Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

[IanC]

Look at it from the outside. At the very least from equilibrium, higher temperatures must produce greater outgoing LW.

but the earth hasn't been getting warmer...not for a couple of decades while outgoing LW goes right on increasing.

The Earth HAS been getting warmer. I know you love to ignore the oceans, but doing so will, in the end, get you worse than all wet.

explain in your own words why you think higher surface temperature must translate into more outgoing LW radiation.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://kiwi.atmos.colostate.edu/group/dave/at605pdf/Chapter_2.pdf

The temperature of the Earth’s surface varies strongly and rapidly over land, and
considerably less over the oceans. The reason for this difference between land and sea will be
discussed below, in the subsection on the surface heat capacity.
The oceans cover about two thirds of the Earth’s surface. Their average depth is about 4
km. Water is heavy stuff; the mass of 1 m3 of water is 103 kg. The mass of the oceans is about 1.3
x 1021 kg. For comparison, the mass of the atmosphere is about 250 times less, roughly 5 x 1018
kg.
Not only is water dense, it has a very high specific heat: about 4200 J kg-1 K-1 . In contrast,
the specific heat of air (at constant pressure) is a little less than a quarter of that, i.e., 1000
J kg-1 K-1 . The total heat capacity of the oceans is thus about 1000 times larger (250 x 4) than the
total heat capacity of the atmosphere. When the oceans say “Jump,” the atmosphere says “How
high?”

An interesting discussion, a long arcticle, on heat in the atmosphere and oceans, its transport and radiative balance. However, as it pertains to ice thinning of continental ice caps and Arctic Sea ice, the above paragraphs, and the graph below, tell the primary story.
...................................................................................
Figure 2: OHCA curves produced using the same mapping technique.

Solid lines are OHCA curves with a single 1993–2002 climatology and variously corrected XBT data provided by individual research teams. Dashed and dotted lines show the same thing as the solid lines, but using a single 2005–2008 climato
.........................................................................................................

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/full/nature09043.html

 

[IanC]

The Earth gets warmer, outgoing LW will increase.

I will ask you again. why do you think that a warmer world will increase outgoing LW?

I responded to your statement with-

TOA radiation depends on solar input. surface temperature depends on how that solar energy travels through the system.

I want to know why you think there will be more LW leaving the Earth. just a few sentences in your own words to give us the gist of your reasoning.

 

[SSDD]

The Earth gets warmer, outgoing LW will increase.

I will ask you again. why do you think that a warmer world will increase outgoing LW?

I responded to your statement with-

TOA radiation depends on solar input. surface temperature depends on how that solar energy travels through the system.

I want to know why you think there will be more LW leaving the Earth. just a few sentences in your own words to give us the gist of your reasoning.

Because he actually believes that CO2 multiplies energy but is just to embarrassed to admit it.

 

[Crick]

 

[SSDD]

And you think that proves that CO2 multiplies energy?

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid.

It explains why LW increases as the Earth warms

 

[IanC]

God are you stupid.

It explains why LW increases as the Earth warms

and you think the extra LW from the surface leaves the Earth? explain.

 

[Crick]

As you yourself just stated, greenhouse gases only SLOW the transmission of IR to space, they don't stop it. Obviously, I'm talking about equilibrium states here.

 

[IanC]

As you yourself just stated, greenhouse gases only SLOW the transmission of IR to space, they don't stop it. Obviously, I'm talking about equilibrium states here.

no, I'm asking you why you think more LW leaves when surface temperatures go up. does this mean you think less SW leaves?

you are not really making any sense. that's why I asked you to explain what you mean.

 

[SSDD]

As you yourself just stated, greenhouse gases only SLOW the transmission of IR to space, they don't stop it. Obviously, I'm talking about equilibrium states here.

But you said that you believe that LW from the atmosphere actually warms the surface of the earth..that means you not only believe that CO2 stops outgoing LW, you believe it actually sends it back to the surface of the earth to be absorbed and create warming.

 

[Crick]

When you think you have something clever and informative to post, save all of us a great deal of time and just type "Duh".

 

[IanC]

As you yourself just stated, greenhouse gases only SLOW the transmission of IR to space, they don't stop it. Obviously, I'm talking about equilibrium states here.

no, I'm asking you why you think more LW leaves when surface temperatures go up. does this mean you think less SW leaves?

you are not really making any sense. that's why I asked you to explain what you mean.

are you incapable of explaining your statement?

or have you given it more thought and found out that you screwed up?

or perhaps you can't find either your statement or my question. will you be sending a note from your wife excusing your behaviour again?

 

[SSDD]

When you think you have something clever and informative to post, save all of us a great deal of time and just type "Duh".

So now you don't think that CO2 absorbs LW and emits it back to the surface to be reabsorbed and create warming? You say you don't believe it turns LW around then you say you do believe it turns LW around. You sound like typical climate science it causes it id doesn't cause it...it causes it...it doesn't cause it.

US is having far fewer heatwaves

US is having more heatwaves

It never ends for pseudoscience, does it?

 

[Crick]

Says the man who quotes nothing but blogs and scandal sheets.

 

[SSDD]

Says the man who quotes nothing but blogs and scandal sheets.

Which is it crick....do you believe that CO2 slows down the escape of LW from the atmosphere, or do you believe it turns some of it around and sends it back to the surface of the earth to be absorbed and cause warming...You claimed the IPCC as the source of your belief, but seem to be contradicting yourself at every turn....typical of warmers...and climate science in general...you must keep changing your story and stance or look like the complete fool you are for believing in the first place. Which is it? Describe which version of the greenhouse effect you ascribe to....as there are many....more evidence of how poorly science understands the physics in question.

 

[Crick]

Which is it crick....do you believe that CO2 slows down the escape of LW from the atmosphere, or do you believe it turns some of it around and sends it back to the surface of the earth to be absorbed and cause warming...

Do you WONDER why I keep expressing amazement at your ignorance? What in god's name makes you think it can't do both? In fact, doing one thing is how the other is accomplished.

You claimed the IPCC as the source of your belief, but seem to be contradicting yourself at every turn....typical of warmers...and climate science in general...you must keep changing your story and stance or look like the complete fool you are for believing in the first place.

I still hold the IPCC to be the most qualified source of climate and global warming information. I am quite certain that their conclusions are the likeliest to be correct.

Which is it? Describe which version of the greenhouse effect you ascribe to....as there are many....more evidence of how poorly science understands the physics in question.

You are a complete idiot.

 

[IanC]

since Crick will not defend his statements, I will have to explain the situation and show why his comments are wrong.

the vastly simplifed (and incorrect) version of the greenhouse gas effect that the warmers put forward goes like this. extra CO2 in the atmosphere intercepts more 15micron IR from the surface, and because half of it is re-emitted back towards the surface, the surface warms up. supposedly this extra rebounded energy is now missing from the TOA (top of atmosphere) energy balance of [solar energy in minus SW +IR out]. as the surface warms up it produces more IR which compensates for IR held at the surface by CO2.

the problem with this in regards to Crick's statement is that CO2 causes a deficit at TOA which is slowly compensated for by a slowly increasing surface temp. but we are still pumping more CO2 into the air and the surface temp is not rising anywhere close to the expected amount. the actual amount of IR should be decreasing not increasing.

again- energy balance is solar in, minus SW and IR out. if the solar input is more than the other side there will be warming. if it is less then there will be cooling. you can play around with the three variables in many ways, which is why I asked Crick if he thought short wave out was decreasing. IR could increase with a balanced energy budget but only if SW decreased.

in my opinion the most likely scenario is that IR has decreased slightly, with an even smaller increase in SW out, leading to a miniscule budget surplus that will heat the globe somewhat. unfortunately our instruments are incapable of the precision necessary to prise these small effects out of the noise and natural variability.

 

[Crick]

Let's say, hypothetically, that CO2 emissions are reduced to the point that atmospheric levels stabilize permanently at 400 ppm. What happens? I think there's a name for it. It's called EQUILIBRIUM. And what happens to the difference between in and out at equilibrium Ian? Why, they're equal. At the moment (and for the last 150 years), in has been greater than out. To get to equilibrium out will increase (with rising temps).

Get it?

 

[IanC]

Let's say, hypothetically, that CO2 emissions are reduced to the point that atmospheric levels stabilize permanently at 400 ppm. What happens? I think there's a name for it. It's called EQUILIBRIUM. And what happens to the difference between in and out at equilibrium Ian? Why, they're equal. At the moment (and for the last 150 years), in has been greater than out. To get to equilibrium out will increase (with rising temps).

Get it?

I get that we are still pumping out CO2 at the same furious pace. where is the equilibrium there? with no, or little surface warming?

do you think that more IR is escaping now? what dataset are you using. if more IR is escaping does that mean we are already on the road to recovery? you never add much in the way of details to your comments.