Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: shut up you house atheists

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SR-71

1
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Oh yeah, Blue Hill, the place is turning into an icebox.  They could only squeeze out their 9th warmest year on record in 2017.

http://bluehill.org/observatory/2018/01/2017-was-warmer-and-wetter-than-average/




2
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
I'm sure the authors will be absolutely stricken to learn that FX has declared their work bullshit.
3
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Weird how everyone could overlook this alternate explanation.  Weird. 
4
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Cephus thinks the atmosphere can't warm the ocean because clouds.
5
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
With all this extra CO2 around the oceans should be frozen over by now, all that runaway magic skin freezing.   Think about when CO2 was really high, the oceans must have froze all the way down.
6
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
A very nice investigation of the dead sea concludes the dominant forcing of the skin is air temp. 

Quote
5. Conclusion

We found that the skin temperature in the Dead Sea is most highly correlated to the air temperature in all seasons (0.93-0.98). In the summer, when the Dead Sea is stratified, the skin temperature is also correlated to the bulk water temperature of the surface (0.80). In the winter, however, when the Dead Sea is vertically mixed, the amplitude of the skin temperature diurnal cycle is ~4°C, whereas the bulk water shows an amplitude of ~0.2°C, and therefore there is no correlation between the skin and bulk temperatures in the winter. Low correlations were found between the skin temperature and the solar radiation and wind speed in all seasons. The skin, with its low thermal inertia, responds immediately to the governing forcing. Thus the air temperature with its highest correlation and minimal time lag is considered to be the most important factor in the forcing of the skin layer's temperature, which is accomplished primarily through the sensible heat flux.

The Dead Sea is very salty, but I don't know that this inhibits evaporation very much? 
7
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
It jumps into the magic skin and makes it steam.  Sometimes there's an actual explosion.  It's a risky move.  I don't recommend it.
8
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Apparently not even global-warming skeptic Roy Spencer subscribes to the IR can't heat water argument and did his own experiment to test the hypothesis...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

He probably opted not to endorse some bullshit an undergrad could easily debunk. 
9
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
I heated water from the top down with LW IR. 

Materials -

Jug of water at ambient temp
Heating shoe designed to heat shrink covering materials
Bench vise
Multimeter with thermocouple temp sensor
Two digital thermometers
Disposable water bottle with the top cut off, ~ 250 mL capacity
Clock

Filled water bottle to the top with water from the jug
Clamped heating iron in vise about 2" above bottle filled with ambient temp water
Turned on iron, adjusted heat setting until slight warmth could be felt at the level of the surface of the water
Measured and recorded air temp and water temp periodically

Results -  (temps are F)

Time      Water    Air
21:40    71.0        75
21:55    79.7        74
22:10    86.9        74
22:25    89.5        74
end

The water was heated from the top down, with markedly decreasing temp from top to bottom. 

-1/4"  89.5
-1/2"  85.0
-2"    76.3
-4"    72.9 

Conclusion:  It is certainly possible to heat water with downwelling longwave IR.  There is no property of the surface of the water that precludes it. 





10
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
As for this matter of which is the more pronounced factor for climate, the ocean is obviously the major player for climate in some regions, but the wind (atmosphere) has a very profound influence on the ocean.
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/ocean/text.html

I like this description -

Water Transport of Heat

Quote
Water is about 1,000 times as dense as air, and, since the amount of thermal energy transported by a moving fluid is proportional to its density, a volume of water can transport about a thousand times as much heat as an equivalent volume of air. The rate at which heat is transported, called the heat flux, is measured in Joules of energy per unit area per unit time, so the rate at which heat is transported is also proportional to the speed of movement (wind speed in air or current speed in the ocean). Since wind speed is typically on the order of 10 meters per second and ocean drift currents on the order of centimeters per second, the air speed is about a thousand times larger than ocean speed. Therefore, air moves a thousand times faster than water but carries only about 1/1000 as much heat per unit volume, which suggests that water is approximately of equal importance to air in moving heat over the planet.

11
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
I like this treatment of the subject.  It doesn't directly address the magic skin but it does lay out the modes of thermal exchange in a straightforward way.  http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html

This is partly what I intend to say about retarding the ocean to atmosphere heat loss -
Quote
Net Back Radiation: The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation). This radiation is at much longer wavelengths than that of the solar radiation (greater than 10 micros, in the infrared range), because the ocean surface is far cooler that the sun's surface. The infrared radiation emitted from the ocean is quickly absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases residing in the lower atmosphere. Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter.

My thought is that more GHG returns more upwelling IR back to the surface, thus reducing the rate of IR loss to the atmosphere.

I conflate the thought with this section -

Quote
Conduction: When air is contact with the ocean is at a different temperature than that the sea surface; heat transfer by conduction takes place. On average the ocean is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere so on average ocean heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere by conduction. The heated air is more buoyant than the air above it, so it convects the ocean heat upward into the atmosphere. If the ocean were colder than the atmosphere (which of course happens) the air in contact with the ocean cools, becoming denser and hence more stable, more stratified. As such the conduction process does a poor job of carrying the atmosphere heat into the cool ocean. This occurs over the subtropical upwelling regions of the ocean. The transfer of heat between ocean and atmosphere by conduction is more efficient when the ocean is warmer than the air it is in contact with. On global average the oceanic heat loss by conduction is only 24 watts per square meter.

My thought here is that downwelling IR heats the lower atmosphere and constricts the thermal window for ocean to atmosphere heat loss.  For example, less heat will be lost on a cloudy night than a clear night.  Stipulated, the process of atmospheric warming, where condiitions allow, or reduction in rate of of cooling of the sea is inefficient, but it isn't null, either. 

I didn't bother to disambiguate the two processes.  I guess to summarize my position on the magic skin, it's almost irrelevant, net thermal transfer in and out is going to happen anyway, and downwelling IR can still influence the rate.  If the atmosphere is warming, the ocean will follow, eventually. 

12
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
You should read what was said. 

Quote
If we instead use the past as a key to understand the present, the net influence of CO2 appears to be small.

What he is doing is using the Law Dome data over the past 10k years to see how much effect CO2 has had on temperature.  He isn't going to do the usual dishonest modern unstumental record splice so popular with alarmists because that would obscure the signal he is trying to see.  It would be stupid to try and cram 100 year resolution onto a 10k year chart.  That doesn't mean he is concluding there isn't any anthro CO2.  In fact in the paper from him I just referenced he is there analysing the modern CO2 data including the anthro component and looking at how that correlates with modern temperatures.  Also note that temperatues have been rising since the end of the LIA and this particular blessed warming period began well before the start of the industrial revolution.  Interestingly and sadly enough temperatures appear to have gone flat for the last twenty years with the exception of El Nino spikes and at a time when CO2 levels continue to accelerate  Many including he are predicting some cooling in the near to mid term.   Others would say it's already begun.

I can agree that temps rebounded naturally from the LIA.  However, at some point within the last century, the influence of anthro CO2 has become pretty clear.  I also agree that it would be hard to scale the anthro on that chart, but where is the chart that shows the anthro C02?  However, it is Humlum himself in his quote directing our attention to the chart that excludes the modern spike of CO2.  It's almost as if he doesn't want us to see it! His charts show a temp spike but they don't show the CO2 spike. 

I would hardly say temps have gone flat over the last twenty years. 
13
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
I'm guessing you're right.  After all, it's just hard data with never a model in sight and doesn't fit the narrative.

How does he arrive at the conclusion that Anthropogenic CO2 didn't increase above preindustrial levels over the last century?

I didn't see where he concluded that.  Quote/link?

Quote

http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2011/02/24/ns-exclusive-interview-with-university-of-oslo-physical-geographer-dr-ole-humlum-on-man-made-climate-change022404#.WniP3ChORHi

Quote
Dr. Humlum: The lab experiments on CO2 are fine, in my opinion. I personally, however, doubt that we can transfer directly this insight to the much bigger problem of analyzing the effect in Earth's much larger and more complex atmosphere. If we instead use the past as a key to understand the present, the net influence of CO2 appears to be small. (Click on diagram at right to download.)

That's the chart he's referencing.  Where is the Anthro CO2 since the industrial revolution?  It's missing.  Maybe he uses reindeer to get around and heats a tent with birch twigs.  The chart shows that CO2 has been in a fairly narrow range between 260-280 through the Holocene.  Temp has been falling along with gradually decreasing insolation for several millennia, until recently.  Now they're rising again, because of ff use.  Insolation is not rising.





14
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
I'm guessing you're right.  After all, it's just hard data with never a model in sight and doesn't fit the narrative.

How does he arrive at the conclusion that Anthropogenic CO2 didn't increase above preindustrial levels over the last century?



Has he looked out the window? 
15
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
We'll see if Humlum's paper catches anyones interest or just gets ignored to death and buried under dust.  I'm guessing the latter, being that it's been 5 1/2 years and doesn't appear to have become influential. 
16
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
I really wonder if people making the "CO2 lags temperature argument" genuinely don't understand the obvious logical error they're making, or if they just cling to it because it's dogma for them. Yes, the planet can warm for reasons other than CO2. And yes, warming the planet can trigger the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Nothing about that suggests that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't cause warming.

To me the funny part is that if temp were leading in the warming portions, what causes the nearly vertical asymptotic rate? I don't know of any orbital motions that would produce that sudden change of insolation.
17
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
https://eapsweb.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Climate_Primer.pdf

Climate Science and Climate Risk: A Primer
By Dr. Kerry A. Emanuel
Professor of Atmospheric Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Quote
Second, the world ocean acts as a huge buffer, absorbing most of the excess energy produced by increasing greenhouse gases. This causes the temperature of the planet to lag well behind changes in CO2. So even if the concentration of greenhouse gases leveled off right now, the planet would continue to warm for a while owing to the thermal lag effect of the ocean.

See?  This should be my new motto.  SR71, smart as an MIT Professor.  :D

The saddest part of this is that you actually are.  I guess this halfwit never heard of an ice core - all of which show temperature leading carbon dioxide by hundreds of years.



Look again.  You must be missing something.  0 is on the left and then it goes back in time to the right.  During the warming periods C02 and temp are contemporaneous, for all practical purposes.  During cooling periods temp leads, the majority of the time.  This is what would be expected.  Oceans would sequester CO2 and freeze during cooling and more land would be covered by glaciations and some would turn to permafrost. 
18
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
https://eapsweb.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Climate_Primer.pdf

Climate Science and Climate Risk: A Primer
By Dr. Kerry A. Emanuel
Professor of Atmospheric Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Quote
the excess energy produced by increasing greenhouse gases
Because greenhouse gases "produce" energy.  Hahahahaha


That is funny. 
19
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
https://eapsweb.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Climate_Primer.pdf

Climate Science and Climate Risk: A Primer
By Dr. Kerry A. Emanuel
Professor of Atmospheric Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Quote
Second, the world ocean acts as a huge buffer, absorbing most of the excess energy produced by increasing greenhouse gases. This causes the temperature of the planet to lag well behind changes in CO2. So even if the concentration of greenhouse gases leveled off right now, the planet would continue to warm for a while owing to the thermal lag effect of the ocean.

See?  This should be my new motto.  SR71, smart as an MIT Professor.  :D
20
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Quote
More specifically, with the trace GHG's removed, but leaving the non IR absorbent N2 and O2 in place, the oceans would still freeze.  Increasing the proportions of trace GHG increases the temperature of the total (open) system.

No ffs how many times do I have to tell you - water vapour is the overwhelming GHG in the atmosphere.  You just talked about IR active trace compounds and the major non IR active atmospheric components whilst totally omitting the overwhelmingly major IR active component of water vapour.  All that tells me is that you are in some weird form of denial.  This is a water planet and the water cycle dominates.  Trace carbon dioxide does the thermal square root of fuck all and this is clearly demonstrated in all of the ice core data where carbon dioxide lags temperature.

You are fundamentally at odds with every scientific body and organization on the planet over this issue.  If they can't convince, I don't think I'll have any luck either.  You seriously need to get busy and get them up to speed if you really believe what you are trying to sell us here. 

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

Quote
It's true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth's temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.
21
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
"How then are you proposing to heat the massive high heat capacity warm ocean with ephemeral low heat capacity colder wet air?"

Not heat.  Restrict thermal exchange.  Yes, net exchange is ocean to atmosphere.  If the atmosphere warms, the transfer from ocean to atmosphere slows down.  The greater the difference, the greater the exchange.  The less the difference, the less the exchange.

Wtf do you mean - not heat?  You are proposing a temperature increase of the ocean.  Here is the equation for temperature increase

Q = M.Cv. ΔT

Where Q is the heat in Joules
M is the mass in Kg
Cv is the specific heat at constant volume in Joules/Kg Kelvin
ΔT is the temperature change in Kelvins

Without a Q there is no ΔT.  You cannot increase the temperature of something by insulating it.  I don't care if you slow down the rate of heat loss but you cannot heat it.  Propose a mechanism for Q.

As I said, decreasing the temp differential from ocean (net warmer than air) to air (net cooler than ocean) via AGW heating of the atmosphere will slow down the rate of heat loss from ocean to air.  This means more of the energy from SWR, which is received at a fairly constant rate, will accumulate in the ocean.  This is not complicated.  As you have pointed out, the ocean is going to take a fuck of a long time to play thermal catch up to the atmospheric heating, so the rate of exchange from ocean to air will be slowed for a fuck of a long time, so the ocean will be accumulating quite a bit SWR heat.

Heat a bucket of water to boiling and pour it into two pans.  Blow hair dryer 1 over the surface of pan 1 with the heat switched off.  Blow hair dryer 2 over the surface of pan 2 with the heat switched on.  Which pan returns to ambient temp first?  Since, according to this dumb theory that LW can't heat water because of the magic skin,  LW can't heat water, and since the hot dryer is blowing heat in LW, both pans should get to ambient temp at the same time, right? 


22
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
triple post  :0
23
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
double post   :/
24
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
PS yes there are MDO's but they are not adding heat to the system, how could they?  They are the result of heat transfer, not the source.  They are just normal cycles.  They may be amplified by the AGW, though. 
25
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
"How then are you proposing to heat the massive high heat capacity warm ocean with ephemeral low heat capacity colder wet air?"

Not heat.  Restrict thermal exchange.  Yes, net exchange is ocean to atmosphere.  If the atmosphere warms, the transfer from ocean to atmosphere slows down.  The greater the difference, the greater the exchange.  The less the difference, the less the exchange. 

As to which heats which, without the atmosphere the oceans would quickly freeze.  More specifically, with the trace GHG's removed, but leaving the non IR absorbent N2 and O2 in place, the oceans would still freeze.  Increasing the proportions of trace GHG increases the temperature of the total (open) system. 

You're getting lost in the minutiea of the magic boundary layer.