Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Toddsterpatriot]

why does your question matter then?

It shows SSDD's error.

or not

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

well then explain why the corona is hotter than the surface? dude, I can play this game all year with you.

At this point his argument has become.....because...don't expect more. He doesn't like the explanation he was given...and in a couple of posts, he will have forgotten all about the whole spontaneous movement and be right back to his childish argument again claiming whatever it is about my position he claims...

He doesn't like the explanation he was given..

Are you going to claim that fusion at the core releases energy which is absorbed and re-emitted countless times before photons reach the Sun's surface and finally escape, and this somehow...magically...allows these photons at the surface to travel toward hotter matter?

 

[SSDD]

If you add insulation to your house, and the heater (the sun) keeps running at the same rate, the new equilibrium will show there's more heat in the house (system). So, in that sense, GHGs (insulation) "add" energy to the system. I believe we agree on that, even if the process of heat retention is different from heat creation in, say, a stove.

Problem: If I add insulation to my house, I decrease the emissivity of my house....If I add CO2 to the atmosphere, I increase the emissivity of the atmosphere....increasing the emissivity, by definition means that the temperature drops...unless you are claiming some magic by which you can add this magical substance to a system and increase its emissivity and cause it to get warmer at the same time.

 

[jc456]

It's a problem if the folks DOING the systems modeling actually LOOK at all those things as "forcings".. In a complex system with feedbacks and storage and delays, that measure "energy balance" resulting in a surface temp change, the only primary energy ENTERING the system (in this case) is the solar forcing and some trivial contributions such as plate tectonics, atmospheric friction, and planetary "wobble". Then you have adjustments to "transfer functions" that change dynamically which affect HOW that primary energy gets, distributed, stored or delayed.

The best "handle" on transfer functions are the "solar constant" (which is NOT constant when searching for such small results) and the effect of the GHGases. Both of these are pretty well (but not completely) specified by basic chemistry and physics and observation. The OTHER things you mentioned are less well "modeled". Because of serious lack of knowledge about the feedbacks, delays, and storage.

For instance, the GHGases dont ADD any energy to the overall system other than what they put into storage. They IMPEDE the NET LOSS of energy to space. And if you look back at the "famous" Trenberth "energy" diagram where he took all of this on the back on an envelope (uncertainties and all) and MIRACULOUSLY discovered the EXACT amount of trivial energy to account for all the warming by the path thru the GHGases , he left out one of the most IMPORTANT aspects of this transfer function. And that was "ocean storage" of the "excess heat" created by additional "atmospheric insulation". About 20 years LATER --- he co-authors a paper about "How the Oceans Ate My Global Warming" by making the claim that a full 90% of the EXCESS HEAT created by the heat retardardation to space ended up as storage in the DEEP oceans. Yet at the time he pulled off that miraculous envelope exercise -- he completely left that component OUT of his "balance".. He simply considered the "back radiation" of the GHGases as a simple "forcing" without accounting for complexity of that particular transfer function that ACTS on changes in that one variable.

In addition, because the GHG effect doesn't ADD any primary energy into the system -- you need to account for the ATMOSPHERIC storage of that energy as well as the ocean and any land storage. Because OBVIOUSLY if the effect of higher GHGases is to RETAIN ENERGY at the surface -- it must be "stored" somewhere right? Do you know the what the "storage capacity" is of an additional 120ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is? What is the retention time of that storage. Etc, Etc.. Bottom line is --- it's not a forcing in the traditional "systems theory" terminology -- is it?

It's a technical observation. Not ready for public education. But it shows how juvenile and sloppy it was to allow the public to THINK for nearly 20 years --- that CO2/CH4 emissions was the MASTER TUNING KNOB for this complex system.. It isn't..

Since you said you have an engineering background -- I didn't hold back. Hope you understand my skepticism about some of the whackier "pronouncements" that have come from the AGW circus..

Okay, I've read that thing thrice now, and still don't really understand your problem.

If you add insulation to your house, and the heater (the sun) keeps running at the same rate, the new equilibrium will show there's more heat in the house (system). So, in that sense, GHGs (insulation) "add" energy to the system. I believe we agree on that, even if the process of heat retention is different from heat creation in, say, a stove.

Moreover, since you're perennially bashing poor Trenberth: The earth's heat content (let's leave out minor factors such as heating by the earth's molten core, etc.) is determined by solar irradiation minus the sum of all radiation to space. That alone gives you the changes in energy content. Where any excess heat ends up being stored affects the internal dynamics, but not the overall heat content. That's why Trenberth could leave out ocean storage and still come up with a pretty accurate figure. Moreover, the cleverly dubbed "How the Oceans Ate My Global Warming" forgets that the oceans are pretty much part of the globe, and thus a part of "Global Warming", very much so. So, when oceans are storing heat away in deeper regions, and land surface temperatures don't budge much, "global warming" still hasn't stopped. So, the much celebrated "Hiatus" or "Pause" was just bogus nonsense based on the difficulty to find the excess heat, and the ubiquitous reliance on cherry-picking beginning and end dates subsequent to the 1998 El Niño..

So, yes, heat retention by GHGs is somewhat different from solar irradiation. Unless you come up with another, better term for that former aspect of forcing (which I am convinced it is), I cannot see anything in this whole exercise other than nitpicking over mere words.

"But it shows how juvenile and sloppy it was to allow the public to THINK for nearly 20 years --- that CO2/CH4 emissions was the MASTER TUNING KNOB for this complex system.. It isn't.."​

All I read points to CO2 as the main driver of warming at the time, methane playing a comparatively minor role (for the time being). Whether that translates to "MASTER TUNING KNOB" I patently don't know. I also don't know whether in a complex system such as the earth's climate there is a MASTER TUNING KNOB, or whether it was actually sloppy to allow the public think there is one. Global warming is real, CO2 is its main driver, reducing carbon emissions should be our main environmental policy aim, and it does not make one whit of a difference to me whether we call it a "MASTER TUNING KNOB" or humankind's self-destructive addiction to fossil fuels or whatever.

As to this:

"Do you know the what the "storage capacity" is of an additional 120ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is?"​

Of course, CO2 molecules hit by IR radiation transfer energy by way of collisions to nearby N2 or O2 molecules, so the storage capacity of "an additional 120ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere" is of no import. Rather, raising the question appears to indicate a misunderstanding on your part.

I don't think I've ever spoken about my background, as I don't think that our contributions should be judged according to any such claimed, unverified background. As to being wary of wacky pronouncements, yep, there's something to that. You won't be surprised to learn that I am locating the predominant source of such pronouncements in the other corner, eh?

If you add insulation to your house, and the heater (the sun) keeps running at the same rate, the new equilibrium will show there's more heat in the house (system). So, in that sense, GHGs (insulation) "add" energy to the system. I believe we agree on that, even if the process of heat retention is different from heat creation in, say, a stove.

How do you figure the house get's hotter? If you add insulation, then the sun can't penetrate as much and the house will retain the same heat if not cooler. hly fk, what are you smoking?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.

well then explain why the corona is hotter than the surface? dude, I can play this game all year with you.

That is a very interesting question. We may never know.
Which has nothing to do with the claim that photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer.

well sure there is, if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics.

if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics

Photons are clearly moving from the cooler surface to the hotter corona and from the hotter corona to the cooler surface. What's wrong with the physics of that?

how do you know they are? you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?
Again, it goes against your physics.

how do you know they are?

We see them.

you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?

That's right! And you can't explain why cooler surface photons travel toward the hotter corona.

so how do you know that there are actual photons?

We have pictures. (see above)

Again, it goes against your physics

Photons flying around in all directions don't go against my physics. Do they go against yours?

 

[jc456]

well then explain why the corona is hotter than the surface? dude, I can play this game all year with you.

That is a very interesting question. We may never know.
Which has nothing to do with the claim that photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer.

well sure there is, if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics.

if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics

Photons are clearly moving from the cooler surface to the hotter corona and from the hotter corona to the cooler surface. What's wrong with the physics of that?

how do you know they are? you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?
Again, it goes against your physics.

how do you know they are?

View attachment 115868

View attachment 115869

We see them.

you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?

That's right! And you can't explain why cooler surface photons travel toward the hotter corona.

so how do you know that there are actual photons?

We have pictures. (see above)

Again, it goes against your physics

Photons flying around in all directions don't go against my physics. Do they go against yours?

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however. light is light and you have no idea what is causing any of it. photons would be the last thing to bank on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is a very interesting question. We may never know.
Which has nothing to do with the claim that photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer.

well sure there is, if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics.

if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics

Photons are clearly moving from the cooler surface to the hotter corona and from the hotter corona to the cooler surface. What's wrong with the physics of that?

how do you know they are? you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?
Again, it goes against your physics.

how do you know they are?

View attachment 115868

View attachment 115869

We see them.

you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?

That's right! And you can't explain why cooler surface photons travel toward the hotter corona.

so how do you know that there are actual photons?

We have pictures. (see above)

Again, it goes against your physics

Photons flying around in all directions don't go against my physics. Do they go against yours?

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however. light is light and you have no idea what is causing any of it. photons would be the last thing to bank on.

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however.

It shows photons from the cooler surface traveled toward the hotter corona.

 

[jc456]

well sure there is, if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics.

if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics

Photons are clearly moving from the cooler surface to the hotter corona and from the hotter corona to the cooler surface. What's wrong with the physics of that?

how do you know they are? you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?
Again, it goes against your physics.

how do you know they are?

View attachment 115868

View attachment 115869

We see them.

you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?

That's right! And you can't explain why cooler surface photons travel toward the hotter corona.

so how do you know that there are actual photons?

We have pictures. (see above)

Again, it goes against your physics

Photons flying around in all directions don't go against my physics. Do they go against yours?

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however. light is light and you have no idea what is causing any of it. photons would be the last thing to bank on.

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however.

It shows photons from the cooler surface traveled toward the hotter corona.

the pictures shows light wavelengths. you have no idea how they are where there at. you said so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics

Photons are clearly moving from the cooler surface to the hotter corona and from the hotter corona to the cooler surface. What's wrong with the physics of that?

how do you know they are? you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?
Again, it goes against your physics.

how do you know they are?

View attachment 115868

View attachment 115869

We see them.

you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?

That's right! And you can't explain why cooler surface photons travel toward the hotter corona.

so how do you know that there are actual photons?

We have pictures. (see above)

Again, it goes against your physics

Photons flying around in all directions don't go against my physics. Do they go against yours?

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however. light is light and you have no idea what is causing any of it. photons would be the last thing to bank on.

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however.

It shows photons from the cooler surface traveled toward the hotter corona.

the pictures shows light wavelengths. you have no idea how they are where there at. you said so.

the pictures shows light wavelenths.

The picture has photons all over it.

you have no idea how they are where there at.

They're there.

you said so.

I said cooler surface photons move toward the hotter corona.
The picture is proof.

 

[jc456]

how do you know they are? you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?
Again, it goes against your physics.

how do you know they are?

View attachment 115868

View attachment 115869

We see them.

you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?

That's right! And you can't explain why cooler surface photons travel toward the hotter corona.

so how do you know that there are actual photons?

We have pictures. (see above)

Again, it goes against your physics

Photons flying around in all directions don't go against my physics. Do they go against yours?

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however. light is light and you have no idea what is causing any of it. photons would be the last thing to bank on.

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however.

It shows photons from the cooler surface traveled toward the hotter corona.

the pictures shows light wavelengths. you have no idea how they are where there at. you said so.

the pictures shows light wavelenths.

The picture has photons all over it.

you have no idea how they are where there at.

They're there.

you said so.

I said cooler surface photons move toward the hotter corona.
The picture is proof.

well you're not looking at the surface, you're looking at the corona, so you have no idea what is happening. physics lessons can't help you here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

how do you know they are?

View attachment 115868

View attachment 115869

We see them.

you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?

That's right! And you can't explain why cooler surface photons travel toward the hotter corona.

so how do you know that there are actual photons?

We have pictures. (see above)

Again, it goes against your physics

Photons flying around in all directions don't go against my physics. Do they go against yours?

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however. light is light and you have no idea what is causing any of it. photons would be the last thing to bank on.

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however.

It shows photons from the cooler surface traveled toward the hotter corona.

the pictures shows light wavelengths. you have no idea how they are where there at. you said so.

the pictures shows light wavelenths.

The picture has photons all over it.

you have no idea how they are where there at.

They're there.

you said so.

I said cooler surface photons move toward the hotter corona.
The picture is proof.

well you're not looking at the surface, you're looking at the corona, so you have no idea what is happening. physics lessons can't help you here.

The top picture shows the surface.......

 

[jc456]

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however. light is light and you have no idea what is causing any of it. photons would be the last thing to bank on.

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however.

It shows photons from the cooler surface traveled toward the hotter corona.

the pictures shows light wavelengths. you have no idea how they are where there at. you said so.

the pictures shows light wavelenths.

The picture has photons all over it.

you have no idea how they are where there at.

They're there.

you said so.

I said cooler surface photons move toward the hotter corona.
The picture is proof.

well you're not looking at the surface, you're looking at the corona, so you have no idea what is happening. physics lessons can't help you here.

The top picture shows the surface.......

yep and that mother looks hot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however.

It shows photons from the cooler surface traveled toward the hotter corona.

the pictures shows light wavelengths. you have no idea how they are where there at. you said so.

the pictures shows light wavelenths.

The picture has photons all over it.

you have no idea how they are where there at.

They're there.

you said so.

I said cooler surface photons move toward the hotter corona.
The picture is proof.

well you're not looking at the surface, you're looking at the corona, so you have no idea what is happening. physics lessons can't help you here.

The top picture shows the surface.......

yep and that mother looks hot.

Not only that, it's violating the 2nd Law....DERP!

 

[jc456]

the pictures shows light wavelengths. you have no idea how they are where there at. you said so.

the pictures shows light wavelenths.

The picture has photons all over it.

you have no idea how they are where there at.

They're there.

you said so.

I said cooler surface photons move toward the hotter corona.
The picture is proof.

well you're not looking at the surface, you're looking at the corona, so you have no idea what is happening. physics lessons can't help you here.

The top picture shows the surface.......

yep and that mother looks hot.

Not only that, it's violating the 2nd Law....DERP!

how you figure? Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases, It's why you see explosions off the surface, right?

 

[Olde Europe]

NOWHERE in his famous "balance" did this MASSIVE amount of energy show up as a debit on the solar side or even a debit from the amount returned to the sky.. But YET -- this "leading AGW scientist" ended up finding EXACTLY the measly 3.5 W/m2 of "imbalance" (out of 500 or 1000 W/m2 of input power daily) he was looking for to show the AGW "effect".. Is that not fucking amazing????

Flux coming in versus flux going out, over time, gives you the accumulated heat. There really isn't more to that. Since Trenberth concerned himself with the earth's radiative balance, energy stored away in the deeper oceans wasn't supposed to show up. In the end, however, it did show up. Consider this: if the earth had no oceans to speak of, and their enormous capacity as a buffer, the earth's surface would have warmed much faster, and upward LWIR radiation would have increased accordingly. So, the heat not present to warm the surface did show up, in lower radiation.

Thus without going to secondary analysis involving delays and time constants --- you CAN NOT account for a 15 year pause with just that information. Add to that the fact that LWIR cannot penetrate much more than a mmeter of the ocean surface while direct solar radiation CAN -- It's not likely that ONLY the back radiation from GHGases is the primary source of that constant amount going into the oceans at the same RATE for 40 or 50 years.

Given the enormous storage capacity of the oceans, even minor changes in the rate cause quite considerable changes in the land surface temperature; El Niño demonstrates that every few years. Moreover, there was no pause (except for cherry-picking beginning and end dates), as demonstrated by every recent decade, on average, being warmer than the previous one, and no matter what temperatures you look at. So, the accounting that is really necessary is on the side that cherry-picks data. Moreover, the assertion that IR cannot penetrate all that deep into the ocean, insinuating there cannot be a LWIR warming of the oceans, fails to account for conduction and convection. That is, at best, scurrilous. Of course, compared to a system in balance, and solar input basically unchanged, the change in back radiation is all the reason for warming oceans.

The GH effect is a STORAGE mechanism, NOT a forcing.

That's an interesting name. I am not quite convinced the term is apt, as in my understanding it would suggest it's just the GHGs "storing" energy. That isn't the case (just as energy isn't in relevant amounts "stored" in the insulation of a house).

Those "collisions" might cause some change in the energy of either component.

Also not convinced here. These collisions transferring the energy in the form of LWIR radiation caught by GHGs to other, non-GHG molecules account for the atmosphere in the troposphere as a whole heating up, not resulting just in incredibly hot CO2 molecules.

I have been snippy about A LOT of the misrepresentations of science that have happened in the interest of propagandizing the public -- but the more important bit for YOU to realize -- is that I've not been snippy with you at all ---- YET ...

Heavens... I've not tried to be snippy, and "the other side" wasn't meant to point at you but rather the bunch of climate change and back radiation deniers - just in case.

Thanks, anyway, for the non-snippy debate so far. That was quite the experience on these boards. The only thing that pisses me off somewhat is the allegation that the "AGW circus" is "propagandizing the public". How would you call what Koch and Exxon are doing?

 

[flacaltenn]

Flux coming in versus flux going out, over time, gives you the accumulated heat. There really isn't more to that. Since Trenberth concerned himself with the earth's radiative balance, energy stored away in the deeper oceans wasn't supposed to show up. In the end, however, it did show up. Consider this: if the earth had no oceans to speak of, and their enormous capacity as a buffer, the earth's surface would have warmed much faster, and upward LWIR radiation would have increased accordingly. So, the heat not present to warm the surface did show up, in lower radiation.

Not consistent enough to discuss. Either it COMES OUT of the incoming solar forcing or it don't. You can't create an energy budget by IGNORING 90% of the "excess heat"... Trenberth tells you one thing and then he changes his mind when his mission is in jeopardy..

If it comes IN and ends up in the deep oceans --- it's gotta show in that "balance" diagram -- doesn't it?
Because SOME DAY -- it's gonna reappear at the surface and become part of the exchange. Same deal with any short time or long time storage at the surface or the atmos.

Given the enormous storage capacity of the oceans, even minor changes in the rate cause quite considerable changes in the land surface temperature; El Niño demonstrates that every few years. Moreover, there was no pause (except for cherry-picking beginning and end dates), as demonstrated by every recent decade, on average, being warmer than the previous one, and no matter what temperatures you look at. So, the accounting that is really necessary is on the side that cherry-picks data. Moreover, the assertion that IR cannot penetrate all that deep into the ocean, insinuating there cannot be a LWIR warming of the oceans, fails to account for conduction and convection. That is, at best, scurrilous. Of course, compared to a system in balance, and solar input basically unchanged, the change in back radiation is all the reason for warming oceans.

Not really. The phony assertion that "The Oceans Ate My Global Warming" fails because to create a PAUSE --- you would have to be storing heat in the oceans at a HIGHER RATE just previous to and/or during that pause. Nothing like that appears in the data from either BTK or NOAA. And like I said -- that rate did not substantially change. INSTEAD --- BTK included a gadget in their famous graph to relate the RATE of WARMING in the 0 to 2000meter segment of the ocean to the "forcing function" from various GHGas induced powers at the surface. Implying that the entire 50 year record was due to GHG back radiation.

The fact that the sun reached a new SOLAR MAXIMUM in the 80s and stayed flat --- is EXACTLY the stimulus that would cause a "linear ramp" in thermal heat storage. If you raise the rate that you're dripping water into a bucket (for storage) and you then keep that STEADY for 50 years --- you'll get EXACTLY a linear rate of rise in the storage. That's how storage AFFECTS the total heat content of the planet. Mathematically, storage is the INTEGRAL of the input forcing function wrt time.

Not even gonna argue the Pause. It was ALWAYS there in the Satellite record. Even the IPCC addressed this in AR5.. And if you want to use weasel words to say the rate was less than 0.01degc/decade -- knock your bad self out. I don't DEPEND on the pause for ANY of my arguments.

Also not convinced here. These collisions transferring the energy in the form of LWIR radiation caught by GHGs to other, non-GHG molecules account for the atmosphere in the troposphere as a whole heating up, not resulting just in incredibly hot CO2 molecules.

Sorry man, basic physics. That's all KINETIC energy transfer, not HEAT energy transfer. Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc are NOT INVOLVED in "insulation" or storage.. They merely ASSUME the current resultant temperature.

That's an interesting name. I am not quite convinced the term is apt, as in my understanding it would suggest it's just the GHGs "storing" energy. That isn't the case (just as energy isn't in relevant amounts "stored" in the insulation of a house).

That's all true -- Pink Panther brand R19 does not store anything. But your HOUSE does. MOST everything in it to some degree. If the atmosphere is getting warmer -- it's NOT likely from the sun. It's because GHG components are there and they have more efficient "thermal capacities" than the other gas that DONT heat from the Earth's LWIR re-radiation...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the pictures shows light wavelenths.

The picture has photons all over it.

you have no idea how they are where there at.

They're there.

you said so.

I said cooler surface photons move toward the hotter corona.
The picture is proof.

well you're not looking at the surface, you're looking at the corona, so you have no idea what is happening. physics lessons can't help you here.

The top picture shows the surface.......

yep and that mother looks hot.

Not only that, it's violating the 2nd Law....DERP!

how you figure? Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases, It's why you see explosions off the surface, right?

Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases,

Combustion? No.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thanks, anyway, for the non-snippy debate so far. That was quite the experience on these boards. The only thing that pisses me off somewhat is the allegation that the "AGW circus" is "propagandizing the public". How would you call what Koch and Exxon are doing?

I don't work for Koch Bros or Exxon. And BOTH of them has supported their share of GOOD GW research. For instance, Koch funded the B.E.S.T. temperature audit done at UC Berkeley and DID NOT INTERFERE when it mostly validated the temperature record. That was done at time BEFORE the pause, when NOAA/NASA and others started to cause a deviation between the satellites and the 10,000 thermometer method. Koch also is the lead donor to NOVA -- which has done MANY science programs investigating GW from a slightly "aggressive" standpoint.

WRT to propaganda.................
The way we ENGAGED on this AGW topic in the OTHER thread -- was on the gross exaggerations of the Hockey Sticks. It's a blatant LIE to claim those studies are PROOF that there is no historical precedent for either the rate of rise or the relatively minor temperature bump we've seen in our lifetimes.

I've spent about 30 threads unwinding fantasy after fantasy that hit the front pages of the media. Everything thing from oyster dying due to "increased CO2" to birch beetles eating up forests because of 1degC rise in MEAN global temperature. It's ALL been either misrepresented by an science illiterate press or INTENTIONALLY misrepresented by a handful of enviro-nut activists in labcoats who where promoted by the press in the same fashion that Trump got a couple $BILL of free advertising during the campaign. OUTRAGEOUS doom and gloom sells. And these dozen or so activists knew how to give cover for various political agendas that lie underneath this out of control train.

Want to know what REAL climate scientists believe? Go read any of the Tri-Annuals surveys done by a REAL climate scientist and a statistic guy. Bray and vonStorch studies. TENS of questions, not just one silly ass question. And you'll be surprised at the answers.

 

[Olde Europe]

You can't create an energy budget by IGNORING 90% of the "excess heat"...

It wasn't an "energy" budget, it was a radiative flux budget. Yeah, I know, it was named "energy budget", but all the figures given were radiative fluxes in W/m².

The phony assertion that "The Oceans Ate My Global Warming" fails because to create a PAUSE --- you would have to be storing heat in the oceans at a HIGHER RATE just previous to and/or during that pause.

Nope, all you need is picking an El Nino year - with exceptionally high surface temperatures - as a start.

Moreover:

Independent of these discussions about data and measurements for earlier years, 2015 turned out to be much warmer than any of the earlier years, already before El Niño conditions started. The warmth of 2015 largely ended any remaining scientific credibility of claims that the supposed "hiatus" since 1998 had any significance for the long-term warming trend.[24] In January 2017, a study published in the journal Science Advances cast further doubt on the existence of a recent pause, with more evidence that ocean temperatures have been underestimated.[25][26]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-26
Does that look like the result of a steady rate of storage to you?

Yeah, they found the heat that was missing:

The 2015 analysis showed that the modern buoys now used to measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.

After correcting for this "cold bias," researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal Science that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. This brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.​

So, that seems exactly like the "ramp" you've been describing.

That's all KINETIC energy transfer, not HEAT energy transfer.

See:

"The temperature of a gas is a measure of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules."​

 

[flacaltenn]

You can't create an energy budget by IGNORING 90% of the "excess heat"...

It wasn't an "energy" budget, it was a radiative flux budget. Yeah, I know, it was named "energy budget", but all the figures given were radiative fluxes in W/m².

The phony assertion that "The Oceans Ate My Global Warming" fails because to create a PAUSE --- you would have to be storing heat in the oceans at a HIGHER RATE just previous to and/or during that pause.

Nope, all you need is picking an El Nino year - with exceptionally high surface temperatures - as a start.

Moreover:

Independent of these discussions about data and measurements for earlier years, 2015 turned out to be much warmer than any of the earlier years, already before El Niño conditions started. The warmth of 2015 largely ended any remaining scientific credibility of claims that the supposed "hiatus" since 1998 had any significance for the long-term warming trend.[24] In January 2017, a study published in the journal Science Advances cast further doubt on the existence of a recent pause, with more evidence that ocean temperatures have been underestimated.[25][26]​

Does that look like the result of a steady rate of storage to you?

Yeah, they found the heat that was missing:

The 2015 analysis showed that the modern buoys now used to measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.

After correcting for this "cold bias," researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal Science that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. This brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.​

So, that seems exactly like the "ramp" you've been describing.

That's all KINETIC energy transfer, not HEAT energy transfer.

See:

"The temperature of a gas is a measure of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules."​

That ship intake ruse is a different story. Not the BTK "Oceans ate my warming". In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep. Any way -- after the BTK "excuse" died, ONE scientist at NOAA decided to JUNK the multi $MILL buoy system and recreate the old 19th century "bucket" method of measuring ocean temperature.

Let's get this straight. The Global Mean Surface Temperature that is the BASIC product for the AGW crowd is supposed to measure ATMOSPHERE -- not water. And there is NOTHING WRONG with those expensive fancy buoys. IN FACT, the land based systems are supposed to be at a certain HEIGHT above the ground to measure AIR -- not the ground.

This primadonna at NOAA just changed the rules to show more warming..

 

[flacaltenn]

You can't create an energy budget by IGNORING 90% of the "excess heat"...

It wasn't an "energy" budget, it was a radiative flux budget. Yeah, I know, it was named "energy budget", but all the figures given were radiative fluxes in W/m².

The phony assertion that "The Oceans Ate My Global Warming" fails because to create a PAUSE --- you would have to be storing heat in the oceans at a HIGHER RATE just previous to and/or during that pause.

Nope, all you need is picking an El Nino year - with exceptionally high surface temperatures - as a start.

Moreover:

Independent of these discussions about data and measurements for earlier years, 2015 turned out to be much warmer than any of the earlier years, already before El Niño conditions started. The warmth of 2015 largely ended any remaining scientific credibility of claims that the supposed "hiatus" since 1998 had any significance for the long-term warming trend.[24] In January 2017, a study published in the journal Science Advances cast further doubt on the existence of a recent pause, with more evidence that ocean temperatures have been underestimated.[25][26]​

Does that look like the result of a steady rate of storage to you?

Yeah, they found the heat that was missing:

The 2015 analysis showed that the modern buoys now used to measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.

After correcting for this "cold bias," researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal Science that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. This brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.​

So, that seems exactly like the "ramp" you've been describing.

That's all KINETIC energy transfer, not HEAT energy transfer.

See:

"The temperature of a gas is a measure of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules."​

That ship intake ruse is a different story. Not the BTK "Oceans ate my warming". In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep. Any way -- after the BTK "excuse" died, ONE scientist at NOAA decided to JUNK the multi $MILL buoy system and recreate the old 19th century "bucket" method of measuring ocean temperature.

Let's get this straight. The Global Mean Surface Temperature that is the BASIC product for the AGW crowd is supposed to measure ATMOSPHERE -- not water. And there is NOTHING WRONG with those expensive fancy buoys. IN FACT, the land based systems are supposed to be at a certain HEIGHT above the ground to measure AIR -- not the ground.

This primadonna at NOAA just changed the rules to show more warming..

As a result --- the satellite record (which also measures "just atmos" ) is now different from anything NOAA produces. And since the NOAA database is the basis for the beginning of any one else's land-based temperatures -- they now ALL are starting to deviate from the satellite record.