Record hot years near impossible without manmade climate change – study

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you demonstrate the typical reactionary far right mind set and practitioner of confirmation science.

You make an assertion, offer one piece of evidence, and then stand back all proud of yourself.

Sigh.

Jake, you seem to believe that 58 is a bigger number than 62

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you demonstrate the typical reactionary far right mind set and practitioner of confirmation science.

You make an assertion, offer one piece of evidence, and then stand back all proud of yourself.

Sigh.

Jake is a DENIER!!!! Why do you doubt NOAA?

 

[SSDD]

Now give us a link and make an argument with clear conclusions.

People like you are really too stupid to bother with, but here, at NOAA's own National Center for Environmental Information web site.

Global Analysis - Annual 1997 | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

]The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1995 by 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit. The chart reflects variations from the 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface

]So clearly, NOAA stated that the global temperature, in 1997 was 62.45 degrees....are you going to argue with what they said on their own site?..Then, again, at the NOAA National Center for Environment Information site, they state quite clearly that 2015 saw earths warmest temperature by a "wide margin"

Summary Information | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 136 years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C) and marking the fourth time a global temperature record has been set this century. This is also the largest margin by which the annual global temperature record has been broken.

]So again, jake, how exactly do you figure that the 57 degrees claimed in 2015 is warmer than the 62 degrees stated for 1997? The fact that you, or anyone would try to defend lies of this magnitude and verified on their own web site shows that you are either entirely stupid and have been duped to a degree that is astounding, or that you are a political operative willing to lie your ass off so long as their is some political gain to be had....which are you?

 

[Wuwei]

I DO understand what was important about the statement. Clearly it is YOU who don't.

If you are going to make a post like that, why don't you just tell me what you think I don't understand. It will save time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now give us a link and make an argument with clear conclusions.

People like you are really too stupid to bother with, but here, at NOAA's own National Center for Environmental Information web site.

Global Analysis - Annual 1997 | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

]The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1995 by 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit. The chart reflects variations from the 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface

]So clearly, NOAA stated that the global temperature, in 1997 was 62.45 degrees....are you going to argue with what they said on their own site?..Then, again, at the NOAA National Center for Environment Information site, they state quite clearly that 2015 saw earths warmest temperature by a "wide margin"

Summary Information | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 136 years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C) and marking the fourth time a global temperature record has been set this century. This is also the largest margin by which the annual global temperature record has been broken.

]So again, jake, how exactly do you figure that the 57 degrees claimed in 2015 is warmer than the 62 degrees stated for 1997? The fact that you, or anyone would try to defend lies of this magnitude and verified on their own web site shows that you are either entirely stupid and have been duped to a degree that is astounding, or that you are a political operative willing to lie your ass off so long as their is some political gain to be had....which are you?

Now let's see some one reputable explain the difference in scientific, credible terms. Somehow I think you and CF are cherry picking out of context, much like the nonsense with "my Muslim faith." Do any of you have actual scientific papers explaining the "error" by reputable scientists? Get to it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Everything on the planet is "radiating more than it recieves".. It's ALL a net loss to the sky. The point is, although we've shown some deeper ocean warming (accurate only in the past 40 years or so) --- MOST of that ocean skin heat goes into convection not radiation.. That's why most weather STARTS over the oceans.

And when "climate scientists" make the assertion that "the oceans ate the warming" for the past decade or so -- they do so with no agreed mechanism for that to actually happen IF it was due to increased IR back radiation.

Not to mention that oceans show they have been "eating" warming at relatively the SAME RATE for the past 50 years and don't SHOW any accelerated "appetite"..

As far this OP --- if it was ALL MANMADE and it followed the silly expectation that Temperature is a simple linear consequence of CO2 -- There wouldn't be so many changes in the RATES of warming that the models mostly miss..

No, it's you who don't understand. To warm the oceans the energy MUST penetrate deeply into the oceans. Mere surface warming does nothing, and not even being able to penetrate the skin of the water means there is NO energy transfer to the oceans. Heat rises, remember that from 5th grade science? If the heat rises away from the less than one millimeter of the water how then does it warm it?

It's time you took that 5th grade science class again.

Yes, you are looking at it from 5th grade science, but I am looking at it from grad school thermodynamics. I agree that back radiation cannot directly “warm” the ocean. That much is obvious. And it's obvious that back radiation cannot penetrate into the ocean. And it is obvious heat rises.

The point you fail to understand is that no real scientist should ever claim that the back radiation directly warms the ocean. The mechanism for warming the deep ocean is complex and not fully understood.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Again, this is the point I was making: The ocean is radiating about 400W/m^2 at the top surface. Back radiation is cutting down the amount of radiation loss only at that top surface. That prevents the ocean from loosing massive amounts of heat by radiation alone at the top surface. That allows the predominant loss to be rising heat and evaporation.

The major concepts you should come away with is that back radiation is what keeps the ocean (and yes, of course, the rest of the planet) from loosing as much heat as it would without greenhouse gases. And you should stop the silly talk about anyone thinking back radiation can directly warm the deep ocean.

See Cricks's post #20 for in-depth details. You can understand it if you read it carefully. The one thing I object to in Crick's post is the wording that GHG's will "heat" the ocean. It is far more accurate to say that GHG's prevent the ocean from loosing heat.

And you should stop the silly talk about anyone thinking back radiation can directly warm the deep ocean.

And ----- you miss the point.. The infamous BTK "mini-paper" MAKES this exact claim. In it -- Trenberth et al asserts that the observed hiatus in warming IS BECAUSE the "excess heat" during the pause was taken from the ATMOS and was FOUND in the deep ocean.. This lit off a MOUNTAIN of press misconceptions that climate scientists has a plausible explanation of the pause. One that Trenberth MISSED when he left ocean storage OUT of his original "energy balance" diagram from 10 years ago..

That hit and run "minipaper" IS STILL quoted by EVERY warmer as the solid scientific explanation for "the pause". It was a journal "LETTER". Not even a full paper.. And never really elaborated on with a REAL PAPER. YET --- it's a CORNERSTONE of AGW "folklore"..

We all seem to agree -- that back rad can warm only a TINY fraction of the ocean depth.Even NOAA took BTK to school about not having a explanation for the "mixing" that got that heat energy stored to depth. (among other issues such I pointed out like the RATE of deep ocean warming not changing for 50 years. )

That explanation in post 20 merely reiterates that the skin can forced to higher temps by back rad. They did not record or display the temperatures at even MODERATE depths below the skin. Told me NOTHING about plausible mechanisms for transfers of heat ENERGY to depths of the ocean.

Furthermore -- a FORCING is NOT ENERGY. To store heat in the ocean you need a TIME RELATED ENERGY measurement -- not a "power". And using clouds as modulators at 20 times the CO2 forcing WITHOUT a time variable is sketchy at best.

Most of the skin ENERGY -- leaves as convection --- not radiation. And currents DO cause upwelling and downwelling of great amounts of deeper water. But a 4W/m2 forcing applied to a skin only microns deep is not gonna "mix" to any great effect. In fact, a skin that thin -- is a pretty ephemeral effect in most sea states.

 

[jc456]

Now give us a link and make an argument with clear conclusions.

People like you are really too stupid to bother with, but here, at NOAA's own National Center for Environmental Information web site.

Global Analysis - Annual 1997 | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

]The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1995 by 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit. The chart reflects variations from the 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface

]So clearly, NOAA stated that the global temperature, in 1997 was 62.45 degrees....are you going to argue with what they said on their own site?..Then, again, at the NOAA National Center for Environment Information site, they state quite clearly that 2015 saw earths warmest temperature by a "wide margin"

Summary Information | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 136 years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C) and marking the fourth time a global temperature record has been set this century. This is also the largest margin by which the annual global temperature record has been broken.

]So again, jake, how exactly do you figure that the 57 degrees claimed in 2015 is warmer than the 62 degrees stated for 1997? The fact that you, or anyone would try to defend lies of this magnitude and verified on their own web site shows that you are either entirely stupid and have been duped to a degree that is astounding, or that you are a political operative willing to lie your ass off so long as their is some political gain to be had....which are you?

Now let's see some one reputable explain the difference in scientific, credible terms. Somehow I think youa and CF are cherry picking out of context, much like the nonsense with "my Muslim faith." Do have actual scientific papers explaining the "error" by reputable scientists? Get to it.

Do have actual scientific papers explaining the "error" by reputable scientists?
what the fk are you talking about?

too funny, I'm not sure how you're able to hit the reply button since it is obvious you can't read.

LOL

 

[jc456]

Now give us a link and make an argument with clear conclusions.

People like you are really too stupid to bother with, but here, at NOAA's own National Center for Environmental Information web site.

Global Analysis - Annual 1997 | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

]The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1995 by 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit. The chart reflects variations from the 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface

]So clearly, NOAA stated that the global temperature, in 1997 was 62.45 degrees....are you going to argue with what they said on their own site?..Then, again, at the NOAA National Center for Environment Information site, they state quite clearly that 2015 saw earths warmest temperature by a "wide margin"

Summary Information | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 136 years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C) and marking the fourth time a global temperature record has been set this century. This is also the largest margin by which the annual global temperature record has been broken.

]So again, jake, how exactly do you figure that the 57 degrees claimed in 2015 is warmer than the 62 degrees stated for 1997? The fact that you, or anyone would try to defend lies of this magnitude and verified on their own web site shows that you are either entirely stupid and have been duped to a degree that is astounding, or that you are a political operative willing to lie your ass off so long as their is some political gain to be had....which are you?

Now let's see some one reputable explain the difference in scientific, credible terms. Somehow I think youa and CF are cherry picking out of context, much like the nonsense with "my Muslim faith." Do any of you have actual scientific papers explaining the "error" by reputable scientists? Get to it.

BTW, you never answered whether you thought 58 was greater than 62 yet.

What say you?

 

[Wuwei]

I miss the point? There must be a disconnect between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying. I agree with almost everything in your post:

And ----- you miss the point.. The infamous BTK "mini-paper" MAKES this exact claim. In it -- Trenberth et al asserts that the observed hiatus in warming IS BECAUSE the "excess heat" during the pause was taken from the ATMOS and was FOUND in the deep ocean.. This lit off a MOUNTAIN of press misconceptions that climate scientists has a plausible explanation of the pause. One that Trenberth MISSED when he left ocean storage OUT of his original "energy balance" diagram from 10 years ago..

I disagree with Trenberth, if that's what he said. I don't see how he can say “excess heat” was taken out of the atmosphere.

We all seem to agree -- that back rad can warm only a TINY fraction of the ocean depth.Even NOAA took BTK to school about not having a explanation for the "mixing" that got that heat energy stored to depth. (among other issues such I pointed out like the RATE of deep ocean warming not changing for 50 years. )

No, I don't agree that back radiation can warm a tiny fraction of the depth. That is a confusing way to think about the radiation exchange. The layers below the top few microns are a tremendous heat sink that will prevent the top few microns of the ocean from changing temperature. It is more accurate to think that the ocean top surface is radiating 400 watts while absorbing about 330 watts of backradiation. That leaves 70 watts for convection and evaporation.

That explanation in post 20 merely reiterates that the skin can forced to higher temps by back rad. They did not record or display the temperatures at even MODERATE depths below the skin. Told me NOTHING about plausible mechanisms for transfers of heat ENERGY to depths of the ocean.

My impression was that the intent of the experiment was to illustrate the top surface radiation exchange, not to say how the deep ocean was warmed.

Furthermore -- a FORCING is NOT ENERGY. To store heat in the ocean you need a TIME RELATED ENERGY measurement -- not a "power". And using clouds as modulators at 20 times the CO2 forcing WITHOUT a time variable is sketchy at best.

Most of the skin ENERGY -- leaves as convection --- not radiation. And currents DO cause upwelling and downwelling of great amounts of deeper water. But a 4W/m2 forcing applied to a skin only microns deep is not gonna "mix" to any great effect. In fact, a skin that thin -- is a pretty ephemeral effect in most sea states.

Yes, I agree with what you say here.

Again I never intended to make any discussion about deep ocean warming because to begin with it's largely the sun SW radiation that heats the ocean, not the atmosphere. The only thing the back-radiating atmosphere can do is prevent the ocean from loosing as much heat by radiation as it would otherwise do without GHG's. I have said that many times. As far as Trenberth, I would think understanding the ocean dynamics is more important than understanding temperature over land since the water covers 72% of the earth.

 

[westwall]

Everything on the planet is "radiating more than it recieves".. It's ALL a net loss to the sky. The point is, although we've shown some deeper ocean warming (accurate only in the past 40 years or so) --- MOST of that ocean skin heat goes into convection not radiation.. That's why most weather STARTS over the oceans.

And when "climate scientists" make the assertion that "the oceans ate the warming" for the past decade or so -- they do so with no agreed mechanism for that to actually happen IF it was due to increased IR back radiation.

Not to mention that oceans show they have been "eating" warming at relatively the SAME RATE for the past 50 years and don't SHOW any accelerated "appetite"..

As far this OP --- if it was ALL MANMADE and it followed the silly expectation that Temperature is a simple linear consequence of CO2 -- There wouldn't be so many changes in the RATES of warming that the models mostly miss..

No, it's you who don't understand. To warm the oceans the energy MUST penetrate deeply into the oceans. Mere surface warming does nothing, and not even being able to penetrate the skin of the water means there is NO energy transfer to the oceans. Heat rises, remember that from 5th grade science? If the heat rises away from the less than one millimeter of the water how then does it warm it?

It's time you took that 5th grade science class again.

Yes, you are looking at it from 5th grade science, but I am looking at it from grad school thermodynamics. I agree that back radiation cannot directly “warm” the ocean. That much is obvious. And it's obvious that back radiation cannot penetrate into the ocean. And it is obvious heat rises.

The point you fail to understand is that no real scientist should ever claim that the back radiation directly warms the ocean. The mechanism for warming the deep ocean is complex and not fully understood.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Again, this is the point I was making: The ocean is radiating about 400W/m^2 at the top surface. Back radiation is cutting down the amount of radiation loss only at that top surface. That prevents the ocean from loosing massive amounts of heat by radiation alone at the top surface. That allows the predominant loss to be rising heat and evaporation.

The major concepts you should come away with is that back radiation is what keeps the ocean (and yes, of course, the rest of the planet) from loosing as much heat as it would without greenhouse gases. And you should stop the silly talk about anyone thinking back radiation can directly warm the deep ocean.

See Cricks's post #20 for in-depth details. You can understand it if you read it carefully. The one thing I object to in Crick's post is the wording that GHG's will "heat" the ocean. It is far more accurate to say that GHG's prevent the ocean from loosing heat.

And you should stop the silly talk about anyone thinking back radiation can directly warm the deep ocean.

And ----- you miss the point.. The infamous BTK "mini-paper" MAKES this exact claim. In it -- Trenberth et al asserts that the observed hiatus in warming IS BECAUSE the "excess heat" during the pause was taken from the ATMOS and was FOUND in the deep ocean.. This lit off a MOUNTAIN of press misconceptions that climate scientists has a plausible explanation of the pause. One that Trenberth MISSED when he left ocean storage OUT of his original "energy balance" diagram from 10 years ago..

That hit and run "minipaper" IS STILL quoted by EVERY warmer as the solid scientific explanation for "the pause". It was a journal "LETTER". Not even a full paper.. And never really elaborated on with a REAL PAPER. YET --- it's a CORNERSTONE of AGW "folklore"..

We all seem to agree -- that back rad can warm only a TINY fraction of the ocean depth.Even NOAA took BTK to school about not having a explanation for the "mixing" that got that heat energy stored to depth. (among other issues such I pointed out like the RATE of deep ocean warming not changing for 50 years. )

That explanation in post 20 merely reiterates that the skin can forced to higher temps by back rad. They did not record or display the temperatures at even MODERATE depths below the skin. Told me NOTHING about plausible mechanisms for transfers of heat ENERGY to depths of the ocean.

Furthermore -- a FORCING is NOT ENERGY. To store heat in the ocean you need a TIME RELATED ENERGY measurement -- not a "power". And using clouds as modulators at 20 times the CO2 forcing WITHOUT a time variable is sketchy at best.

Most of the skin ENERGY -- leaves as convection --- not radiation. And currents DO cause upwelling and downwelling of great amounts of deeper water. But a 4W/m2 forcing applied to a skin only microns deep is not gonna "mix" to any great effect. In fact, a skin that thin -- is a pretty ephemeral effect in most sea states.

Give the man a ceegar.....

 

[flacaltenn]

I miss the point? There must be a disconnect between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying. I agree with almost everything in your post:

And ----- you miss the point.. The infamous BTK "mini-paper" MAKES this exact claim. In it -- Trenberth et al asserts that the observed hiatus in warming IS BECAUSE the "excess heat" during the pause was taken from the ATMOS and was FOUND in the deep ocean.. This lit off a MOUNTAIN of press misconceptions that climate scientists has a plausible explanation of the pause. One that Trenberth MISSED when he left ocean storage OUT of his original "energy balance" diagram from 10 years ago..

I disagree with Trenberth, if that's what he said. I don't see how he can say “excess heat” was taken out of the atmosphere.

We all seem to agree -- that back rad can warm only a TINY fraction of the ocean depth.Even NOAA took BTK to school about not having a explanation for the "mixing" that got that heat energy stored to depth. (among other issues such I pointed out like the RATE of deep ocean warming not changing for 50 years. )

No, I don't agree that back radiation can warm a tiny fraction of the depth. That is a confusing way to think about the radiation exchange. The layers below the top few microns are a tremendous heat sink that will prevent the top few microns of the ocean from changing temperature. It is more accurate to think that the ocean top surface is radiating 400 watts while absorbing about 330 watts of backradiation. That leaves 70 watts for convection and evaporation.

That explanation in post 20 merely reiterates that the skin can forced to higher temps by back rad. They did not record or display the temperatures at even MODERATE depths below the skin. Told me NOTHING about plausible mechanisms for transfers of heat ENERGY to depths of the ocean.

My impression was that the intent of the experiment was to illustrate the top surface radiation exchange, not to say how the deep ocean was warmed.

Furthermore -- a FORCING is NOT ENERGY. To store heat in the ocean you need a TIME RELATED ENERGY measurement -- not a "power". And using clouds as modulators at 20 times the CO2 forcing WITHOUT a time variable is sketchy at best.

Most of the skin ENERGY -- leaves as convection --- not radiation. And currents DO cause upwelling and downwelling of great amounts of deeper water. But a 4W/m2 forcing applied to a skin only microns deep is not gonna "mix" to any great effect. In fact, a skin that thin -- is a pretty ephemeral effect in most sea states.

Yes, I agree with what you say here.

Again I never intended to make any discussion about deep ocean warming because to begin with it's largely the sun SW radiation that heats the ocean, not the atmosphere. The only thing the back-radiating atmosphere can do is prevent the ocean from loosing as much heat by radiation as it would otherwise do without GHG's. I have said that many times. As far as Trenberth, I would think understanding the ocean dynamics is more important than understanding temperature over land since the water covers 72% of the earth.

Seems like the thing we need to find out is whether the radiation exchange at the skin is as static as you make it out to be -- or whether there are "non-linearities" in what can get convected. The skin is also absorbing direct solar radiation. And at those times -- I'm almost certain that convection is equal to or larger than the radiation budget.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you demonstrate the typical reactionary far right mind set and practitioner of confirmation science.

You make an assertion, offer one piece of evidence, and then stand back all proud of yourself.

Sigh.

Jake do you agree with the following:

57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Frank, that post by itself is worthless. You know it, I know it, and that is why I at you.

 

[Wuwei]

Seems like the thing we need to find out is whether the radiation exchange at the skin is as static as you make it out to be -- or whether there are "non-linearities" in what can get convected. The skin is also absorbing direct solar radiation. And at those times -- I'm almost certain that convection is equal to or larger than the radiation budget.

I largely agree, except that I think convection would rarely be larger than the radiation budget.

The ocean radiates about 400 W no matter what happens. Even if the temperature is continually changing chaotically the ocean is still about roughly 300 deg K, and the outgoing radiation is a function of temperature in deg K.

Different organizations have different estimates for convection and evaporation heat loss from the earth surface: convection 17 to 24 W, and evaporation 78 to 85 W. That is a total of 95 to 109 W. That is still a small part of the energy output compared to the 400 W radiation loss. However that 95 to 109 W loss is even more chaotic than temperature variations since convection and evaporation are enhanced by wind. Evaporation is also a function of relative humidity. Maybe at times convection exceeds 400 W but I wouldn't say that it is common.

That is straying from my original point. I would say that absorption and emission of thermal radiation practically everywhere else on earth is only skin deep so it's not that much different than the ocean in principle at the surface. The major difference is that ocean has mechanisms for carrying heat efficiently to depths that land does not have. In short, the people here that are concerned about IR back-radiation absorption in the top microns are not talking about something very meaningful. The ocean is heated by short wave radiation.

 

[IanC]

Seems like the thing we need to find out is whether the radiation exchange at the skin is as static as you make it out to be -- or whether there are "non-linearities" in what can get convected. The skin is also absorbing direct solar radiation. And at those times -- I'm almost certain that convection is equal to or larger than the radiation budget.

I largely agree, except that I think convection would rarely be larger than the radiation budget.

The ocean radiates about 400 W no matter what happens. Even if the temperature is continually changing chaotically the ocean is still about roughly 300 deg K, and the outgoing radiation is a function of temperature in deg K.

Different organizations have different estimates for convection and evaporation heat loss from the earth surface: convection 17 to 24 W, and evaporation 78 to 85 W. That is a total of 95 to 109 W. That is still a small part of the energy output compared to the 400 W radiation loss. However that 95 to 109 W loss is even more chaotic than temperature variations since convection and evaporation are enhanced by wind. Evaporation is also a function of relative humidity. Maybe at times convection exceeds 400 W but I wouldn't say that it is common.

That is straying from my original point. I would say that absorption and emission of thermal radiation practically everywhere else on earth is only skin deep so it's not that much different than the ocean in principle at the surface. The major difference is that ocean has mechanisms for carrying heat efficiently to depths that land does not have. In short, the people here that are concerned about IR back-radiation absorption in the top microns are not talking about something very meaningful. The ocean is heated by short wave radiation.

yes, but the 400W out is counterbalanced by 335 back radiation at the surface. of the 65W difference, 40W escapes directly to space and only 25W makes it to the cloud boundary. evaporation and convection carry 100W up to the cloud boundary. 100W is more than 65W, and quite a bit more than 25W. I think we can safely say that evaporation and convection are the primary energy transport at the surface, not radiation.

 

[flacaltenn]

Seems like the thing we need to find out is whether the radiation exchange at the skin is as static as you make it out to be -- or whether there are "non-linearities" in what can get convected. The skin is also absorbing direct solar radiation. And at those times -- I'm almost certain that convection is equal to or larger than the radiation budget.

I largely agree, except that I think convection would rarely be larger than the radiation budget.

The ocean radiates about 400 W no matter what happens. Even if the temperature is continually changing chaotically the ocean is still about roughly 300 deg K, and the outgoing radiation is a function of temperature in deg K.

Different organizations have different estimates for convection and evaporation heat loss from the earth surface: convection 17 to 24 W, and evaporation 78 to 85 W. That is a total of 95 to 109 W. That is still a small part of the energy output compared to the 400 W radiation loss. However that 95 to 109 W loss is even more chaotic than temperature variations since convection and evaporation are enhanced by wind. Evaporation is also a function of relative humidity. Maybe at times convection exceeds 400 W but I wouldn't say that it is common.

That is straying from my original point. I would say that absorption and emission of thermal radiation practically everywhere else on earth is only skin deep so it's not that much different than the ocean in principle at the surface. The major difference is that ocean has mechanisms for carrying heat efficiently to depths that land does not have. In short, the people here that are concerned about IR back-radiation absorption in the top microns are not talking about something very meaningful. The ocean is heated by short wave radiation.

yes, but the 400W out is counterbalanced by 335 back radiation at the surface. of the 65W difference, 40W escapes directly to space and only 25W makes it to the cloud boundary. evaporation and convection carry 100W up to the cloud boundary. 100W is more than 65W, and quite a bit more than 25W. I think we can safely say that evaporation and convection are the primary energy transport at the surface, not radiation.

That's the general case in MOST thermo problems. And why they can largely IGNORE radiative transfer in College curriculums until the advanced level. When estimating MOST material/air boundary problems --- the conductive/convective equations will get you REAL CLOSE to the answer.

Lord it bugs me to drag this out.. But I got a question.

I look at the right side as 24 hour GreenHouse exchange. And the direct Solar stuff on the left is a 6 to 8 hour a day effective forcing. The 17 thermals and 80 transvap is more effective during the day but doesn't shut down at night. Now the idiot Trenberth calls these numbers "ENERGY" but they are not energy without the temporal considerations.

So my confusion is (and Trenberth's problem) is the 161 for HALF a day doesn't even cover the outgoing sum of convection, conduction, and radiation ENERGY.. Shouldn't we be popsicles by now if these are the numbers??

 

[IanC]

Seems like the thing we need to find out is whether the radiation exchange at the skin is as static as you make it out to be -- or whether there are "non-linearities" in what can get convected. The skin is also absorbing direct solar radiation. And at those times -- I'm almost certain that convection is equal to or larger than the radiation budget.

I largely agree, except that I think convection would rarely be larger than the radiation budget.

The ocean radiates about 400 W no matter what happens. Even if the temperature is continually changing chaotically the ocean is still about roughly 300 deg K, and the outgoing radiation is a function of temperature in deg K.

Different organizations have different estimates for convection and evaporation heat loss from the earth surface: convection 17 to 24 W, and evaporation 78 to 85 W. That is a total of 95 to 109 W. That is still a small part of the energy output compared to the 400 W radiation loss. However that 95 to 109 W loss is even more chaotic than temperature variations since convection and evaporation are enhanced by wind. Evaporation is also a function of relative humidity. Maybe at times convection exceeds 400 W but I wouldn't say that it is common.

That is straying from my original point. I would say that absorption and emission of thermal radiation practically everywhere else on earth is only skin deep so it's not that much different than the ocean in principle at the surface. The major difference is that ocean has mechanisms for carrying heat efficiently to depths that land does not have. In short, the people here that are concerned about IR back-radiation absorption in the top microns are not talking about something very meaningful. The ocean is heated by short wave radiation.

yes, but the 400W out is counterbalanced by 335 back radiation at the surface. of the 65W difference, 40W escapes directly to space and only 25W makes it to the cloud boundary. evaporation and convection carry 100W up to the cloud boundary. 100W is more than 65W, and quite a bit more than 25W. I think we can safely say that evaporation and convection are the primary energy transport at the surface, not radiation.

That's the general case in MOST thermo problems. And why they can largely IGNORE radiative transfer in College curriculums until the advanced level. When estimating MOST material/air boundary problems --- the conductive/convective equations will get you REAL CLOSE to the answer.

Lord it bugs me to drag this out.. But I got a question.

I look at the right side as 24 hour GreenHouse exchange. And the direct Solar stuff on the left is a 6 to 8 hour a day effective forcing. The 17 thermals and 80 transvap is more effective during the day but doesn't shut down at night. Now the idiot Trenberth calls these numbers "ENERGY" but they are not energy without the temporal considerations.

So my confusion is (and Trenberth's problem) is the 161 for HALF a day doesn't even cover the outgoing sum of convection, conduction, and radiation ENERGY.. Shouldn't we be popsicles by now if these are the numbers??

I'm not sure that I am following you. the 161 solar is obviously an average for 24 hrs and the full range of latitude. isnt solar max about 1300-1400W directly overhead?

on the other hand, without the 336 back radiation we would get pretty cold, pretty fast. while I realize that a large portion of the atmospheric heatsink is made up of the kinetic energy/ potential energy dance of air molecules, without GHGs to capture surface radiation the atmosphere would obviously be cooler, produce less back radiation, and hence cool the surface.

occasionally I talk about GW in real time, face to face. one of the first things I try to get someone to do is imagine what would happen without sunlight, how the atmosphere would give up its energy and freeze into a thin layer on the surface. and then add the solar back. how long would it take to fluff up the atmosphere, how much spacebound radiation would there be at the beginning, how much at equilibrium, how much energy stored?

so many people here focus on one facet of one problem and ignore all the basic stuff.

 

[mamooth]

That hit and run "minipaper" IS STILL quoted by EVERY warmer as the solid scientific explanation for "the pause".

No, we point out the pause never happened, and that only those dreadfully ignorant of the most basic statistics -- that is, all deneirs -- were ever crazy enough to pin their last desperate hopes on the existence of a phony "pause".

The problem for deniers has always been that they've never had anything to back up their pause-fraud, or to answer the debunking of it. Hence, the denier cult now has to create a weird conspiracy legend about it. According to them, their science isn't getting laughed at because it stinks. No, there's a conspiracy to fake all the data!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, that post by itself is worthless. You know it, I know it, and that is why I at you.

Jake's a DENIER, denying that 62>58. Jake's AGWCult snorts the koolaid from the can and believes that 58F in 2015 is warmer than the 62F in 1997.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Under Obama the Warmers hide the decline by altering the historic record the same way thier Soviet forefathers made undesirables disappear from their historic record