NOAA Satellite records second largest 2-month temperature drop in history

[Crick]

Nothing is powered by gravity. Every joule of potential energy stored in the half of the atmosphere being lifted against gravity is converted back to kinetic energy by the other half falling. Net zero. Where'd you learn your basic physics?

The point you were attempting to defend and that it appears you'd like me to forget was your claim that thermal energy was a "tertiary or quaternary factor" in climate. The Earth's climate is driven solely by solar energy heating air, water and earth. It is temperature differences via the Coriolis force that drive the Earth's large scale circulation. The 1C increase in temperature has created dramatic and incontrevertible changes in the Earth's climate. As temperature continues to rise, such changes will accelerate. Sea level rise, increased seasonal temperature maximums, regional droughts and regional flooding, increased hurricane and cyclone intensity, loss of ice in the Arctic, the Antarctic sheet and shelf, Greenland's sheet and shelf, glaciers and snowpack worldwide... I suspect you know the list.

 

[ReinyDays]

Nothing is powered by gravity. Every joule of potential energy stored in the half of the atmosphere being lifted against gravity is converted back to kinetic energy by the other half falling. Net zero. Where'd you learn your basic physics?

The point you were attempting to defend and that it appears you'd like me to forget was your claim that thermal energy was a "tertiary or quaternary factor" in climate. The Earth's climate is driven solely by solar energy heating air, water and earth. It is temperature differences via the Coriolis force that drive the Earth's large scale circulation. The 1C increase in temperature has created dramatic and incontrevertible changes in the Earth's climate. As temperature continues to rise, such changes will accelerate. Sea level rise, increased seasonal temperature maximums, regional droughts and regional flooding, increased hurricane and cyclone intensity, loss of ice in the Arctic, the Antarctic sheet and shelf, Greenland's sheet and shelf, glaciers and snowpack worldwide... I suspect you know the list.

Convection is powered by gravity via the buoyancy force ... I think you make the mistake of focusing strictly on energy content, whereas our concern here is the flow of energy ... heating the surface isn't enough, we still need to move the energy to where it is lacking, and we use the force of gravity, not electromagnetism ... sorry, those are our only two choices ...

The Coriolis force is a pseudo-force, as it can perform no work ... Where'd you learn your basic physics? ...

 

[whitehall]

3 frosty mornings in a row south of the Mason Dixon in May.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey, this Mother's Day, the Northeast is looking at snow storms and an arctic blast.

 

[Crick]

Have a happy Mothers Day.

 

[ReinyDays]

Do you think my OWN children will call me ... hell no ... them ungrateful little brats will say "Dad, knock it off will'ya" ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

But of course no evidence of that is posted.

Being I just posted the study confirming the warming oceans, that seems a peculiar claim.

If you'd like, I can post the studies confirming the increased backradiation. But since you'd just ignore them as well, what's the point? Tell you what, if you state ahead of time that you'll accept the rising backradiation levels as proof of AGW theory, I'll post them. Otherwise, I won't waste my time. Yes, that is mighty reasonable of me, thank you.

meanwhile you seem completely oblivious to the overwhelming heat capacity of water over a tiny atmosphere capacity.

I'm aware that has zilch to do with any crazy argument that CO2 can't warm the oceans. I'm wondering why you think it's relevant at all. Please explain your train of logic there.

The Oceans through El-Nino phases lose far more energy than CO2 could add to it, it is why the atmosphere temperature can soar rapidly during El-Nino phase.

Which is not relevant to the fact that the oceans are warming in the long term due to the increased backradiation. The fact that you can't grasp a simple topic doesn't invalidate the topic. Everyone else can grasp it, so you just look ridiculous.

I have already showed the lack of a CO2 finger print with that chart in post one, too bad you still resist the obvious.

No, you didn't. Not in any way. That's just crazy talk on your part.

If you disagree, explain yourself. Go step by step, and tell everyone exactly why your chart supposedly shows a lack of CO2 fingerprinting.

The Sun is the well know dominant source of energy to the waters, which has been known for many decades, why do you still resist it?

Again, your inability to grasp simple concepts like "perturbations in an equilibrium system" does not invalidate those concepts. It just makes you look like a poster boy for Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

Now, get cracking with that explanation about how you've invalidated CO2 fingerprinting. This should be hilarious. I'm guessing it's just your usual inability to understand the very basic concept of noise on an increasing trend line. It's easy to tell who has never taken a statistics class.

Ha ha ha, I posted a simple Sea Surface chart that confuses you to no end, since it is well known that CO2 "backradiation" doesn't warm up the ocean waters, your continual drive to insult the power SUN warming the waters makes you look foolish, continues again and again.

 

[mamooth]

since it is well known that CO2 "backradiation" doesn't warm up the ocean waters,

What else did the voices of the sky dragons tell you? You're way over in the "crank" category now, being that you're now denying conservation of energy. Your death-cult's version of science has no relation to the actual science, where the backradiation and the warming of the ocean by the backradation is measured.

your continual drive to insult the power SUN warming the waters makes you look foolish, continues again and again.

That's right, Mr. Sun has had his feelings hurt, so you'd best run along and give him a big hug.

 

[Sunsettommy]

since it is well known that CO2 "backradiation" doesn't warm up the ocean waters,

What else did the voices of the sky dragons tell you? You're way over in the "crank" category now, being that you're now denying conservation of energy. Your death-cult's version of science has no relation to the actual science, where the backradiation and the warming of the ocean by the backradation is measured.

your continual drive to insult the power SUN warming the waters makes you look foolish, continues again and again.

That's right, Mr. Sun has had his feelings hurt, so you'd best run along and give him a big hug.

Your lack of evidence is defeating you, anyone one with a lick of intelligence knows the SUN is the dominant source of energy to the planet, including to water with its well known high energy capacity.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, they should keep the readings they have recently had, and then, when the world starts to open back up, start seeing how long it takes us to crap up the planet again.

 

[whitehall]

Records shattered for cold in the northeast 2nd week of May. Where is it coming from?

 

[mamooth]

Your lack of evidence is defeating you, anyone one with a lick of intelligence knows the SUN is the dominant source of energy to the planet, including to water with its well known high energy capacity.

That's nice. But since solar output is decreasing, your theory makes zero sense.

Just why do you say that a cooling sun is causing fast warming? Don't try to invoke the oceans, because the oceans have been and still are warming strongly as well. That destroys any "DERP THE HEAT WAS HIDING IN THE OCEANS AND NOW IT'S JUMPING OUT INTO THE AIR" theories.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your lack of evidence is defeating you, anyone one with a lick of intelligence knows the SUN is the dominant source of energy to the planet, including to water with its well known high energy capacity.

That's nice. But since solar output is decreasing, your theory makes zero sense.

Just why do you say that a cooling sun is causing fast warming? Don't try to invoke the oceans, because the oceans have been and still are warming strongly as well. That destroys any "DERP THE HEAT WAS HIDING IN THE OCEANS AND NOW IT'S JUMPING OUT INTO THE AIR" theories.

So desperate, you try shoving words I didn't say into my mouth...…

I never said a cooling sun causes fast warming, what I keep saying that the SUN is the dominant SOURCE of ocean warming.

Post 89, I wrote: "....anyone one with a lick of intelligence knows the SUN is the dominant source of energy to the planet, including to water with its well known high energy capacity."

post 87: "...your continual drive to insult the power SUN warming the waters makes you look foolish, continues again and again."

Post 67: "...The Sun is the well know dominant source of energy to the waters, which has been known for many decades, why do you still resist it?"

No the ocean waters have been COOLING a lot in recent years, it is why the air temperature has increased, every time we have an El-Nino, the ocean surface release energy at an increased rate, the air temperature goes up.

Now it is back in neutral range, La-Nina finally coming...?

El-Nino/ Modoki phases = Ocean cooling, atmosphere warming.

La-Nina phases = Ocean recharging/warming up, atmosphere cooling.

El-Nino/ Modoki phases have been common for over a decade now.

 

[ReinyDays]

That's nice. But since solar output is decreasing, your theory makes zero sense.

I was with you until this post ... are you nuts? ... solar output has been 1,360 W/m^2 for millions of years past and will be for millions of years in the future ... and millions of years from now solar output will go up to 1,370 W/m^2 ...

Maybe you're thinking of increasing albedo ... the sun is the same, just less energy being received by the Earth ... one of the many negative feedbacks we have in our atmosphere ...

 

[mamooth]

... solar output has been 1,360 W/m^2 for millions of years past and will be for millions of years in the future ... and millions of years from now solar output will go up to 1,370 W/m^2 ...

No, incorrect. Solar output is slightly erratic. It currently fluctuates around 1365.5. There's a short 11-year cycle, and a longer cycle that has been trending down for quite a while.

 

[ReinyDays]

... solar output has been 1,360 W/m^2 for millions of years past and will be for millions of years in the future ... and millions of years from now solar output will go up to 1,370 W/m^2 ...

No. Totally wrong. Solar output is erratic, in that it currently fluctuates around 1360. It's been on a down trend for a while.

Your graph very clearly shows 1,360 (± 5) W/m^2 ... your entire temperature plot is within instrumentation error ...

You're speaking nonsense ... the solar constant is called a constant for a very good reason ...

 

[mamooth]

I never said a cooling sun causes fast warming, what I keep saying that the SUN is the dominant SOURCE of ocean warming.

Well, yes. The direct sunlight, and the backradiation that results from the sunlight. I'm just wondering why you thought that stating the obvious was supposed to prove your point somehow.

No the ocean waters have been COOLING a lot in recent years,

Totally wrong. Who told you such a thing, and why did you believe it?

Record-Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019 - Advances in Atmospheric Sciences

link.springer.com

Since the oceans have been and continue to warm very strongly, they can not be losing heat to the land. Your theory is therefore debunked by the hard evidence, so it is wrong. End of story.

 

[mamooth]

Your graph very clearly shows 1,360 (± 5) W/m^2 ... your entire temperature plot is within instrumentation error ...

No. Not even close to being within instrumentation error. These instruments are very, very good.

You're speaking nonsense ... the solar constant is called a constant for a very good reason ...

You are the only person I've ever encountered who says that TSI is perfectly constant. Nobody else on either side says such a thing. No science anywhere says such a thing. You are essentially alone in the universe with that claim.

 

[Flash]

The Russian scientists are correct. The solar minimum is going to turn earth into an icebox for at least a couple of decades, maybe as long as 50 years.

It will be funny as hell to hear the stupid Environmental Wacko AGW scammers crying.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I never said a cooling sun causes fast warming, what I keep saying that the SUN is the dominant SOURCE of ocean warming.

Well, yes. The direct sunlight, and the backradiation that results from the sunlight. I'm just wondering why you thought that stating the obvious was supposed to prove your point somehow.

No the ocean waters have been COOLING a lot in recent years,

Totally wrong. Who told you such a thing, and why did you believe it?

Record-Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019 - Advances in Atmospheric Sciences

link.springer.com

Since the oceans have been and continue to warm very strongly, they can not be losing heat to the land. Your theory is therefore debunked by the hard evidence, so it is wrong. End of story.

El-Nino phases is when you have warm surface waters accumulate that goes in the atmosphere, never said land. Tropical Storms, Hurricanes also cools the ocean surface due to accelerated outflow of energy.

Already posted this once

"El-Nino/ Modoki phases = Ocean cooling, atmosphere warming.

La-Nina phases = Ocean recharging/warming up, atmosphere cooling.

El-Nino/ Modoki phases have been common for over a decade now."

Your own paper continues the stupid CO2 back radiation warming up the ocean waters argument, it is truly a stupid claim....

It is clear YOU never read the math on it, versus the oceans capacity to absorb energy. Only the SUN contributes the necessary energy flow to heat up the surface waters, the inflow many times greater than the postulated CO2 inflow contribution.

Why do you fall for such bullshit so easily?

===

Here is a detailed comment posted by Dr. Clark:

R. Clark

It is simply impossible for the observed increase in downward LWIR flux from a 120 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to heat the oceans. This presumed LWIR induced ocean warming is one of the major errors in the global warming scam. The increase in flux from CO2 is nominally 2 W.m^-2 or 0.18 MJ.m^-2 per day. The oceans are heated by the sun – up to 25 MJ m^-2 per day for full tropical or summer sun. About half of this solar heat is absorbed in the first 1 m layer of the ocean and 90% is absorbed in the first 10 m layer. The heat is removed by a combination of wind driven evaporation from the surface and LWIR emission from the first 100 micron layer. That’s about the width of a human hair. In round numbers, about 50 W.m^-2 is removed from the ocean surface by the LWIR flux and the balance comes from the wind driven evaporation. The heat capacity of the cooled layer at the surface is quite small – 4.2 kJ.m^-2 for a 1 mm layer. This reacts quite rapidly to any changes in the cooling flux and the heat transfer from the bulk ocean below and the evaporation rate change accordingly. The cooler water produce at the surface then sinks and cools the bulk ocean layer below. This is not just a diffusion process, but convection in which the cooler water sinks and warmer rises in a complex circulating flow pattern (Rayleigh-Benard convection). This couples the surface momentum (wind shear) to lower depths and drives the ocean currents. At higher latitudes the surface area of a sphere decreases and this drives the currents to lower depths.

In round numbers, the temperature increase produced by a 2 W.m^-2 increase in LWIR flux from CO2 is overwhelmed by a 50 ± 50 W.m^-2 flux of cold water and a 0 to 1000 W.m^-2 solar heating flux.

Over the tropical warm pool the wind driven cooling rate is about 40 W.m^-2.m.s^-1 (40 Watts per square meter for each 1 m/sec change in wind speed). This means that a change in wind speed of 20 cm.s^-1 is equivalent to the global warming heat flux. (20 centimeters per second).

There is a lot of useful information on ocean surface evaporation on the Woods Hole website OAFlux Data Access
The heat content of the first 700 m layer of the ocean is of little concern in climate studies. It is the first 100 to 200 m depth that matters. About half of the increase in heat content occurs in the first 100 m layer. This is shown in Figure 2 of the 2012 Levitus paper.

The ocean warming fraud goes back to the early global warming models. In their 1967 paper, Manabe and Wetherald used a ‘blackbody surface’ with ‘zero heat capacity’. They created the global warming scam as a mathematical artifact of their modeling assumptions. These propagated into the Charney Report in 1979. Then an ‘ocean layer’ was added to the model. The layer had thermal properties such as heat capacity and thermal diffusion, but the CO2 flux increase had to magically heat the oceans. This is computational climate fiction. Any computer model that predicts ocean warming from CO2 is by definition fraudulent. The fraud can be found in Hansen’s 1981 Science paper and has continued ever since.
Hansen, J.; D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind and G. Russell Science 213 957-956 (1981), ‘Climate impact of increasing carbon dioxide’ Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

For a more detailed discussion see:
Clark, R., 2013a, Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 319-340 (2013) ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part I: Concepts’
Clark, R., 2013b, Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 341-359 (2013) ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part II: Applications’
http://venturaphotonics.com/GlobalWarming.html

======

Black and Red bolding mine

CO2 warming up the ocean waters claim is pure stupidity.