In summary...

[jc456]

so Ian, if you're explanation was indeed factual with back radiation, I didn't think oceans could be penetrated by the back radiation from what I've read on the subject. And since the earth is comprised of 70% water, where do you get the doubled wattage from, cause it can't be the water.

What a dolt you are.

I tried to get you to understand how the atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy, and why the atmosphere radiates (part of which is in the direction of the surface), and your retort is the radiation can't penetrate past the skin of the oceans.

Why do I bother?

Fine. Go wallow in your ignorance.

well I wallow in the observed factual.

What observed factual are you talking about?

Are you now denying the observed measurements of the emissivity of water? Done by uncooled instruments of the same basic design as documented in SSDD'S link ?

Water absorbs and emits various bands of IR at an emissivity of 0.95-0.99. a perfect blackbody is defined as 1.00 but is only theoretical.

so, what I posted was that if one believes in back radiation, which I don't, but if one does, then that IR cannot be absorbed by the oceans or water period. I never stated that water can't absorb sun's input radiation.

No, what you're saying is that you are too fucking stupid to understand even the most basic of concepts.

Hahahaha, I told you water has an emissivity of .95 and over for the IR emitted both by the surface and the atmosphere. Documented, observed, empirical. You then said water cannot absorb the vary same radiation that we were talking about. And then made a crazy accusation that someone said you didn't believe water absorbed sunlight radiation. Hahahaha, boy are you ever confused. How do you function in reality? I certainly hope someone takes care of you.

Perhaps you just don't understand the term emissivity. It pertains to what kind of radiation can be absorbed or emitted by a substance. The emission exactly equals absorption, obviously.

water cannot absorb LWIR. the reradiated IR. It can't you have zero observed evidence of it.

 

[jc456]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

"The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

"The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."

It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans."


Is this guy lying? He says the atmosphere is sending IR downward.

 

[jc456]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

"The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."

It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans."


Is this guy lying? He says the atmosphere is sending IR downward.

dude, I clearly stated in a previous post that I don't agree with it, however, since he, Ian, stays there I state.... I've read........... so here is what i've read. So Ian says his back radiation will do x. well here's someone saying he's full of shit. so? I don't believe in back radiation, you know this.

In other words, what Ian believes happens doesn't happen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

"The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."

It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans."


Is this guy lying? He says the atmosphere is sending IR downward.

dude, I clearly stated in a previous post that I don't agree with it, however, since he, Ian, stays there I state.... I've read........... so here is what i've read. So Ian says his back radiation will do x. well here's someone saying he's full of shit. so? I don't believe in back radiation, you know this.

In other words, what Ian believes happens doesn't happen.

dude, I clearly stated in a previous post that I don't agree with it,

Why are you posting something from someone who disagrees so fundamentally with you?

 

[jc456]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

"The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."

It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans."


Is this guy lying? He says the atmosphere is sending IR downward.

dude, I clearly stated in a previous post that I don't agree with it, however, since he, Ian, stays there I state.... I've read........... so here is what i've read. So Ian says his back radiation will do x. well here's someone saying he's full of shit. so? I don't believe in back radiation, you know this.

In other words, what Ian believes happens doesn't happen.

dude, I clearly stated in a previous post that I don't agree with it,

Why are you posting something from someone who disagrees so fundamentally with you?

to prove him wrong on his thinking. again, you have to read that post. I qualified it. it has to do with how he gets his 200watts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

"The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."

It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans."


Is this guy lying? He says the atmosphere is sending IR downward.

dude, I clearly stated in a previous post that I don't agree with it, however, since he, Ian, stays there I state.... I've read........... so here is what i've read. So Ian says his back radiation will do x. well here's someone saying he's full of shit. so? I don't believe in back radiation, you know this.

In other words, what Ian believes happens doesn't happen.

dude, I clearly stated in a previous post that I don't agree with it,

Why are you posting something from someone who disagrees so fundamentally with you?

to prove him wrong on his thinking. again, you have to read that post. I qualified it. it has to do with how he gets his 200watts.

Your own source proves you wrong on your thinking.
Sure you want to go there?

 

[IanC]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

"The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."

Beer's Law? when have I ever said IR was transmitted through water? sunlight doesnt warm a rock by travelling through it, it is absorbed at the surface and conduction does the rest. sunlight does warm water by both warming the surface and penetrating to a deeper depth. So what? IR is absorbed at the surface, and that energy would help warm the skin of the water IF the air is warmer than the water, OR it will balance out some of the surface radiation loss which lowers the rate of cooling if the air is cooler than the water. either way the atmospheric downward radiation adds a warming influence, although actual warming or cooling depends on the surface energy input minus energy output, IN TOTAL.

 

[IanC]

thank god (or whatever created the universe and its rules) that water transmits some sunlight. if it didnt then a larger portion of the sunlight's energy would go into evaporation at the skin. more evaporation, more clouds, less sunlight hitting the surface. any transcient conditions that caused ice to form would likely lead to more ice, until the Earth was an icecube.

 

[IanC]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

"The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."

It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans."


Is this guy lying? He says the atmosphere is sending IR downward.

dude, I clearly stated in a previous post that I don't agree with it, however, since he, Ian, stays there I state.... I've read........... so here is what i've read. So Ian says his back radiation will do x. well here's someone saying he's full of shit. so? I don't believe in back radiation, you know this.

In other words, what Ian believes happens doesn't happen.

dude, I clearly stated in a previous post that I don't agree with it,

Why are you posting something from someone who disagrees so fundamentally with you?

to prove him wrong on his thinking. again, you have to read that post. I qualified it. it has to do with how he gets his 200watts.

Your own source proves you wrong on your thinking.
Sure you want to go there?

Hahahaha, of course he wants to go there. He is a firm believer in "an enemy of my enemy is a friend". Of course jc doesn't understand what the guy said, but it sounded like it was disagreeing with me. Hahahaha

 

[jc456]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

"The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."

Beer's Law? when have I ever said IR was transmitted through water? sunlight doesnt warm a rock by travelling through it, it is absorbed at the surface and conduction does the rest. sunlight does warm water by both warming the surface and penetrating to a deeper depth. So what? IR is absorbed at the surface, and that energy would help warm the skin of the water IF the air is warmer than the water, OR it will balance out some of the surface radiation loss which lowers the rate of cooling if the air is cooler than the water. either way the atmospheric downward radiation adds a warming influence, although actual warming or cooling depends on the surface energy input minus energy output, IN TOTAL.

dude, the skin is cooler than the water underneath it. The atmosphere right above the skin is also cool. wow.

 

[IanC]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

"The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."

Beer's Law? when have I ever said IR was transmitted through water? sunlight doesnt warm a rock by travelling through it, it is absorbed at the surface and conduction does the rest. sunlight does warm water by both warming the surface and penetrating to a deeper depth. So what? IR is absorbed at the surface, and that energy would help warm the skin of the water IF the air is warmer than the water, OR it will balance out some of the surface radiation loss which lowers the rate of cooling if the air is cooler than the water. either way the atmospheric downward radiation adds a warming influence, although actual warming or cooling depends on the surface energy input minus energy output, IN TOTAL.

dude, the skin is cooler than the water underneath it. The atmosphere right above the skin is also cool. wow.

I agree that the skin of the water is cooler than the water directly below it. Because of a known mechanism, evaporation.

Explain what you mean by the atmosphere is cooler. Cooler than what? By what mechanism?

Explain the relevance of your statement to the overall movement of energy through the system because I am not understanding your point, if there is one.

 

[jc456]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

"The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."

Beer's Law? when have I ever said IR was transmitted through water? sunlight doesnt warm a rock by travelling through it, it is absorbed at the surface and conduction does the rest. sunlight does warm water by both warming the surface and penetrating to a deeper depth. So what? IR is absorbed at the surface, and that energy would help warm the skin of the water IF the air is warmer than the water, OR it will balance out some of the surface radiation loss which lowers the rate of cooling if the air is cooler than the water. either way the atmospheric downward radiation adds a warming influence, although actual warming or cooling depends on the surface energy input minus energy output, IN TOTAL.

dude, the skin is cooler than the water underneath it. The atmosphere right above the skin is also cool. wow.

I agree that the skin of the water is cooler than the water directly below it. Because of a known mechanism, evaporation.

Explain what you mean by the atmosphere is cooler. Cooler than what? By what mechanism?

Explain the relevance of your statement to the overall movement of energy through the system because I am not understanding your point, if there is one.

well your original post requested us to explain where the extra energy comes from. you claim if I read your posts accurately, that you believe back radiation from the atmosphere supplies this energy.

If that is your answer, then how can that happen if LWIR can't warm the water. Water is 70% of earth's surface temperature. If your supposed back radiation is your driver, it's impossible since it can't warm the water.

 

[IanC]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

"The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."

Beer's Law? when have I ever said IR was transmitted through water? sunlight doesnt warm a rock by travelling through it, it is absorbed at the surface and conduction does the rest. sunlight does warm water by both warming the surface and penetrating to a deeper depth. So what? IR is absorbed at the surface, and that energy would help warm the skin of the water IF the air is warmer than the water, OR it will balance out some of the surface radiation loss which lowers the rate of cooling if the air is cooler than the water. either way the atmospheric downward radiation adds a warming influence, although actual warming or cooling depends on the surface energy input minus energy output, IN TOTAL.

dude, the skin is cooler than the water underneath it. The atmosphere right above the skin is also cool. wow.

I agree that the skin of the water is cooler than the water directly below it. Because of a known mechanism, evaporation.

Explain what you mean by the atmosphere is cooler. Cooler than what? By what mechanism?

Explain the relevance of your statement to the overall movement of energy through the system because I am not understanding your point, if there is one.

well your original post requested us to explain where the extra energy comes from. you claim if I read your posts accurately, that you believe back radiation from the atmosphere supplies this energy.

If that is your answer, then how can that happen if LWIR can't warm the water. Water is 70% of earth's surface temperature. If your supposed back radiation is your driver, it's impossible since it can't warm the water.

Water can be warmed by IR. It absorbs the IR bands that we are talking about, as shown by the emissivity graphs. You rightfully said IR is not transmitted to depth in water like SW sunshine is. So what?

If the atmosphere is warmer than the water , eg there is more radiation coming down than going up, then the atmosphere is warming the water. The usual case is that the water is warmer than the air, so the air is being warmed.

But even in the usual case of the water warming the air, the downward radiation is balancing out some of the energy loss from the water. 165w from the Sun reaches the surface, the surface loses 400w, the atmosphere returns 235w. The inputs are 165+235 which equals 400. We can certainly argue over the exact numbers, I don't think they will ever be known exactly. But the surface cannot maintain its present temperature (400w = 15C) without receiving energy back from the atmosphere.

You and SSDD have convinced yourselves that the surface is only radiating 165w and the atmosphere is radiating 0w (a perfect vacuum containing no radiation, absolute zero). That does not match reality.

 

[IanC]

The atmosphere is only there, held aloft in the gravity field because of stored solar energy that is constantly being swapped between kinetic and potential energies. This energy must in turn produce blackbody radiation via molecular collisions. The idea that it can magically stop radiating, stop molecular collisions, stop being held aloft in the gravity field, simply by changing the surface temperature is absurd. Especially at a moment's notice.

Like Toddsterpatriot said, "epicycles on top of epicycles on top of epicycles".

 

[Crick]

Why have jc and SSSD stopped responding here? If you don't have an argument with which to counter Ian's points, perhaps you ought to say so.

 

[IanC]

Why have jc and SSSD stopped responding here? If you don't have an argument with which to counter Ian's points, perhaps you ought to say so.

I think you are being unrealistic to expect any specific change in their attitudes. My only hope is that I can reduce the amount of garbage that they spew by calling it out as nonsense when they try.

 

[jc456]

Why have jc and SSSD stopped responding here? If you don't have an argument with which to counter Ian's points, perhaps you ought to say so.

I think you are being unrealistic to expect any specific change in their attitudes. My only hope is that I can reduce the amount of garbage that they spew by calling it out as nonsense when they try.

just remember back radiation is nonsense. Just don't forget that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why have jc and SSSD stopped responding here? If you don't have an argument with which to counter Ian's points, perhaps you ought to say so.

I think you are being unrealistic to expect any specific change in their attitudes. My only hope is that I can reduce the amount of garbage that they spew by calling it out as nonsense when they try.

just remember back radiation is nonsense. Just don't forget that.

just remember back radiation is nonsense

Right. Because photons have tiny thermometers.

 

[jc456]

Why have jc and SSSD stopped responding here? If you don't have an argument with which to counter Ian's points, perhaps you ought to say so.

I think you are being unrealistic to expect any specific change in their attitudes. My only hope is that I can reduce the amount of garbage that they spew by calling it out as nonsense when they try.

just remember back radiation is nonsense. Just don't forget that.

just remember back radiation is nonsense

Right. Because photons have tiny thermometers.

because cold doesn't flow to warm as per the laws. D'oh!

Hey Todd,

When you can post up an experiment that shows something hot getting hotter from something cold I might have to reanalyze my position. but until that cold day in hell, I'll stay on point.