Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TR: Foiled again!

Topic: Longwave oceanic heating (Read 1001 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #100
Covering water at night reduces infrared heat loss.  To the global alarmists, this means the atmosphere must be heating the uncovered water, because it cooled faster.
Just a quick drive-by, the main effect to reduce heat loss by covering at night is the stopping of evaporation, a major heat loss.

Carry on.
Utter nonsense.  Plastic covers would prevent all evaporation loss, and totally kill the covered plant.  Because it isn't evaporation causing the loss of heat.  And anything that would trap moisture on the plant would lead to extreme frost damage.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #101
If you want to make it as a proviso of one of your scenarios that all other mechanisms are held constant while you twiddle that particular dial then I agree with the predictions within the scope of that scenario.  I don't however take the scenario as being real in a physical sense without supporting evidence.
OK, if we're shifting away from "no, that is not correct" to "yes it is correct, but it is irrelevant", then I guess we've made some progress.

More importantly, if we're shifting away from (1) the claim that adding heat to the air cannot possibly cause the oceans to warm up as long as the air is still cooler than the ocean (which appeared to be your position in the first page of this thread), to (2) the claim that neither SR nor I have provided adequate proof that adding heat to the air will cause the oceans to warm up, then we've made a lot of progress.
Quote from: Cephus0
read it again
I'll concede that you do have a point regarding the link between the two sentences in SR's post.  But I'm still not seeing grounds for a physics lawsuit.

Just to help me out here, perhaps you can explain how the warming of the air due to GHG could substantially reduce the amount of SWR received by the ocean (enough to counter the obvious conclusion and render it invalid).

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #102
Since he has me on ignore, I can probably safely make a prediction about what he's going to say without him seeing it. I'm pretty sure he thinks GHGs have no significant effect on ocean temperature or how much SWR it receives. If the ocean is warming, he thinks it's because it's receiving more SWR for natural reasons that have nothing to do with GHGs. That's basically what he said in the other thread. And it's pretty much his belief about climate change in general.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #103
Liquid water is very good at stopping IR, but water vapor is even better.  In fact, the water vapor above the ocean absorbs far more IR than the ocean does.

Vapor or liquid absorption case, what happens to the LW energy when it gets "stopped"?
Good question.  If you took the heating iron and placed it over a large and deep and cold body of water, you can certainly know this one.  What makes the results so counter intuitive is the nature of both water and the atmosphere.  Warm water stays at the top layer of the water, while warmed air rises, meaning the coldest air is always ending up at the surface of the water, which is the warmest part of the water.

If no wind and waves are present, the water gives up the heat to the air, while the air keeps rising away from the surface, meaning the coldest air is always interacting with the warmest water.  Leaving aside the far more important IR radiation issue, in the real world with out sunlight (LW radiation) to warm the water, colder than air  water is always cooling the air it is in contact with. And the air is always rising away from the source of warming. 

So there are these situations, which if you live in the real world you would know about.

Large bodies of cold water with warm air will cool the air.  If there is wind, the air at the surface will really cool down.  If there is no wind the cold air will settle over the water.  The water does not warm, because the water warmed by this mechanism stays at the surface of the water.  Warmer water does not sink.   It's exactly why a deep lake that was cooled by a long cold winter stays cold into the summer.  (even as LW radiation does heat the surface up)  If there is wind, the warm surface layer gets mixed, and the water cools the air even more, especially since the warm air rises away from the surface, even as more cold water is mixed into the surface layer. 

When the situation is reversed, and now the water is "warmer" than the air, the water is really good at warming the air, because the same mechanism happens, except this time as the warm surface of the water cools, it sinks, meaning warmer water is always coming up to heat the air.  And because cold air sinks, the cold air is always coming down to be warmed by the surface interaction.  Warm water is really good at heating cold air, but warm air is terrible at warming water.

Because physics.  Obviously the atmosphere has a big hand in what actually happens, because of the wind.  Wind changes everything. When the wind is a blowing strong, and the water is warm, it can cause an upwelling and make the water cold.  Now the warm water which was warming the cold air can dump it's heat very fast into the cold air, but of course we have been leaving out evaporation, which changes the simple equation.  Like a cold front sweeping across the great lakes while they are ice free.  The cold dry air rapidly becomes full of warmer moist air, which rises of course, and now the latent heat gets dumped into space or the higher atmosphere and the water turns to snow and comes back down, and the warm water from the lake is now cold water on land.  The heat released when the water freezes does not descend, so while the warmer water warmed the air, nobody would say the 8 feet of snow dumped downwind made it warmer.  All the warming is gone into space or the upper atmosphere of course.

But what about IR warming?  The clouds above the lake and ground are much warmer than the air, and they prevent all the IR from just radiating away into space.  (yes, clouds and water vapor do warm the ground below, or more realistically they slow the IR loss to space)

But does this "warm" the lake water?  Nope.  That IR is absorbed by the moisture in the air before it ever reaches the surface of the water.  And again, that warming causes the air to rise away from the water surface.  Which is why in the real world sky radiation does not warm the deep waters of lakes or the oceans.  The tiny increase from more CO2 doesn't do shit to warm the great lakes.  Or the oceans.






"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #104
If there is any increase in IR from the dry upper atmosphere (which is where CO2 matters as a greenhouse gas), it means nothing to the surface of the water.  The moist air above the water absorbs that IR, and because warmer air rises, it carries that energy away from the surface of the water.  The same IR that would warm the surface layer is also absorbed by water vapor.  Before it even reaches the water.  If the air is really dry, and the ocean really cold, there can be some warming of the surface layer, but not the deep oceans.  It's why after billions of years the deep oceans are always very very cold.  Heat does not descend into cold.

And when an oceans surface gets really warm, it dumps that heat into the atmosphere, where it both cools and causes precipitation, which also cools things down.  which is a real feedback loop.  And why the warm parts of the planet don't just keep getting warmer. More water vapor because it is warmer does not mean it just keeps getting warmer.

Because clouds.  And rain.  And physics.
  • Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 09:54:48 AM by F X
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #105
Meanwhile, in the real(climate) world...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
Quote
Observations of ocean temperatures have revealed that the ocean heat content has been increasing significantly over recent decades (Willis et al, 2004; Levitus et al, 2005; Lyman et al, 2006). This is something that has been predicted by climate models (and confirmed notably by Hansen et al, 2005), and has therefore been described as a 'smoking gun' for human-caused greenhouse gases.

However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here - how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but also helps to control the ocean-atmosphere heat flux. (The 'skin layer' is the very thin - up to 1 mm - layer at the top of ocean that is in direct contact with the atmosphere). Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures.

  • MikeB
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #106
Covering water at night reduces infrared heat loss.  To the global alarmists, this means the atmosphere must be heating the uncovered water, because it cooled faster.
Just a quick drive-by, the main effect to reduce heat loss by covering at night is the stopping of evaporation, a major heat loss.

Carry on.
Utter nonsense.  Plastic covers would prevent all evaporation loss, and totally kill the covered plant.  Because it isn't evaporation causing the loss of heat.  And anything that would trap moisture on the plant would lead to extreme frost damage.

What plant are you talking about?  I'm talking about a body of water.  Nonsense my ass, I own a swimming pool that I heat only by the sun and using a "solar blanket".  In summer the pool can get too warm, say 95F, and all I have to do is leave it uncovered one night to knock it down by 5 - 10 F.  With pool at 95F you can see steam rising from it when the sun goes down and the air cools.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #107
If you want to make it as a proviso of one of your scenarios that all other mechanisms are held constant while you twiddle that particular dial then I agree with the predictions within the scope of that scenario.  I don't however take the scenario as being real in a physical sense without supporting evidence.
OK, if we're shifting away from "no, that is not correct" to "yes it is correct, but it is irrelevant", then I guess we've made some progress.

Yes, if you're setting that as a hypothetical then it's your rules so long as the physics is internally consistent.

Quote
More importantly, if we're shifting away from (1) the claim that adding heat to the air cannot possibly cause the oceans to warm up as long as the air is still cooler than the ocean (which appeared to be your position in the first page of this thread),

Are you claiming that it is possible to heat a body from a colder body?  My claim is that unless you hook the atmosphere up to a source of power and make it warmer than the ocean then you cannot heat the ocean from it.  My position on this is that the principal planetary heating mechanism is shortwave radiation arriving from the sun passes through the atmosphere with little loss, heats the ocean and longwave radiation leaving the ocean subsequently heats the cooler atmosphere through interaction with longwave IR active molecular species aka GHG's.  The atmosphere under this assumption is an insulator and cannot be said to be heating the ocean.  That is why I raised the issue of

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.

That was my position on the first page of this thread.

Quote
to (2) the claim that neither SR nor I have provided adequate proof that adding heat to the air will cause the oceans to warm up, then we've made a lot of progress.

The additional atmospheric heat is coming from the ocean in the first place so no, the atmosphere is not warming the oceans.  I think it likely we have a different interpretation of the term 'warming up'.  I do not consider that the lagging on my hot water tank is 'warming up' the contents of the tank.  The lagging is not introducing any extra energy not deposited therein by the heating element.  I would use the word 'insulation'.

In addition I'd like you to consider what happens as the air is heated above the ocean by upwelling longwave radiation.  Unless you'd like to propose some other atmospheric heating mechanism?  Now the downwelling IR is increased and assuming it makes it back to the ocean surface it gets absorbed in the first few microns at the surface - as we know it must.  So then the ocean skin is rapidly increasing in temperature thereby at least maintaining the ocean/atmosphere interface temperature differential and transferring heat more efficiently from ocean to atmosphere.  This is often quoted as a mechanism to account for increasing air temperatures due to GHG's.  As so often in the quasi-religion of carbon dioxide where everything must of necessity be driven by the devil trace compound gas this mechanism works directly counter to your own claims of atmospheric heating of the ocean.

https://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2814&context=oa_dissertations

Quote
There is much evidence that the ocean is heating as a result of an increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere from human activities. GHGs absorb infrared radiation and re-emit infrared radiation back to the ocean's surface which is subsequently absorbed. However, the incoming infrared radiation is absorbed within the top micrometers of the ocean's surface which is where the thermal skin layer exists. Thus the incident infrared radiation does not directly heat the upper few meters of the ocean. We are therefore motivated to investigate the physical mechanism between the absorption of infrared radiation and its effect on heat transfer at the air-sea boundary. The hypothesis is that since heat lost through the air-sea interface is controlled by the thermal skin layer, which is directly influenced by the absorption and emission of infrared radiation, the heat flow through the thermal skin layer adjusts to maintain the surface heat loss, assuming the surface heat loss does not vary, and thus modulates the upper ocean heat content.

Note that in no way am I supporting this mechanism but present it as what is seriously proposed in the literature.

Quote
Quote from: Cephus0
read it again
I'll concede that you do have a point regarding the link between the two sentences in SR's post.  But I'm still not seeing grounds for a physics lawsuit.

Again.

It wasn't this statement from the post I was referring to in terms of physics malpractice.  That was your assumption.

Quote
Just to help me out here, perhaps you can explain how the warming of the air due to GHG could substantially reduce the amount of SWR received by the ocean (enough to counter the obvious conclusion and render it invalid).

Clouds.  The oft quoted likely mechanism for how this planet so effectively thermoregulates.

https://phys.org/news/2016-08-thin-tropical-clouds-cool-climate.html

Herein lies pretty much the fulcrum of the whole catastrophic anthropogenic global warming claim - which is that GHG's increase the ocean temperature releasing more carbon dioxide by outgassing and more water vapour by evaporation creating a strong positive feedback loop leading to runaway warming.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Quote
Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

What this inevitable doomsday scenario always misses is the effect of clouds in the tropics.  At this time the effect of clouds is poorly understood yet the doomsday hypothesis proceeds on the basis of modelling sans clouds to the conclusion that CAGW is actually a thing.

Of course this is an experiment which has already been run - quite a lot of times - given the four and a half billion year history of this planet at atmospheric carbon dioxide levels ranging up to twenty times higher than those at this time.  In fact carbon dioxide levels in the modern day are at a dangerously low minimum level not seen since the Carboniferous.  If there was a strong positive water vapour feedback in operation it is astronomically unlikely that multicellular life would have prospered.  Systems exhibiting strong positive feedback are inherently unstable and it appears that the climate of Earth does not belong in that category.  I would consider it more likely given the evident relative long-term stability of the climate that zero or mildly negative feedback would be the operative feedback mode.

This paper

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Allan11MA.pdf

makes the case that clouds provide a negative feedback and actively cool the planet.

Quote
ABSTRACT: Satellite measurements and numerical forecast model reanalysis data are used to compute an updated estimate
of the cloud radiative effect on the global multi-annual mean radiative energy budget of the atmosphere and surface. The
cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation dominates over the long wave heating effect,
resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of −21 Wm−2.
The short wave radiative effect of cloud is primarily
manifest as a reduction in the solar radiation absorbed at the surface of −53 Wm−2. Clouds impact long wave radiation
by heating the moist tropical atmosphere (up to around 40 Wm−2 for global annual means) while enhancing the radiative
cooling of the atmosphere over other regions, in particular higher latitudes and sub-tropical marine stratocumulus regimes.
While clouds act to cool the climate system during the daytime, the cloud greenhouse effect heats the climate system
at night. The influence of cloud radiative effect on determining cloud feedbacks and changes in the water cycle are
discussed.

There is much more evidence that the hypothesised CAGW effect is not in operation but this will do for now.
  • Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 01:42:38 PM by Cephus0

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #108
In fact carbon dioxide levels in the modern day are at a dangerously low minimum level
Of all of Cephus' dumb beliefs, this may be the dumbest. If CO2 levels are dangerously low, then they've been dangerously low for the entire existence of our species. Somehow, we've managed to develop and thrive in this dangrously low CO2 environment. Doesn't that suggest that, for us, this is not a dangerously low level?

I think this kind of ties in with his mocking of the "CAGW" "doomsday scenario." What he ignores is the fact that we are changing the conditions under which we've built our civilization. While he's laughing about the idea of Earth becoming another Venus, he's ignoring the fact that there are many more realistic scenarios that would essentially mean the end of human civilization that would be reached far sooner than that. We will probably still hit another ice age eventually. That doesn't mean we won't see effects from warming that would be catastrophic for the society we've built long before that.

And counting on clouds to save us is idiotic as well. There are also studies that find they have a net positive feedback. We don't know for sure yet, partially because even clouds are changing as a result of greenhouse gases, and we don't know for sure yet what that change is ultimately going to look like. But even if they do have a net negative feedback, that doesn't mean that feedback is necessarily enough to compensate for the greenhouse effect if we keep increasing our CO2 output.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #109
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. 



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. 
There is no face palm big enough ...

Oh ffs only just read this and no indeed there isn't.  There is though a braincell called nesb who apparently thinks it's totally great.

Thread needs more BroD'splainin what a quality investment SR's science education was.

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #110
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.

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #111
Cephus thinks the atmosphere can't warm the ocean because clouds.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #112
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.

Some remote pre-religious part of you probably knows that this is unhinged.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #113
Cephus thinks the atmosphere can't warm the ocean because clouds.

Cephus thinks what Cephus already told you

The oceans are mostly warmer than the air and for very obvious reasons.  I'm guessing that you would accept that the majority of planetary surface heating arrives via. shortwave radiation from the sun?  It is trivially true that most of the incident shortwave passes straight through the atmosphere with some scattering but little overall attenuation.  Which is why on a clear summer day it will fry your retinas and roast the flesh from your bones at the planet surface.  It is also trivially true that most of that radiation incident on the oceans is completely absorbed over the approximately hundred meters of penetration depth.

The atmosphere is then heated by ULR as a secondary effect but note that this atmospheric heating is overwhelmingly caused by water vapour which is three orders of magnitude higher percentage atmospheric composition than CO2 and particularly so over the oceans which account for 70% of the planetary surface.  Moreover water vapour is a significantly more IR active gas than is carbon dioxide.  In fact there exists a boundary layer at the ocean surface which is saturated with water vapour and it is the gradient to higher unsaturated levels which drives evaporation.

How then are you proposing to heat the massive high heat capacity warm ocean with ephemeral low heat capacity colder wet air?  Wouldn't it make more sense to think that in fact the ocean by and large controls the temperature of the atmosphere rather than the other way around?  Once you break free of the carbon dioxide religion all manner of things become accessible to rational thought.

In short Cephus thinks that the laws of thermodynamics hold good.

Cephus advanced the hypothesis of cloud thermoregulation in answer to a request for potential mechanisms reducing solar shorrtwave radiation incident on the ocean and supported it with the published findings of Professor Allan.


Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #114
Actually Cephus advanced the hypothesis
Clouds. 
in answer to this request:
Just to help me out here, perhaps you can explain how the warming of the air due to GHG could substantially reduce the amount of SWR received by the ocean (enough to counter the obvious conclusion and render it invalid).
Cephus did put forth the idea that
clouds provide a negative feedback and actively cool the planet.
And he did provide support in the form of a study that finds that clouds have a net cooling effect. However, remaining unspoken and unsupported in Cephus' advancement of said hypothesis was any sort of causal connection between "the warming of the air due to GHG" and "clouds." Is the idea that more GHG means more clouds? Is it that more GHG makes clouds better at reducing SWR? Cephus doesn't say, so his hypothesis doesn't even address the actual request.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #115
FYI, good summary here of why it's not looking great for the idea that clouds will mitigate warming...

http://e360.yale.edu/features/investigating-the-enigma-of-clouds-and-climate-change

TLDR: Low, tropical clouds have a net cooling effect. High clouds closer to the poles have a net warming effect. Clouds currently appear to be moving generally higher and towards the poles, likely because of warming, thus creating a positive feedback that further increases warming.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #116
FYI, good summary here of why it's not looking great for the idea that clouds will mitigate warming...

http://e360.yale.edu/features/investigating-the-enigma-of-clouds-and-climate-change

TLDR: Low, tropical clouds have a net cooling effect. High clouds closer to the poles have a net warming effect. Clouds currently appear to be moving generally higher and towards the poles, likely because of warming, thus creating a positive feedback that further increases warming.
Quote
If you look up on a clear, summer day, and you see kind of wispy, cirrus clouds, those obviously are not very good at blocking sunlight; they let that sunlight stream through. But they're very good at trapping the heat from the planet's surface.
http://e360.yale.edu/features/investigating-the-enigma-of-clouds-and-climate-change

Quote
Contrails are considered high-level clouds.

They appear as long and narrow, but thick, lines of clouds, often with two or more side-by-side bands (the number of bands is determined by the number of engines (exhaust contrails) or wings (wing tip contrails) a plane has). Most are short-lived clouds, lasting only several minutes before evaporating. However, depending on weather conditions, it's possible for them to last hours or even days. Those that do last tend to spread into a thin layer of cirrus, known as contrail cirrus.
https://www.thoughtco.com/contrails-3443730
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #117
On many days (not just summer) you can watch aircraft cause a layer of cirrus that covers the entire sky. Not at the poles either.  The morning starts off clear, (and would remain that way), but by the afternoon the sky is covered with contrails and cirrus from the contrails.  Alarmists hand wave this away, but physics tells us it causes warming.



Usually winter is far too cold for air traffic to cause a cirrus layer. 
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #118
Quote
Approximately 10-20% of all jet flights occur in air masses with a humidity level sufficient to cause contrails. In 1992, contrails were estimated to cover about 0.1% of the Earth's surface on an annually averaged basis, with larger regional values. According to the IPCC's most likely scenario, coverage is expected to grow to 0.5% by 2050. Contrails are short-lived and have an overall warming effect that is similar to thin, high clouds. Warming effects of contrails are different during the day than at night. During the day, contrails trap infrared radiation (a warming effect) and reflect solar radiation (a cooling effect). At night, only infrared radiation is trapped and re-emitted downward. The warming effect of contrails is therefore stronger at night. It is important to note that because contrails are short-lived, formed in areas of high air traffic density, and can affect existing cirrus clouds, they may cause local or regional climate responses.
http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/aviation/Contrails.html
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #119
High altitude flights, or flights over the poles creates ice contrails, which are a different story.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #120
Mostly cool story, bro. I'm a little confused about this part though...
Alarmists hand wave this away, but physics tells us it causes warming.
Who are those alarmists that are hand waving away something that causes warming?

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #121
Contrails have been known to be a direct cause of warming (climate change) since the 1970s
(the moisture added to the stratosphere also changes Ozone levels)

Especially in polar regions (where the night time heating happens for months, because it is night for months).  The warming of the lower atmosphere also causes stratospheric cooling, which alters ozone levels in winter at the poles.  And this also changes the circumpolar vortex.

The IPCC reports hand wave it away.  Just as with ozone and CfCs, both major players in climate change.  The IPCC blames CO2, and downplays three real factors that are actually changing the global heat balance.

I use the word "alarmists" as a parody of"deniers", because it is funny.  Deniers also don't think ozone, CfCs and contrails are anything to worry about. 
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #122
Does this matter in regards to longwave heating of the surface?  Of course it does.  Far more than the slight changes in CO2 levels.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #123
Weird how everyone could overlook this alternate explanation.  Weird. 

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #124
Not really.  When you believe you already know the answer (CO2) it's easy to handwave away all the papers, studies and science that don't match your belief.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭