The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[ding]

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer

This is an incredibly stupid statement. My goodness, solar dominates at every depth. What exactly do you do for a living?

She is a crazy cat lady..

Well, then crick just went on record agreeing with a crazy cat lady.

 

[Crick]

SSDD likes to accuse Mamooth of being a woman because SSDD believes that to be a slight. It looks as if you agree. Is that so?


I am in complete agreement with Mamooth on every topic on which he has ever written here. He is quite knowledgeable on physics. Better than me.

 

[ding]

"What exactly do you do for a living"? I guess that'll solve the problem.

I'm a deep water completions engineer. I design and execute 100 million dollar completions in Deepwater oil and gas wells.

No, it doesn't solve the problem but it does go to the question of credibility of scientific principles.

You just agreed with Mamooth that IR is responsible for warming the skin layer and that it decreases the delta T across the skin layer. If it is heating the skin layer, that would increase the delta T across it, not decrease it. The decrease in the temperature profile of the skin is due to evaporative cooling.

What is your scientific backgrounds? Watching mythbusters?

 

[Crick]

Mamooth is correct about the temperature profile of the skin layer. If you think he isn't, show us someone's work that says otherwise. I rather doubt any of us here have done that actual measurement. I have dropped and processed several thousand BTs but T5s and T7s aren't of much use in the micron range.

 

[skookerasbil]

"What exactly do you do for a living"? I guess that'll solve the problem.

I'm a deep water completions engineer. I design and execute 100 million dollar completions in Deepwater oil and gas wells.

No, it doesn't solve the problem but it does go to the question of credibility of scientific principles.

You just agreed with Mamooth that IR is responsible for warming the skin layer and that it decreases the delta T across the skin layer. If it is heating the skin layer, that would increase the delta T across it, not decrease it. The decrease in the temperature profile of the skin is due to evaporative cooling.

What is your scientific backgrounds? Watching mythbusters?

Cool..........but ding.......if you had 89 PHd's, you'd still be wrong 100% of the time with these k00ks...........

Im in the field of psychology for 30 years........check the avatar of the guy standing in front of the pyramid with that pose. Look closely. If I did DAP testing on this guy, I can tell you right now what type of personality he has. Don't think I even have to elaborate, do I?

 

[ding]

Mamooth is correct about the temperature profile of the skin layer. If you think he isn't, show us someone's work that says otherwise. I rather doubt any of us here have done that actual measurement, though I have dropped and processed several thousand BTs. T6 and T7 aren't of much use in the micron range.

That's funny that you ask for me to show someone's work to prove that the decrease in temperature from the subskin to the skin is due to evaporative cooling, but you don't ask Mamooth to provide someone's work to prove that the warming effect of IR causes a GHG effect on the ocean thereby slowing evaporative cooling and increasing temperature.

If IR is adding energy to the ocean, evaporation will increase, not decrease. Mamooth should have posted the nighttime curve with the daytime curve. The temperature profile of the skin layer is not driven by IR. It is driven by evaporative cooling. IR does not decrease the delta T. If anything it increases delta T.

Both of your condescending attitudes have led to these unpleasant type of discussions. What is it that you do again?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Santa makes the case for AGW

 

[mamooth]

I'm a deep water completions engineer. I design and execute 100 million dollar completions in Deepwater oil and gas wells.

Oh, that explains why you're so angry about this. You have a direct financial stake in it. You're doing it for the money. Same as Westwall, who has a 401k full of fossil fuel stocks.

In contrast to you paid shills, none of the rational people here have any financial stake in the science. Credibility, us. Lack of credibility, you.

No, it doesn't solve the problem but it does go to the question of credibility of scientific principles

Engineers aren't scientists. The fact that you took a couple technical classes to get a bachelors degree does not make you anything close to a scientist.

You just agreed with Mamooth that IR is responsible for warming the skin layer and that it decreases the delta T across the skin layer. If it is heating the skin layer, that would increase the delta T across it, not decrease it. The decrease in the temperature profile of the skin is due to evaporative cooling.

So, you can't even grasp that increasing the temperature on the colder side decreases the delta_T.

You're just terrible at the common sense aspects of the science. You fail the most basic stuff. And you can't ever admit to a mistake, so you just keep failing.

What is your scientific backgrounds? Watching mythbusters?

Degrees in physics and electrical engineering, and experience in running nuclear reactors and designing aircraft avionics.

Of course, I normally don't bring that up, because it's not significant. What I post is. That's the way of reason, to value results over credential-dropping. Backgrounds are of little importance here. What matters is that, like the other rational people here:

A. I'm willing to learn.

and

B. I'm willing to admit when I make mistakes.

Deniers do not possess those qualities, hence they will endlessly continue failing.

 

[ding]

Oh, that explains why you're so angry about this. You have a direct financial stake in it. You're doing it for the money. Same as Westwall, who has a 401k full of fossil fuel stocks.

In contrast to you paid shills, none of the rational people here have any financial stake in the science. Credibility, us. Lack of credibility, you.

No. I could retire tomorrow, but I would not expect you to see me any other way because that is your only argument.

 

[mamooth]

This is an incredibly stupid statement. My goodness, solar dominates at every depth. What exactly do you do for a living?

So, you're implying that IR from the sun isn't solar, then throwing insults about how someone else is stupid. Ah, the sweet irony.

Tell us, Einstein, if the IR doesn't come from the sun, where does it come from?

 

[ding]

Engineers aren't scientists. The fact that you took a couple technical classes to get a bachelors degree does not make you anything close to a scientist.

Engineering is the commercial application of science.

 

[ding]

So, you can't even grasp that increasing the temperature on the colder side decreases the delta_T.

You're just terrible at the common sense aspects of the science. You fail the most basic stuff. And you can't ever admit to a mistake, so you just keep failing.

I can grasp that energy is energy. It does not matter where it comes from. To argue that IR is a special case is ridiculous.

 

[ding]

Degrees in physics and electrical engineering, and experience in running nuclear reactors and designing aircraft avionics.

Of course, I normally don't bring that up, because it's not significant. What I post is. That's the way of reason, to value results over credential-dropping. Backgrounds are of little importance here. What matters is that, like the other rational people here:

A. I'm willing to learn.

and

B. I'm willing to admit when I make mistakes.

Deniers do not possess those qualities, hence they will endlessly continue failing.

That is your bias. You have a preference for an outcome. I don't.

 

[ding]

This is an incredibly stupid statement. My goodness, solar dominates at every depth. What exactly do you do for a living?

So, you're implying that IR from the sun isn't solar, then throwing insults about how someone else is stupid. Ah, the sweet irony.

Tell us, Einstein, if the IR doesn't come from the sun, where does it come from?

I am implying that there is no special case for IR and that it is negligible.

 

[ding]

Degrees in physics and electrical engineering, and experience in running nuclear reactors and designing aircraft avionics.

What is your present job?

 

[mamooth]

If IR is adding energy to the ocean, evaporation will increase, not decrease.

And yet the measurements say that's not happening. The ocean skin is _cooler_ than the water below, hence it is clearly not boiling away.

Use of ATSR-measured ocean skin temperatures in ocean and atmosphere models
---
Studies of the bulk-skin temperature difference (the "skin effect") show that it has a typical daytime value of 0.3 K (Schlussel, 1990) for high latitudes.
---

That paper then goes into detail on instrumentation and such things. If you want more, here's a list of references to look at.

Brunke, M. A., X. Zeng, V. Misra, and A. Beljaars, 2008: Integration of a prognostic skin sea surface temperature scheme into climate and weather models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D21117, doi:10.1029/2008JD010607.

Fairall, C. W., E. F. Bradley, J. S. Godfrey, G. A. Wick, and J. B. Edson, 1996: Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101, 1295-1308.

Garratt, J. R., 1992: The Atmospheric Boundary Layer, Cambridge University Press, 316 pp.

May, D. A., M. M. Parmeter, D. S. Olszewski, B. D. McKenzie, 1998: Operational processing of satellite sea surface temperature retrievals at the naval oceanographic office. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 397-407.

Schluessel, P., H.-Y. Shin, W. J. Emery, and H. Grassl, 1987: Comparison of satellite-derived sea surface temperatures with in situ skin measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research, 92, 2859-2874.

Wick, G. A., W. J. Emery, L. H. Kantha, and P. Schluessel, 1996: The behavior of the bulk-skin sea surface temperature difference under varying wind speed and heat flux. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 26, 1969-1988.

Zeng, X., and A. Beljaars, 2005: A prognostic scheme of sea surface skin temperature for modeling and data assimilation. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, doi:10.1029/2005GL023030

Summary? All the science says you're wrong. This is not debatable. You're just wrong, end of story, and crying about how mean I am won't make you less wrong.

Mamooth should have posted the nighttime curve with the daytime curve.

I could have, but the post was already running very long. Learn the value of brevity, son, as it's one key to good science communication. Keeping more heat in the ocean half the time still means more heat is kept in the ocean, so the point of the post is unaffected.

The temperature profile of the skin layer is not driven by IR. It is driven by evaporative cooling.

No, it's driven by IR, heat conduction, and evaporative cooling. You're just not very good at this.

IR does not decrease the delta T. If anything it increases delta T.

Let's try a simple exercise for you.

Say temp on the colder surface side is 20.0, and temp on the warmer deep side is 20.3. Delta-T is 0.3.

Now add IR to the colder surface side. 20.0 rises to 20.1. Delta-T is now 0.2.

Einstein, did delta-T just go up or down?

You keep saying it goes up. You apparently believe "0.2" is more than "0.3". Hence the reason circus-clown music plays when you show up.

Both of your condescending attitudes have led to these unpleasant type of discussions. What is it that you do again?

I post good science, I'm quite polite to those who are willing to learn. However, I have no patience with butthurt narcissists, and I don't apologize for that.

You flounced in here and started out in your first post with arrogance and insults, even though your science was crap propaganda. And when we gently pointed out your errors, did you do the classy thing and thank us for taking the time to educate you? No. You went into meltdown mode, and you haven't stopped crying since.

Grow the fuck up.

 

[mamooth]

I am implying that there is no special case for IR and that it is negligible.

No, your entire argument is based on IR being a special case, which is why it's junk. In your world, IR makes water evaporate without any vapor being detectable. That's pretty damn special.

In contrast, our argument is entirely consistent with standard physics. and the observed data.

 

[Wuwei]

If IR is adding energy to the ocean, evaporation will increase, not decrease.

It is short wave radiation that adds energy to the ocean - a wide spectrum that includes visible light.
It can easily penetrate several meters.

Thermal long wave IR does not add energy to the ocean because it can penetrate only a few microns. What is happening is that incoming IR is subtracted from the ocean's outgoing IR so that the ocean does not loose as much heat as it otherwise would if there were no incoming IR.

If there were no incoming IR from GHG's such as water vapor and others, the ocean would radiate 400 watts/m^2. That is much more than the sun's 162 watts/m^2 short wave input, so the ocean would eventually freeze or come close to freezing.

It is popular to say that IR adds energy to the ocean, but that is very misleading if you look at the physics behind it.

 

[ding]

I am implying that there is no special case for IR and that it is negligible.

No, your entire argument is based on IR being a special case, which is why it's junk. In your world, IR makes water evaporate without any vapor being detectable. That's pretty damn special.

In contrast, our argument is entirely consistent with standard physics. and the observed data.

What did you say your present job was again?

You keep saying that my argument is based on IR being a special case but that's not my argument. Please show me in my words - not your assumptions of what you believe my words imply - where I say it is a special case.

 

[ding]

And yet the measurements say that's not happening. The ocean skin is _cooler_ than the water below, hence it is clearly not boiling away.

Use of ATSR-measured ocean skin temperatures in ocean and atmosphere models
---
Studies of the bulk-skin temperature difference (the "skin effect") show that it has a typical daytime value of 0.3 K (Schlussel, 1990) for high latitudes.
---

That paper then goes into detail on instrumentation and such things. If you want more, here's a list of references to look at.

Brunke, M. A., X. Zeng, V. Misra, and A. Beljaars, 2008: Integration of a prognostic skin sea surface temperature scheme into climate and weather models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D21117, doi:10.1029/2008JD010607.

Fairall, C. W., E. F. Bradley, J. S. Godfrey, G. A. Wick, and J. B. Edson, 1996: Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101, 1295-1308.

Garratt, J. R., 1992: The Atmospheric Boundary Layer, Cambridge University Press, 316 pp.

May, D. A., M. M. Parmeter, D. S. Olszewski, B. D. McKenzie, 1998: Operational processing of satellite sea surface temperature retrievals at the naval oceanographic office. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 397-407.

Schluessel, P., H.-Y. Shin, W. J. Emery, and H. Grassl, 1987: Comparison of satellite-derived sea surface temperatures with in situ skin measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research, 92, 2859-2874.

Wick, G. A., W. J. Emery, L. H. Kantha, and P. Schluessel, 1996: The behavior of the bulk-skin sea surface temperature difference under varying wind speed and heat flux. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 26, 1969-1988.

Zeng, X., and A. Beljaars, 2005: A prognostic scheme of sea surface skin temperature for modeling and data assimilation. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, doi:10.1029/2005GL023030

Summary? All the science says you're wrong. This is not debatable. You're just wrong, end of story, and crying about how mean I am won't make you less wrong.

The skin is an artifact of evaporation. Nothing else.