Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • opossum colostrum is difficult to express

Topic: Longwave oceanic heating (Read 1311 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #125
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.
Ah, I see. So "hand wave this away" actually meant "come to the conclusion that this is not as big a factor as CO2."
Does this matter in regards to longwave heating of the surface?  Of course it does.  Far more than the slight changes in CO2 levels.
Thanks for your unsupported opinion on that. I still find the consensus position of the people who actually study this stuff more persuasive.
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.
By the same token, when you believe you already know that the answer scientists have overwhelmingly reached as a result of their research is wrong, it's easy to handwave away that answer and latch onto anything else, no matter how little support there is for it. A better approach is not to handwave anything away, but to evaluate the field as a whole and see what's best supported.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #126
For those generally interested in mechanisms responsible for mediation of solar shortwave radiation incident on the oceans there is a proposed solar output-controlled modality again acting through the vector of clouds.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044004/meta

Quote
Abstract
A consensus regarding the impact of solar variability on cloud cover is far from being reached. Moreover, the impact of cloud cover on climate is among the least understood of all climate components. This motivated us to analyze the persistence of solar signals in cloud cover for the time interval 1984-2009, covering two full solar cycles. A spatial and temporal investigation of the response of low, middle and high cloud data to cosmic ray induced ionization (CRII) and UV irradiance (UVI) is performed in terms of coherence analysis of the two signals. For some key geographical regions the response of clouds to UVI and CRII is persistent over the entire time interval indicating a real link. In other regions, however, the relation is not consistent, being intermittent or out of phase, suggesting that some correlations are spurious. The constant in phase or anti-phase relationship between clouds and solar proxies over some regions, especially for low clouds with UVI and CRII, middle clouds with UVI and high clouds with CRII, definitely requires more study. Our results show that solar signatures in cloud cover persist in some key climate-defining regions for the entire time period and supports the idea that, if existing, solar effects are not visible at the global level and any analysis of solar effects on cloud cover (and, consequently, on climate) should be done at the regional level.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #127
 :parrot:
"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 #128
It isn't only them who think so.  Svensmark et al are largely in agreement.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

Quote
Abstract
Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically and experimentally. We show that the mass-flux of small ions can constitute an important addition to the growth caused by condensation of neutral molecules. Under atmospheric conditions the growth from ions can constitute several percent of the neutral growth. We performed experimental studies which quantify the effect of ions on the growth of aerosols between nucleation and sizes >20 nm and find good agreement with theory. Ion-induced condensation should be of importance not just in Earth's present day atmosphere for the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei under pristine marine conditions, but also under elevated atmospheric ionization caused by increased supernova activity.

Something is responsible for the observed planetary temperature excursions and we know it certainly isn't carbon dioxide from the ice core data.  I can't find reason to discount the hypothesis at this stage.  What I also find reassuring about it is that these people are actually doing science for a very refreshing change.  They make an observation, formulate a consistent theory and test experimentally.  Moreover as far as I can tell they don't go on to modify the experimental results so as to fit their theoretical predictions.  Just amazing they manage to get this strange methodology published at all these days.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #129
Something is responsible for the observed planetary temperature excursions and we know it certainly isn't carbon dioxide from the ice core data.
Where "we" means "people who jump to fallacious conclusions about causation based on correlation."

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #130
Something is responsible for the observed planetary temperature excursions and we know it certainly isn't carbon dioxide from the ice core data.
Since the discovery of the vast global climate changes (especially the ice ages) there have been theories with out end.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/lubos-and-a-few-misconceptions/


"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 #131
The CO2 theory of climate change (the AGW theory, climate change, global warming, or any of the other names for it) claims CO2 is the main reason, the only thing that actually matters.  The control knob, the thermostat, the driver, the actual reason that changes from the sun can cause the drastic global changes in climate.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/pdf

"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 #132
The CO2 theory of climate change (the AGW theory, climate change, global warming, or any of the other names for it) claims CO2 is the main reason, the only thing that actually matters.  The control knob, the thermostat, the driver, the actual reason that changes from the sun can cause the drastic global changes in climate.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/pdf


From the abstract (my bolding)...
Quote
The most recent calculations of the infra-red flux in the region of the 15 micron CO, band show that the average surface temperature of the earth increases 3.6" C if the C02 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled and decreases 3.8' C if the CO, amount is halved, provided that no other factors change which influence the radiation balance.
Doesn't quite seem to square with your assertion that CO2 is considered to be "the only thing that actually matters," does it?

(Also, it's kinda weird to talk about "AGW theory" in present tense and use a paper from 1955 as support for your characterization, but whatever.)

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #133
Something is responsible for the observed planetary temperature excursions and we know it certainly isn't carbon dioxide from the ice core data.
Since the discovery of the vast global climate changes (especially the ice ages) there have been theories with out end.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/lubos-and-a-few-misconceptions/



"A Few Misconceptions" would be a pretty good title for Joanne Nova's whole blog.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #134
If you don't know CO2 is the claimed control knob for climate, now and in the past, you are an idiot.

Not to use an overly technical term here, but there's a neat paper in this week's Science that explains clearly why carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main agent behind changes in the Earth's climate--now and in the geologic past.

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature


Using a paper that lays out a version of the CO2 theory as a source for the CO2 theory is how science works you fuckhead.
"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 #135
Quote
We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half-century. Since we now can measure the sun's energy output independent of the distorting influence of the atmosphere, we shall see whether the earth's temperature trend correlates with measured fluctuations in solar radiation. If volcanic dust is the more important factor, then we may observe the earth's temperature following fluctuations in the number of large volcanic eruptions. But if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long-term temperature records will rise continuously as long as man consumes the earth's reserves of fossil fuels.
1959

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/

"We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half-century."

" if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long-term temperature records will rise continuously"

"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 #136
If you don't know CO2 is the claimed control knob for climate, now and in the past, you are an idiot.

Not to use an overly technical term here, but there's a neat paper in this week's Science that explains clearly why carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main agent behind changes in the Earth's climate--now and in the geologic past.
Quote
CO2 isn't the only knob on the climate controls

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature
Quote
Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
I'm noticing a decided lack of "the only thing that actually matters" here.
Using a paper that lays out a version of the CO2 theory as a source for the CO2 theory is how science works you fuckhead.
It depends on what you're saying about it. Another way science works is by advancing. Climate science has definitely advanced since 1955. The reason it was a bit of a red flag for me is that it's such a common creationist tactic to quote something from Origin of Species and say that Darwin got something wrong, therefore evolution is false. Not saying you were necessarily doing that here, but it's always something that makes me wary.
  • Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 08:53:56 AM by BenTheBiased

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #137
The real problem is the lack of current papers on the greenhouse theory of climate change, especially ones on the CO2 theory. It's just mentioned and used as fact. 

The papers by Callendar, Plass, Arrhenius and Hulburt are the sources for the theory.




"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 #138
I'm noticing a decided lack of "the only thing that actually matters" here.
Quote
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

"most important" and "control knob" should be a clue.  That you don't get this is hilarious.
"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 #139
How does an increase in CO2 warm the oceans?  This issue isn't even mentioned in the papers on the theory.

The MIT idea that albedo changes and SW will be the reason for warming is a start for explaining it.  But they offer no mechanism other than arctic ocean warming to explain global ocean warming.  It's certainly not settled.
"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 #140
Thanks for your unsupported opinion on that. I still find the consensus position of the people who actually study this stuff more persuasive.
No, you don't.  In fact, you don't actually know anything about it.  The "people who actually study this stuff" are the source of how we know contrails and the cirrus clouds from them are warming much of the world. Far more than CO2 forcing. 


"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 #141
It's the same with ozone and CfCs, both very powerful greenhouse gases.
"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 #142
The real problem is the lack of current papers on the greenhouse theory of climate change, especially ones on the CO2 theory.
Or possibly you just aren't aware of them. Here's one...
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
I'm sure there are others.

I'm noticing a decided lack of "the only thing that actually matters" here.
Quote
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

"most important" and "control knob" should be a clue.  That you don't get this is hilarious.
Well, again...
Quote
CO2 isn't the only knob on the climate controls
Quote
Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
It seems like you just ignore what you don't want to see. I'm not sure if that's hilarious or sad.

How does an increase in CO2 warm the oceans?
Well, I posted one possible explanation earlier in this thread...
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.

Thanks for your unsupported opinion on that. I still find the consensus position of the people who actually study this stuff more persuasive.
No, you don't.  In fact, you don't actually know anything about it.  The "people who actually study this stuff" are the source of how we know contrails and the cirrus clouds from them are warming much of the world.
And that CO2 is the most important (but not the only) cause of the current warming...
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Far more than CO2 forcing. 
That remains your unsupported assertion.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #143
Did you see some headline like this...
https://phys.org/news/2011-03-airplane-contrails-worse-co2-emissions.html
Quote
Airplane contrails worse than CO2 emissions for global warming
...and not realize it was just referring to the CO2 emissions from the airplanes and not CO2 emissions in general?

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #144
The real problem is the lack of current papers on the greenhouse theory of climate change, especially ones on the CO2 theory. It's just mentioned and used as fact. 

The papers by Callendar, Plass, Arrhenius and Hulburt are the sources for the theory.


Yes indeed.  Many papers begin the intro with some statement along the lines of "It is a well known fact that carbon dioxide causes global warming ..." but the supposed evidence for it is never referenced.  Which isn't very difficult to fathom because there isn't any at all.  Elizabeth Wing-See Wong's dissertation I referenced and quoted earlier is a prime example.

Quote
WONG, ELIZABETH WING-SEE (Ph.D., Meteorology and Physical Oceanography)
The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer (May 2017)
to Air-Sea Surface Heat Fluxes
Abstract of a dissertation at the University of Miami.
Dissertation supervised by Professor Peter J. Minnett.
No. of pages in text. (138)

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.

Now it is usual to not include references in an abstract but it is not usual - in normal scientific practice - to make claims in an abstract which are not supported in the body of the text.  I'm not pointing the finger at Wong in particular here since they all do it in climate science and it has become the expected norm.  It is as though everyone has to 'kiss the ring' of the fundamental axiom of carbon dioxide-driven climate science before proceeding on to whatever else they may have to say.

It hails from the Arrhenius observation back in the 1890's that CO2 is an IR active gas and the subsequent assumption of strong positive feedback from water vapour and clouds.  The first is true and may be confirmed at any time in the lab.  The second has never been observed and is exceedingly unlikely yet is still held as an unchallengeable truth by the faithful.  To challenge this in any way is to be be vilified, threatened, attacked, fired and generally destroyed.  It is like reading theology which proceeds from the initial assumption that the argument of Aquinas is factually correct.  To demur is to be handed the same kind of treatment as Galileo received from the Inquisition.

From this single erroneous assumption proceeds the whole tangled epicyclic tilted and sinking edifice of pseudoscientific bullshit required to shore it up.  Awesomely funny to watch though.  Previous warm periods getting in the way of the story?  No problem - just hokey stick them away.  Clouds starting to look a bit ominous?  No worries - just banish them to the poles where they can't be a problem.  Temperatures not rising as projected?  Not a bother - simply change the data and write a new algorithm.  And on and on and on ...  There is literally nothing the theologians of doom will not stoop to.  And finally we wind up at the quacking infinitely-unfalsifiable insane position where everything from Venusian hothouse to cryogenic ice age and everything in between with every conceivable combination of climatic parameters is projected to result directly from anthro CO2.


  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #145
Are you claiming that it is possible to heat a body from a colder body?
You know perfectly well that I made no such claim.
Quote from: Cephus0
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'.
If you twiddle a dial and something's temperature increases as a result, then in ordinary English you can describe that thing as having "warmed up", regardless of the underlying mechanism.
Quote from: Cephus0
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.
At this point I can't guess what claim you're accusing me of having made.  If I apply the constraint of assuming that you're trying to say something relevant to something I've actually said (probably a mistake), then I'm forced to interpret your words as "the ocean can't be getting warmer, because it's getting warmer".
Quote from: Cephus0
Again.
It wasn't this statement from the post I was referring to in terms of physics malpractice.  That was your assumption.
And still you're strangely unwilling to articulate what you were referring to.
Quote from: Cephus0
Clouds.
This doesn't address my question, as Ben has explained.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #146
I hope that doesn't make him feel obligated to take me off ignore.  :ohdear:

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #147
:stare:  'Pon my soul!  Well look there really isn't any point in answering that and probably best if I don't.  You amuse yourself talking to Ben if you wish - he's been on ignore for a long time now and I already have a bowl of fruit.  So long and best for Mrs. D.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #148
But I'm still not seeing grounds for a physics lawsuit.

a physics lawsuit?
"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 🔭