Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: You probably won't be protected from free speech that you don't like.

Topic: Longwave oceanic heating (Read 1314 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #25
"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? 



  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #26
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.

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #27
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

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #28
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
"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 #29
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.



  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #30
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. 

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #31
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.



You think that's what that graph shows?
Look again.
Focus on the rising, rather than the falling, temperature phases.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #32
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? 

This is so frighteningly dumb I don't really even know where to start in correcting all of the basic physical misconceptions..  Did you do any physics at school at all?  Because if you did I'd sue the teacher if I were you.  I haven't time to deal with it properly right now - and I doubt it would make any difference if I did of course.  However I have the relevant data-loggers, thermocouples and heat guns in the lab and will run your experiment for you soonish.  Bugger when that happens eh?

There's no point keep railing at the physics and screeching about 'magic skins'.  It isn't magic, it's just elementary physics and because of it you cannot heat water from the top down - not even by longwave IR.  If you think you can then go ahead and heat your pan of ambient water with a hair dryer on the surface.  While you're about it you could try a pure radiation experiment requiring only a thermometer.  Fill a Styrofoam cup with ambient water, hold your IR emitting hand 30 cm above it and monitor the water temperature.  According to you, all of that brutal downwelling IR should heat the water.  Give it a try.  Then try and reheat your cold cup of coffee by blowing on it.  Have fun ;)
  • Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 08:03:29 AM by Cephus0

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #33
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.

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #34
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. 

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #35
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.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #36
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.
Yeah, the jump-up, stroll-down pattern should really make Cephus wonder what's going on.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #37
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? 

This is so frighteningly dumb I don't really even know where to start in correcting all of the basic physical misconceptions..  Did you do any physics at school at all?  Because if you did I'd sue the teacher if I were you.
Uh-oh. Getting the feeling SR-71 might be joining me on Cephus' ignore list in the near future.  :(

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #38
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. 

And we're back to argument from authority.  The sole premise for any of this beyond which no one ever gets.

Quote
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.

Here it is discussed how water vapour doesn't control global temperature yet you would assert that the three orders of magnitude smaller component of less IR active carbon dioxide does?

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #39
:facepalm: Jesus just read the rest of the page!

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #40
Guys, carbon dioxide lags temperature.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

Quote
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7 CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and  GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8, and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7 and 8, but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #41
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. 

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #42
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.

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #43
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? 

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #44
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

So temperatures have been largely declining as CO2 rose over the last 4k years since the Minoan Warm Period.  And if we project forwards using 'worst case' scenario we may even hit the scorching inferno of the Roman Warm Period again.  Holy crap how awful is that!?  Quick, sequester every carbon atom so we may return to the safety of an ice age pronto.

Quote
Has he looked out the window? 

I don't know.  What's he supposed to be looking for? New York underwater?  the Great Barrier Reef in flames?  Invisible, odourless, tasteless carbon dioxide?  Enhanced plant growth in his garden owing to carbon dioxide fertilisation?  What is it you want him to see out of his window?  Out of mine I see a bright and cold February day.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #45
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. 

It's also garbage that's been refuted several times since it was published...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908
Quote
Humlum et al., 2013 conclude that the change in atmospheric CO2 from January 1980 is natural, rather than human induced. However, their use of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the presented results cannot support this conclusion. Using the same data sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass.
(LOL!)
Quote
Furthermore it is determined that human emissions explain the entire observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr− 1.

http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201500208697
Quote
A recent study relying purely on statistical analysis of relatively short time series suggested substantial re-thinking of the traditional view about causality explaining the detected rising trend of atmospheric CO₂ (atmCO₂) concentrations. If these results are well-justified then they should surely compel a fundamental scientific shift in paradigms regarding both atmospheric greenhouse warming mechanism and global carbon cycle. However, the presented work suffers from serious logical deficiencies such as, 1) what could be the sink for fossil fuel CO₂ emissions, if neither the atmosphere nor the ocean - as suggested by the authors - plays a role? 2) What is the alternative explanation for ocean acidification if the ocean is a net source of CO₂ to the atmosphere? Probably the most provocative point of the commented study is that anthropogenic emissions have little influence on atmCO₂ concentrations. The authors have obviously ignored the reconstructed and directly measured carbon isotopic trends of atmCO₂ (both δ¹³C, and radiocarbon dilution) and the declining O₂/N₂ ratio, although these parameters provide solid evidence that fossil fuel combustion is the major source of atmCO₂ increase throughout the Industrial Era.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013GPC...106..141M
Quote
The paper by Humlum et al. (2013) suggests that much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1980 results from changes in ocean temperatures, rather than from the burning of fossil fuels. We show that these conclusions stem from methodological errors and from not recognizing the impact of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation on inter-annual variations in atmospheric CO2.

See the blog of the author of that one for a clear explanation of how the method Humlum used is garbage...

https://troyca.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/comment-on-the-phase-relation-between-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-and-global-temperature/
Quote
Essentially, the method in HSS12 is to compare the "DIFF12" values for each time series - that is, for each month they find the difference between the last 12 months and the 12 preceding months.
Quote
Clearly, the HSS12 "DIFF12" method is not able to diagnose the long-term cause vs. effect.  Rather, it is quite easy for a small CO2 response to temperature, particularly one which will have no long-term impact, to create results in the DIFF12 graphs that make them appear (incorrectly) to provide great explanative power.  In other words, the method chosen in the paper does not support its conclusions.

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #46
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.






Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #47
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 instumental 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.
  • Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 11:39:51 AM by Cephus0

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #48
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 
:no:

Many including he are predicting some cooling in the near to mid term.  Others would say it's already begun.

:staregonk:  :no:  :no:  :no:  :staregonk:

What the fuck is Cephus smoking?

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #49
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.