Another Epic Fail for Climate Science

[SSDD]

Again, are you claiming the past century of science in this field is all a hoax?

No, I am saying that climate science has a nasty habit of ignoring physical laws when they cast doubt on the AGW hoax...sea water has very low emissivity of far LW...the very wavelengths that CO2 emits....low emissivity equals low absorptivity......and by the way, your chart doesn't even touch on far LW.

 

[mamooth]

You don't understand the difference between reflectivity and absorptivity, hence your humiliating failure.

Who set you up to fail like this? Was it PSI, or a different group? In any case, you should be taking them to task for leaving you twisting in the wind. That is, unless you've been instructed to protect your masters by taking all the blame yourself.

 

[Saigon]

No, I am saying that climate science has a nasty habit of ignoring physical laws when they cast doubt on the AGW hoax...sea water has very low emissivity of far LW...the very wavelengths that CO2 emits....low emissivity equals low absorptivity......and by the way, your chart doesn't even touch on far LW.

So we have two possibilities here .

Scientists have a nasty habit of ignoring physical laws or

SSDD has a nasty habit of not understanding what scientists say about physical laws


It's a tough one, isn't it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It seems that once again climate science demonstrates that it is in fact, climate pseudoscience and gets it all wrong.

A new paper published in the PNAS draws a great big bullseye on yet another failure of climate science...this time the failure is monumental and if climate science were anything like actual science would be signal to scrap every climate model in existence and go back to the drawing board.....of course, that won't happen, but we all know that climate science isn't really anything like actual science....don't we?

The authors of this paper point out that the present crop of climate models simply assume (a recurring theme in climate science) that the worlds oceans are 100% efficient when it comes to absorbing and emitting energy on the far infrared side of the spectrum.....far infrared defined as 15 - 100 microns. This is important because the peak absorption/emission by the killer greenhouse gas CO2 is......wait for it.......15 microns. Surprise surprise, it turns out that this is not the case at all and according to climate science, this was previously unknown. Imagine that...unknown that the energy supposedly radiated down to the ocean from the cooler atmosphere by CO2 could not be absorbed by the oceans even if it were being radiated down to the warmer ocean.

This paper finds that water is a very poor emitter of far infrared energy and in turn is also a very poor absorber of far infrared. Unsurprisingly, as nature would have it, poor emitters/absorbers of IR energy are very good reflectors of that same IR.

At this point, the $64 dollar question should be why was this previously "unknown" by climate science considering the well known fact that IR can only penetrate a few microns into the surface which means that all the IR from greenhouse gasses absorbed by the oceans is used up causing evaporation which has a cooling effect...not warming.

So, if we take the fact that the oceans are not absorbing IR in the wavelength of killer CO2 along with the fact that the wavelengths of incoming solar radiation can penetrate the oceans up to 100 meters, thinking people will come to the conclusion that any warming happening in the ocean is a result of changes in incoming solar radiation....not changes in a greenhouse gas that has no effect anyway....and if changes in solar radiation are the cause of changes in ocean heat content, then what else are changes in solar radiation responsible for?

The missing heat, isn't missing...it is gone...right out into space as indicated by increased outgoing LW radiation at the top of the atmosphere...it certainly is not in the oceans.

Far-infrared surface emissivity and climate

Couple this with a new paper to be published in Progress in Physics which provides quantitative evidence that emissivity of water vapor which is equal to absorption decreases with temperature increase....the opposite of a blackbody...which by the way, are what climate models assume the earth is....there is that assumption thing again. Us skeptics have been saying for years that climate science is built upon assumption after assumption after assumption...turns out that us skeptics are right.

http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2014/PP-38-05.PDF

Imagine that...unknown that the energy supposedly radiated down to the ocean from the cooler atmosphere by CO2

Supposedly radiated down? LOL! Still stuck on stupid.
Now your claim is that the atmosphere only radiates up?
And during the day, it can't radiate up or down, right?
Man, you're gonna hurt yourself twisting yourself into a pretzel like you do.

 

[mamooth]

Found it. The source of SSDD's latest crankery, that is. It's Hockey Schtick.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK New paper finds a huge false physical assumption of IPCC climate models

 

[Crick]

I wonder they don't see the parallel between absorption distance in air and water. Or that the HockeySchtick authors didn't note the study's authors explicitly stating that this would lead to increased temperatures.

 

[IanC]

I haven't been keeping up for the last few days. Is this paper actually stating that ocean water doesn't emit very much of the exact wavelength that comprises the CO2 greenhouse effect?

Wow!!

So 70% of the Earth's surface has a much smaller GHE than we have been led to believe? This could certainly have major repercussions.

 

[jc456]

I haven't been keeping up for the last few days. Is this paper actually stating that ocean water doesn't emit very much of the exact wavelength that comprises the CO2 greenhouse effect?

Wow!!

So 70% of the Earth's surface has a much smaller GHE than we have been led to believe? This could certainly have major repercussions.

If so, then the absorption rate is either equal to the emissivity or half of the emissivity. Hmmm, so the ocean didn't eat the CO2?

 

[mamooth]

Check it out, the stupid is spreading.

Most cultists, such as the deniers, tend to get crazier as time goes on. As reality keeps intruding into their fantasies, they have to get more detached from reality in order to maintain their faith in the cult.

 

[SSDD]

Check it out, the stupid is spreading.

Most cultists, such as the deniers, tend to get crazier as time goes on. As reality keeps intruding into their fantasies, they have to get more detached from reality in order to maintain their faith in the cult.

Ant the hairball denies another physical law...let's hear it for the true deniers.

 

[Crick]

Let's hear it for the deniers who post studies telling us the GCMs have been underestimating the warming rate.

 

[IanC]

You don't seem to understand the ramifications of this.

If ocean water is not a good emitter or absorber at 15 microns then the main CO2 pathway in the greenhouse effect is tiny at best. Apparently they are saying only land and ice are involved in far LW IR. Do the models say this? Because I have only heard that rougly 8% of surface radiation is in CO2 reactive wavelengths. This seems incompatible with the paper's measurements. Sure, this may be a positive feedback in the arctic but what does it imply for the rest of the oceans?

This reminds me of the paper that said Arctic albedo was lower but when looked at in conjunction with an unchanged worldwide albedo seemingly produced the opposite effect. Small changes in the Arctic minus much larger effects elsewhere do not add up to catastrophe.

Also, the paper's mechanism is the opposite in Antarctica, where the latitude has a much stronger influence on incoming solar.

 

[Crick]

I think the author understands the ramifications better than either of us, particularly since both of us are only working from the Abstract. Do you also believe you see errors he's made?

 

[IanC]

I think the author understands the ramifications better than either of us, particularly since both of us are only working from the Abstract. Do you also believe you see errors he's made?

he has made his point concerning the Arctic. unfortunately for CAGW the same point can be made away from the Arctic for the opposite result, and there is a lot ice free open ocean that apparently has little interaction with the strongest and most individual absorption band of CO2. if there is very little 15 micron IR being radiated from the oceans how can CO2 send it back to the surface to cause warming?

 

[Crick]

If you believe the ocean, with 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water at an average temperature of 3.9C is at thermal equilbrium with the Earth's atmosphere which averages 14C - or with the sun - then you must be using some of that new math.

 

[skookerasbil]

Let's hear it for the deniers who post studies telling us the GCMs have been underestimating the warming rate.

"deniers"

Im laughing.......this term is thrown around very liberally ( no pun intended ) by the AGW climate crusaders.......as if skeptics are some group of lepor-like people!!!

But as the election this past week clearly displayed, the American public could not care less about the warming rate unless it has to do with them avoiding freezing their asses off the next 6 months!!!!

When you get chance to emerge from your bubble one of these days, you'll find that on Tuesday, environmentalists got their clocks cleaned!!!!

But don't take my word for it........ The biggest loser in this election is the climate - Vox

 

[mamooth]

If ocean water is not a good emitter or absorber at 15 microns

Again, you're botching the basic physics.

Reflectivity is what percentage of radiation at a given wavelength bounces off the surface of the substance.

Absorptivity is an average of how far radiation penetrates into a substance, after it has passed through the surface without being reflected.

Absorptivity is not the opposite of reflectivity, as your argument is trying to claim. Low emissivity and absorptivity does not mean high reflectivity. For liquid water, reflectively in the far IR is zero. Liquid water absorbs 100% of the far IR -- that is, the backradiation -- falling on it. End of story.

The whole ocean-atmosphere heat transfer issue is complicated. Here are some discussions on it.

moyhu Can downwelling infrared warm the ocean

Does Back-Radiation 8220 Heat 8221 the Ocean 8211 Part One The Science of Doom

One thing to note is that, while the oceans on average are cold, the cold water is deep down. The surface of the oceans is usually warmer than the atmosphere above it, so the water usually heats the air.

 

[SSDD]

Absorptivity is an average of how far radiation penetrates into a substance, after it has passed through the surface without being reflected.

Sorry, hairball, but you alas, are the one who is confused....The issue here is absorption, not reflectivity. Absorption and emission are related....reflectivity and penetrability are related...but the two sets of relatives really don't have anything to do with each other in the context of the topic...It really doesn't matter if IR can penetrate a substance if the molecules of that substance are unable to absorb the wavelength...

According to the science dictionary...absorptivity is a measure of the ability of a material to absorb radiation....penetrating and absorbing are two entirely different things....sea water is a poor absorber of far IR...the very wavelength that CO2 primarily emits...It really wouldn't matter if the far IR could penetrate further than the 10 microns that it does, sea water is a poor absorber of the wavelength even if it could penetrate 10 miles.

Absorptivity is not the opposite of reflectivity, as your argument is trying to claim. Low emissivity and absorptivity does not mean high reflectivity. For liquid water, reflectively in the far IR is zero. Liquid water absorbs 100% of the far IR -- that is, the backradiation -- falling on it. End of story.

Again, absorptivity and emissivity are different things from reflectivity and penetrability. A poor emitter, which sea water is, is also a poor absorber...by the way, your chart didn't specify that it was relating to sea water, which is what the topic is about...and it didn't go into the far IR wavelengths...also what the topic is about...you have missed the mark entirely.

 

[Crick]

I still fail to see where you have corrected the OP's study which concluded that warming would take place at a greater rate than previously assumed. What fundamental mistake did you find had been made by Daniel R. Feldman, Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, William D. Collins, Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, Robert Pincus, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Xianglei Huang and Xiuhong Chen both of Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, University of Michigan (not to mention their PNAS reviewers)? That they were unfamiliar with Kirchoff's Law? Is that correct?

 

[mamooth]

Sorry, hairball, but you alas, are the one who is confused....The issue here is absorption, not reflectivity.

Reflectivity is really the only issue. If the far IR isn't reflected, it enters the ocean. If it enters the ocean, it is absorbed, almost immediately.

Absorption and emission are related....reflectivity and penetrability are related...but the two sets of relatives really don't have anything to do with each other in the context of the topic...

A glimmer of hope! After much painstaking effort on my part, you've absorbed that much of my teaching. So, let's keep going ...

It really doesn't matter if IR can penetrate a substance if the molecules of that substance are unable to absorb the wavelength...

And here you wander off into more of your famous magical mystery physics. If the IR that penetrates the ocean isn't absorbed, where does it go? Conservation of energy, you're violating it. You've waved your hands and declared that the far IR which penetrated into the ocean simply disappeared without a trace.

Back in the real world, if the far IR penetrates into the ocean, then it all gets absorbed by the ocean. It must be absorbed, because of conservation of energy. Absorptivity only defines how deep it goes before it gets absorbed.

According to the science dictionary...absorptivity is a measure of the ability of a material to absorb radiation....

Incomplete. All matter eventually absorbs all radiation traveling through it, given enough distance and density. Absorptivity specifies the decadal attenuation factor for a given distance and molar density. In contrast, reflectivity is a dimensionless fraction

penetrating and absorbing are two entirely different things....sea water is a poor absorber of far IR...the very wavelength that CO2 primarily emits...

Again, totally wrong. Water has a reflectivity of zero in the far IR. All of the far IR falling on seawater penetrates into it. Therefore, all of the far IR falling on seawater is absorbed.

Let's do the math concerning how deep it goes before being absorbed.

Absorptivity of water at the 10 micron wavelength is about 4x10^3 /m /molar density. Molar density of water at normal density is 1000/18 = 55/liter. So, absorptivity is 2.2x10^5 /m. That is, it takes a path length of 22 microns in water to absorb 90% of a 10 micron wavelength.

This is all basic physics that has been know for damn near forever. Quit trying to revise it.

It really wouldn't matter if the far IR could penetrate further than the 10 microns that it does, sea water is a poor absorber of the wavelength even if it could penetrate 10 miles.

Again, that's lunatic babbling on your part, being that it so openly and proudly violates conservation of energy.

Again, absorptivity and emissivity are different things from reflectivity and penetrability. A poor emitter, which sea water is, is also a poor absorber...by the way,

"Poor absorber" is relative. It just means "path length of 22 microns" instead of "path length of 22 picometers."

your chart didn't specify that it was relating to sea water, which is what the topic is about...and it didn't go into the far IR wavelengths...also what the topic is about...you have missed the mark entirely.

You're flailing blindly now. Water absorbs 100% in the far IR. You come across as a delusional cult kook for even trying to pretend otherwise.

If your cult demands that you regularly humiliate yourself in this manner by pretending to believe such stupidity, do you really want to be associated with it?