Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, Crick explained all that to you on this thread.. You're simply a liar. There's no point in speaking with you, given that no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie in response.

Basically, this thread is now just an illustration of how some deniers display a histrionic personality disorder. That is, they seek attention, and they don't care how badly they have to act to get it.

And as for DrGloom

in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

That's 100% wrong. Moose do much better in the cold years. It's the heat that kills them. If cold killed the moose, you wouldn't see them in northern Alaska, and you would see them in the southern USA.

Why is cold better for them? Brain worm parasite and ticks. Both are winter-killed by very cold temperatures. If winter temperatures never get too cold, the parasite populations explode and kill the mooses in a very gruesome manner.

With winters warming moose are devastated by exploding tick populations - The Washington Post

Frank, Crick explained all that to you on this thread.. You're simply a liar. There's no point in speaking with you, given that no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie in response.

Basically, this thread is now just an illustration of how some deniers display a histrionic personality disorder. That is, they seek attention, and they don't care how badly they have to act to get it.

And as for DrGloom

in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

That's 100% wrong. Moose do much better in the cold years. It's the heat that kills them. If cold killed the moose, you wouldn't see them in northern Alaska, and you would see them in the southern USA.

Why is cold better for them? Brain worm parasite and ticks. Both are winter-killed by very cold temperatures. If winter temperatures never get too cold, the parasite populations explode and kill the mooses in a very gruesome manner.

With winters warming moose are devastated by exploding tick populations - The Washington Post

Crick, just linked to article that mention Excess Heat as if it actually exists, so that's no explanation

Where was this "Excess Heat" before it was absorbed by the oceans? It wasn't in the atmosphere, where was it?

How did the Excess Heat manage to get 800M deep in the oceans?

Funny how they dance around physics and physical laws ignoring them when it is inconvenient.

I'll proudly admit I'm not a scientist, I'm hoping people in the scientific community pick up on this obvious fraud

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

Where was this imaginary "excess heat" BEFORE it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?

Matthew's pegged it. Energy left the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation (ie, photons). It entered the Earth's atmosphere where roughly 70% of it was absorbed directly by the oceans. The rest was absorbed by plants and trees and rocks and dirt and the tops of people's heads. A goodly portion of that energy gets reradiated at longer wavelengths by all these objects (including the oceans). Almost every bit of that gets reabsorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, where it's rereradiated. Some of that comes back down and once more strike the ocean, the land, the tops of people's heads and so forth. Some goes up. Eventually, a significant amount is reradiated by GHGs in the upper stratosphere and escapes into space, never to strike the top of my head again.

And, as I've told you three or four times now in just the last couple of days, water BELOW the surface and shallow depths that can receive EM (light) directly is warmed by the MOVEMENT of water. Warmed surface water gets pulled down and is replaced by colder water from below. Now that water gets warmed before it too gets pulled down. Do you get the picture Frank?

Frank, when are you going to pay enough attention to what people tell you that you'll stop asking questions that've just been answered? It's simply not acceptable that we should have to explain the same thing to you over and over and over again.

OMG...... Electromagnetic radiation..


LOL you lying sacks of crap.. The IPCC and you stated not long ago that it was purely CO2 doing this now you tell me that its invisible magnetic fields from the sun....

You guys have changed your dam story AGAIN!!!! SO which is it? the SUN or CO2?

CO2 would cause a hot spot in the mid troposphere, which DOESN'T EXIST! SO its not CO2 by your own theroy.

EM would cause warming all over the planet which would be most noticeable in the ambient air temperature. 0.02 deg C shows that this also is not occurring. Even Cricks post of UAH/HCN homogenized bull shit fails to show the 4 times higher rates of warming, that would have to, be shown by empirically observed occurrence, if the sun were increasing its output, in the EM spectrum. IT ISN'T HAPPENING! And to top it off, Solar wind is at an all time LOW output... showing that it is not, by empirical evidence, EM.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Frank, Crick explained all that to you on this thread.. You're simply a liar. There's no point in speaking with you, given that no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie in response.

Basically, this thread is now just an illustration of how some deniers display a histrionic personality disorder. That is, they seek attention, and they don't care how badly they have to act to get it.

And as for DrGloom

in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

That's 100% wrong. Moose do much better in the cold years. It's the heat that kills them. If cold killed the moose, you wouldn't see them in northern Alaska, and you would see them in the southern USA.

Why is cold better for them? Brain worm parasite and ticks. Both are winter-killed by very cold temperatures. If winter temperatures never get too cold, the parasite populations explode and kill the mooses in a very gruesome manner.

With winters warming moose are devastated by exploding tick populations - The Washington Post

Frank, Crick explained all that to you on this thread.. You're simply a liar. There's no point in speaking with you, given that no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie in response.

Basically, this thread is now just an illustration of how some deniers display a histrionic personality disorder. That is, they seek attention, and they don't care how badly they have to act to get it.

And as for DrGloom

in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

That's 100% wrong. Moose do much better in the cold years. It's the heat that kills them. If cold killed the moose, you wouldn't see them in northern Alaska, and you would see them in the southern USA.

Why is cold better for them? Brain worm parasite and ticks. Both are winter-killed by very cold temperatures. If winter temperatures never get too cold, the parasite populations explode and kill the mooses in a very gruesome manner.

With winters warming moose are devastated by exploding tick populations - The Washington Post

Crick, just linked to article that mention Excess Heat as if it actually exists, so that's no explanation

Where was this "Excess Heat" before it was absorbed by the oceans? It wasn't in the atmosphere, where was it?

How did the Excess Heat manage to get 800M deep in the oceans?

Funny how they dance around physics and physical laws ignoring them when it is inconvenient.

I'll proudly admit I'm not a scientist, I'm hoping people in the scientific community pick up on this obvious fraud

The alarmist are now spreading huge lies and disinformation hip wader deep. they are desperate to keep their lie alive. This last one about EM is total bull shit. They are changing their talking points again. They are desperate!

 

[Crick]

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

Where was this imaginary "excess heat" BEFORE it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?

Matthew's pegged it. Energy left the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation (ie, photons). It entered the Earth's atmosphere where roughly 70% of it was absorbed directly by the oceans. The rest was absorbed by plants and trees and rocks and dirt and the tops of people's heads. A goodly portion of that energy gets reradiated at longer wavelengths by all these objects (including the oceans). Almost every bit of that gets reabsorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, where it's rereradiated. Some of that comes back down and once more strike the ocean, the land, the tops of people's heads and so forth. Some goes up. Eventually, a significant amount is reradiated by GHGs in the upper stratosphere and escapes into space, never to strike the top of my head again.

And, as I've told you three or four times now in just the last couple of days, water BELOW the surface and shallow depths that can receive EM (light) directly is warmed by the MOVEMENT of water. Warmed surface water gets pulled down and is replaced by colder water from below. Now that water gets warmed before it too gets pulled down. Do you get the picture Frank?

Frank, when are you going to pay enough attention to what people tell you that you'll stop asking questions that've just been answered? It's simply not acceptable that we should have to explain the same thing to you over and over and over again.

GHG's account for a tiny fraction of Earth's atmosphere

That's a really ignorant comment Frank. Their is enough CO2 to do what it's credited with doing.

and are not evenly distributed

They are sufficiently well distributed. You need to give some thought to the actual scale that does along with that diagram. You know, the one with the numbers.

yet you claim the reabsorb 100% of the energy radiated outward?

Yeah, how about that.

Did you just make that up? Is that a "Fact" like "excess energy"?

You're the last human still supporting Angstrom and Koch. You tell me.

How is it that 70% of initial energy hits the oceans but 93% of the imaginary "excess heat" is now absorbed by the ocean.

How is it that a simple process can be explained to you on multiple occasions by multiple different people and you still completely fail to understand it? How can you be as dense as you seem to be? Have you ever had a job? How far did you make it through school? This is ridiculous Frank.

Now, I think pretty much everyone here long ago figured out that you just keep asking questions because you don't have the balls to admit you've been so wrong. That's certainly the only reason I keep talking to you. Charity.

When I said 70% of that incoming solar radiation (the stuff coming directly from the sun) struck the ocean - how'd I know that Frank? Where'd I get that number from? Think REAL hard. It's cause the oceans make up 70% of the Earth's surface. Right, Frank? You knew that, didn't you Frank?

Now, that's just the EM radiation that comes directly from the sun and strikes the planet. Is that the whole process Frank? No. There's stil the conduction and convection taking place between the air and the water and there's still all that backradiation from the GHGs in the atmosphere. I don't know if you understood that water absorption coefficient diagram I posted yesterday, but water absorbs LW better than SW. So it sucks up an even larger percentage of the back radiation than it did of the original. So, the scientist could give you the details, but I trust their final numbers. When you add it all up, 93% of the incoming energy ends up in the ocean. No mystery. No lies.

Once again, where is this imaginary "excess heat" showing up in the atmosphere prior to it being absorbed. Remember it takes at least 4 times the energy to heat the ocean, you said it takes 700 times the energy. Do you still stand by that?

Still stand by it? It's basic physics Frank. I don't question basic physics Frank and you shouldn't either.

I don't know what you're picturing Frank. It's an ongoing process. It has variables; it changes over time, but the ocean hasn't been heated by energy that's been hiding somewhere building up strength. Frank, that's the ideation of a grade schooler. Put on your thinking cap and put it to work.

 

[jc456]

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

Where was this imaginary "excess heat" BEFORE it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?

Matthew's pegged it. Energy left the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation (ie, photons). It entered the Earth's atmosphere where roughly 70% of it was absorbed directly by the oceans. The rest was absorbed by plants and trees and rocks and dirt and the tops of people's heads. A goodly portion of that energy gets reradiated at longer wavelengths by all these objects (including the oceans). Almost every bit of that gets reabsorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, where it's rereradiated. Some of that comes back down and once more strike the ocean, the land, the tops of people's heads and so forth. Some goes up. Eventually, a significant amount is reradiated by GHGs in the upper stratosphere and escapes into space, never to strike the top of my head again.

And, as I've told you three or four times now in just the last couple of days, water BELOW the surface and shallow depths that can receive EM (light) directly is warmed by the MOVEMENT of water. Warmed surface water gets pulled down and is replaced by colder water from below. Now that water gets warmed before it too gets pulled down. Do you get the picture Frank?

Frank, when are you going to pay enough attention to what people tell you that you'll stop asking questions that've just been answered? It's simply not acceptable that we should have to explain the same thing to you over and over and over again.

OMG...... Electromagnetic radiation..


LOL you lying sacks of crap.. The IPCC and you stated not long ago that it was purely CO2 doing this now you tell me that its invisible magnetic fields from the sun....

You guys have changed your dam story AGAIN!!!! SO which is it? the SUN or CO2?

CO2 would cause a hot spot in the mid troposphere, which DOESN'T EXIST! SO its not CO2 by your own theroy.

EM would cause warming all over the planet which would be most noticeable in the ambient air temperature. 0.02 deg C shows that this also is not occurring. Even Cricks post of UAH/HCN homogenized bull shit fails to show the 4 times higher rates of warming, that would have to, be shown by empirically observed occurrence, if the sun were increasing its output, in the EM spectrum. IT ISN'T HAPPENING! And to top it off, Solar wind is at an all time LOW output... showing that it is not, by empirical evidence, EM.

Billy, so the question is how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in the last 20 years? It would have to be that amount that is causing excessive heat! Can anybody say what the ability of CO2 is at that low ppm?

 

[Crick]

OMG...... Electromagnetic radiation..

LOL you lying sacks of crap.. The IPCC and you stated not long ago that it was purely CO2 doing this now you tell me that its invisible magnetic fields from the sun....

Invisible magnetic fields from the sun? Are you vying with Frank for the bottom of the intellectual orgchart?

You guys have changed your dam story AGAIN!!!!

That's spelled "D A M N" and no, we have not.

SO which is it? the SUN or CO2?

Which is it: stupidity or ignorance?

For any third graders that were wondering about this question: CO2 does not produce heat. It traps heat provided by the sun.

CO2 would cause a hot spot in the mid troposphere, which DOESN'T EXIST! SO its not CO2 by your own theroy.

We all have our own quirks. Have you noticed how often you spell theory "T H E R O Y"? I have. So, actually, you have a few misunderstandings about that hot spot business. The hotspot appeared in a graphic in AR4 showing model simulations of historical forcing scenarios. The hotspot was produced by a combination of rapid increase of GHG levels AND an increase in solar output over the same period of time. It is NOT a mandatory observation of greenhouse warming. An understanding of the mechanisms of greenhouse warming will make it clear that the key observation is, instead, stratospheric cooling. That is widely observed in today's atmosphere. So, check your facts BEFORE YOU GO ALL CAPS.

EM would cause warming all over the planet which would be most noticeable in the ambient air temperature. 0.02 deg C shows that this also is not occurring.

Neither I nor Matthew said anything about increasing EM. We simply said that the sun was where it all originated.

Even Cricks post of UAH/HCN homogenized bull shit fails to show the 4 times higher rates of warming, that would empirically occur if the sun were increasing its output, in the EM spectrum.

Neither I nor Matthew said anything about inceasing EM. We simply said that the sun was where it all originated.

And to top it off Solar wind is at an all time LOW output... showing that it is not, by empirical evidence, EM.

Solar WIND? Jesus, you are completely off the rails.

 

[jc456]

OMG...... Electromagnetic radiation..

LOL you lying sacks of crap.. The IPCC and you stated not long ago that it was purely CO2 doing this now you tell me that its invisible magnetic fields from the sun....

Invisible magnetic fields from the sun? Are you vying with Frank for the bottom of the intellectual orgchart?

You guys have changed your dam story AGAIN!!!!

That's spelled "D A M N" and no, we have not.

SO which is it? the SUN or CO2?

Which is it: stupidity or ignorance?

For any third graders that were wondering about this question: CO2 does not produce heat. It traps heat provided by the sun.

CO2 would cause a hot spot in the mid troposphere, which DOESN'T EXIST! SO its not CO2 by your own theroy.

We all have our own quirks. Have you noticed how often you spell theory "T H E R O Y"? I have. So, actually, you have a few misunderstandings about that hot spot business. The hotspot appeared in a graphic in AR4 showing model simulations of historical forcing scenarios. The hotspot was produced by a combination of rapid increase of GHG levels AND an increase in solar output over the same period of time. It is NOT a mandatory observation of greenhouse warming. An understanding of the mechanisms of greenhouse warming will make it clear that the key observation is, instead, stratospheric cooling. That is widely observed in today's atmosphere. So, check your facts BEFORE YOU GO ALL CAPS.

EM would cause warming all over the planet which would be most noticeable in the ambient air temperature. 0.02 deg C shows that this also is not occurring.

Neither I nor Matthew said anything about increasing EM. We simply said that the sun was where it all originated.

Even Cricks post of UAH/HCN homogenized bull shit fails to show the 4 times higher rates of warming, that would empirically occur if the sun were increasing its output, in the EM spectrum.

Neither I nor Matthew said anything about inceasing EM. We simply said that the sun was where it all originated.

And to top it off Solar wind is at an all time LOW output... showing that it is not, by empirical evidence, EM.

Solar WIND? Jesus, you are completely off the rails.

So Crickster, then we're back to the original question how much heat the CO2 hold got any evidence of that?

 

[jc456]

And guess what? That takes us back to Herr KOCH

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

Where was this imaginary "excess heat" BEFORE it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?

Matthew's pegged it. Energy left the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation (ie, photons). It entered the Earth's atmosphere where roughly 70% of it was absorbed directly by the oceans. The rest was absorbed by plants and trees and rocks and dirt and the tops of people's heads. A goodly portion of that energy gets reradiated at longer wavelengths by all these objects (including the oceans). Almost every bit of that gets reabsorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, where it's rereradiated. Some of that comes back down and once more strike the ocean, the land, the tops of people's heads and so forth. Some goes up. Eventually, a significant amount is reradiated by GHGs in the upper stratosphere and escapes into space, never to strike the top of my head again.

And, as I've told you three or four times now in just the last couple of days, water BELOW the surface and shallow depths that can receive EM (light) directly is warmed by the MOVEMENT of water. Warmed surface water gets pulled down and is replaced by colder water from below. Now that water gets warmed before it too gets pulled down. Do you get the picture Frank?

Frank, when are you going to pay enough attention to what people tell you that you'll stop asking questions that've just been answered? It's simply not acceptable that we should have to explain the same thing to you over and over and over again.

OMG...... Electromagnetic radiation..


LOL you lying sacks of crap.. The IPCC and you stated not long ago that it was purely CO2 doing this now you tell me that its invisible magnetic fields from the sun....

You guys have changed your dam story AGAIN!!!! SO which is it? the SUN or CO2?

CO2 would cause a hot spot in the mid troposphere, which DOESN'T EXIST! SO its not CO2 by your own theroy.

EM would cause warming all over the planet which would be most noticeable in the ambient air temperature. 0.02 deg C shows that this also is not occurring. Even Cricks post of UAH/HCN homogenized bull shit fails to show the 4 times higher rates of warming, that would have to, be shown by empirically observed occurrence, if the sun were increasing its output, in the EM spectrum. IT ISN'T HAPPENING! And to top it off, Solar wind is at an all time LOW output... showing that it is not, by empirical evidence, EM.

Billy, so the question is how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in the last 20 years? It would have to be that amount that is causing excessive heat! Can anybody say what the ability of CO2 is at that low ppm?

JC

Here is the LOG plot of CO2.

The left axis is temperature the top axis is CO2 in ppm. 20ppm should result in about 0.08 deg C warming according to lab experiments. The last 20 years there has been no warming and infact -0.12 deg C cooling. There has been cooling despite the rise in CO2 showing a 37% reduction in the rise rate of CO2. This indicates that cooler oceans are sequestering more CO2.

 

[Crick]

Match that against this and tell us what you get Billy.

Your chart only goes to 600.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Match that against this and tell us what you get Billy.

Your chart only goes to 600.

The IPCC hasn't figured out LOG functions and the rate of diminishing returns... OR they have added water vapor to their equation which has been shown to be a NEGATIVE force not a positive one.

You posted the IPCC graph of CO2+water vapor used as a positive forcing... Too funny.. Empirical evidence shows that there is no positive forcing from water vapor.. yet you post discredited information, by empirical evidence, as fact.. You really dont have a clue about what it is your posting. Wow... no temperature justification or axis data.. Just the level of CO2 projected by your failed MODELS... Epic FAIL

 

[Billy_Bob]

I wonder if Crick realizes that even at 600ppm it is only 1/2 of 1 doubling. So even at those 'projected' rates of increase we will see just 0.5 to 1.0 deg C warming in 1,000 years...

Moron cant even read a LOG chart to save his ass..

 

[Crick]

Per the function listed on the observed trace on your chart (one you have not identified and therefore one I do not currently accept as having any validity), a CO2 level of 1000 ppm, the top IPCC scenario level for 2100, would produce 3.05C warming. And those are not equilibrium values, are they.

 

[Crick]

The IPCC hasn't figured out LOG functions and the rate of diminishing returns

Do you realize what an idiot you sound with such a statement?

OR they have added water vapor to their equation which has been shown to be a NEGATIVE force not a positive one.

Let's see a link

You posted the IPCC graph of CO2+water vapor used as a positive forcing... Too funny

Too stupid.

.. Empirical evidence shows that there is no positive forcing from water vapor.

Let us see such evidence Billy. I've really grown quite sick of your unsubstantiated assertions.

. yet you post discredited information, by empirical evidence, as fact.

I am posting facts. You're the one spouting unsubstantiated bullshit.

You really dont have a clue about what it is your posting.

Do you not recall earlier this morning when you went ape after IMAGINING that Matthew and I had said something about increased EM? I can repost it all if you're having trouble remembering all the way back to earlier this morning.

Wow... no temperature justification or axis data.. Just the level of CO2 projected by your failed MODELS... Epic FAIL

You were unable to tell that the x-axis was YEAR? And you've got the balls to suggest I can't read a graph?!?!?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Crick, You cant read a LOG function graph. You and Mathew dont know the difference between EM and photon energy or how they react differently within our atmosphere. Man you two should stop while your behind and you bury yourselves..



Hell you dont even know why sea water can not absorb IR radiation at 12-16um.. And therefore can not warm the oceans...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

Where was this imaginary "excess heat" BEFORE it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?

Matthew's pegged it. Energy left the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation (ie, photons). It entered the Earth's atmosphere where roughly 70% of it was absorbed directly by the oceans. The rest was absorbed by plants and trees and rocks and dirt and the tops of people's heads. A goodly portion of that energy gets reradiated at longer wavelengths by all these objects (including the oceans). Almost every bit of that gets reabsorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, where it's rereradiated. Some of that comes back down and once more strike the ocean, the land, the tops of people's heads and so forth. Some goes up. Eventually, a significant amount is reradiated by GHGs in the upper stratosphere and escapes into space, never to strike the top of my head again.

And, as I've told you three or four times now in just the last couple of days, water BELOW the surface and shallow depths that can receive EM (light) directly is warmed by the MOVEMENT of water. Warmed surface water gets pulled down and is replaced by colder water from below. Now that water gets warmed before it too gets pulled down. Do you get the picture Frank?

Frank, when are you going to pay enough attention to what people tell you that you'll stop asking questions that've just been answered? It's simply not acceptable that we should have to explain the same thing to you over and over and over again.

GHG's account for a tiny fraction of Earth's atmosphere

That's a really ignorant comment Frank. Their is enough CO2 to do what it's credited with doing.

and are not evenly distributed

They are sufficiently well distributed. You need to give some thought to the actual scale that does along with that diagram. You know, the one with the numbers.

yet you claim the reabsorb 100% of the energy radiated outward?

Yeah, how about that.

Did you just make that up? Is that a "Fact" like "excess energy"?

You're the last human still supporting Angstrom and Koch. You tell me.

How is it that 70% of initial energy hits the oceans but 93% of the imaginary "excess heat" is now absorbed by the ocean.

How is it that a simple process can be explained to you on multiple occasions by multiple different people and you still completely fail to understand it? How can you be as dense as you seem to be? Have you ever had a job? How far did you make it through school? This is ridiculous Frank.

Now, I think pretty much everyone here long ago figured out that you just keep asking questions because you don't have the balls to admit you've been so wrong. That's certainly the only reason I keep talking to you. Charity.

When I said 70% of that incoming solar radiation (the stuff coming directly from the sun) struck the ocean - how'd I know that Frank? Where'd I get that number from? Think REAL hard. It's cause the oceans make up 70% of the Earth's surface. Right, Frank? You knew that, didn't you Frank?

Now, that's just the EM radiation that comes directly from the sun and strikes the planet. Is that the whole process Frank? No. There's stil the conduction and convection taking place between the air and the water and there's still all that backradiation from the GHGs in the atmosphere. I don't know if you understood that water absorption coefficient diagram I posted yesterday, but water absorbs LW better than SW. So it sucks up an even larger percentage of the back radiation than it did of the original. So, the scientist could give you the details, but I trust their final numbers. When you add it all up, 93% of the incoming energy ends up in the ocean. No mystery. No lies.

Once again, where is this imaginary "excess heat" showing up in the atmosphere prior to it being absorbed. Remember it takes at least 4 times the energy to heat the ocean, you said it takes 700 times the energy. Do you still stand by that?

Still stand by it? It's basic physics Frank. I don't question basic physics Frank and you shouldn't either.

I don't know what you're picturing Frank. It's an ongoing process. It has variables; it changes over time, but the ocean hasn't been heated by energy that's been hiding somewhere building up strength. Frank, that's the ideation of a grade schooler. Put on your thinking cap and put it to work.

Crick, if insult were explanations, you'd be Wikipedia.

 

[jc456]

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

Where was this imaginary "excess heat" BEFORE it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?

Matthew's pegged it. Energy left the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation (ie, photons). It entered the Earth's atmosphere where roughly 70% of it was absorbed directly by the oceans. The rest was absorbed by plants and trees and rocks and dirt and the tops of people's heads. A goodly portion of that energy gets reradiated at longer wavelengths by all these objects (including the oceans). Almost every bit of that gets reabsorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, where it's rereradiated. Some of that comes back down and once more strike the ocean, the land, the tops of people's heads and so forth. Some goes up. Eventually, a significant amount is reradiated by GHGs in the upper stratosphere and escapes into space, never to strike the top of my head again.

And, as I've told you three or four times now in just the last couple of days, water BELOW the surface and shallow depths that can receive EM (light) directly is warmed by the MOVEMENT of water. Warmed surface water gets pulled down and is replaced by colder water from below. Now that water gets warmed before it too gets pulled down. Do you get the picture Frank?

Frank, when are you going to pay enough attention to what people tell you that you'll stop asking questions that've just been answered? It's simply not acceptable that we should have to explain the same thing to you over and over and over again.

OMG...... Electromagnetic radiation..


LOL you lying sacks of crap.. The IPCC and you stated not long ago that it was purely CO2 doing this now you tell me that its invisible magnetic fields from the sun....

You guys have changed your dam story AGAIN!!!! SO which is it? the SUN or CO2?

CO2 would cause a hot spot in the mid troposphere, which DOESN'T EXIST! SO its not CO2 by your own theroy.

EM would cause warming all over the planet which would be most noticeable in the ambient air temperature. 0.02 deg C shows that this also is not occurring. Even Cricks post of UAH/HCN homogenized bull shit fails to show the 4 times higher rates of warming, that would have to, be shown by empirically observed occurrence, if the sun were increasing its output, in the EM spectrum. IT ISN'T HAPPENING! And to top it off, Solar wind is at an all time LOW output... showing that it is not, by empirical evidence, EM.

Billy, so the question is how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in the last 20 years? It would have to be that amount that is causing excessive heat! Can anybody say what the ability of CO2 is at that low ppm?

JC

Here is the LOG plot of CO2.
View attachment 46245

The left axis is temperature the top axis is CO2 in ppm. 20ppm should result in about 0.08 deg C warming according to lab experiments. The last 20 years there has been no warming and infact -0.12 deg C cooling. There has been cooling despite the rise in CO2 showing a 37% reduction in the rise rate of CO2. This indicates that cooler oceans are sequestering more CO2.

Thanks, I know that chart well, I want Crickster to tell me and you and the rest of our side how temperatures increase when the scientific make up off CO2 is logarithmic. Been silent for over fifteen months.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick, You cant read a LOG function graph. You and Mathew dont know the difference between EM and photon energy or how they react differently within our atmosphere. Man you two should stop while your behind and you bury yourselves..



Hell you dont even know why sea water can not absorb IR radiation at 12-16um.. And therefore can not warm the oceans...

Er, cuz IPCC said so?

 

[Crick]

Crick, You cant read a LOG function graph. You and Mathew dont know the difference between EM and photon energy or how they react differently within our atmosphere. Man you two should stop while your behind and you bury yourselves.

For starters, it wasn't a log graph, it was a lin/ln graph (linear on the independent axis, natural logarithm on the dependent axis). If you want us to think I don't know how to read it, you need to point out where you think I demonstrated such a failing. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

For both Matthew and I, the use of the term photon was nothing more than an exercise of literary license. However, I am familiar with the physics of electromagnetic radiation and with photons and unless you're going to bring up the dual nature of light, I don't have the faintest idea what the **** you're talking about. However, nothing you've said has any bearing on the validity of our comments with regard to the topic under discussion (the heating of the oceans). But just to further explore your apparent misunderstandings:
**********************************************************************************************************************************
PHOTON:
A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. The effects of this force are easily observable at the microscopicand at the macroscopic level, because the photon has zero rest mass; this allows long distance interactions. Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties ofwaves and of particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference with itself, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when its position is measured.

The modern photon concept was developed gradually by Albert Einstein in the first years of the 20th century to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light. In particular, the photon model accounted for the frequency dependence of light's energy, and explained the ability of matter and radiation to be in thermal equilibrium. It also accounted for anomalous observations, including the properties of black-body radiation, that other physicists, most notably Max Planck, had sought to explain using semiclassical models, in which light is still described by Maxwell's equations, but the material objects that emit and absorb light do so in amounts of energy that are quantized (i.e., they change energy only by certain particular discrete amounts and cannot change energy in any arbitrary way). Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, many further experiments[2][3] starting with Compton scattering of single photons by electrons, first observed in 1923, validated Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized. In 1926 the optical physicist Frithiof Wolfers and the chemist Gilbert N. Lewis coined the name photon for these particles, and after 1927, when Arthur H. Compton won the Nobel Prize for his scattering studies, most scientists accepted the validity that quanta of light have an independent existence, and the term photon for light quanta was accepted.

EM RADIATION
Electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) is a form of radiant energy released by certain electromagnetic processes. Visible light is one type of electromagnetic radiation, other familiar forms are invisible electromagnetic radiations such as X-rays and radio waves.

Classically, EMR consists of electromagnetic waves, which are synchronized oscillations of electric andmagnetic fields that propagate at the speed of light. The oscillations of the two fields are perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of energy and wave propagation, forming a transverse wave. Electromagnetic waves can be characterized by either the frequency or wavelength of their oscillations to form the electromagnetic spectrum, which includes, in order of increasing frequency and decreasing wavelength: radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays.

Electromagnetic waves are produced whenever charged particles are accelerated, and these waves can subsequently interact with any charged particles. EM waves carry energy, momentum and angular momentum away from their source particle and can impart those quantities to matter with which they interact. Quanta of EM waves are called photons, which aremassless, but they are still affected by gravity. Electromagnetic radiation is associated with those EM waves that are free to propagate themselves ("radiate") without the continuing influence of the moving charges that produced them, because they have achieved sufficient distance from those charges. Thus, EMR is sometimes referred to as the far field. In this jargon, the near fieldrefers to EM fields near the charges and current that directly produced them, as (for example) with simple magnets, electromagnetic induction and static electricity phenomena.

All from Wikipedia
********************************************************************************************************************************

Hell you dont even know why sea water can not absorb IR radiation at 12-16um.. And therefore can not warm the oceans..
.

Here. From someone you trust. Dr Roy Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body/

Your earlier comments about salt and sediment particles was silly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Excess heat is like Bernie Madoff telling you, "I invested 93% of your money in Herkshire Bathaway, it's almost a real thing, but it's not"