Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Stop discussing each other please and stick to the topic

 

[Crick]

Making Progress on Crick? He wont even admit that he has no empirical evidence to support his religion.. He must be sick..

Well he made the comment without realizing that AR5 bases its "the oceans ate my warming" conclusion on the concept of "Excess heat" So as soon as I pointed out to him that excess heat is important to AR5, he started dialing back his ridicule of the concept.

I read AR5, Crick --not so much

Let's see some AR5 Frank.

"About 93% of the excess heat energy stored by the Earth over the last 50 years is found in the ocean..." p 260

"The Earth is absorbing more heat than it is emitting back into space, and nearly all this excess heat is entering the oceans and being stored there...." p 266

"Excess heat or cold entering at the ocean surface (top curvy red arrows) also mixes slowly downward (sub-surface wavy red arrows)." -- p 267

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Need more? Fairly obvious to everyone now that you never read AR5, isn't it?

No. But it's fairly obvious to everyone here that you haven't the brains god give a rubber duck.

Right, Crick. But I read AR5, why didn't you?

You didn't read squat. You did a text search.

What is AR5's special meaning for "excess heat" Frank?

Did you notice that they also used the terms "Earth", space, oceans, stored, surface, curvy red arrows and slowly downward. Are those all scientific terms to which climate science has assigned special and unique definitions?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well he made the comment without realizing that AR5 bases its "the oceans ate my warming" conclusion on the concept of "Excess heat" So as soon as I pointed out to him that excess heat is important to AR5, he started dialing back his ridicule of the concept.

I read AR5, Crick --not so much

Let's see some AR5 Frank.

"About 93% of the excess heat energy stored by the Earth over the last 50 years is found in the ocean..." p 260

"The Earth is absorbing more heat than it is emitting back into space, and nearly all this excess heat is entering the oceans and being stored there...." p 266

"Excess heat or cold entering at the ocean surface (top curvy red arrows) also mixes slowly downward (sub-surface wavy red arrows)." -- p 267

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Need more? Fairly obvious to everyone now that you never read AR5, isn't it?

No. But it's fairly obvious to everyone here that you haven't the brains god give a rubber duck.

Right, Crick. But I read AR5, why didn't you?

You didn't read squat. You did a text search.

What is AR5's special meaning for "excess heat" Frank?

Did you notice that they also used the terms "Earth", space, oceans, stored, surface, curvy red arrows and slowly downward. Are those all scientific terms to which climate science has assigned special and unique definitions?

Did you not read my OP, Moonbat?

Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Crick]

SSDD, tell us, is the thermal energy near the surface of the oceans being sorted by origin? Does the ocean only allow absorbed LWIR to perform evaporation? Is that how that works?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick, thanks for giving me an opportunity to highlight the difference between us, I read AR5, you just took it all on faith

 

[Crick]

The differences between us need no highlighting. It's been obvious since the point at which you first posted here to the present that your grasp of science is one of the weakest here.

Would you care to answer the question I put to SSDD? Does the water at the ocean's surface sort thermal energy by its origin?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The differences between us need no highlighting. It's been obvious since the point at which you first posted here to the present that your grasp of science is one of the weakest here.

Would you care to answer the question I put to SSDD? Does the water at the ocean's surface sort thermal energy by its origin?

I'm still stuck in this imaginary excess heat that supposedly overcame the pause

 

[SSDD]

The differences between us need no highlighting. It's been obvious since the point at which you first posted here to the present that your grasp of science is one of the weakest here.

Would you care to answer the question I put to SSDD? Does the water at the ocean's surface sort thermal energy by its origin?

Actually crick...the more proper explanation is that it is "sorted" (your word, not mine) by its frequency. You know...ocean water being very poor absorber of LW in the primary emission frequency of CO2.

 

[SSDD]

The differences between us need no highlighting. It's been obvious since the point at which you first posted here to the present that your grasp of science is one of the weakest here.

Would you care to answer the question I put to SSDD? Does the water at the ocean's surface sort thermal energy by its origin?

I'm still stuck in this imaginary excess heat that supposedly overcame the pause

I am waiting on a description of the mechanism that caused it to switch from warming the atmosphere to the ocean in 1998. Are they saying that the atmosphere got as hot as it could be around that time and the "excess" heat had no where to go but the ocean?...how does that work?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Increased evaporation means water is getting cooler?

Put a pan of water on your stove and turn on the heat. When evaporation is really pouring out of the water, stick your hand into the water and see how cool it is.

IN the case if LWIR which heats only the first 50 microns, it allows faster evaporation of the surface tension waters, this cools them. Evaporation takes heat to accomplish the change from a solid to a vapor. The laws of thermal dynamics is not your firend.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Even Crick admitted that "Excess heat" was a fiction and didn't make any sense

Making Progress on Crick? He wont even admit that he has no empirical evidence to support his religion.. He must be sick..

Making progress on your claim to have a degree in atmospheric physics?

Did you get albedo all figured out?

Did you actually read Cook et al's abstract?

Were you aware that greater than 97% of publishing climate scientists accept that the primary cause of the global warming witnessed over the last century is human activity: GHG emissions and deforestation?

Did you realize that your only explanation for that warming is to claim that it hasn't actually taken place? Did you realize how well that fits with the meme of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand?

Your 97% bull shit is a lie and a fabrication. You tout it all the time and we tell you its bull shit every time. WE even show you empirical evidence and papers who looked into the Cook Et Al lie and you choose to bury your head in your ass.

You make false claims all the time. When your questioned about them you run and hide. Then you place taunting crap in your sig line which is a flat out lie you cant hope to prove. Then you use red, in violation of this forums rules to spout your lie.

Grow Up!

You wont even answer the questions I have given you supported by empirical evidence, showing how CO2 can not be doing what you claim..

Crick, you are a liar and a fool.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Even Crick admitted that "Excess heat" was a fiction and didn't make any sense

Making Progress on Crick? He wont even admit that he has no empirical evidence to support his religion.. He must be sick..

Making progress on your claim to have a degree in atmospheric physics?

Did you get albedo all figured out?

Did you actually read Cook et al's abstract?

Were you aware that greater than 97% of publishing climate scientists accept that the primary cause of the global warming witnessed over the last century is human activity: GHG emissions and deforestation?

Did you realize that your only explanation for that warming is to claim that it hasn't actually taken place? Did you realize how well that fits with the meme of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand?

Your 97% bull shit is a lie and a fabrication. You tout it all the time and we tell you its bull shit every time. WE even show you empirical evidence and papers who looked into the Cook Et Al lie and you choose to bury your head in your ass.

You make false claims all the time. When your questioned about them you run and hide. Then you place taunting crap in your sig line which is a flat out lie you cant hope to prove. Then you use red, in violation of this forums rules to spout your lie.

Grow Up!

You wont even answer the questions I have given you supported by empirical evidence, showing how CO2 can not be doing what you claim..

Crick, you are a liar and a fool.

Even Goebbels would be embarrassed by the 97% Big Lie

 

[Crick]

So, how do you two explain the numbers in Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia? Are all those studies just manufactured lies?

You know, it doesn't seem like doing a poll or a survey is all that difficult. People do them all the time. Surely Heartland or the Koch brothers could afford to do an honest one. Where is it?

Let me guess, in a locked steel box with the confessions of the folks manipulating the temperature data.

 

[Crick]

While we're at it: where is the GCM that successfully reproduces the 20th century temperature patterns without AGW?

 

[Crick]

While we're at that, and in an attempt to return to the thread topic, have any of you come up with an explanation as to how the water at the ocean's very surface is able to differentiate between thermal energy by source to make certain that all the IR energy (and none of the SW or conducted or convected energy) goes into evaporation AS THE FUCKING THREAD TITLE (COMPOSED BY SOMEONE THAT CLAIMS TO HAVE "A DEGREE IN ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS") ASSERTS?

And while we're at that, have any of you tried the suggested experiment where you cause, say, half of a pot of water to evaporate by adding heat energy to it on your kitchen stove and then sticking your hand in there to see how much it has COOLED? Anyone? ANYONE? Perhaps even the thread's OP, WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE A DEGREE IN ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS and who stated in the lead post that the ocean's absorption of IR energy "leads to higher surface evaporation, which actually COOLS the surface thin layer".

 

[Billy_Bob]

THe LIAR CRICK spewing his crap once again..

"Net Back Radiation: The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation). This radiation is at much longer wavelengths than that of the solar radiation (greater than 10 micros, in the infrared range), because the ocean surface is far cooler that the sun's surface. The infrared radiation emitted from the ocean is quickly absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases residing in the lower atmosphere. Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter."

source

The fact that this cools the oceans is well known and well documented. So is the fact that LWIR is absorbed in the first 5-50 microns of the surface. Why is it you all refuse to acknowledge the empirical evidence and cling to your dogma? Is this another one of Crick failed beliefs of his "degree's" that we know he doesn't hold as a cabin boy?

 

[mamooth]

"Net Back Radiation: The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation).

You'll need to argue with your pal SSDD about that, as he violently disagrees with you. He says that the temperature of the adjacent atmosphere affects how much backradiation the ocean puts out. Just pointing out that you kooks can't get your conspiracy theories consistent.

This radiation is at much longer wavelengths than that of the solar radiation (greater than 10 micros, in the infrared range), because the ocean surface is far cooler that the sun's surface. The infrared radiation emitted from the ocean is quickly absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases residing in the lower atmosphere. Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter."

That paragraph did most certainly _not_ say that atmospheric backradiation causes the oceans to cool, as you've been insanely claiming.

Damn, you're stupid. You don't even understand what the world "net" means. If a net total is negative, that in no way says that individual components can't be positive. You'd have to be a piss-guzzling moron of epic proportions to claim it does say that ... so that's exactly what you're doing. The atmospheric backradiation contribution is a positive. The ocean radiates away more, so the total is a negative. Quite simple, yet you still fail hard at it.

Holy shit, you're stupid. I know it's been mentioned before, but it bears repeating.

 

[SSDD]

While we're at it: where is the GCM that successfully reproduces the 20th century temperature patterns without AGW?

Why exactly do you nee a GCM? There was nothing happening in the 20th century that even approached the bounds of natural variability?

 

[SSDD]

While we're at that, and in an attempt to return to the thread topic, have any of you come up with an explanation as to how the water at the ocean's very surface is able to differentiate between thermal energy by source to make certain that all the IR energy (and none of the SW or conducted or convected energy) goes into evaporation AS THE FUCKING THREAD TITLE (COMPOSED BY SOMEONE THAT CLAIMS TO HAVE "A DEGREE IN ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS") ASSERTS?

And while we're at that, have any of you tried the suggested experiment where you cause, say, half of a pot of water to evaporate by adding heat energy to it on your kitchen stove and then sticking your hand in there to see how much it has COOLED? Anyone? ANYONE? Perhaps even the thread's OP, WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE A DEGREE IN ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS and who stated in the lead post that the ocean's absorption of IR energy "leads to higher surface evaporation, which actually COOLS the surface thin layer".

Already answered that question....ocean water is a very poor absorber of IR in the peak radiating wavelength of CO2...come on guy...you are supposed to be a fake ocean engineer...at least you could try to be up on some of this stuff.

 

[Wuwei]

Already answered that question....ocean water is a very poor absorber of IR in the peak radiating wavelength of CO2...come on guy...you are supposed to be a fake ocean engineer...at least you could try to be up on some of this stuff.

According to this graph from the hockeyschtick blog, the emissivity of water remains above 0.75 to 0.9 in the far IR. I wouldn't consider that very poor absorption unless you have a source that gives finer detail.

.