Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[Billy_Bob]

One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.

The IPCC, in its very first report, hypothesized that a loop of energy would occur if CO2 levels continued to rise. This energy loop would have to manifest itself in our lower troposphere as that is where water vapor resides and where the heat would be self feeding due to CO2 concentration. The IPCC also theorized that water vapor would act as a force multiplier and at some point a tipping point would be reached where we could not return and out of control warming would occur.

The IPCC hypothesis has many problems to deal with. The first is the fact that global CO2 levels have been in excess of 7,000ppm for millions of years while earths temperatures have never deviated from its 12 deg C range. This leads to the obvious question, why? Why didn't these levels of CO2 reach a tipping point and the earths temp runaway? The answer is simple, WATER in its various forms.

Water acts as a negative forcing in direct conflict to the IPCC hypothesis. Recent papers have shown that the base LOG forcing of CO2 is being blunted by water in our atmosphere. Where we should have seen 2 deg C in warming, due to CO2 alone, we have seen less than 0.6 deg C.

When we look at the lower troposphere and how the energy exchange actually works we find out why the 'hot spot' does not exist.
This graph above shows where the hot spot should have manifested itself. Between the ground and cloud top. CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface. But its not occurring how they imagined it. They imagined that the energy would be absorbed by the surface and then re-emited to the water and CO2 in the atmosphere, which would again force it back towards the surface Creating a endless loop of sustaining heat.

The problem comes when water/water vapor absorbs the energy. Unlike CO2 which almost instantaneously re-emits its energy without energy loss, water absorbs the energy and heats itself using some of the energy. Water holds its energy significantly longer than CO2 and the water cools as it rises. The water emits its energy in a much longer wavelength (12-36um) that CO2 is helpless to absorb and is then lost to space.

The AGW energy loop is smashed to bits in the first 150 feet above the ground.

More on how this works tomorrow....

Total bullshit and denier cult insanity.

In the real world....

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof. Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007
Journal reference: Environmental Research Letters
Provided by: University of New South Wales

No. The bullshit is the AGW claims unsupported by science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. So how does it work?

Wrong.

If the atmosphere was pure CO2 it would radiate its heat away 3 times faster than oxygen. A CO2 molecule does not heat up when struck by photons thus it will not "hold" heat.

If the atmosphere was pure CO2 it would radiate its heat away 3 times faster than oxygen.

If O2 is transparent to IR and CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR, why would it radiate heat away faster?

A CO2 molecule does not heat up when struck by photons thus it will not "hold" heat.

An electron moves to a higher orbit. Why doesn't that heat the CO2?

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

The level of energy retained due to excitement (vibration) caused by the movement. I thought you knew basic physics.....

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

Unstable molecules behave differently? Tell me more.

So when then CO2 re-emits, some photons travel toward the surface.
Sounds like that radiates heat away more slowly.
Sounds like the greenhouse effect.

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere.. But they radiate much shorter (warmer) wavelengths and bands.

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere...

Water etc do what? Contribute to the greenhouse effect?
Add to back radiation?

 

[RollingThunder]

One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.

Total bullshit and denier cult insanity.

In the real world....

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof. Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007
Journal reference: Environmental Research Letters
Provided by: University of New South Wales

No. The bullshit is the AGW claims unsupported by science.

LOLOLOLOL.....your denier cult bullshit just got thoroughly debunked, as usual, Boober, and you are once again just too stupid and clueless to recognize that fact. Everybody else can sure see it though. Your brain is totally "unsupported by science".

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wrong.

If the atmosphere was pure CO2 it would radiate its heat away 3 times faster than oxygen. A CO2 molecule does not heat up when struck by photons thus it will not "hold" heat.

If the atmosphere was pure CO2 it would radiate its heat away 3 times faster than oxygen.

If O2 is transparent to IR and CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR, why would it radiate heat away faster?

A CO2 molecule does not heat up when struck by photons thus it will not "hold" heat.

An electron moves to a higher orbit. Why doesn't that heat the CO2?

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

The level of energy retained due to excitement (vibration) caused by the movement. I thought you knew basic physics.....

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

Unstable molecules behave differently? Tell me more.

So when then CO2 re-emits, some photons travel toward the surface.
Sounds like that radiates heat away more slowly.
Sounds like the greenhouse effect.

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere.. But they radiate much shorter (warmer) wavelengths and bands.

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere...

Water etc do what? Contribute to the greenhouse effect?
Add to back radiation?

LOL

CO2's LWIR is radiating at wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything.

Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans. The fact there is no evidence of a mid-tropospheric hot spot shows that alleged heat retention is not happening.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the atmosphere was pure CO2 it would radiate its heat away 3 times faster than oxygen.

If O2 is transparent to IR and CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR, why would it radiate heat away faster?

A CO2 molecule does not heat up when struck by photons thus it will not "hold" heat.

An electron moves to a higher orbit. Why doesn't that heat the CO2?

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

The level of energy retained due to excitement (vibration) caused by the movement. I thought you knew basic physics.....

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

Unstable molecules behave differently? Tell me more.

So when then CO2 re-emits, some photons travel toward the surface.
Sounds like that radiates heat away more slowly.
Sounds like the greenhouse effect.

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere.. But they radiate much shorter (warmer) wavelengths and bands.

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere...

Water etc do what? Contribute to the greenhouse effect?
Add to back radiation?

LOL

CO2's LWIR is radiating at wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything.

Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans. The fact there is no evidence of a mid-tropospheric hot spot shows that alleged heat retention is not happening.

Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object.

Back radiation doesn't slow the escape of IR from the planet?

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

The level of energy retained due to excitement (vibration) caused by the movement. I thought you knew basic physics.....

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

Unstable molecules behave differently? Tell me more.

So when then CO2 re-emits, some photons travel toward the surface.
Sounds like that radiates heat away more slowly.
Sounds like the greenhouse effect.

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere.. But they radiate much shorter (warmer) wavelengths and bands.

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere...

Water etc do what? Contribute to the greenhouse effect?
Add to back radiation?

LOL

CO2's LWIR is radiating at wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything.

Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans. The fact there is no evidence of a mid-tropospheric hot spot shows that alleged heat retention is not happening.

Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object.

Back radiation doesn't slow the escape of IR from the planet?

Recent studies show a direct correlation of input to output. Thus no tropospheric hot spot is seen. Warming is evenly distributed with a lag of about 100 years from solar output ramp up. WE have yet to see the real cool down from our solar drop starting 1998. It is coming, as we exhaust ocean reserves, but has not yet manifested itself.

Correlation of global temperature with solar activity

 

[RollingThunder]

LOL

CO2's LWIR is radiating at wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything.

More denier cult anti-science bullshit and bogus myths from the Boober.

In the real world.....

Warmer Oceans
The atmosphere affects oceans, and oceans influence the atmosphere. As the temperature of the air rises, oceans absorb some of this heat and also become warmer.

What's happening now?

The surface of the world's oceans has become warmer overall since 1880. In this graph, the shaded band shows the likely temperature range, which depends on the number of measurements and the methods used at different times. Source: EPA's Climate Change Indicators (2016).

Overall, the world's oceans are warmer now than at any point in the last 50 years. The change is most obvious in the top layer of the ocean, which has grown much warmer since the late 1800s. This top layer is now getting warmer at a rate of 0.2°F per decade.

What will happen in the future?
Oceans are expected to continue getting warmer—both in the top layer and in deeper waters. Even if people stop adding extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere now, oceans will continue to get warmer for many years as they slowly absorb extra heat from the atmosphere.

Why does it matter?
Warmer oceans affect weather patterns, cause more powerful tropical storms, and can impact many kinds of sea life, such as corals and fish. Warmer oceans are also one of the main causes of rising sea level.

Check out the major effects of warmer oceans on people and the environment:

• Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems
• Coastal Areas

Learn more about warmer oceans and sea level rise by going on an expedition to the Maldives!

Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans. The fact there is no evidence of a mid-tropospheric hot spot shows that alleged heat retention is not happening.

And of course, the Boober stil can't admit that he was wrong.....

Total bullshit and denier cult insanity. In the real world....

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof. Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007
Journal reference: Environmental Research Letters
Provided by: University of New South Wales

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL

CO2's LWIR is radiating at wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything.

Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans. The fact there is no evidence of a mid-tropospheric hot spot shows that alleged heat retention is not happening.

More denier cult anti-science bullshit and bogus myths from the Boober.

In the real world.....

Warmer Oceans
The atmosphere affects oceans, and oceans influence the atmosphere. As the temperature of the air rises, oceans absorb some of this heat and also become warmer.

What's happening now?

The surface of the world's oceans has become warmer overall since 1880. In this graph, the shaded band shows the likely temperature range, which depends on the number of measurements and the methods used at different times. Source: EPA's Climate Change Indicators (2016).

Overall, the world's oceans are warmer now than at any point in the last 50 years. The change is most obvious in the top layer of the ocean, which has grown much warmer since the late 1800s. This top layer is now getting warmer at a rate of 0.2°F per decade.

What will happen in the future?
Oceans are expected to continue getting warmer—both in the top layer and in deeper waters. Even if people stop adding extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere now, oceans will continue to get warmer for many years as they slowly absorb extra heat from the atmosphere.

Why does it matter?
Warmer oceans affect weather patterns, cause more powerful tropical storms, and can impact many kinds of sea life, such as corals and fish. Warmer oceans are also one of the main causes of rising sea level.

Check out the major effects of warmer oceans on people and the environment:

• Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems
• Coastal Areas

Learn more about warmer oceans and sea level rise by going on an expedition to the Maldives!

Your own information and graph out you as a liar.

The previous warming in the oceans was far steeper and faster than today's current trend. So why the slower rate if your so called 'back-radiation' is so prevalent? The IPCC reports should mean that our current trend should be twice that of the previous. Why is it not?

 

[RollingThunder]

Accidental repost.

 

[Billy_Bob]

One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.

The IPCC, in its very first report, hypothesized that a loop of energy would occur if CO2 levels continued to rise. This energy loop would have to manifest itself in our lower troposphere as that is where water vapor resides and where the heat would be self feeding due to CO2 concentration. The IPCC also theorized that water vapor would act as a force multiplier and at some point a tipping point would be reached where we could not return and out of control warming would occur.

The IPCC hypothesis has many problems to deal with. The first is the fact that global CO2 levels have been in excess of 7,000ppm for millions of years while earths temperatures have never deviated from its 12 deg C range. This leads to the obvious question, why? Why didn't these levels of CO2 reach a tipping point and the earths temp runaway? The answer is simple, WATER in its various forms.

Water acts as a negative forcing in direct conflict to the IPCC hypothesis. Recent papers have shown that the base LOG forcing of CO2 is being blunted by water in our atmosphere. Where we should have seen 2 deg C in warming, due to CO2 alone, we have seen less than 0.6 deg C.

When we look at the lower troposphere and how the energy exchange actually works we find out why the 'hot spot' does not exist.
This graph above shows where the hot spot should have manifested itself. Between the ground and cloud top. CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface. But its not occurring how they imagined it. They imagined that the energy would be absorbed by the surface and then re-emited to the water and CO2 in the atmosphere, which would again force it back towards the surface Creating a endless loop of sustaining heat.

The problem comes when water/water vapor absorbs the energy. Unlike CO2 which almost instantaneously re-emits its energy without energy loss, water absorbs the energy and heats itself using some of the energy. Water holds its energy significantly longer than CO2 and the water cools as it rises. The water emits its energy in a much longer wavelength (12-36um) that CO2 is helpless to absorb and is then lost to space.

The AGW energy loop is smashed to bits in the first 150 feet above the ground.

More on how this works tomorrow....

Total bullshit and denier cult insanity.

In the real world....

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof. Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007
Journal reference: Environmental Research Letters
Provided by: University of New South Wales

Ive seen your so called evidence of a hot spot.. The satellites debunked the lie quite easily as did the balloon data sets. The paper was withdrawn when they were confronted. SO why do you use a paper that has been withdrawn and shown false?

 

[RollingThunder]

LOL

CO2's LWIR is radiating at wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything.

Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans. The fact there is no evidence of a mid-tropospheric hot spot shows that alleged heat retention is not happening.

More denier cult anti-science bullshit and bogus myths from the Boober.

In the real world.....

Warmer Oceans
The atmosphere affects oceans, and oceans influence the atmosphere. As the temperature of the air rises, oceans absorb some of this heat and also become warmer.

What's happening now?

The surface of the world's oceans has become warmer overall since 1880. In this graph, the shaded band shows the likely temperature range, which depends on the number of measurements and the methods used at different times. Source: EPA's Climate Change Indicators (2016).

Overall, the world's oceans are warmer now than at any point in the last 50 years. The change is most obvious in the top layer of the ocean, which has grown much warmer since the late 1800s. This top layer is now getting warmer at a rate of 0.2°F per decade.

What will happen in the future?
Oceans are expected to continue getting warmer—both in the top layer and in deeper waters. Even if people stop adding extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere now, oceans will continue to get warmer for many years as they slowly absorb extra heat from the atmosphere.

Why does it matter?
Warmer oceans affect weather patterns, cause more powerful tropical storms, and can impact many kinds of sea life, such as corals and fish. Warmer oceans are also one of the main causes of rising sea level.

Check out the major effects of warmer oceans on people and the environment:

• Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems
• Coastal Areas

Learn more about warmer oceans and sea level rise by going on an expedition to the Maldives!

Your own information and graph out you as a liar.

View attachment 113790

LOLOLOLOL....

Altering a graph that you are too stupid to understand just makes you look even more retarded, boober.

In the real world...

Ocean heat content data to a depth of 2,000 meters

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

Unstable molecules behave differently? Tell me more.

So when then CO2 re-emits, some photons travel toward the surface.
Sounds like that radiates heat away more slowly.
Sounds like the greenhouse effect.

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere.. But they radiate much shorter (warmer) wavelengths and bands.

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere...

Water etc do what? Contribute to the greenhouse effect?
Add to back radiation?

LOL

CO2's LWIR is radiating at wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything.

Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans. The fact there is no evidence of a mid-tropospheric hot spot shows that alleged heat retention is not happening.

Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object.

Back radiation doesn't slow the escape of IR from the planet?

Recent studies show a direct correlation of input to output. Thus no tropospheric hot spot is seen. Warming is evenly distributed with a lag of about 100 years from solar output ramp up. WE have yet to see the real cool down from our solar drop starting 1998. It is coming, as we exhaust ocean reserves, but has not yet manifested itself.

View attachment 113789

Correlation of global temperature with solar activity

Recent studies show a direct correlation of input to output.

Back radiation slows output.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere.. But they radiate much shorter (warmer) wavelengths and bands.

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere...

Water etc do what? Contribute to the greenhouse effect?
Add to back radiation?

LOL

CO2's LWIR is radiating at wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything.

Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans. The fact there is no evidence of a mid-tropospheric hot spot shows that alleged heat retention is not happening.

Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object.

Back radiation doesn't slow the escape of IR from the planet?

Recent studies show a direct correlation of input to output. Thus no tropospheric hot spot is seen. Warming is evenly distributed with a lag of about 100 years from solar output ramp up. WE have yet to see the real cool down from our solar drop starting 1998. It is coming, as we exhaust ocean reserves, but has not yet manifested itself.

View attachment 113789

Correlation of global temperature with solar activity

Recent studies show a direct correlation of input to output.

Back radiation slows output.

So why does Blundering idiots graph above show the rate of warming slower? If your hypothesis were correct it should be warming faster and its not.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL

CO2's LWIR is radiating at wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything.

Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans. The fact there is no evidence of a mid-tropospheric hot spot shows that alleged heat retention is not happening.

More denier cult anti-science bullshit and bogus myths from the Boober.

In the real world.....

Warmer Oceans
The atmosphere affects oceans, and oceans influence the atmosphere. As the temperature of the air rises, oceans absorb some of this heat and also become warmer.

What's happening now?

The surface of the world's oceans has become warmer overall since 1880. In this graph, the shaded band shows the likely temperature range, which depends on the number of measurements and the methods used at different times. Source: EPA's Climate Change Indicators (2016).

Overall, the world's oceans are warmer now than at any point in the last 50 years. The change is most obvious in the top layer of the ocean, which has grown much warmer since the late 1800s. This top layer is now getting warmer at a rate of 0.2°F per decade.

What will happen in the future?
Oceans are expected to continue getting warmer—both in the top layer and in deeper waters. Even if people stop adding extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere now, oceans will continue to get warmer for many years as they slowly absorb extra heat from the atmosphere.

Why does it matter?
Warmer oceans affect weather patterns, cause more powerful tropical storms, and can impact many kinds of sea life, such as corals and fish. Warmer oceans are also one of the main causes of rising sea level.

Check out the major effects of warmer oceans on people and the environment:

• Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems
• Coastal Areas

Learn more about warmer oceans and sea level rise by going on an expedition to the Maldives!

Your own information and graph out you as a liar.

View attachment 113790

LOLOLOLOL....

Altering a graph that you are too stupid to understand just makes you look even more retarded, boober.

In the real world...

Ocean heat content data to a depth of 2,000 meters

Changing the scale and leaving out the data of the 1900-1950's is really a shit move.. Making the data look bad by falsification and a parlor trick.. nice move there blunderboy...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere...

Water etc do what? Contribute to the greenhouse effect?
Add to back radiation?

LOL

CO2's LWIR is radiating at wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything.

Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans. The fact there is no evidence of a mid-tropospheric hot spot shows that alleged heat retention is not happening.

Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object.

Back radiation doesn't slow the escape of IR from the planet?

Recent studies show a direct correlation of input to output. Thus no tropospheric hot spot is seen. Warming is evenly distributed with a lag of about 100 years from solar output ramp up. WE have yet to see the real cool down from our solar drop starting 1998. It is coming, as we exhaust ocean reserves, but has not yet manifested itself.

View attachment 113789

Correlation of global temperature with solar activity

Recent studies show a direct correlation of input to output.


.

So why does Blundering idiots graph above show the rate of warming slower? If your hypothesis were correct it should be warming faster and its not.

View attachment 113813

your hypothesis were correct it should be warming faster and its not.

Back radiation slows output. By definition. Whether the planet is in a warming or cooling phase.

 

[RollingThunder]

One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.

Total bullshit and denier cult insanity.

In the real world....

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof. Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007
Journal reference: Environmental Research Letters
Provided by: University of New South Wales

Ive seen your so called evidence of a hot spot..

Too bad you're too stupid and ignorant to understand it, boober.

The satellites debunked the lie quite easily as did the balloon data sets. The paper was withdrawn when they were confronted. SO why do you use a paper that has been withdrawn and shown false?

Why do you lie about these things when your lies are so easy to debunk?

In the real world, the Sherwood paper was never "debunked"....nor was it "withdrawn"!

It stands! As anyone can check and see.

YOU ARE A LIAR!

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)
Steven C Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant
Published 11 May 2015 • © 2015 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 10, Number 5

 

[RollingThunder]

CO2's LWIR is radiating at wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything. Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans.

More denier cult anti-science bullshit and bogus myths from the Boober. In the real world.....
Warmer Oceans
The atmosphere affects oceans, and oceans influence the atmosphere. As the temperature of the air rises, oceans absorb some of this heat and also become warmer.

Overall, the world's oceans are warmer now than at any point in the last 50 years. The change is most obvious in the top layer of the ocean, which has grown much warmer since the late 1800s. This top layer is now getting warmer at a rate of 0.2°F per decade.

What will happen in the future?
Oceans are expected to continue getting warmer—both in the top layer and in deeper waters. Even if people stop adding extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere now, oceans will continue to get warmer for many years as they slowly absorb extra heat from the atmosphere.

Why does it matter?
Warmer oceans affect weather patterns, cause more powerful tropical storms, and can impact many kinds of sea life, such as corals and fish. Warmer oceans are also one of the main causes of rising sea level.

Check out the major effects of warmer oceans on people and the environment:

• Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems
• Coastal Areas

Learn more about warmer oceans and sea level rise by going on an expedition to the Maldives!

Your own information and graph out you as a liar.

View attachment 113790
The previous warming in the oceans was far steeper and faster than today's current trend. So why the slower rate if your so called 'back-radiation' is so prevalent? The IPCC reports should mean that our current trend should be twice that of the previous. Why is it not?

More denier cult cherry-picking.

In the real world....

Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature
United States Environmental Protection Agency

This indicator describes global trends in sea surface temperature.

Figure 1. Average Global Sea Surface Temperature, 1880–2015

This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the world’s oceans has changed since 1880. This graph uses the 1971 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The shaded band shows the range of uncertainty in the data, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.

Data source: NOAA, 2016
Web update: August 2016

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2's LWIR is radiating at wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C. Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything. Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans.

More denier cult anti-science bullshit and bogus myths from the Boober. In the real world.....
Warmer Oceans
The atmosphere affects oceans, and oceans influence the atmosphere. As the temperature of the air rises, oceans absorb some of this heat and also become warmer.

Overall, the world's oceans are warmer now than at any point in the last 50 years. The change is most obvious in the top layer of the ocean, which has grown much warmer since the late 1800s. This top layer is now getting warmer at a rate of 0.2°F per decade.

What will happen in the future?
Oceans are expected to continue getting warmer—both in the top layer and in deeper waters. Even if people stop adding extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere now, oceans will continue to get warmer for many years as they slowly absorb extra heat from the atmosphere.

Why does it matter?
Warmer oceans affect weather patterns, cause more powerful tropical storms, and can impact many kinds of sea life, such as corals and fish. Warmer oceans are also one of the main causes of rising sea level.

Check out the major effects of warmer oceans on people and the environment:

• Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems
• Coastal Areas

Learn more about warmer oceans and sea level rise by going on an expedition to the Maldives!

Your own information and graph out you as a liar.

View attachment 113790
The previous warming in the oceans was far steeper and faster than today's current trend. So why the slower rate if your so called 'back-radiation' is so prevalent? The IPCC reports should mean that our current trend should be twice that of the previous. Why is it not?

More denier cult cherry-picking.

In the real world....

Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature
United States Environmental Protection Agency

This indicator describes global trends in sea surface temperature.

Figure 1. Average Global Sea Surface Temperature, 1880–2015

This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the world’s oceans has changed since 1880. This graph uses the 1971 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The shaded band shows the range of uncertainty in the data, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.

Data source: NOAA, 2016
Web update: August 2016

You keep posting bullshit... here are a few facts..

"Fluxes across the sea-atmosphere interface: Heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere is a product of a number of processes: solar radiation heats the ocean; net long wave back radiation cools the ocean; heat transfer by conduction and convection between the air and water generally cools the ocean as does evaporation of water from the ocean surface."

And you still don't have a clue...

Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling

 

[Crick]

And does your link conclude that the ocean is cooling? Does it state that the ocean cannot absorb energy from long wave radiation? Does it reject AGW? No, no and no.

 

[IanC]

Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.

Work (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia

There are several ways of doing work, each in some way related to a force acting through a distance.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics, heat always flows from cold to warm and never vice versa.

heat and energy always flow SPONTANEOUSLY from cold to warm...if you apply work, you can make heat and energy flow from cool to warm...as in an air conditioner.

I don't know much about it but got in an argument about the Third Law of Thermodynamics with my mom and in particular, entropy. I was asking her about how life emerged from chaos, she said there are small pockets of order in disorder.

The first consideration in such an argument is that the Earth is not a closed system...it receives energy and matter from outside itself and loses energy and matter to locations outside itself...

Secondly...the second law doesn't claim that the entropy of any, or all particular parts of a system must increase. If it did, ice could never form or vapor would never condense into liquid...

And yet...there were the temperature gradients..repeatable experiments demonstrating them.....and there was plenty of movement...do you think that the air in those columns was actually static?..

The random movement of a gas in a closed container is not work. The paper you cited claims it is a perpetual motion device of the second kind. Do you believe perpetual motion can be achieved?

Gravity exerts pressure...exerted pressure is work...like it or not, it is how it is. And the fact of the temperature gradients is still there and still repeatable...it gives far more credibility to the atmospheric thermal effect which warmer wackos claim can't exist..than the unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mechanism buy which you claim the greenhouse effect works.

Please read my posts again where I clearly defined the difference between the Second and Third Law. I have a lot of questions that I need answered. How does gravity escape a black hole when light cannot and both travel at the same speed? You will probably say Frame Dragging.which will boggle my mind.

What a great question! Thanks for that.