Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

[Crick]

Do you think we are NOT moving towards equilibrium? It's what the universe is ALWAYS doing Ian. I think they call it the Second Law.

 

[Crick]

More IR is leaving because the Earth IS still getting warmer. It is NOT leaving at the rate at which our absolute temperature requires because we are not at equilibrium.

 

[IanC]

Do you think we are NOT moving towards equilibrium? It's what the universe is ALWAYS doing Ian. I think they call it the Second Law.

so CO2 is now causing less of an imbalance than before even though it is still rising 'exponentially'?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More IR is leaving because the Earth IS still getting warmer. It is NOT leaving at the rate at which our absolute temperature requires because we are not at equilibrium.

...and that's caused by the 2ppm of CO2 added last year?

Yeah?

 

[IanC]

More IR is leaving because the Earth IS still getting warmer. It is NOT leaving at the rate at which our absolute temperature requires because we are not at equilibrium.

you guys just dont get it. the surface temperature DOESN'T MATTER! the only thing that matters is how much incoming energy minus how much outgoing energy.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Little or no surface warming? What the hell do you call this;

The oceans are warming so fast they keep breaking scientists charts John Abraham Environment The Guardian

The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts


NOAA once again has to rescale its ocean heat chart to capture 2014 ocean warming

Ocean heat content data to a depth of 2,000 meters, from NOAA.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Little or no surface warming? What the hell do you call this;

The oceans are warming so fast they keep breaking scientists charts John Abraham Environment The Guardian

The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts


NOAA once again has to rescale its ocean heat chart to capture 2014 ocean warming

Ocean heat content data to a depth of 2,000 meters, from NOAA.

The oceans are warming at a slower rate than they were in the 70's. They have been warming for 150 years but the rate of warming is slowing...why is that?

 

[IanC]

Crick- have you had enough time to think about it?

Do you understand that it is the simple equation of energy in minus energy out at the TOA that matters?

If LW out is increasing (without SW out decreasing) then the Earth is warming less or cooling more. There are no other options.

If we are warming less, and CO2 is still increasing, where does that leave CO2 theory? Care to explain your position? No? I thought not.

 

[Crick]

More IR is leaving because the Earth IS still getting warmer. It is NOT leaving at the rate at which our absolute temperature requires because we are not at equilibrium.

you guys just dont get it. the surface temperature DOESN'T MATTER! the only thing that matters is how much incoming energy minus how much outgoing energy.

When I say "the Earth", I mean the whole kit and caboodle.

Why do you keep ignoring the issue of equilibrium?

 

[SSDD]

Crick- have you had enough time to think about it?

Do you understand that it is the simple equation of energy in minus energy out at the TOA that matters?

If LW out is increasing (without SW out decreasing) then the Earth is warming less or cooling more. There are no other options.

If we are warming less, and CO2 is still increasing, where does that leave CO2 theory? Care to explain your position? No? I thought not.

He has backed himself into a corner and his gyrations and mental gymnastics in an effort to get out of it are a delight to watch.

 

[IanC]

More IR is leaving because the Earth IS still getting warmer. It is NOT leaving at the rate at which our absolute temperature requires because we are not at equilibrium.

you guys just dont get it. the surface temperature DOESN'T MATTER! the only thing that matters is how much incoming energy minus how much outgoing energy.

When I say "the Earth", I mean the whole kit and caboodle.

Why do you keep ignoring the issue of equilibrium?

More IR is leaving because the Earth IS still getting warmer. It is NOT leaving at the rate at which our absolute temperature requires because we are not at equilibrium.

you guys just dont get it. the surface temperature DOESN'T MATTER! the only thing that matters is how much incoming energy minus how much outgoing energy.

When I say "the Earth", I mean the whole kit and caboodle.

Why do you keep ignoring the issue of equilibrium?

It is you who is ignoring the one basic equilibrium. Everything else is just the pathways that solar energy takes to leave the Earth.

You neglected to answer my question on increased outgoing LW. Does it mean the Earth is warming less or not? Please explain your position with respect to the ongoing increase in CO2.

 

[Crick]

An increase in outgoing LW would indicate that the Earth (all of it) is getting warmer. I have already stated this repeatedly. What do you think such a thing would indicate? That the Earth is getting cooler or that the atmosphere is becoming more transparent to IR?

 

[IanC]

An increase in outgoing LW would indicate that the Earth (all of it) is getting warmer. I have already stated this repeatedly. What do you think such a thing would indicate? That the Earth is getting cooler or that the atmosphere is becoming more transparent to IR?

I find it difficult to debate with someone who cannot grasp the basics.

Consider the hypothetical case where Earth is at TOA equilibrium. Add CO2. Less LW gets through the atmosphere and that energy is added to heatsink, raising temps in various places or changing the pathways (also heatsinks but not necessarily temperature changes). Warmer surface temps produce more LW and a percentage of that gets through the atmosphere and raises the LW until it approaches the perfect equilibrium again. The longwave was always decreased, and only moving back to equilibrium.

If LW is increasing that means we are warming less and less because there is no longer as much need to get back to equilibrium. Starting to get it yet?

Because we are continually adding CO2 the LW should also be decreasing. Any increase in outgoing LW means we are getting closer to equilibrium and warming less.

 

[Crick]

An increase in outgoing LW would indicate that the Earth (all of it) is getting warmer. I have already stated this repeatedly. What do you think such a thing would indicate? That the Earth is getting cooler or that the atmosphere is becoming more transparent to IR?

I find it difficult to debate with someone who cannot grasp the basics.

As do I.

Consider the hypothetical case where Earth is at TOA equilibrium.

And thus in and out are equal across the TOA and neither are changing.

Add CO2. Less LW gets through the atmosphere and that energy is added to heatsink, raising temps in various places or changing the pathways (also heatsinks but not necessarily temperature changes).

LW is not blocked, it is delayed. The atmosphere becomes a holding tank for LW energy. Once equilibrium is reattained, the rate at which LW is leaving the planet will have increased because the equilibrium temperature is now higher than before you added CO2.

If you raise the temperature of the Earth, the Earth will radiate more LW. If you had equilibrium and instantly added CO2, you would instantly decrease outgoing LW and begin increasing the temperature of the Earth. As that temperature increased, the amount of outgoing LW would increase until, when equilibrium was reached, it would STOP increasing.

Warmer surface temps produce more LW and a percentage of that gets through the atmosphere and raises the LW until it approaches the perfect equilibrium again.

Yes, increasing temperatures increase outgoing LW.

The longwave was always decreased, and only moving back to equilibrium.

You're missing the point that the equilibrium temperature has increased and thus the Earth's heat content at equilibrium will also be increased.

There are two processes taking place here simultaneously. Increasing levels of GHGs are S L O W I N G the rate at which LW is crossing the ToA. That deceleration increases both the amount of thermal energy held in the atmosphere and the value of the equilibrium temperature. Both of those changes accelerate the rate of emission across the ToA. But these are all internal processes. If we restrict ourselves to two observations: the average temperature of the entire Earth and the rate at which LW is leaving, we will always see that increasing temperatures increase outgoing LW, no matter where we are wrt equilbrium.

Our deviation from equilibrium will control the imbalance between in and out which will in turn control the acceleration of those rates.

If LW is increasing that means we are warming less and less because there is no longer as much need to get back to equilibrium. Starting to get it yet?

I am starting to see that you do not.

As we approach equilibrium, the acceleration of the outgoing LW rate approaches ZERO.

Because we are continually adding CO2 the LW should also be decreasing.

The amount of LW produced by the Earth is a function of it's temperature. CO2 levels determine how much of that emitted energy is held in the atmosphere. More CO2 means more energy held in the atmosphere and that means higher temperatures. Higher temperatures radiate more LW.

Any increase in outgoing LW means we are getting closer to equilibrium and warming less.

As the Earth's temperature increases, it's emission of LW will increase. As that temperature approaches the equilibrium point set by the sun and our GHG levels, the acceleration of LW emissions will approach zero; it will STOP increasing.

 

[IanC]

CO2 absorbs 15 micron LW at the surface boundary and converts it into atmospheric energy. The warmer atmosphere decreases the surface's ability to shed energy by radiation, therefore the surface warms. Once you get past the extinction distance for 15 micron LW (about 10 meters) the only new 15 micron radiation comes from blackbody radiation produced by atmospheric molecular collisions.

Do you have a link to a source that says 15 micron IR only gets absorbed and re-emitted until it finally escapes? Why do the graphs show a missing chunk at 15 microns?

The time between collisions is much shorter than the time it takes for CO2 to absorb and re-emit. Especially at surface densities.

I'll look at the rest of your comment later.

 

[IanC]

Crick- you are correct in saying that the amount of energy sequestered in heatsinks has increased after the addition of CO2. That energy is what powers increased surface temps, convection etc. It will not increase TOA LW past the equilibrium point. What would increase LW (or SW) is the case of the heatsinks releasing energy, which would mean cooling or some other loss of energy in the heatsinks.

 

[Crick]

CO2 absorbs 15 micron LW at the surface boundary and converts it into atmospheric energy. The warmer atmosphere decreases the surface's ability to shed energy by radiation, therefore the surface warms. Once you get past the extinction distance for 15 micron LW (about 10 meters) the only new 15 micron radiation comes from blackbody radiation produced by atmospheric molecular collisions.

Do you have a link to a source that says 15 micron IR only gets absorbed and re-emitted until it finally escapes? Why do the graphs show a missing chunk at 15 microns?

The time between collisions is much shorter than the time it takes for CO2 to absorb and re-emit. Especially at surface densities.

I'll look at the rest of your comment later.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to change the subject.

 

[IanC]

CO2 absorbs 15 micron LW at the surface boundary and converts it into atmospheric energy. The warmer atmosphere decreases the surface's ability to shed energy by radiation, therefore the surface warms. Once you get past the extinction distance for 15 micron LW (about 10 meters) the only new 15 micron radiation comes from blackbody radiation produced by atmospheric molecular collisions.

Do you have a link to a source that says 15 micron IR only gets absorbed and re-emitted until it finally escapes? Why do the graphs show a missing chunk at 15 microns?

The time between collisions is much shorter than the time it takes for CO2 to absorb and re-emit. Especially at surface densities.

I'll look at the rest of your comment later.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to change the subject.

I am addressing your belief that the 15 micron IR that CO2 interacts with almost exclusively (the other gases do not) is simply passed along from one molecule to the next until it escapes. it does not. it is absorbed and thermalized almost immediately. the amount of 15 micron radiation that actually escapes is minimal, as per the absorption and emission graphs that you like to post up

 

[Crick]

Crick- you are correct in saying that the amount of energy sequestered in heatsinks has increased after the addition of CO2. That energy is what powers increased surface temps, convection etc.

Thank you

It will not increase TOA LW past the equilibrium point.

I never said it would.

What would increase LW (or SW) is the case of the heatsinks releasing energy, which would mean cooling or some other loss of energy in the heatsinks.

Ian, you're starting to sound like some of your less rational cruising buddies. "What would increase LW would be if we had a giant Westinghouse oven cranked up high" Do you have some mechanism that would cause the atmosphere to start releasing heat all by itself? If so you've probably got a Nobel prize coming to you and a fortune as you replace the world's refrigerators and A/C units.

 

[Crick]

CO2 absorbs 15 micron LW at the surface boundary and converts it into atmospheric energy. The warmer atmosphere decreases the surface's ability to shed energy by radiation, therefore the surface warms. Once you get past the extinction distance for 15 micron LW (about 10 meters) the only new 15 micron radiation comes from blackbody radiation produced by atmospheric molecular collisions.

Do you have a link to a source that says 15 micron IR only gets absorbed and re-emitted until it finally escapes? Why do the graphs show a missing chunk at 15 microns?

The time between collisions is much shorter than the time it takes for CO2 to absorb and re-emit. Especially at surface densities.

I'll look at the rest of your comment later.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to change the subject.

I am addressing your belief that the 15 micron IR that CO2 interacts with almost exclusively (the other gases do not) is simply passed along from one molecule to the next until it escapes. it does not. it is absorbed and thermalized almost immediately. the amount of 15 micron radiation that actually escapes is minimal, as per the absorption and emission graphs that you like to post up

Where did you get the idea that "thermalizing" the energy of a photon would prevent a molecule from emitting it sometime later? The filament in an incadescent light bulb 'thermalizes" a great deal of the energy passing through it. What does IT do with that energy?