Is global warming hiding underwater?

[Abraham3]

Point is on your ears Cat.. THE NET heat transfer from the THIN skin of EM absorption for EM IR is UPWARDS.. Which means that heat from the skin is LOST to the sky. For whatever gets tapped out of the skin (incredibly small) for "storage", even MORE than that went to the heavens. At NIGHT without a power source, The SKIN loses heat. Doesn't GAIN heat.

Your own link says the opposite. Perhaps you should read it.

"An increase in greenhouse gases would cause an increase in incoming LW radiation
which gets absorbed in the EM skin layer, thus increasing the temperature of the
thermal skin layer and resulting in a surplus of energy. The surplus of energy could
now be fed to the outgoing LW, latent and sensible heat fluxes at the air-sea interface
which was previously supplied by the energy from absorbed SW radiation beneath the
thermal skin layer. The SW radiation would therefore be trapped beneath the thermal
skin layer resulting in a temperature rise in the bulk of the ocean"

As long as the NET flux continues to be upwards --- there is no heat flow to the skin from downdwelling LW. It COULD raise the temperature of the EM skin to a new equilibrium, but does not accumulate energy -- the effect (as noted in your quote) is to further reduce the escape of deeper heat that was the result of direct solar irradiation.. (SW)

Therefore -- the BACK-RAD does not send heat to the deep ocean.. It MIGHT contribute to KEEPING it there, once the SUN puts it there. Depends a lot on wind and sea state and how much of skin temp rise really manifests from a stronger Dwn-Dwelling IR LW.

Main point was there were no herring..

1) No net ACCUMULATION of energy on the surface or at depth from LW down radiation.
2) NET radiative transfer is UP.
3) Solar BROADBAND has a much deeper penetration depth than LW back-rad.

No fish -- no points..

BTW --- Here's where I'm wrong.. This silly notion of GLOBALLY AVERAGING everything including net radiative EM fluxes completely trivializes the science here. We're talking about a childish simplification about what happen NET for the entire planet. THere are PLENTY of ocean surfaces that at season, at any time of day -- have a NET DOWN ratdiative transfer. The Arctic Ocean for instance -- is more than likely to have a net absorption of LW IR from the GHouse. And the Gulf Stream is very likely shedding much more IR LW than our little feud here is acknowledging. Which is why I'm so disturbed at the level of reduction in the Climate Sciences. You could troll and measure IR fluxes all day on a ship and NEVER SEE the numbers and assumptions that we're making here.

As long as we continue to oversimplify how the climate REALLY distributes and stores heat -- the longer Climate Science is gonna stay in the crib..

That was a pathetic attempt at recovery. We've heard before how much smarter you are than the world's climate scientists. You're the only one on the entire planet that buys it. The rest of us are just shaking our heads.

 

[IanC]

They have not failed. You have.

After trying a baker's dozen different explanations, you have NO alternative explanation for the warming we've experienced. This has been very helpful as it demonstrates that you are not friends of science or that you seek to get us all closer to the truth. It has shown that you are simply enemies of AGW.

All attempts to refute or even significantly modify our understanding of the Greenhouse Effect have completely failed but have demonstrated many of the science shortcomings among AGW deniers.

All attempts to villainize well known climate scientists (most of whom are well known only because of your attempts to villainize them) have failed but have been very successful at informing the public of the actual ethics, motives and goals of deniers.

Keep up the good work.

why on earth do you expect unfunded skeptics to come up with 'the reason'? it is hard enough to keep up with pointing out the mistakes that have been made by scientists (and others) who's job it is to get these things right. we have bitterly complained that the CAGW crowd has been wildly exaggerating and every year of new, or newly released, data shows that that has been the case.

 

[Abraham3]

Deniers have had significant funding from the fossil fuel industry. It has done them no good because the aim of those funders is not to seek truth or accuracy or to expand the knowledge of the human race, it is to protect their profits by convincing as many people as possible that climate science - for any reason they can get to stick to the wall - is no good. With that as their aim, that is what they fund. You and others who have chosen to reject the position of mainstream science on this issue, having taken a position that an enormous amount of real research has shown wanting, have little in the way of source material save what is developed by people funded by the fossil fuel industry.

The scientific method calls for examination, review, attempts at replication and the presentation of alternate explanation. It does not call for mindless opposition driven by scientifically unrelated, ulterior motivation. That's not skepticism, it is prejudice.

 

[SSDD]

Deniers have had significant funding from the fossil fuel industry. It has done them no good because the aim of those funders is not to seek truth or accuracy or to expand the knowledge of the human race, it is to protect their profits be convincing as many people as possible that climate science - for any reason they can get to stick to the wall - is no good. With that as their aim, that is what gets funded. You and others who have chosen to reject the position of mainstream science on this issue, having taken a position that an enormous amount of real research has shown wanting, have little in the way of source material save what is developed by people funded by the fossil fuel industry.

The scientific method calls for examination, review, attempts at replication and the presentation of alternate explanation. It does not call for mindless opposition driven by scientifically unrelated, ulterior motivation. That's not skepticism, it is prejudice.

The funding disparity between warmist wackos and skeptics is on the order of 1000 to 1. The fact that there is still a debate, much less a debate which warmist wackos are losing is evidence of how weak the wacko position is.

 

[Abraham3]

And that's just about the ratio between the number of scientists who accept AGW and those who reject it. It's also roughly the ratio between evidence supporting one contention and that supporting the other. It's also about the ratio of the average intellect of a mainstream scientist and that of a denier.

So... 1000:1? Sounds about right. ;-)

ps: there is no debate. That's the number one fraud the fossil fuel industry has been pushing; EXACTLY as did the ID/creationists regarding evolution.

 

[flacaltenn]

Your own link says the opposite. Perhaps you should read it.

"An increase in greenhouse gases would cause an increase in incoming LW radiation
which gets absorbed in the EM skin layer, thus increasing the temperature of the
thermal skin layer and resulting in a surplus of energy. The surplus of energy could
now be fed to the outgoing LW, latent and sensible heat fluxes at the air-sea interface
which was previously supplied by the energy from absorbed SW radiation beneath the
thermal skin layer. The SW radiation would therefore be trapped beneath the thermal
skin layer resulting in a temperature rise in the bulk of the ocean"

As long as the NET flux continues to be upwards --- there is no heat flow to the skin from downdwelling LW. It COULD raise the temperature of the EM skin to a new equilibrium, but does not accumulate energy -- the effect (as noted in your quote) is to further reduce the escape of deeper heat that was the result of direct solar irradiation.. (SW)

Therefore -- the BACK-RAD does not send heat to the deep ocean.. It MIGHT contribute to KEEPING it there, once the SUN puts it there. Depends a lot on wind and sea state and how much of skin temp rise really manifests from a stronger Dwn-Dwelling IR LW.

Main point was there were no herring..

1) No net ACCUMULATION of energy on the surface or at depth from LW down radiation.
2) NET radiative transfer is UP.
3) Solar BROADBAND has a much deeper penetration depth than LW back-rad.

No fish -- no points..

BTW --- Here's where I'm wrong.. This silly notion of GLOBALLY AVERAGING everything including net radiative EM fluxes completely trivializes the science here. We're talking about a childish simplification about what happen NET for the entire planet. THere are PLENTY of ocean surfaces that at season, at any time of day -- have a NET DOWN ratdiative transfer. The Arctic Ocean for instance -- is more than likely to have a net absorption of LW IR from the GHouse. And the Gulf Stream is very likely shedding much more IR LW than our little feud here is acknowledging. Which is why I'm so disturbed at the level of reduction in the Climate Sciences. You could troll and measure IR fluxes all day on a ship and NEVER SEE the numbers and assumptions that we're making here.

As long as we continue to oversimplify how the climate REALLY distributes and stores heat -- the longer Climate Science is gonna stay in the crib..

That was a pathetic attempt at recovery. We've heard before how much smarter you are than the world's climate scientists. You're the only one on the entire planet that buys it. The rest of us are just shaking our heads.

Except for the opinion in the last paragraph -- everything else asserted is backed up..
The opinion that climate science is trivialized by Global Averaging EVERYTHING should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of science exposure. Climate does not respond as a Whole Earth model. A value for radiative balance for the planet as a whole, is a useless distraction from understanding how ocean storage works and heating produces weather.

Go ahead -- tell me how sophisticated and great simplifying complex systems like the climate to SINGLE NUMBERS really is. And how much insight you gain from arguing about ABSTRACT and MEANINGLESS generalizations..

Don't just attack me for thinking..

 

[mamooth]

The funding disparity between warmist wackos and skeptics is on the order of 1000 to 1.

Wow, that's one crazy steaming load of bullshit. If you're at that level of desperation, then we've obviously spanked you in epic fashion.

So, our work is done here. I hope the accolades you get from your fellow cultists make the well-earned derision you get from the rest of the planet bearable.

 

[SSDD]

The funding disparity between warmist wackos and skeptics is on the order of 1000 to 1.

Wow, that's one crazy steaming load of bullshit. If you're at that level of desperation, then we've obviously spanked you in epic fashion.

So, our work is done here. I hope the accolades you get from your fellow cultists make the well-earned derision you get from the rest of the planet bearable.

Ignorant as always....predictable.

 

[Abraham3]

If it isn't 1000 to 1, I think it ought to be. Or higher. Why waste taxpayer dollars protecting the fossil fuel industry? They get more than enough in the way of subsidies and tax breaks, none of which help at all with the true cost we all pay when we use their products.

 

[BobPlumb]

If it isn't 1000 to 1, I think it ought to be. Or higher. Why waste taxpayer dollars protecting the fossil fuel industry? They get more than enough in the way of subsidies and tax breaks, none of which help at all with the true cost of using their product.

But what would be the cost of not using their product?

 

[Abraham3]

It would also be high. I am suggesting that we work to replace it with non-carbon emitting technologies as quickly as we are able. More government efforts at getting the public to conserve energy wouldn't hurt.

And I don't want anyone to get the idea that I don't support the practice of the scientific method. If our current crop of deniers ever choose to open their minds and learn how to do that, they would be welcome to more funding as far as I'm concerned. But I would not give them one penny to pursue their current aims.

 

[flacaltenn]

It would also be high. I am suggesting that we work to replace it with non-carbon emitting technologies as quickly as we are able. More government efforts at getting the public to conserve energy wouldn't hurt.

And I don't want anyone to get the idea that I don't support the practice of the scientific method. If our current crop of deniers ever choose to open their minds and learn how to do that, they would be welcome to more funding as far as I'm concerned. But I would not give them one penny to pursue their current aims.

And just what do yyou think my "current aim" would be if I ever had to come crawling to you for a penny of funding?

 

[Abraham3]

To show that TSI increases, not AGW is responsible for our current warming.


And there's no need to crawl. Walk up to me and take your "no" like a man.

 

[flacaltenn]

To show that TSI increases, not AGW is responsible for our current warming.


And there's no need to crawl. Walk up to me and take your "no" like a man.

But that's not all I ever said.. TSI is just ONE solar variable. There are plenty of others that affect the delicate GHouse. Shifts in SPECTRAL balance could be extremely subtle and interact with the GH window. OR WHERE on the planet the solar isolation has changed the most (and the least) could explain a lot about regional responses to the warming. And I'm more interested in how the Climate WORKS than having an immediate popular theory about 0.5 degC of warming in my lifetime..

My goal would be truly understand the Energy Balance diagram. Dump all the globally averaged garbage and start to explain cyclical climate events like Ocean multi-year cycles and the Arctic Oscillation.. THAT'S where Climate Science owes us some better foundations..

 

[Abraham3]

And after you've "dumped all the global average garbage", how would you answer when people asked you how the world was doing? Tell them they aren't allow to know, tell them that you don't know or tell them it's just a stupid question?

And I'm more interested in how the Climate WORKS than having an immediate popular theory about 0.5 degC of warming in my lifetime..

Popular? I don't even know what that means. But I do know you're going to have to explain to me the difference between how climate works and why the climate is getting warmer.

Shifts in SPECTRAL balance could be extremely subtle and interact with the GH window. OR WHERE on the planet the solar isolation has changed the most (and the least) could explain a lot about regional responses to the warming.

Or there could be magic.

 

[flacaltenn]

All of that "hard stuff" WOULD be magic to your average warmer zealot wouldn't it??

 

[IanC]

And after you've "dumped all the global average garbage", how would you answer when people asked you how the world was doing? Tell them they aren't allow to know, tell them that you don't know or tell them it's just a stupid question?

And I'm more interested in how the Climate WORKS than having an immediate popular theory about 0.5 degC of warming in my lifetime..

Popular? I don't even know what that means. But I do know you're going to have to explain to me the difference between how climate works and why the climate is getting warmer.

Shifts in SPECTRAL balance could be extremely subtle and interact with the GH window. OR WHERE on the planet the solar isolation has changed the most (and the least) could explain a lot about regional responses to the warming.

Or there could be magic.

No one can describe how the climate works to any definitive level. That is the point. It certainly doesn't run on itfitzme's linear correlation to CO2.

 

[Abraham3]

But you will not deny there is a correlation between GHGs (water vapor, CO2, methane, ozone and others) and temperature. Will you?

No one can describe how the climate works to any definitive level

And this statement is damned near meaningless. What do you mean by "how the climate works" and "any definitive level"?

 

[IanC]

But you will not deny there is a correlation between GHGs (water vapor, CO2, methane, ozone and others) and temperature. Will you?

No one can describe how the climate works to any definitive level

And this statement is damned near meaningless. What do you mean by "how the climate works" and "any definitive level"?

You were the one who demanded Flac to explain climate. I am saying we cannot. You soarmists are the ones saying there is a simple and direct relationship between GHGs and warming. Nature disagrees with you.

I am not saying we should stop researching. I am saying we should stop trying to shoehorn the evidence into preformed conclusions. Trenberth would not have found the missing heat in the deep ocean without first deciding it was there and secondly 'reanalyzing' the data.

The warmers have been getting very desparate lately and their ideas are getting less plausible by the minute.

 

[Abraham3]

But you will not deny there is a correlation between GHGs (water vapor, CO2, methane, ozone and others) and temperature. Will you?

No one can describe how the climate works to any definitive level

And this statement is damned near meaningless. What do you mean by "how the climate works" and "any definitive level"?

You were the one who demanded Flac to explain climate.

I did no such thing that statement is yours, not FCT's. I asked him, rhetorically, how he would answer questions about the state of the climate after eliminating the practice of calculating average global temperatures.

I am saying we cannot. You soarmists are the ones saying there is a simple and direct relationship between GHGs and warming. Nature disagrees with you.

The only characterization I have given the relationship is to disagree with FCT's so far unspecified complex, non-linear and magically amplifying relationship between TSI and temperature. As far as the actual relationship between the various radiative forcing factors and global temperatures, I am satisfied to simply show the data. The viewers - including myself - may draw their own conclusions.

I am not saying we should stop researching. I am saying we should stop trying to shoehorn the evidence into preformed conclusions. Trenberth would not have found the missing heat in the deep ocean without first deciding it was there and secondly 'reanalyzing' the data.

I see. So no one is allowed to pursue a hypothesis anymore. The only discoveries allowed from now on are those made accidentally. And if you think that is not what you just said, please explain the distinction to us, because I just don't see one.

The warmers have been getting very desparate lately and their ideas are getting less plausible by the minute.

I disagree. I think they have shown that the scientific method is still alive and well among the world's scientists while it has NEVER been the practice of their enemies. The two practices: an objective search for knowledge and the persecution of those who perform such searches, are patently exclusive.