Why Water will not allow LWIR energy beyond the skin layer...

[Billy_Bob]

You guys are going around in circles and you cant even see it.....

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL

100ths of joules....

More precisely 0.001 deg C... at over 700m in depth...

You idiots are so funny... Accuracy that no physical measuring device has... Your MOE (margin of error) is +/- 1 deg C making your whole graph a subjective crap assumption....

Here is yet another example of your stupidity.

You took a valid point and mangled it with your lack of scientific knowledge. Zettajoules are 10^23, not hundreds of joules or hundredths of joules, whichever you were trying to say.

OHC stands for ocean heat content. Heat is an actual amount energy, temperature is a description of how much energy is present per volume.

The OHC graph is somewhat misleading because it uses large numbers of joules but because the the oceans contain a huge amount of water the change in temperature for the whole is very small when averaged out. Perhaps on the order of hundredths of a degree. Which does call into question our ability to measure it with any certainty.

So you have ruined a perfectly good skeptical counterpoint with your uneducated babbling.

You're a fucking idiot, and I wish you weren't nominally on my side because you do more damage than good with your gobbledygook.

OH please.... Come on Ian do the damn math...

 

[mamooth]

OH please.... Come on Ian do the damn math...

You first, little fraud.

Show us the math and physics. Show us how raising the ocean skin temp by 1C -- the value that's been directly measured -- increases evaporation to such an extent that it instantly removes all the heat added by the backradiation. After all, that is your reality-defying claim, so the burden of proof is on you to support it.

 

[IanC]

LOL

100ths of joules....

More precisely 0.001 deg C... at over 700m in depth...

You idiots are so funny... Accuracy that no physical measuring device has... Your MOE (margin of error) is +/- 1 deg C making your whole graph a subjective crap assumption....

Here is yet another example of your stupidity.

You took a valid point and mangled it with your lack of scientific knowledge. Zettajoules are 10^23, not hundreds of joules or hundredths of joules, whichever you were trying to say.

OHC stands for ocean heat content. Heat is an actual amount energy, temperature is a description of how much energy is present per volume.

The OHC graph is somewhat misleading because it uses large numbers of joules but because the the oceans contain a huge amount of water the change in temperature for the whole is very small when averaged out. Perhaps on the order of hundredths of a degree. Which does call into question our ability to measure it with any certainty.

So you have ruined a perfectly good skeptical counterpoint with your uneducated babbling.

You're a fucking idiot, and I wish you weren't nominally on my side because you do more damage than good with your gobbledygook.

OH please.... Come on Ian do the damn math...

Which math question are you talking about?

I have a rough idea about the quantity and direction for the main pathways of energy flow going into and out of the oceans and atmosphere. My overview of this is coherent and accounts for all of the energy.

You claim energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere has no effect. What utter nonsense. That would mean that the absence of the atmosphere would cause no change. If that example is too extreme then consider what would happen if the atmosphere was 33C colder than now. Still no change? How about 5C colder?

I agree that energy budgets like Trenberth's cartoon are simplified to the point of uselessness. He has bundled all of the pathways into one and called it back radiation. For the lower troposphere up to the cloudtops he has a separate section for updraughts and the water cycle but it is not included in the calculations. 3/5ths of the solar input at the surface escapes this way but the actual calculations consider it radiation. Likewise the energy returning from the atmosphere is also returning by pathways other than just radiation. Trenberth was just trying to get the numbers to add up. He certainly did not explain where the surplus or deficit energy was being stored or released.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You claim energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere has no effect. What utter nonsense. That would mean that the absence of the atmosphere would cause no change. If that example is too extreme then consider what would happen if the atmosphere was 33C colder than now. Still no change? How about 5C colder?

Your claim is that LWIR heats up the Oceans. I have shown why that is categorically impossible. The heat/energy path is conduction and convection and all without the presence of a hot spot (where the energy is supposed to enter a redundant loop) in out atmosphere. The lack of a hot spot tells me that the dry air is not bringing back down the warmer air to the surface.

SO the calculations are wrong. Trenbreth has added in downward heating where it is not present.

His big thing was that the heat was hiding in the deep oceans. I have shown that this is not possible by simple physical traits of water in our atmosphere and how LWIR fails to interact at the surface and water immediately releases it.

To remove the magical heat retention all it takes is the convection cycle to increase 0.1% to remove 1.1 W/m^2. That is easily obtainable in the surface of the oceans where the phase change is occurring at all temperatures above freezing. Heat is then not released near surface and escapes to space.

20N Lat to 20S Lat only needs to have 0.6% cycle change to do what is needed. The rest of the oceans are on the curve as temps fall and energy input declines. The ENSO can do this on its own without the sun. Now we have the sun dropping 1.2 W/m^2 in the last two years..

Everything we have seen to date can be explained by Natural Variation.

 

[IanC]

Your claim is that LWIR heats up the Oceans.

I haven't said that. I have denied saying that dozens of times. Put up a quote of mine where I said that.

You are apparently too stupid to understand what I have said, even though I have been very explicit.

If you really are a post graduate student then you must be an affirmative action admission because you obviously don't understand the science. Or perhaps a legacy admit? Either way you are wasting a space that could have been given to someone deserving.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL

100ths of joules....

More precisely 0.001 deg C... at over 700m in depth...

You idiots are so funny... Accuracy that no physical measuring device has... Your MOE (margin of error) is +/- 1 deg C making your whole graph a subjective crap assumption....

Here is yet another example of your stupidity.

You took a valid point and mangled it with your lack of scientific knowledge. Zettajoules are 10^23, not hundreds of joules or hundredths of joules, whichever you were trying to say.

OHC stands for ocean heat content. Heat is an actual amount energy, temperature is a description of how much energy is present per volume.

The OHC graph is somewhat misleading because it uses large numbers of joules but because the the oceans contain a huge amount of water the change in temperature for the whole is very small when averaged out. Perhaps on the order of hundredths of a degree. Which does call into question our ability to measure it with any certainty.

So you have ruined a perfectly good skeptical counterpoint with your uneducated babbling.

You're a fucking idiot, and I wish you weren't nominally on my side because you do more damage than good with your gobbledygook.

LOL...

The whole point was the inflated Joules scenario is total BS. When you convert the amounts to caloric expenditure it doesn't have the ability to warm the mass. Your "Ocean Heat Content" is pure made up BS. They changed the measurement method to make the layman unable to call out the lie.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The simple amounts of energy required makes the LWIR scenario impossible given there is an active phase change going on all of the time (above freezing) in the skin layer of the ocean (firs ten microns).

 

[IanC]

LOL

100ths of joules....

More precisely 0.001 deg C... at over 700m in depth...

You idiots are so funny... Accuracy that no physical measuring device has... Your MOE (margin of error) is +/- 1 deg C making your whole graph a subjective crap assumption....

Here is yet another example of your stupidity.

You took a valid point and mangled it with your lack of scientific knowledge. Zettajoules are 10^23, not hundreds of joules or hundredths of joules, whichever you were trying to say.

OHC stands for ocean heat content. Heat is an actual amount energy, temperature is a description of how much energy is present per volume.

The OHC graph is somewhat misleading because it uses large numbers of joules but because the the oceans contain a huge amount of water the change in temperature for the whole is very small when averaged out. Perhaps on the order of hundredths of a degree. Which does call into question our ability to measure it with any certainty.

So you have ruined a perfectly good skeptical counterpoint with your uneducated babbling.

You're a fucking idiot, and I wish you weren't nominally on my side because you do more damage than good with your gobbledygook.

LOL...

The whole point was the inflated Joules scenario is total BS. When you convert the amounts to caloric expenditure it doesn't have the ability to warm the mass. Your "Ocean Heat Content" is pure made up BS. They changed the measurement method to make the layman unable to call out the lie.

OHC is actually the best metric to use. Unfortunately most people don't understand that a huge sounding change in total stored energy translates into a very small change in temperature.

Even more important is the proxy evidence that OHC has dropped dramatically from the beginning of the interglacial until now. We have lost 50 (arbitrary units) in the last eight thousand years but gained 1 (arbitrary units) in the last hundred. Which is more important, the fifty loss or the one gain?

The Atmosphere Heat Content is also a better metric than just surface temperature. I think I'll stop because no one cares really.

You claim IR does not 'heat' the surface and I agree. I claim IR affects the heat loss from the surface and you disagree.

Energy budgets make the simplification of presenting energy flows as radiation. That is not true. It is a combination of radiation, conduction and convection. Even those catagorize are not enough. Conduction in a gas is different than conduction in a solid or liquid.

SSDD thinks N&Z have all the answers with the mass of the atmosphere. I think they have the largest piece of the puzzle but there is still room for GHGs. Conduction and the equivalent for gases is the main controlling factor for surface temperature. The energy stored in the atmosphere affects how much energy can be lost by the surface.

Things are never as simple and neat as people present them. Most of the examples we are exposed to are wrong although they explain the underlying principle. CO2 doesn't reemit a captured photon back at the surface except on rare occasions but the influence of the energy does affect the surface as if it was happening. It just goes through more complex pathways to get there.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD thinks N&Z have all the answers with the mass of the atmosphere. I think they have the largest piece of the puzzle but there is still room for GHGs. Conduction and the equivalent for gases is the main controlling factor for surface temperature. The energy stored in the atmosphere affects how much energy can be lost by the surface.

The only so called GHG that has an effect on the temperature is water..and that is because it can actually hold energy at atmospheric temperatures...CO2 can't start holding energy till it is cooled to its liquid stage.

 

[mamooth]

To remove the magical heat retention all it takes is the convection cycle to increase 0.1% to remove 1.1 W/m^2.

Going from the Trenberth diagram, the backradiation is 333 W/m^2, while evaporation is 80 W/m^2.

That is, you seem to be faking all the numbers, and doing it very badly.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You claim IR does not 'heat' the surface and I agree. I claim IR affects the heat loss from the surface and you disagree.

I do indeed disagree with you. The absence of a hot spot shows that it is not happening. It is the Empirically Observed Evidence that shows your position wrong.

One need only go to a desert to prove this. 0-10% humidity in day time will allow temps to soar to over 120 degrees and at night drop to below freezing in matter of an hour. IF CO2 is well mixed, this disproves your
hypothesis.

 

[IanC]

You claim IR does not 'heat' the surface and I agree. I claim IR affects the heat loss from the surface and you disagree.

I do indeed disagree with you. The absence of a hot spot shows that it is not happening. It is the Empirically Observed Evidence that shows your position wrong.

One need only go to a desert to prove this. 0-10% humidity in day time will allow temps to soar to over 120 degrees and at night drop to below freezing in matter of an hour. IF CO2 is well mixed, this disproves your
hypothesis.

How, exactly, does the separate and larger effect from water disprove the separate and smaller effect from CO2?

Why do you continue to say the missing hot spot disproves CO2'S contribution to the greenhouse effect when it is a prediction based on water feedbacks?

You make little sense and you are continuously confusing cause and effect.

Where does the energy absorbed by CO2 enter the atmosphere? In the first few metres. Where does the energy moved by the water cycle get released into the atmosphere? At the cloudtops.

How is CO2 supposedly the main cause of phase change energy at the cloudtops? Why do you keep saying that it is? It makes no sense.

 

[IanC]

SSDD thinks N&Z have all the answers with the mass of the atmosphere. I think they have the largest piece of the puzzle but there is still room for GHGs. Conduction and the equivalent for gases is the main controlling factor for surface temperature. The energy stored in the atmosphere affects how much energy can be lost by the surface.

The only so called GHG that has an effect on the temperature is water..and that is because it can actually hold energy at atmospheric temperatures...CO2 can't start holding energy till it is cooled to its liquid stage.

The Greenhouse Effect contains both radiative components and water cycle components. Why do you think the water cycle component negates the radiative one?

What do you think would happen to the surface temperature if the movement of energy past the surface bottleneck was not available? A simple warmer or cooler will suffice.

Nature always takes the most efficient pathways to shed energy. It uses a combination of pathways, in the most efficient ratios.

A warming surface sends more energy through the water cycle, and changes the timing of events. A cooling surface causes the reverse. But there has to be some change otherwise the ratio would stay the same.

 

[IanC]

To remove the magical heat retention all it takes is the convection cycle to increase 0.1% to remove 1.1 W/m^2.

Going from the Trenberth diagram, the backradiation is 333 W/m^2, while evaporation is 80 W/m^2.

That is, you seem to be faking all the numbers, and doing it very badly.

The misdirection in Trenberth's cartoon is that energy is counted in a general form described as radiation, and specific forms as thermals and the water cycle. If you use the energy for one form, is it also available for the other?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You claim IR does not 'heat' the surface and I agree. I claim IR affects the heat loss from the surface and you disagree.

I do indeed disagree with you. The absence of a hot spot shows that it is not happening. It is the Empirically Observed Evidence that shows your position wrong.

One need only go to a desert to prove this. 0-10% humidity in day time will allow temps to soar to over 120 degrees and at night drop to below freezing in matter of an hour. IF CO2 is well mixed, this disproves your
hypothesis.

How, exactly, does the separate and larger effect from water disprove the separate and smaller effect from CO2?

Why do you continue to say the missing hot spot disproves CO2'S contribution to the greenhouse effect when it is a prediction based on water feedbacks?

You make little sense and you are continuously confusing cause and effect.

Where does the energy absorbed by CO2 enter the atmosphere? In the first few metres. Where does the energy moved by the water cycle get released into the atmosphere? At the cloudtops.

How is CO2 supposedly the main cause of phase change energy at the cloudtops? Why do you keep saying that it is? It makes no sense.

Your magical CO2 is supposed to be the fix all at altitude, not allowing energy escape. But Empirical Evidence shows that it is stopping nothing. It is not having the effect they presumed.

 

[IanC]

You claim IR does not 'heat' the surface and I agree. I claim IR affects the heat loss from the surface and you disagree.

I do indeed disagree with you. The absence of a hot spot shows that it is not happening. It is the Empirically Observed Evidence that shows your position wrong.

One need only go to a desert to prove this. 0-10% humidity in day time will allow temps to soar to over 120 degrees and at night drop to below freezing in matter of an hour. IF CO2 is well mixed, this disproves your
hypothesis.

How, exactly, does the separate and larger effect from water disprove the separate and smaller effect from CO2?

Why do you continue to say the missing hot spot disproves CO2'S contribution to the greenhouse effect when it is a prediction based on water feedbacks?

You make little sense and you are continuously confusing cause and effect.

Where does the energy absorbed by CO2 enter the atmosphere? In the first few metres. Where does the energy moved by the water cycle get released into the atmosphere? At the cloudtops.

How is CO2 supposedly the main cause of phase change energy at the cloudtops? Why do you keep saying that it is? It makes no sense.

Your magical CO2 is supposed to be the fix all at altitude, not allowing energy escape. But Empirical Evidence shows that it is stopping nothing. It is not having the effect they presumed.

Actually, empirical evidence shows that 15 micron radiation doesn't start escaping to space until the atmosphere is thin enough that some photons pass through to space rather than being immediately reabsorbed.

Is that what you meant to say? If not then be more specific.

 

[SSDD]

The Greenhouse Effect contains both radiative components and water cycle components. Why do you think the water cycle component negates the radiative one?

Ian, it is just f'ing stupid to claim a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere so totally, completely, and overwhelmingly dominated by convection....and the greenhouse effect is radiative in nature...it assumes that radiation is the dominant means of energy transport in the troposphere, and does not even take convection into account..

 

[Billy_Bob]

You claim IR does not 'heat' the surface and I agree. I claim IR affects the heat loss from the surface and you disagree.

I do indeed disagree with you. The absence of a hot spot shows that it is not happening. It is the Empirically Observed Evidence that shows your position wrong.

One need only go to a desert to prove this. 0-10% humidity in day time will allow temps to soar to over 120 degrees and at night drop to below freezing in matter of an hour. IF CO2 is well mixed, this disproves your
hypothesis.

How, exactly, does the separate and larger effect from water disprove the separate and smaller effect from CO2?

Why do you continue to say the missing hot spot disproves CO2'S contribution to the greenhouse effect when it is a prediction based on water feedbacks?

You make little sense and you are continuously confusing cause and effect.

Where does the energy absorbed by CO2 enter the atmosphere? In the first few metres. Where does the energy moved by the water cycle get released into the atmosphere? At the cloudtops.

How is CO2 supposedly the main cause of phase change energy at the cloudtops? Why do you keep saying that it is? It makes no sense.

Your magical CO2 is supposed to be the fix all at altitude, not allowing energy escape. But Empirical Evidence shows that it is stopping nothing. It is not having the effect they presumed.

Actually, empirical evidence shows that 15 micron radiation doesn't start escaping to space until the atmosphere is thin enough that some photons pass through to space rather than being immediately reabsorbed.

Is that what you meant to say? If not then be more specific.

Most released LWIR is above 20um. This is consistent with energy being absorbed and expended by water vapor in the conduction and convection process.

Your looking for a specific band of LWIR that has changed its emissions band. You and the other alarmists have missed the boat on this. There is a reason that water emits in the band well longer than that which it was originally absorbed in. Residency time and energy loss are the primary factors.

Water vapor is unique as its absorption and emissions bands are 5-20 times bigger than all other gases in our atmosphere. The reason they are so wide is residency time and energy loss during the residency (or cooling of the molecule holding it).

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're a fucking retard.

.
Chemical process - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Chem...
In a scientific sense, a chemical process is a method or means of somehow changing one or more chemicals or chemical compounds. Such a chemical process can occur by itself or be caused by an outside force, and involves a chemical reaction of some sort.

.
a usually irreversible chemical reaction involving the rearrangement of the atoms of one or more substances and a change in their chemical properties or composition, resulting in the formation of at least one new substance: The formation of rust on iron is a chemical change.
Chemical change | Define Chemical change at Dictionary.com

Latent heat of phase change does have an overlap between chemistry and physics but it is a long stretch to call it a chemical change or chemical process. As per usual you mangle your description of anything scientific. I have stopped trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I am going to respond to what you say, rather than what you might potentially mean.

IR is immediately absorbed by water, it has an effect, period.

Thank goodness that water is NOT such a good absorber of visible light or UV, otherwise the ocean surface would boil in daytime and freeze at night.

Downwelling atmospheric IR does not heat the ocean surface except in the unusual circumstances of nighttime inversions. At all other times it reduces the amount of heat being lost to the atmosphere or outer space. Why are you incapable of grasping that simple concept?

Conduction and Convection push the heat higher in the atmosphere away from the surface. This is why the surface temps do not rise in high levels of CO2. With the heat removed from the surface there can be no downward (radiative or conductive) warming of the oceans.

Again your premise fails the basic laws of thermodynamics.