Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Olde Europe]

I don't work for Koch Bros or Exxon.

Is there so much raw nerves around here? In other words, what prompted that assurance? I sure did not even think about insinuating that you worked for either.

For instance, Koch funded the B.E.S.T. temperature audit done at UC Berkeley

Yea, that was 150,000 by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, and it doesn't even present a drop on a hot stone compared to the many millions in AGW denial propaganda funded by the Kochs.

I'll have a look at the Bray and von Storch studies. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Wuwei]

In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep.

I don't understand why people keep saying that. Only the sun can heat the ocean. Back-radiation can't. The LW back-radiation keeps the ocean LW radiation loss in check to a large extent.

 

[Crick]

Thin skin? It's several thousand times thicker than the penetration depth on a bar of steel. Yet that seems to have no problem soaking up heat. And let me point out that if the IR energy stops in a few microns while the visible penetrates many meters into the water, it is the IR that is being more quickly absorbed. The visible light is being TRANSMITTED.

 

[Crick]

You can't create an energy budget by IGNORING 90% of the "excess heat"...

It wasn't an "energy" budget, it was a radiative flux budget. Yeah, I know, it was named "energy budget", but all the figures given were radiative fluxes in W/m².

The phony assertion that "The Oceans Ate My Global Warming" fails because to create a PAUSE --- you would have to be storing heat in the oceans at a HIGHER RATE just previous to and/or during that pause.

Nope, all you need is picking an El Nino year - with exceptionally high surface temperatures - as a start.

Moreover:

Independent of these discussions about data and measurements for earlier years, 2015 turned out to be much warmer than any of the earlier years, already before El Niño conditions started. The warmth of 2015 largely ended any remaining scientific credibility of claims that the supposed "hiatus" since 1998 had any significance for the long-term warming trend.[24] In January 2017, a study published in the journal Science Advances cast further doubt on the existence of a recent pause, with more evidence that ocean temperatures have been underestimated.[25][26]​

Does that look like the result of a steady rate of storage to you?

Yeah, they found the heat that was missing:

The 2015 analysis showed that the modern buoys now used to measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.

After correcting for this "cold bias," researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal Science that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. This brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.​

So, that seems exactly like the "ramp" you've been describing.

That's all KINETIC energy transfer, not HEAT energy transfer.

See:

"The temperature of a gas is a measure of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules."​

That ship intake ruse is a different story. Not the BTK "Oceans ate my warming". In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep. Any way -- after the BTK "excuse" died, ONE scientist at NOAA decided to JUNK the multi $MILL buoy system and recreate the old 19th century "bucket" method of measuring ocean temperature.

Let's get this straight. The Global Mean Surface Temperature that is the BASIC product for the AGW crowd is supposed to measure ATMOSPHERE -- not water. And there is NOTHING WRONG with those expensive fancy buoys. IN FACT, the land based systems are supposed to be at a certain HEIGHT above the ground to measure AIR -- not the ground.

This primadonna at NOAA just changed the rules to show more warming..

Global Mean Surface Temperature uses SST, not temperatures at depth.

 

[flacaltenn]

Is there so much raw nerves around here? In other words, what prompted that assurance? I sure did not even think about insinuating that you worked for either.

Ahhh.. Projection of some type there. My nerves are just fine.
An objective look at the way Climate science has been funded and controlled ought to straighten that all out for you. You might start with the strange and specific wording of the "Mission Statement" for the IPCC. Seems like their bias for climate studies started the moment they were formed.

Yea, that was 150,000 by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, and it doesn't even present a drop on a hot stone compared to the many millions in AGW denial propaganda funded by the Kochs.

Yet -- it got the job done for WAY less than anything the government could fund. One of my joys in these YEARS of debate on the subject is to have warmers toss papers at me that SCREECH doom and disaster from GW and turning to the last page where the "funding credits" usually are. I've had my share of belly laughs after doing my same skeptical due diligence and then pointing out that THEIR study should NOT be trusted because it was paid for by Exxon-Mobil or Shell. Those 2 companies seem to be fond of plowing $MILLs in papers especially slanted to the plight of fauna and flora that are gasping their last because of the 1degC today. I remember one about penguins having a hard time keeping up their numbers because their migrations were poorly timed. And of COURSE, the culprit was GW.. IIRC correctly -- that was a Shell paper. But it was definitely a "big oil" company.

There are some perks.. Stick around. I appreciate the chat. Sometimes you'll get a chuckle out of it also..

 

[flacaltenn]

In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep.

I don't understand why people keep saying that. Only the sun can heat the ocean. Back-radiation can't. The LW back-radiation keeps the ocean LW radiation loss in check to a large extent.

That comment was really about the mystery of how you distribute heat from a thin skin at the surface less than a mmeter deep into the zones 700 or 2000 meters below. Not really about how the heat got into the skin layer. But clearly, you need a fair amount of surface mixing to even PRESERVE the heat in that layer. Even NOAA was not buying the "surface mixing" argument from the authors. You'd probably get more more warming at depth from just the 1degC increase in air temp at the surface than from a 1mm layer of slightly hotter water.

And in fact, you're correct. The NET (non-solar) radiative transfer to sky always wins. It's there day and night. Whether it's land or ocean. I'm pretty sure only a higher "sky temperature" can change that math.

 

[flacaltenn]

You can't create an energy budget by IGNORING 90% of the "excess heat"...

It wasn't an "energy" budget, it was a radiative flux budget. Yeah, I know, it was named "energy budget", but all the figures given were radiative fluxes in W/m².

The phony assertion that "The Oceans Ate My Global Warming" fails because to create a PAUSE --- you would have to be storing heat in the oceans at a HIGHER RATE just previous to and/or during that pause.

Nope, all you need is picking an El Nino year - with exceptionally high surface temperatures - as a start.

Moreover:

Independent of these discussions about data and measurements for earlier years, 2015 turned out to be much warmer than any of the earlier years, already before El Niño conditions started. The warmth of 2015 largely ended any remaining scientific credibility of claims that the supposed "hiatus" since 1998 had any significance for the long-term warming trend.[24] In January 2017, a study published in the journal Science Advances cast further doubt on the existence of a recent pause, with more evidence that ocean temperatures have been underestimated.[25][26]​

Does that look like the result of a steady rate of storage to you?

Yeah, they found the heat that was missing:

The 2015 analysis showed that the modern buoys now used to measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.

After correcting for this "cold bias," researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal Science that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. This brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.​

So, that seems exactly like the "ramp" you've been describing.

That's all KINETIC energy transfer, not HEAT energy transfer.

See:

"The temperature of a gas is a measure of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules."​

That ship intake ruse is a different story. Not the BTK "Oceans ate my warming". In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep. Any way -- after the BTK "excuse" died, ONE scientist at NOAA decided to JUNK the multi $MILL buoy system and recreate the old 19th century "bucket" method of measuring ocean temperature.

Let's get this straight. The Global Mean Surface Temperature that is the BASIC product for the AGW crowd is supposed to measure ATMOSPHERE -- not water. And there is NOTHING WRONG with those expensive fancy buoys. IN FACT, the land based systems are supposed to be at a certain HEIGHT above the ground to measure AIR -- not the ground.

This primadonna at NOAA just changed the rules to show more warming..

Global Mean Surface Temperature uses SST, not temperatures at depth.

Oh I understand that perfectly. But the buoys did a superb job of that at a controlled depth (IIRC 1 meter) without going back to centuries old ship measurements. And with water intake measurements -- who knows how many centimeters or meters deep that intake sample came from. YET -- NOAA's Karl found a loophole in giving those more flaky measurements EQUAL WEIGHT to the buoys. It was ALWAYS about finding another 0.06degC to set new records. Not about honest or accurate science.

Here's the kicker. The SATELLITES which only measure the air temp in the lower Tropo, agreed brilliantly over the oceans with NOAA's buoys BEFORE this adjustment. They did so with simple consistent corrections. NOW there's divergence. Go figure.

In my book -- it ought to be all AIR MEASUREMENTS at 1M or more above the surface to be measuring consistently. In fact, I hear the Trump Admin is ordering that all surface based LAND measurements be taken 1 meter into the rock or soil in order to "cool" the numbers.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thin skin? It's several thousand times thicker than the penetration depth on a bar of steel. Yet that seems to have no problem soaking up heat. And let me point out that if the IR energy stops in a few microns while the visible penetrates many meters into the water, it is the IR that is being more quickly absorbed. The visible light is being TRANSMITTED.

I explained OldRocksies "bar of steel" issue here last night. Has to do with the ability to STORE more heat in a better conductor of heat. Not because EVERY material will act that way. Copper would burn you twice as much. And sea water would burn you 1/20 as much -- given the SAME "skin temperature"..

 

[jc456]

well you're not looking at the surface, you're looking at the corona, so you have no idea what is happening. physics lessons can't help you here.

The top picture shows the surface.......

yep and that mother looks hot.

Not only that, it's violating the 2nd Law....DERP!

how you figure? Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases, It's why you see explosions off the surface, right?

Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases,

Combustion? No.

Never heard of solar flares? Hmmmmmmm

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The top picture shows the surface.......

yep and that mother looks hot.

Not only that, it's violating the 2nd Law....DERP!

how you figure? Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases, It's why you see explosions off the surface, right?

Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases,

Combustion? No.

Never heard of solar flares? Hmmmmmmm

Solar flares......not combustion.

 

[jc456]

yep and that mother looks hot.

Not only that, it's violating the 2nd Law....DERP!

how you figure? Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases, It's why you see explosions off the surface, right?

Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases,

Combustion? No.

Never heard of solar flares? Hmmmmmmm

Solar flares......not combustion.

What do you suppose causes a flare? A photon? LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not only that, it's violating the 2nd Law....DERP!

how you figure? Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases, It's why you see explosions off the surface, right?

Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases,

Combustion? No.

Never heard of solar flares? Hmmmmmmm

Solar flares......not combustion.

What do you suppose causes a flare? A photon? LOL

Stanford SOLAR Center -- Ask A Solar Physicist FAQs - Answer


Not combustion.......

 

[Crick]

I don't work for Koch Bros or Exxon.

Is there so much raw nerves around here? In other words, what prompted that assurance? I sure did not even think about insinuating that you worked for either.

For instance, Koch funded the B.E.S.T. temperature audit done at UC Berkeley

Yea, that was 150,000 by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, and it doesn't even present a drop on a hot stone compared to the many millions in AGW denial propaganda funded by the Kochs.

I'll have a look at the Bray and von Storch studies. Thanks for the suggestion.

Look at all the studies. Wikipedia has two articles: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia. Bray and Von Storch are hardly the only folks to have made thorough and objective studies of this matter and, to be honest, their results are not immune to question. For instance, from the latter of the two links I've provided:

In 2003, Bray and von Storch conducted a survey of the perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change. The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. The 2003 survey has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet. Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected.

 

[Olde Europe]

Yet -- it [Berkeley Earth] got the job done for WAY less than anything the government could fund.

Could that be because mere data analysis is somewhat cheaper than, say, getting some nifty satellites into orbit and actually collect some data?

Of course, Koch, Exxon et al fund this that and the other thing for image enhancement purposes, so that their funding of lying about climate change and stalling action protecting the climate does have a somewhat diminished impact (or so they might hope), particularly so since they've increasingly re-routed their climate change denial funding through anonymous funds, concealing the origin. Moreover, Muller was a devoted climate skeptic, and Koch may have hoped Muller's research to destroy the "warmers" around Mann etc., or at least cast doubts on their findings. It didn't happen, as we all, and the Kochs in particular, found out, since Muller's research confirmed mainstream climate science's findings. Could that be the reason why Koch donated some pittance initially, but got rather stingy in subsequent years (no Koch contributions except for the first year of BEST)?

YET -- NOAA's Karl found a loophole in giving those more flaky measurements EQUAL WEIGHT to the buoys. It was ALWAYS about finding another 0.06degC to set new records. Not about honest or accurate science.

Here's the kicker. The SATELLITES which only measure the air temp in the lower Tropo, agreed brilliantly over the oceans with NOAA's buoys BEFORE this adjustment. They did so with simple consistent corrections. NOW there's divergence. Go figure.

NOAA's Karl corrected the temperature record for the temporal bias engendered by increasing buoy coverage of the oceans, and that brought surface measurements in line with satellite measurements.

 

[Olde Europe]

Look at all the studies. Wikipedia has two articles: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia. Bray and Von Storch are hardly the only folks to have made thorough and objective studies of this matter and, to be honest, their results are not immune to question. For instance, from the latter of the two links I've provided:

In 2003, Bray and von Storch conducted a survey of the perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change. The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. The 2003 survey has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet. Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected.

I've taken a bit of time to look into that von Storch figure, and he appears to be a self-obsessed ankle biter. While a better structured study by von Storch on the AGW consensus in 2008 should be acknowledged, of particular consequence was a 2004 paper on the hockey stick that turned out to be thoroughly flawed upon inspection. And years later, in 2007, when he was already made aware of his paper's flaws, he was still bragging, in essence, about having broken the hockey stick, and salvaged climate science from the nefarious efforts by influential climate scientists' "gate keeping", in effect shielding climate science against criticism. If you're interested, also take a look at the comments, and how von Storch repeatedly gets an earful for his bragging and dishonesty. Accusing others of dishonesty and breezily dismissing their findings in case they contradict what von Storch claims to have found, seems a pattern with this one.

 

[polarbear]

how do you know they are? you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?
Again, it goes against your physics.

how do you know they are?

View attachment 115868

View attachment 115869

We see them.

you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?

That's right! And you can't explain why cooler surface photons travel toward the hotter corona.

so how do you know that there are actual photons?

We have pictures. (see above)

Again, it goes against your physics

Photons flying around in all directions don't go against my physics. Do they go against yours?

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however. light is light and you have no idea what is causing any of it. photons would be the last thing to bank on.

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however.

It shows photons from the cooler surface traveled toward the hotter corona.

the pictures shows light wavelengths. you have no idea how they are where there at. you said so.

the pictures shows light wavelenths.

The picture has photons all over it.

you have no idea how they are where there at.

They're there.

you said so.

I said cooler surface photons move toward the hotter corona.
The picture is proof.

Tell me what you are proving by saying "cooler surface photons move towards the hotter corona"?
Are you trying to say that the hotter corona is first absorbing these photons and then emitting them...and that is supposed to prove that a hotter body does absorb energy from the cooler one with the photons of the cooler one?
See that tells me that a typical warmer has no clue whatsoever what is going on and what is required for light (=photons) of a certain wavelength to be absorbed.
To absorb an em wave you need a resonator that can resonate at the right frequency in order to be able to absorb it.
The sun`s corona is an ionized plasma that is lacking the electrons in the orbitals that would absorb the photons you claim were first absorbed and then re-emitted by the corona.
Like hell they are absorbed, they radiate right through the corona because the resonator that would get pumped by this lower energy radiation is not encountered by these particular photons.
In spectroscopic analysis this is a very common problem.
Like for example determining the ppm Ca by atomic absorption spectroscopy.
When you aspirate the solution with Ca in it into the atomizer & the air acetylene flame in the optical path most of the light emitted by the hollow cathode radiation source goes right through it without being absorbed...because the Ca was ionized and that is why you will have to add Lithium Chloride to suppress the Calcium ionization....
You need the electrons in the resonant orbitals to be in the ground state or else you absorb sweet f-ck all from the radiation that is supposed to be absorbed.
I taught that stuff and the people I taught totally got that, no problem.
So what is your problem ?

 

[flacaltenn]

[/QUOTE]

I have no freaking idea where that graph came from -- but it doesn't look like the SST satellite record taken DIRECTLY from Dr. Roy Spencer's (director of UAH lab) site for SST... You need to be careful about stuff that's CALLED satellite record -- but is not..

The dip at 2012 is deeper than the dip at 2008. And the dip at late 2013 doesn't even APPEAR in your chart. But MORE IMPORTANTLY -- there's no obvious trend line from 2009 to 2014 as it shows in your chart.

I suggest you check the DETAILS of what they are calling Satellite SST data.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

how do you know they are?

View attachment 115868

View attachment 115869

We see them.

you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?

That's right! And you can't explain why cooler surface photons travel toward the hotter corona.

so how do you know that there are actual photons?

We have pictures. (see above)

Again, it goes against your physics

Photons flying around in all directions don't go against my physics. Do they go against yours?

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however. light is light and you have no idea what is causing any of it. photons would be the last thing to bank on.

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however.

It shows photons from the cooler surface traveled toward the hotter corona.

the pictures shows light wavelengths. you have no idea how they are where there at. you said so.

the pictures shows light wavelenths.

The picture has photons all over it.

you have no idea how they are where there at.

They're there.

you said so.

I said cooler surface photons move toward the hotter corona.
The picture is proof.

Tell me what you are proving by saying "cooler surface photons move towards the hotter corona"?
Are you trying to say that the hotter corona is first absorbing these photons and then emitting them...and that is supposed to prove that a hotter body does absorb energy from the cooler one with the photons of the cooler one?
See that tells me that a typical warmer has no clue whatsoever what is going on and what is required for light (=photons) of a certain wavelength to be absorbed.
To absorb an em wave you need a resonator that can resonate at the right frequency in order to be able to absorb it.
The sun`s corona is an ionized plasma that is lacking the electrons in the orbitals that would absorb the photons you claim were first absorbed and then re-emitted by the corona.
Like hell they are absorbed, they radiate right through the corona because the resonator that would get pumped by this lower energy radiation is not encountered by these particular photons.
In spectroscopic analysis this is a very common problem.
Like for example determining the ppm Ca by atomic absorption spectroscopy.
When you aspirate the solution with Ca in it into the atomizer & the air acetylene flame in the optical path most of the light emitted by the hollow cathode radiation source goes right through it without being absorbed...because the Ca was ionized and that is why you will have to add Lithium Chloride to suppress the Calcium ionization....
You need the electrons in the resonant orbitals to be in the ground state or else you absorb sweet f-ck all from the radiation that is supposed to be absorbed.
I taught that stuff and the people I taught totally got that, no problem.
So what is your problem ?

Tell me what you are proving by saying "cooler surface photons move towards the hotter corona"?

SSDD, JC456 and Billy_Bob have all claimed that back radiation does not exist because if photons emitted by cooler matter hit warmer matter that would be a violation of the 2nd Law, so photons CANNOT do that.

Are you trying to say that the hotter corona is first absorbing these photons and then emitting them

Nope. I'm saying photons are not restricted in their direction of travel based on the temperature of matter in their path.

See that tells me that a typical warmer

I'm an anti-warmer, I'm just sick of the idiocy I've seen from SSDD.

Like hell they are absorbed, they radiate right through the corona

YES! And that shows the error of SSDD's claim. Thanks!

 

[Olde Europe]

The dip at 2012 is deeper than the dip at 2008. And the dip at late 2013 doesn't even APPEAR in your chart. But MORE IMPORTANTLY -- there's no obvious trend line from 2009 to 2014 as it shows in your chart.

I suggest you check the DETAILS of what they are calling Satellite SST data.

As to DETAILS: What does "60N-60S" in that graph tell you?

 

[flacaltenn]

The dip at 2012 is deeper than the dip at 2008. And the dip at late 2013 doesn't even APPEAR in your chart. But MORE IMPORTANTLY -- there's no obvious trend line from 2009 to 2014 as it shows in your chart.

I suggest you check the DETAILS of what they are calling Satellite SST data.

As to DETAILS: What does "60N-60S" in that graph tell you?

And what am I supposed to guess is included in yours WITHOUT any notes whatsoever?

Think man -- how much "ship intake measurements do they HAVE from the poles"? In fact, last time I checked, there were less than a dozen buoys in the Arctic circle and 1/2 of them weren't functioning correctly..