States at 318,892,103 (Call it 320 million with the Highest per capita use of fossil fuels and GHG etc in the world) Indonesia 253,609,643 (A huge mainly Muslim nation previously Dutch) Brazil 201,009,622 (Courtesy of the Portuguese) Pakistan 196,174,380 (Courtesy of the British) Yes that's Pakistan with 200 million people! And it's a political basket case with non-stop Islamist bombings and terrorism happening. Nigeria 177,155,754 It's a bit of a poverty basket case too with Terrorist Islamic groups like Boko Haram. 46.5% are Christian, slightly larger than the Muslim population of 45.5%. Bangladesh 166,280,712 First large nation to be affected by sea level rise and reduced river flows from less melting snow and ice being likely. Russia 142,470,272 Half the population of the USA. Per Capita GDP $9,000 (or 16%) versus USA $56,000 per year. Japan 127,103,388 Mexico 120,286,655 Philippines 107,668,231 All other nations are below 100 million in population. The question might be: Can any nation operate today without coal, gas and oil being 3 primary energy sources in their whole energy mix? Are there any alternatives today?
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 05:49:44 +0000It's late and have not read this beyond the abstract but http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2015-63/ looks essentially the same. Eli's friends can let lose.
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 01:29:44 +0000It may make the deniers happy for while, but reality will bite them on the butt. Already, (OT) plants approved for certain zones are dying because of the polar vortex.
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 00:36:59 +0000This sounds like a great idea! I wonder if CARES could be structured as a PubPeer overlay (on analogy to arXiv overlay journals in math, physics, etc. e.g.). So to submit a CARES article, it would first need to be posted as a response to the relevant paper on PubPeer, then go through the CARES review process to become endorsed as a CARES publication.
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 00:13:17 +0000"Invited research article" does not mean much. Authors are encouraged to write to the editor before submitting an article. If they do so, their article is labelled as "invited research article". Really hard to understand how this paper passed peer review. Could someone try to submit a get-me-off-your-fringe-email-list manuscript to Global and Planetary Change to check if they read the manuscript.
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 00:09:38 +0000I wrote a comment paper on the residence time argument of Essenhigh, Gavin C. Cawley, On the atmospheric residence time of anthropogenically sourced carbon dioxide, Energy & Fuels, volume 25, number 11, pages 5503–5513, September 2011. (http://theoval.cmp.uea.ac.uk/publications/pdf/ef2011a.pdf) Which may have some useful material, as does my SkS article on Salby's theory https://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html Pretty poor the paper cites at least two papers that have been the subjects of peer reviewed comments, but fails to cite the comments. Be happy to help out if I can. BTW the 4.3% figure is about right if it refers to the fraction of CO2 molecules of directly anthropogenic origin (i.e. not counting those swapped with "natural" CO2 by the vast exchange fluxes' in which case it is accurate, but irrelevant/misleading)