Is global warming hiding underwater?

[IanC]

Do you suggest there is no movement within the atmosphere of its constituent gasses Ian? No wind? No updrafts, downdrafts, fronts, storms, precipitation, simple freaking DIFFUSION?

good grief! do you not read what I write? I have been stating that backradiation can only interfere with the escape of surface radiation loss. I claim that if (eg)2w of radiation is choked off then most of that goes into increased evaporation and convection which causes those things that you mentioned. (actually I believe it changes the timing rather than the overall amount)

you mentioned diffusion. of course there is diffusion. the LW radiation at the surface is less diffuse because we are only interested in the portion that goes up. by 10 metres it is all diffused and going evenly in all directions. because there are temperature, pressure and topological gradients as altitude increases, there will always be a bit more radiation moving towards space than is replaced by the atmosphere above it. diffusion.

 

[Abraham3]

I was talking about the movement of mass - gaseous diffusion.

Glad to see you're aware of black body effects.

The radiative imbalance at the ToA shows LESS IR radiation leaving the planet than arriving. The Earth is still accumulating energy through the Greenhouse Effect. Global warming is still underway.

 

[SSDD]

The radiative imbalance at the ToA shows LESS IR radiation leaving the planet than arriving. The Earth is still accumulating energy through the Greenhouse Effect. Global warming is still underway.

Not true....LW exiting at the ToA has been on the increase for 60 years...

 

[IanC]

And the while it is correct that a single photon's energy will decrease as it goes from transfer to transfer, but you forgot about the infinite supply of photons following right behind. Our CO2 is not sitting out there waiting for that single magic photon to come by to start it's eternal life together. It is BATHED in an unending flux of photons that raise its temperature higher and higher and higher. It will have no problem radiating away the energy it receives.

You seem to have one of the better science educations out of the deniers here, but this idea - or perhaps more accurately, this claim - that thermal radiation is stopped by a layer of the atmosphere and STAYS THERE is complete and utter nonsense and I am seriously disappointed that you would push it.

it is incorrect to say that a set of absorption/reemission will decrease the energy of a photon. there may be combinations of absorbed photons that produce different combinations of emitted ones but there is no energy lost. the universe would quickly come to a halt if there was. collisions from kinetic energy deform electron shells which forms blackbody radiation when they relax. this is not a simple case of absorption/reemission and the kinetic energy of the system is decreased by the exact amount of radiation produced.

I dont remember ever saying thermal radiation is stopped. I can point you to comments where I have said thermal radiation cannot be stopped. eg two objects of the same temperature are both fully radiating towards each other.

 

[IanC]

I was talking about the movement of mass - gaseous diffusion.

Glad to see you're aware of black body effects.

The radiative imbalance at the ToA shows LESS IR radiation leaving the planet than arriving. The Earth is still accumulating energy through the Greenhouse Effect. Global warming is still underway.

the TOA measurements for up and down radiation do not balance. I believe the difference is greater than 5w. it has been artificially set at something like 0.85w. relative changes can be realistically examined but the absolute values and trends are on very shaky ground.

another case of the sensitivity of the measurements being less than the effect we are looking for.

 

[mamooth]

.Outgoing radiation into space has been increasing for a good long while now in direct opposition to the claims of climate pseudoscience.

Incorrect. OLR has been slowly decreasing. Use the peer-reviewed science, instead of your bloggers. I'm especially interested in hearing from your bloggers about how OLR was measured 62 years ago.

Susskind et all, 2012, "Interannual Variability of OLR as Observed by AIRS and CERES".

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2012011737.pdf

 

[mamooth]

That said -- any back-rad that DOES get into the water column (storage) reduces the net flow differential.

So you agree with mainstream theory. Then why are we discussing this? Backradiation makes a difference, CO2 increases backradiation.

If there's a point you're trying to make, please state it clearly, because I can't find it.

 

[flacaltenn]

That said -- any back-rad that DOES get into the water column (storage) reduces the net flow differential.

So you agree with mainstream theory. Then why are we discussing this? Backradiation makes a difference, CO2 increases backradiation.

If there's a point you're trying to make, please state it clearly, because I can't find it.

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

Storage is incredibly small from IR contributions because of the short skin depth AND because the net flow is UP.. Back-RAD is NOT a heating source.. It can be opportunistically tapped, but in the absence of the SUN --- there is quickly no energy left to tap.

 

[flacaltenn]

I was talking about the movement of mass - gaseous diffusion.

Glad to see you're aware of black body effects.

The radiative imbalance at the ToA shows LESS IR radiation leaving the planet than arriving. The Earth is still accumulating energy through the Greenhouse Effect. Global warming is still underway.

the TOA measurements for up and down radiation do not balance. I believe the difference is greater than 5w. it has been artificially set at something like 0.85w. relative changes can be realistically examined but the absolute values and trends are on very shaky ground.

another case of the sensitivity of the measurements being less than the effect we are looking for.

That is my understanding also.. Don't know WHY absolute comparisons are so hard. Need to look into that..

 

[mamooth]

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

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

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

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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

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

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

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

Main point was there were no herring..

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

No fish -- no points..

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

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

 

[ScienceRocks]

Water vapor!!!

 

[Kosh]

Have been waiting for the AGW cult to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate. Not one has been able to show this after the thousands of papers being pushed out to prove the AGW religion.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Have been waiting for the AGW cult to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate. Not one has been able to show this after the thousands of papers being pushed out to prove the AGW religion.

That's a job for the noaa, Hadley center and ipcc to do.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Is global warming hiding underwater?

Satellite observations of global sea-surface temperature show that a 30-year upward trend has slowed down within the last 15 years. Climate scientists say this is not the end of global warming, but the result of a rearrangement in the energy flow of the climate system and, in particular, how the ocean stores heat.

Read more at: Is global warming hiding underwater?

I am starting to think that the aerosols of China and India are a lot stronger then the ipcc is thinking. There's a lot of error within our understanding of these so I feel it is possible.

Look at the 1960s and 1970's before the clean air act.

As fore melting glaciers and sea ice within the arctic. I believe hit the tipping point for this amount of melting within the 1990s....Just that melting doesn't all happen at that moment but melts until you're below that point again....We can clearly see that we haven't want below it.

So how can you argue that is warming?

Is global warming hiding underwater?

click on the news

it is hiding under 3 feet of snow

 

[Kosh]

Have been waiting for the AGW cult to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate. Not one has been able to show this after the thousands of papers being pushed out to prove the AGW religion.

That's a job for the noaa, Hadley center and ipcc to do.

Still no links to the datasets with source code that proves that CO2 drives climate.

Just more AGW propaganda.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Have been waiting for the AGW cult to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate. Not one has been able to show this after the thousands of papers being pushed out to prove the AGW religion.

That's a job for the noaa, Hadley center and ipcc to do.

Still no links to the datasets with source code that proves that CO2 drives climate.

Just more AGW propaganda.

The noaa, Hadley center, etc needs to release some powerful science or they're hurting science. I'll agree with you that much.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Showing pictures and making it link to something doesn't appear to be enough. Time for experiments.

 

[IanC]

Showing pictures and making it link to something doesn't appear to be enough. Time for experiments.

the CAGW side has had 25 years, prolific funding, and a fawning media with which to concoct, test and popularize a legitimate CO2 theory. they failed.

it is time to totally rework the whole thing as something that is coherent and fits the evidence. quickly, before science is crippled instead of just having a black eye.

 

[Abraham3]

They have not failed. You have.

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

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

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

Keep up the good work.