Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

[IanC]

here is a useful graph that packs a lot of information. for one it gives both the wavelength and the wavenumber. it shows the amount of radiation emitted at the top of the atmosphere but I am not sure for which year. it still gives the general idea. notice that it gives dotted lines for (blackbody) Planck curves at different temperatures.

AGW is concerned with CO2, and CO2 absorption of 15 micron IR. if you look at the graph you will see what appears to be a large chunk taken out, centered on 15 microns. that is the CO2 fingerprint. no 15 micron IR escapes from the surface, it is all absorbed and converted to heat or energy to power other pathways. but there is still some getting out according to the graph. that is where the Planck curves come in. the amount of power radiated at 15 microns is equivalent to a BB at 215K (about -60C). this means that the radiation comes (on average) from an altitude in the atmosphere that is at -60C, a point where the lower density of air and CO2 allows the radiation to escape rather than simply be absorbed and transformed into something else.


at the surface 99.99% of 15 micron IR is absorbed in the atmosphere at 10 meters. 95% is absorbed at one meter. I wish I had the info for 1cm and 1mm. perhaps on the order of 50% and 25%? the surface boundary is a special case where most of the action in radiative transfers take place. the cloud tops are another boundary but only a faint echo.

the so called greenhouse effect is real. the calculated response for doubling CO2 is roughly 1C at the surface. this is the majority view of most skeptics and lukewarmers. what us 'deniers' contest are the supposed feedbacks that multiply that 1C into 3C, or more. what we really deny are the exaggerated propheses of doom and catastrope coming from the original 1C warming. and the last 20 years of data show that our vision agrees with reality much more closely than the warmers predictions.

 

[Wuwei]

Earth's energy budget consists of solar in, minus (shortwave and longwave out). Surely there is no argument there.

Nothing significant.

Solar is considered constant.

No, it's not. But we can do so.

That leaves SW and LW out as the variables. CO2 theory involves LW almost exclusively so we can consider SW out as constant too.

If we want to.

Any deviation from equilibrium will cause warming or cooling.

Here is a problem of yours. You made the same sort of statements in our earlier discussion. No system will move away from equilibrium. Systems always move towards their equilibrium. EQUILIBRIUM moves away from the system. Tell me you understand that.

It is presumed that increased CO2 has blocked 0.85watts per square meter of long wave radiation from escaping at the top of the atmosphere which leads to warming in the pathways below TOA. Are we still in agreement?

No. CO2 doesn't block IR. It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.

As long as there is blocked LW there will be warming. If the surface and atmosphere warm up enough to produce enough LW to force 0.85w more out into space then the Earth will once again be in equilibrium.

Equilibrium is a state whose parameters are defined by the physical characteristics of the system. Change the system and you change the equilibrium state.

The surface and atmosphere will still be warmer than before the extra CO2 blocked 0.85w but the system will be back in equilibrium. Are we still in agreement?

The system will be warmer but it will be back in equilibrium. The system became warmer because the equilibrium temperature increased.

Any increase from the deficit of 0.85w will cause less warming

If you mean, the rate of warming slows as the system approaches equilibrium, I agree. However, this is the opposite of what you said earlier and a point on which I clearly corrected you.

and indeed any increase of LW more than 0.85w will cause cooling. Is that concept clear?

No, and I'm becoming less and less impressed with your smarts Ian. If the equilibrium state has not changed from the +0.85w/m2 that you posited in the beginning, temperatures will not exceed that value. As you yourself just said, warming slows as equilibrium approaches. The system cannot overshoot it. The temperature parameter of the equilibrium state space can be increased which will cause the system to be driven towards a new, warmer state, but it cannot be driven past equilibrium. Ever.

It seems to me that your disagreements are in the mode of the thought experiments.

I believe IANC is thinking in terms of what will happen as a result of a perturbation from equilibrium.

And Crick is saying that in reality there is always equilibrium.

Of course Crick is correct because changes in CO2 are too slow to allow anything but equilibrium.

And IANC is correct in the sense that he is looking at it from a more academic point.

Crick is in a sense saying that a string will always be vertical if a rock hangs from it.

IANC is in a sense saying that if you push the rock, it will eventually stop swinging and hang vertically.

If I'm wrong, then I don't understand either of your points, and I'm sure you will point that out.

 

[Crick]

No. CO2 doesn't block IR. It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.

You said that you believe CO2 sends IR back to the surface of the earth to be reabsorbed and cause warming....now you just think it slows it down. You keep changing your story....why? Which is it, does CO2 slow down outgoing LW or does it send it back to the surface to be reabsorbed to cause warming?

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid... amazingly so. Astoundingly so.

 

[IanC]

Earth's energy budget consists of solar in, minus (shortwave and longwave out). Surely there is no argument there.

Nothing significant.

Solar is considered constant.

No, it's not. But we can do so.

That leaves SW and LW out as the variables. CO2 theory involves LW almost exclusively so we can consider SW out as constant too.

If we want to.

Any deviation from equilibrium will cause warming or cooling.

Here is a problem of yours. You made the same sort of statements in our earlier discussion. No system will move away from equilibrium. Systems always move towards their equilibrium. EQUILIBRIUM moves away from the system. Tell me you understand that.

It is presumed that increased CO2 has blocked 0.85watts per square meter of long wave radiation from escaping at the top of the atmosphere which leads to warming in the pathways below TOA. Are we still in agreement?

No. CO2 doesn't block IR. It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.

As long as there is blocked LW there will be warming. If the surface and atmosphere warm up enough to produce enough LW to force 0.85w more out into space then the Earth will once again be in equilibrium.

Equilibrium is a state whose parameters are defined by the physical characteristics of the system. Change the system and you change the equilibrium state.

The surface and atmosphere will still be warmer than before the extra CO2 blocked 0.85w but the system will be back in equilibrium. Are we still in agreement?

The system will be warmer but it will be back in equilibrium. The system became warmer because the equilibrium temperature increased.

Any increase from the deficit of 0.85w will cause less warming

If you mean, the rate of warming slows as the system approaches equilibrium, I agree. However, this is the opposite of what you said earlier and a point on which I clearly corrected you.

and indeed any increase of LW more than 0.85w will cause cooling. Is that concept clear?

No, and I'm becoming less and less impressed with your smarts Ian. If the equilibrium state has not changed from the +0.85w/m2 that you posited in the beginning, temperatures will not exceed that value. As you yourself just said, warming slows as equilibrium approaches. The system cannot overshoot it. The temperature parameter of the equilibrium state space can be increased which will cause the system to be driven towards a new, warmer state, but it cannot be driven past equilibrium. Ever.

It seems to me that your disagreements are in the mode of the thought experiments.

I believe IANC is thinking in terms of what will happen as a result of a perturbation from equilibrium.

And Crick is saying that in reality there is always equilibrium.

Of course Crick is correct because changes in CO2 are too slow to allow anything but equilibrium.

And IANC is correct in the sense that he is looking at it from a more academic point.

Crick is in a sense saying that a string will always be vertical if a rock hangs from it.

IANC is in a sense saying that if you push the rock, it will eventually stop swinging and hang vertically.

If I'm wrong, then I don't understand either of your points, and I'm sure you will point that out.

I don't think you understand my point. There is only one main equilibrium. Solar energy in, Earth energy out. If there is an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.

All the other processes are powered by the Sun. While a snapshot any of these processes will still be under pressure to equilibrate there is no value that is defined as the correct one. Eg. The Earth could be in perfect equilibrium at surface temperatures of -15, 0, +15 etc.

Crick states that a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at TOA. I am saying that is bullshit and only the balance of input minus output matters. No single piece of all the pathways has a special meaning that disrupts the overarching energy balance of Earth.

Feel free to bring up any points you disagree with.

 

[Wuwei]

If there is an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.....

I understand, but Crick seemed to be saying there would never be an imbalance because equilibrium always comes about. It seemed to me that he didn't understand your "if".

Crick states that a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at TOA. I am saying that is bullshit and only the balance of input minus output matters. No single piece of all the pathways has a special meaning that disrupts the overarching energy balance of Earth.

That is where I'm confused. Considering only the effect of CO2, an increased LW out at the TOA will cause warming at the BOA. But you seem to be saying that an increase in warming at the BOA does not imply an increased LW at the TOA.
It seems like your disagreement with Crick is in what is the cause and effect. I agree with you that the direct cause is at the TOA. But I can't discern if or why Crick is putting his cause at the BOA, and what he thinks would cause the BOA to heat if not an increased TOA radiation.

 

[IanC]

If there is an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.....

I understand, but Crick seemed to be saying there would never be an imbalance because equilibrium always comes about. It seemed to me that he didn't understand your "if".

Crick states that a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at TOA. I am saying that is bullshit and only the balance of input minus output matters. No single piece of all the pathways has a special meaning that disrupts the overarching energy balance of Earth.

That is where I'm confused. Considering only the effect of CO2, an increased LW out at the TOA will cause warming at the BOA. But you seem to be saying that an increase in warming at the BOA does not imply an increased LW at the TOA.
It seems like your disagreement with Crick is in what is the cause and effect. I agree with you that the direct cause is at the TOA. But I can't discern if or why Crick is putting his cause at the BOA, and what he thinks would cause the BOA to heat if not an increased TOA radiation.

IF I understand crick, he thinks CO2 has caused a LW deficit at the TOA and that deficit is being used to warm the surface, causing the surface to radiate more LW to compensate. I have no big problem with that. He then goes on to say that the extra LW from the surface is only retarded not transformed, therefore it will cause an increase at TOA regardless of the status of the equilibrium. I disagree. Any increase of LW at TOA means less warming below (or even cooling if equilibrium has been overshot).

 

[Stephanie]

Crick has to be getting paid by the cult of globull warmers. Just like how Greenbread was for Obama SCAM called, ObamaCare

 

[IanC]

Crick has to be getting paid by the cult of globull warmers. Just like how Greenbread was for Obama SCAM called, ObamaCare

I don't think so. A reasonable person could be convinced of AGW or even CAGW by the one-sided explanations given by climate scientists who neglect to point out the weaknesses because they don't want to dilute the message of the Noble Cause. A responsible citizen should gather more than just cherrypicked evidence, especially now that it is obvious there IS alternate opinions and many of the consensus predictions have been invalidated.

Crick believes he is being honorable by refusing to expose himself to any contrary evidence but he is wrong. Better to know both sides and choose which pieces of evidence are most plausible than to just bow to an authority and let someone else do your thinking for you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Except surface temps aren't increasing...haven't for a couple of decades now. What is increasing is atmospheric CO2, shuttling more energy out into space as evidenced by increasing LW leaving at the TOA. CO2 has zero or less effect on the temperature of earth.

This is precisely what has been going on now for over 27 years. And many up here in the Boulder Co area are looking at why.

 

[IanC]

If there is an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.....

I understand, but Crick seemed to be saying there would never be an imbalance because equilibrium always comes about. It seemed to me that he didn't understand your "if".

Crick states that a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at TOA. I am saying that is bullshit and only the balance of input minus output matters. No single piece of all the pathways has a special meaning that disrupts the overarching energy balance of Earth.

That is where I'm confused. Considering only the effect of CO2, an increased LW out at the TOA will cause warming at the BOA. But you seem to be saying that an increase in warming at the BOA does not imply an increased LW at the TOA.
It seems like your disagreement with Crick is in what is the cause and effect. I agree with you that the direct cause is at the TOA. But I can't discern if or why Crick is putting his cause at the BOA, and what he thinks would cause the BOA to heat if not an increased TOA radiation.

An ever increasing surface (BOA) temperature with an ever increasing TOA deficit is exactly what is being predicted by CO2 theory. As long as CO2 keeps increasing the deficit will also increase leading to ever more warming. Have you heard otherwise from the IPCC etc? I believe they are claiming CO2 is rising at a n exponential rate. I can't see equilibrium pressured warming being capable of overturning that but perhaps I am mistaken.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If there is an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.....

I understand, but Crick seemed to be saying there would never be an imbalance because equilibrium always comes about. It seemed to me that he didn't understand your "if".

Crick states that a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at TOA. I am saying that is bullshit and only the balance of input minus output matters. No single piece of all the pathways has a special meaning that disrupts the overarching energy balance of Earth.

That is where I'm confused. Considering only the effect of CO2, an increased LW out at the TOA will cause warming at the BOA. But you seem to be saying that an increase in warming at the BOA does not imply an increased LW at the TOA.
It seems like your disagreement with Crick is in what is the cause and effect. I agree with you that the direct cause is at the TOA. But I can't discern if or why Crick is putting his cause at the BOA, and what he thinks would cause the BOA to heat if not an increased TOA radiation.

IF I understand crick, he thinks CO2 has caused a LW deficit at the TOA and that deficit is being used to warm the surface, causing the surface to radiate more LW to compensate. I have no big problem with that. He then goes on to say that the extra LW from the surface is only retarded not transformed, therefore it will cause an increase at TOA regardless of the status of the equilibrium. I disagree. Any increase of LW at TOA means less warming below (or even cooling if equilibrium has been overshot).

An increase in LWIR at TOA does not have to result in BOA warming. In fact, about 94% off all incoming radiation is reflected, in our atmosphere, back into space. The problem needs to be defined as where is the energy being stopped or reflected and why. Currently, even with a rise of CO2 in our atmosphere the convection cycle is stopping much of the LWIR in our atmosphere from being reflected back to the surface, ie: no significant warming.

One hypothesis on why the increase of CO2 has not resulted in any net warming, is molecule size. Water being much larger absorbs and then rises away from the earth where it radiates it energy back into space. The increase in CO2 has only lubricated the convection conveyor so there is little (reduced) friction in the coulomb air rise allowing it to speed up.

CAGW requires that a hot spot occur in our lower troposphere where the LWIR is reflected back to the surface to cause warming. This hot spot does not exist, thus no warming is being gained from CO2. It is suspected that CO2 is working inversely and is also a negative forcing on temperature.

The major questions remain, why has CO2 not caused a hot spot and why has the convection cycle speed increased without an increase in BOA temperature? Nature being a beast that loves equilibrium might just be seeking that in individual gases responses to increased volume.

 

[jc456]

Paaaalease what?

Did I quote you? No, so it wasn't directed at you

 

[Wuwei]

An ever increasing surface (BOA) temperature with an ever increasing TOA deficit is exactly what is being predicted by CO2 theory. As long as CO2 keeps increasing the deficit will also increase leading to ever more warming.

That is my understanding. As CO2 concentration increases, the altitude where it is thin enough at the TOA to allow a significant portion of LW to escape the earth rises. That means the radiation is from a colder (higher) region and BB radiation decreases.

Have you heard otherwise from the IPCC etc? I believe they are claiming CO2 is rising at a n exponential rate. I can't see equilibrium pressured warming being capable of overturning that but perhaps I am mistaken.

If the temperature gradient at the TOA drops roughly linearly with altitude, the Stefan Boltzman law says that the radiant power drops by the fourth power with altitude. That is quite a large leverage.

If you look at the CO2 history it looks exponential, but with a rather small coefficient. Ie it is close to linear.

Here is a question I have not found an answer to. We know water is the predominant GHG. Yet as you go up in altitude, water goes through two phase changes. It would all be ice and disappear above the freezing point I would think. So any LWL radiation from water would drop off at 0 deg C. In your graph at the top of page 41. The LW between 18 and 25 uM looks to be around 0 deg C (273 K). Is that more than coincidence? How does the complex behavior of water interplay with the increasing density of other GHGs.

 

[jc456]

Only crick could spin the last five pages of me showing him where he was wrong into an admission that he was right because I agreed with one thing he said, and that he only said by accident not insight.

Your core point, that increasing LW meant we were approaching equilibrium was 180 degrees out.

Your contention that some mechanism was causing the atmosphere to shed energy was nonsense.

The conversation is still present if anyone would like to review it. No spin, just facts.

That is not what he said at all. You sir are posting incorrect information and should be ashamed of yourself!

 

[IanC]

An ever increasing surface (BOA) temperature with an ever increasing TOA deficit is exactly what is being predicted by CO2 theory. As long as CO2 keeps increasing the deficit will also increase leading to ever more warming.

That is my understanding. As CO2 concentration increases, the altitude where it is thin enough at the TOA to allow a significant portion of LW to escape the earth rises. That means the radiation is from a colder (higher) region and BB radiation decreases.

Have you heard otherwise from the IPCC etc? I believe they are claiming CO2 is rising at a n exponential rate. I can't see equilibrium pressured warming being capable of overturning that but perhaps I am mistaken.

If the temperature gradient at the TOA drops roughly linearly with altitude, the Stefan Boltzman law says that the radiant power drops by the fourth power with altitude. That is quite a large leverage.

If you look at the CO2 history it looks exponential, but with a rather small coefficient. Ie it is close to linear.

Here is a question I have not found an answer to. We know water is the predominant GHG. Yet as you go up in altitude, water goes through two phase changes. It would all be ice and disappear above the freezing point I would think. So any LWL radiation from water would drop off at 0 deg C. In your graph at the top of page 41. The LW between 18 and 25 uM looks to be around 0 deg C (273 K). Is that more than coincidence? How does the complex behavior of water interplay with the increasing density of other GHGs.

I think that is a good observation. Water vapour is not a well mixed gas like CO2. Latent heat is released at the point where precipitation occurs. Like I said before, the cloud tops are another boundary, although not as important as the surface.

 

[IanC]

Only crick could spin the last five pages of me showing him where he was wrong into an admission that he was right because I agreed with one thing he said, and that he only said by accident not insight.

Your core point, that increasing LW meant we were approaching equilibrium was 180 degrees out.

Your contention that some mechanism was causing the atmosphere to shed energy was nonsense.

The conversation is still present if anyone would like to review it. No spin, just facts.

That is not what he said at all. You sir are posting incorrect information and should be ashamed of yourself!

Thanks JC. I'm getting pretty used to crick misquoting me. Its easier for him to fight a straw man than quote the real man's words.

 

[Crick]

If LW is increasing that means we are warming less and less because there is no longer as much need to get back to equilibrium. Starting to get it yet?

Because we are continually adding CO2 the LW should also be decreasing. Any increase in outgoing LW means we are getting closer to equilibrium and warming less.

 

[IanC]

So you DO know how to quote me yet you prefer not to?

 

[jc456]

So you DO know how to quote me yet you prefer not to?

he can't, you made arguments he can't dispute. So he's speechless.

 

[IanC]

here is the crick quote that jc

So you DO know how to quote me yet you prefer not to?

he can't, you made arguments he can't dispute. So he's speechless.

I WISH he was speechless!

unfortunately he misunderstands what I say, and then argues against what he thinks I said rather than what I actually said.