Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

[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.

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.

a simple example is the fact that the atmosphere puffs up during daylight hours, storing energy as gravitational potential. at night the atmosphere gives up this potential energy. this heatsink moderates the temperature differences between day and night. is this the type of example you were looking for?

it is far easier to recognize atmospheric interference in SW. clouds can reflect solar, which both decreases energy entering the deep layers and increases the SW leaving. your reference to an air conditioner is apt. surface energy is the source of evaporation, which powers convection, which leads to cloud formation. this is a much more efficient pathway to lift energy past the surface boundary than is radiation. it is interesting that both the formation of clouds, and the timing of the formation have an effect on energy loss to space.

 

[Crick]

I missed where you overshot equilibrium.

 

[IanC]

I missed where you overshot equilibrium.

I missed where you tried to make a coherent description of what you believe to be happening. care to point it out for me? I have certainly tried to find areas of agreement, and when I disagreed I gave a reason why. you could show the same courtesy

 

[Crick]

How many times have I stated that my position on all these matters may be found at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

And, I'm sorry, but comments such as how difficult it is for you to talk with people who don't get the basics and asking me if I'm starting to get [your incorrect point] do not come across as attempts to find areas of agreement.

 

[IanC]

How many times have I stated that my position on all these matters may be found at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

And, I'm sorry, but comments such as how difficult it is for you to talk with people who don't get the basics and asking me if I'm starting to get [your incorrect point] do not come across as attempts to find areas of agreement.

As you wish. The IPCC uses a point less than the TOA to make its calculations which screws up the whole equilibrium thing. Carry on then.

 

[jc456]

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.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz paaaaalease

 

[Crick]

Paaaalease what?

 

[Crick]

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.

Were they? I'm glad you enjoyed them. Did you enjoy Ian admitting I was correct?

Thought not.

 

[IanC]

Up until about 2013 Old Rocks was not just claiming that global temps were rising but that the warming was accelerating. Now that everyone knows about the pause he has turned to ocean warming at depth. What he fails to tell is that the last decade has seen increases of thousands of a degree at 2000 meters, hundredths of a degree at 700 meters, and tenths close to the surface. If you trust that ARGO buoys are that accurate at one buoy per 140,000 cubic km of water.

 

[Muhammed]

It is already too late to do anything. We have already gone off the cliff. Even if it were not, those who could do something have too much invested in the status quo to do anything. Those who currently deny anything is actually happening will continue to do so until it is undeniable, and then blame those who told them it was happening for not doing something about it. Human behavior is entirely predictable.

Got any proof of that?

 

[IanC]

Only crick could spin the last five pages of me showing him where he was wrong into an admission that he was right because I agreed with one thing he said, and that he only said by accident not insight.

 

[Muhammed]

Folks just love to keep their heads buried in the sand. Eventually, there will be plenty of it for everyone.

Spoken like a brainwashed fool.

 

[Muhammed]

 

[Crick]

Only crick could spin the last five pages of me showing him where he was wrong into an admission that he was right because I agreed with one thing he said, and that he only said by accident not insight.

Your core point, that increasing LW meant we were approaching equilibrium was 180 degrees out.

Your contention that some mechanism was causing the atmosphere to shed energy was nonsense.

The conversation is still present if anyone would like to review it. No spin, just facts.

 

[IanC]

Earth's energy budget consists of solar in, minus (shortwave and longwave out). Surely there is no argument there. Solar is considered constant. That leaves SW and LW out as the variables. CO2 theory involves LW almost exclusively so we can consider SW out as constant too.

Any deviation from equilibrium will cause warming or cooling. It is presumed that increased CO2 has blocked 0.85watts per square meter of long wave radiation from escaping at the top of the atmosphere which leads to warming in the pathways below TOA. Are we still in agreement?

As long as there is blocked LW there will be warming. If the surface and atmosphere warm up enough to produce enough LW to force 0.85w more out into space then the Earth will once again be in equilibrium. The surface and atmosphere will still be warmer than before the extra CO2 blocked 0.85w but the system will be back in equilibrium. Are we still in agreement?

Any increase from the deficit of 0.85w will cause less warming, and indeed any increase of LW more than 0.85w will cause cooling. Is that concept clear?

Crick believes the extra LW produced by surface warming will still be present all the way through the atmosphere and finally escape. This is obviously not true because the radiation affected by CO2 is missing for the most part in spectrographs taken by satellites at the TOA.

QED

Crick doesn't have a fucking clue.

 

[Crick]

Missing? Where do you think it went?

 

[IanC]

Missing? Where do you think it went?

I know where it went. You are the one who seems ignorant as to what happens. As is shown by your reluctance to actually put down your thoughts, and when you do, it's wrong.

 

[Crick]

Earth's energy budget consists of solar in, minus (shortwave and longwave out). Surely there is no argument there.

Nothing significant.

Solar is considered constant.

No, it's not. But we can do so.

That leaves SW and LW out as the variables. CO2 theory involves LW almost exclusively so we can consider SW out as constant too.

If we want to.

Any deviation from equilibrium will cause warming or cooling.

Here is a problem of yours. You made the same sort of statements in our earlier discussion. No system will move away from equilibrium. Systems always move towards their equilibrium. EQUILIBRIUM moves away from the system. Tell me you understand that.

It is presumed that increased CO2 has blocked 0.85watts per square meter of long wave radiation from escaping at the top of the atmosphere which leads to warming in the pathways below TOA. Are we still in agreement?

No. CO2 doesn't block IR. It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.

As long as there is blocked LW there will be warming. If the surface and atmosphere warm up enough to produce enough LW to force 0.85w more out into space then the Earth will once again be in equilibrium.

Equilibrium is a state whose parameters are defined by the physical characteristics of the system. Change the system and you change the equilibrium state.

The surface and atmosphere will still be warmer than before the extra CO2 blocked 0.85w but the system will be back in equilibrium. Are we still in agreement?

The system will be warmer but it will be back in equilibrium. The system became warmer because the equilibrium temperature increased.

Any increase from the deficit of 0.85w will cause less warming

If you mean, the rate of warming slows as the system approaches equilibrium, I agree. However, this is the opposite of what you said earlier and a point on which I clearly corrected you.

and indeed any increase of LW more than 0.85w will cause cooling. Is that concept clear?

No, and I'm becoming less and less impressed with your smarts Ian. If the equilibrium state has not changed from the +0.85w/m2 that you posited in the beginning, temperatures will not exceed that value. As you yourself just said, warming slows as equilibrium approaches. The system cannot overshoot it. The temperature parameter of the equilibrium state space can be increased which will cause the system to be driven towards a new, warmer state, but it cannot be driven past equilibrium. Ever.

Crick believes the extra LW produced by surface warming will still be present all the way through the atmosphere and finally escape.

Is English a second language for you?

This is obviously not true because the radiation affected by CO2 is missing for the most part in spectrographs taken by satellites at the TOA.

It is not "missing". It is reduced.

This is a graph of the change in spectra between 1970 and 1998. There is a drop in the brightness at frequencies absorbed by CO2 and methane but it is not "missing".

QED

Crick doesn't have a fucking clue.

Fuck you Ian. This conversation is over.

 

[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.

Were they? I'm glad you enjoyed them. Did you enjoy Ian admitting I was correct?

Thought not.

Correct in your own mind....certainly not in reality. You are still hopping and dodging and refusing to say what you think...clearly because you know it would be a terrible embarrassment if you actually said it.

 

[SSDD]

No. CO2 doesn't block IR. It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.

You said that you believe CO2 sends IR back to the surface of the earth to be reabsorbed and cause warming....now you just think it slows it down. You keep changing your story....why? Which is it, does CO2 slow down outgoing LW or does it send it back to the surface to be reabsorbed to cause warming?