The Hockey Stick Graph Reality

[westwall]

And how would it get "stored in the oceans"? Hmm... let's think. It would get stored by raising the ocean's temperature. And that would increase the amount of LW radiation escaping to space.

You simply don't think, do you.

But how does it get into the oceans in the first place considering it can't penetrate more than a few tenths of a millimeter in the first place?

You simply can't think, can you?

 

[mamooth]

Can you show us the data set from 1880 that's accurate to a tenth of a degree?

Why do you think there's such data? That's really retarded of you. We've explained that to you before. Why is it you were too stupid to understand my simple explanations?

And if you can't address the actual topic, STFU and stop trolling.

 

[mamooth]

[But how does it get into the oceans in the first place considering it can't penetrate more than a few tenths of a millimeter in the first place?

You simply can't think, can you?

And Westwall is back to proving that sunlight can't warm a rock, being it can't penetrate more than a few microns.

Westwall, you really are a total retard, aren't you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you show us the data set from 1880 that's accurate to a tenth of a degree?

Why do you think there's such data? That's really retarded of you. We've explained that to you before. Why is it you were too stupid to understand my simple explanations?

And if you can't address the actual topic, STFU and stop trolling.

So without any lab work, you're just making it up.

Have you considered a career in phrenology, it as accurate as your speculations

 

[Crick]

He's right, Frank. You've become a troll.

 

[Old Rocks]

1) Do you expect to see and accurately measure temperature dynamics in the Marcott study that have features SHORTER than 500 years in duration?

2) If NOT --- how would you EVER discuss rates of change or RELATIVE HIGH temperatures being higher NOW in a 100 year period compared to the data processing result in the Marcott Hockey Stick?

1) Nope.

2) Show me a natural forcing that is global in scope, goes on for a few decades, or a century, produces a global temperature increase of almost 1°C, then completely reverses itself, and passes without leaving a single trace in multiple temperature proxies, and neither anything in sediments etc., and you've obliterated the term "unprecedented" in the hokeystick debate. Go.

Well good on 1) because NOBODY will know if current peaks and rates of rise in OUR lifetimes are "extraodinary" from looking at GLOBAL proxy studies. In FACT -- you have to drop the ruse of PRETENDING to do GLOBAL studies to get ANY accurate clues as to past climate variance.

And you CAN DO THAT by using High Resolution studies of CO2 and temperature at specific LOCAL sites to do just that. They show A LOT of natural variance during our latest "interglacial" period. I can show you the difference.

As for 2) --- neither I or science in general are required to SPECULATE as to exact mathematically backed conclusions to ANY mystery.. HOWEVER -- we've only had tools accurate enough and well-placed enough (like in space) to study short term trends in climate variability.. That USUALLY leads to discontinuity in what we THOUGHT we knew and over-REPORTING of concerns. This happened when we fielded 1000 NextRad doppler radar systems in "tornadic activity" reports for instance.. Or new higher estimates for hurricane statistics since science was given the great satellite toys a mere 30 or so years ago...

So to answer your question ---

1) We KNOW that the Earth climate is TOO complex to have a linear correlated response to a SINGLE nearly linear variable (like CO2) that tracks EXACTLY with time. The thermal distribution paths and time to equilibriums are TOO COMPLEX to do that. You can see that from basic systems analysis. ANY system with massive storage (like heat in the oceans) will have a VARIETY of time constants associated with responses to forcings. These include BOTH GHouse gas forcings, ocean current forcings, and most important of all -- solar forcings. The idea that you can blame ANY of these SOLELY on what happened last Tuesday or the last decade-- is dog shit braindead non-science.. See works from Max Planck or Wood Hole or Judith Curry's group for BETTER science on this.

2) We KNOW that any number of NATURAL CYCLICAL forcings can have a major effect on short term (less than a century) surface temperatures. El Nino demonstrates that regularly. But it is only ONE of dozens of known such events. In mathematics when you combine multiple periodic component (ala Fourier analysis) you can show ANY NUMBER of RESULTANT system output shapes from the addition of these components as they vary with frequency and relative phase to each other.

3) We KNOW that CO2 and Methane DOES have an effect on GH gas forcing in thermal equilibrium. The basic physics and chemistry of this effect yields about a 1.1 DegC per DOUBLING of CO2. At the rate we're going -- this BASIC estimate (without postulated feedbacks and accelerations that are the CONTENTIOUS part of GW theory) would NEVER be an issue. So even I accept that maybe 1/2 or less of the observed warming COULD BE due to increased emissions. It could also because we have the dependence backwards. Because increased temperatures (even without release of addition GH components from calthrates) will lead to higher CO2 concentrations. I don't however buy the add-on GW postulates concerning runaway accelerations, trigger temperatures or dominance of positive feedbacks.

I'm not doing MORE work on your question until I determine that you're here to DISCUSS and not just ***** and protest....

Since water vapor is the most powerful GHG in the atmosphere, and that water vapor is a feedback from the presence of GHGs such as CO2 and CH4, It looks like the positive feedbacks do dominate the system. Then there is the affect of the lowered albedo of the Arctic, that alone is a pretty big feedback, as we are seeing with the very fast melt of the Arctic Sea Ice.

And we have already exceeded that 1.1 C that you pose as the maximum for a doubling of CO2. And we are 160 ppm from that doubling.

 

[Old Rocks]

And how would it get "stored in the oceans"? Hmm... let's think. It would get stored by raising the ocean's temperature. And that would increase the amount of LW radiation escaping to space.

You simply don't think, do you.

But how does it get into the oceans in the first place considering it can't penetrate more than a few tenths of a millimeter in the first place?

You simply can't think, can you?

The radiation from the sun cannot penetrate more than a tenth of a millimeter into the slabs of steel in the yard, so, on a 90 degree summer day, you can walk barefooted across them, right? I would definately enjoy seeing you try that. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

One person here has made considerable reference to Richard Muller from 2012. Here is a much more recent interview with Richard Muller.




"It is real, and it is human caused" Richard Muller

 

[flacaltenn]

1) Do you expect to see and accurately measure temperature dynamics in the Marcott study that have features SHORTER than 500 years in duration?

2) If NOT --- how would you EVER discuss rates of change or RELATIVE HIGH temperatures being higher NOW in a 100 year period compared to the data processing result in the Marcott Hockey Stick?

1) Nope.

2) Show me a natural forcing that is global in scope, goes on for a few decades, or a century, produces a global temperature increase of almost 1°C, then completely reverses itself, and passes without leaving a single trace in multiple temperature proxies, and neither anything in sediments etc., and you've obliterated the term "unprecedented" in the hokeystick debate. Go.

Well good on 1) because NOBODY will know if current peaks and rates of rise in OUR lifetimes are "extraodinary" from looking at GLOBAL proxy studies. In FACT -- you have to drop the ruse of PRETENDING to do GLOBAL studies to get ANY accurate clues as to past climate variance.

And you CAN DO THAT by using High Resolution studies of CO2 and temperature at specific LOCAL sites to do just that. They show A LOT of natural variance during our latest "interglacial" period. I can show you the difference.

As for 2) --- neither I or science in general are required to SPECULATE as to exact mathematically backed conclusions to ANY mystery.. HOWEVER -- we've only had tools accurate enough and well-placed enough (like in space) to study short term trends in climate variability.. That USUALLY leads to discontinuity in what we THOUGHT we knew and over-REPORTING of concerns. This happened when we fielded 1000 NextRad doppler radar systems in "tornadic activity" reports for instance.. Or new higher estimates for hurricane statistics since science was given the great satellite toys a mere 30 or so years ago...

So to answer your question ---

1) We KNOW that the Earth climate is TOO complex to have a linear correlated response to a SINGLE nearly linear variable (like CO2) that tracks EXACTLY with time. The thermal distribution paths and time to equilibriums are TOO COMPLEX to do that. You can see that from basic systems analysis. ANY system with massive storage (like heat in the oceans) will have a VARIETY of time constants associated with responses to forcings. These include BOTH GHouse gas forcings, ocean current forcings, and most important of all -- solar forcings. The idea that you can blame ANY of these SOLELY on what happened last Tuesday or the last decade-- is dog shit braindead non-science.. See works from Max Planck or Wood Hole or Judith Curry's group for BETTER science on this.

2) We KNOW that any number of NATURAL CYCLICAL forcings can have a major effect on short term (less than a century) surface temperatures. El Nino demonstrates that regularly. But it is only ONE of dozens of known such events. In mathematics when you combine multiple periodic component (ala Fourier analysis) you can show ANY NUMBER of RESULTANT system output shapes from the addition of these components as they vary with frequency and relative phase to each other.

3) We KNOW that CO2 and Methane DOES have an effect on GH gas forcing in thermal equilibrium. The basic physics and chemistry of this effect yields about a 1.1 DegC per DOUBLING of CO2. At the rate we're going -- this BASIC estimate (without postulated feedbacks and accelerations that are the CONTENTIOUS part of GW theory) would NEVER be an issue. So even I accept that maybe 1/2 or less of the observed warming COULD BE due to increased emissions. It could also because we have the dependence backwards. Because increased temperatures (even without release of addition GH components from calthrates) will lead to higher CO2 concentrations. I don't however buy the add-on GW postulates concerning runaway accelerations, trigger temperatures or dominance of positive feedbacks.

I'm not doing MORE work on your question until I determine that you're here to DISCUSS and not just ***** and protest....

Since water vapor is the most powerful GHG in the atmosphere, and that water vapor is a feedback from the presence of GHGs such as CO2 and CH4, It looks like the positive feedbacks do dominate the system. Then there is the affect of the lowered albedo of the Arctic, that alone is a pretty big feedback, as we are seeing with the very fast melt of the Arctic Sea Ice.

And we have already exceeded that 1.1 C that you pose as the maximum for a doubling of CO2. And we are 160 ppm from that doubling.

Well Rocky, lets review the math. Simple as it is. If were only 60% to the 1st Indust. Age doubling and the contribution of higher GHG gases to the temperature is 60% --- we'd be REAL close to having NO ZERO NADA empirical evidence of any "accelerations or doublings" --- correct?

MOST of that progress towards CO2 doubling has only occurred in the past 70 or 80 years. So we really should NOT be taking the starting point of the temperature anomaly much earlier than 1930 or so..

And it's apparent that you didn't watch the lecture that Old Europe just posted showing a STRONG relationship between solar activity and cloud formation. No clouds form if there's not "nucleation". And climate science isn't quite sure HOW that entire process happens. Also not quite sure of the NET feedback contribution from cloud formation. As a matter of fact, the lecturer showed that the UNCERTAINTY of feedback from cloud formation is HIGHER than the total new LWIR forcing. Furthermore, The additional LWIR from GHGas increase is about 1% of the available daily PEAK power to evaporate ocean surfaces. MOST ALL of that comes from solar influence. And HEATING of the oceans is far more done by short wave light than LWIR.

Lower albedo in the Arctic is more than compensated by laying naked a PRIME CARBON sink of cold surface water. Absorbs MORE CO2 than a mature forest per acre. Just as the larger Southern Ocean has ALWAYS been the dominant CO2 sink.. Again -- the NET is NOT GUARANTEED to be a "positive feedback". We're not far from having a FAIRLY reliable 100 year record in which to LOOK for any signs of the CATASTROPHIC versions of AGW doom. And when we reach that and don't SEE ANY --- postulates and theory WILL change.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- to do the math correctly citing "anomalies" instead of absolute temp -- you'd have to renormalize the anomalies to NOT use the 20th entire 20th Century average. But use some other metric constrained to the last 80 years which would result in "lower anomalies"... It's one of those NOAA/NASA tricks to play games with "records" using anomalies rather than absolute temperatures.

 

[flacaltenn]

And how would it get "stored in the oceans"? Hmm... let's think. It would get stored by raising the ocean's temperature. And that would increase the amount of LW radiation escaping to space.

You simply don't think, do you.

But how does it get into the oceans in the first place considering it can't penetrate more than a few tenths of a millimeter in the first place?

You simply can't think, can you?

The radiation from the sun cannot penetrate more than a tenth of a millimeter into the slabs of steel in the yard, so, on a 90 degree summer day, you can walk barefooted across them, right? I would definately enjoy seeing you try that. LOL

I've heard that ruse about 4 or 5 times now and need to have you ponder deeper into the problem. Steel is a wonderful heat conductor. In fact, any good thermal conductor will burn the crap out you even if it's surface temperature is not far from your skin temperature.. The REASON is - you're getting juiced by a EFFICIENT heat flow.. If you put a slab of black ABS plastic and allowed the surface temp to reach the same as your steel. It would be initially hot, but dissipate quickly with little damage to the skin.

Essentially, you're dancing on a "heat battery". And I wouldn't wear steel toe work boots either. Just a safety tip.

The ocean "skin" is considerably LESS of a heat conductor than your slightly tarnished steel.. Any small breeze or mixing will remove the amount of heating from LWIR quite quickly.

 

[westwall]

And how would it get "stored in the oceans"? Hmm... let's think. It would get stored by raising the ocean's temperature. And that would increase the amount of LW radiation escaping to space.

You simply don't think, do you.

But how does it get into the oceans in the first place considering it can't penetrate more than a few tenths of a millimeter in the first place?

You simply can't think, can you?

The radiation from the sun cannot penetrate more than a tenth of a millimeter into the slabs of steel in the yard, so, on a 90 degree summer day, you can walk barefooted across them, right? I would definately enjoy seeing you try that. LOL

I've heard that ruse about 4 or 5 times now and need to have you ponder deeper into the problem. Steel is a wonderful heat conductor. In fact, any good thermal conductor will burn the crap out you even if it's surface temperature is not far from your skin temperature.. The REASON is - you're getting juiced by a EFFICIENT heat flow.. If you put a slab of black ABS plastic and allowed the surface temp to reach the same as your steel. It would be initially hot, but dissipate quickly with little damage to the skin.

Essentially, you're dancing on a "heat battery". And I wouldn't wear steel toe work boots either. Just a safety tip.

The ocean "skin" is considerably LESS of a heat conductor than your slightly tarnished steel.. Any small breeze or mixing will remove the amount of heating from LWIR quite quickly.

And, heat rises, so even if it was able to stick around for any appreciable time it would propagate to the surface (however many milliseconds that would take) and poof, it would be gone.

 

[westwall]

[But how does it get into the oceans in the first place considering it can't penetrate more than a few tenths of a millimeter in the first place?

You simply can't think, can you?

And Westwall is back to proving that sunlight can't warm a rock, being it can't penetrate more than a few microns.

Westwall, you really are a total retard, aren't you?

Wrong. It CAN heat a rock. I bet you've never been to the desert have you? I just got back from Oman and the UAE and you know what, you get a few miles away from the ocean and it gets damned cold at night. Stay on the beach though and it is very nice. I wonder why?

 

[flacaltenn]

And how would it get "stored in the oceans"? Hmm... let's think. It would get stored by raising the ocean's temperature. And that would increase the amount of LW radiation escaping to space.

You simply don't think, do you.

But how does it get into the oceans in the first place considering it can't penetrate more than a few tenths of a millimeter in the first place?

You simply can't think, can you?

The radiation from the sun cannot penetrate more than a tenth of a millimeter into the slabs of steel in the yard, so, on a 90 degree summer day, you can walk barefooted across them, right? I would definately enjoy seeing you try that. LOL

I've heard that ruse about 4 or 5 times now and need to have you ponder deeper into the problem. Steel is a wonderful heat conductor. In fact, any good thermal conductor will burn the crap out you even if it's surface temperature is not far from your skin temperature.. The REASON is - you're getting juiced by a EFFICIENT heat flow.. If you put a slab of black ABS plastic and allowed the surface temp to reach the same as your steel. It would be initially hot, but dissipate quickly with little damage to the skin.

Essentially, you're dancing on a "heat battery". And I wouldn't wear steel toe work boots either. Just a safety tip.

The ocean "skin" is considerably LESS of a heat conductor than your slightly tarnished steel.. Any small breeze or mixing will remove the amount of heating from LWIR quite quickly.

And, heat rises, so even if it was able to stick around for any appreciable time it would propagate to the surface (however many milliseconds that would take) and poof, it would be gone.

Although the convective flow "potential" would be influenced by a battle between the air temp and the underlying water temp. In any contest, because of heat conductivity, the water would win most of the tiny amount cache of heat in the skin.

 

[westwall]

And how would it get "stored in the oceans"? Hmm... let's think. It would get stored by raising the ocean's temperature. And that would increase the amount of LW radiation escaping to space.

You simply don't think, do you.

But how does it get into the oceans in the first place considering it can't penetrate more than a few tenths of a millimeter in the first place?

You simply can't think, can you?

The radiation from the sun cannot penetrate more than a tenth of a millimeter into the slabs of steel in the yard, so, on a 90 degree summer day, you can walk barefooted across them, right? I would definately enjoy seeing you try that. LOL

I've heard that ruse about 4 or 5 times now and need to have you ponder deeper into the problem. Steel is a wonderful heat conductor. In fact, any good thermal conductor will burn the crap out you even if it's surface temperature is not far from your skin temperature.. The REASON is - you're getting juiced by a EFFICIENT heat flow.. If you put a slab of black ABS plastic and allowed the surface temp to reach the same as your steel. It would be initially hot, but dissipate quickly with little damage to the skin.

Essentially, you're dancing on a "heat battery". And I wouldn't wear steel toe work boots either. Just a safety tip.

The ocean "skin" is considerably LESS of a heat conductor than your slightly tarnished steel.. Any small breeze or mixing will remove the amount of heating from LWIR quite quickly.

And, heat rises, so even if it was able to stick around for any appreciable time it would propagate to the surface (however many milliseconds that would take) and poof, it would be gone.

Although the convective flow "potential" would be influenced by a battle between the air temp and the underlying water temp. In any contest, because of heat conductivity, the water would win most of the tiny amount cache of heat in the skin.

Yup.

 

[Crick]

Where to start. FCT is correct that the reason you'll get burned by steel is its high thermal conductivity. However, this ignores the point as to how the thermal energy got there in the first place. The argument that Westwall (and other deniers here) is attempting to make, that the ocean cannot absorb IR radiation because it only penetrates a short distance is completely specious. It penetrates thousands of times further into water than it does into steel and yet - somehow - the steel grows warmer.

Thermal conductivity of selected materials ("the quantity of heat transmitted through a unit thickness of a material - in a direction normal to a surface of unit area - due to a unit temperature gradient under steady state conditions"

Thermal conductivity units is W/(m K) in the SI system and Btu/(hr ft °F) in the Imperial system.

At 25C

Air: 0.024
Carbon steel: 43
Water 0.58

Note that water has 24 times the thermal conductivity of air. That means that a unit of heat energy at the ocean's skin is extremely more likely to be conducted deeper into the water than upward into the air even ignoring the difficulty of crossing the material interface.

This value for conductivity also excludes physical mixing, which is, of course, taking place in ocean water at a near infinitely greater pace than in your slab of carbon steel.

And there is also the difference in specific heat capacity. It requires 4.184 joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water by 1 centigrade degree. The specific heat capacity of air is 1.006 joules to raise one gram by one centigrade degree. Therefore, heat transfer driven by temperature differential is going to tend towards the water, since it can absorb more than four times the energy per temperature change. The water will maintain the differential four times as well as will the air.

And then I would like to address the oft-denier-repeated phrase, "heat rises". First, the phrase is factually incorrect. Heat travels unpreferentially in all directions. The term originates from the effects of buoyancy. All fluids (air, water, etc) experience buoyant effects. Buoyancy is simply the net result of hydrostatic forces versus gravity. Hydrostatic forces, of course, increase with depth. The gradient this creates produces an upward force. If that force is greater than the pull of gravity, the material will attempt to rise. For water, we are of course speaking of the range of 4C up to 100C. For air, there is no point at which the slope changes direction.

The point here, is that the heated and therefore less dense water will tend to come to the surface due to buoyant effects. But that buoyancy comes to a dead end (actually, the net force vector reverses) at the water/air interface. Buoyancy will NOT drive water, or its heat, into the air. The same buoyancy effect takes place in the air. Yet what temperature gradient do we find in the atmosphere? Is the air coldest at the Earth's surface and warmest aloft? No. Why? Mixing and the density gradient. The reason for the temperature gradient we find in the ocean is that it's heat source is above and its temperature vs density properties cause all deep basins to be filled with 4C water. The density gradient in the ocean is trivial compared to what we find in the atmosphere. Thus the heat capacity decreases with increasing altitude and dense, more effectively warmed air, resides at the bottom of its column. There, density-driven convection mixes things about and we get what we find outside our door on any given day.

The ocean DOES absorb energy from IR radiation. Your claims in this regard are completely incorrect.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry crick...SW penetrates the ocean very efficiently...LW...not so much...microns in fact..

Oceans heat the atmosphere...not the other way around...

Again, you claim to be some sort of ocean engineer...what a laugh...I suppose you may be a custodial engineer on an oil platform...but certainly nothing more technical than that.

 

[Crick]

And how far does it go into steel?

The steel certainly reaches temperatures well above that of the air around it.

And why doesn't the steel cool itself to the atmosphere?

 

[SSDD]

And how far does it go into steel?

The steel certainly reaches temperatures well above that of the air around it.

And why doesn't the steel cool itself to the atmosphere?

LW does not penetrate the ocean more than a few microns...that is the issue...when the ocean turns to steel, then your diversion won't be just a diversion from the fact that a claimed ocean engineer is arguing that LW penetrates the ocean efficiently....laughable crick...just also f'ing lutely laughable..

 

[Crick]

The point is that because certain frequencies of light are capable of penetrating many meters into water means THEY ARE NOT BEING RAPIDLY ABSORBED. That other frequencies do not penetrate far MEANS THAT THEY ARE BEING RAPIDLY ABSORBED.

Don't you ever think?