‘not be referred to the central clearing house of climate
science.’ Now what does that remind me of? Oh yes, a
certain Ministry of Truth in Oceana.
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by beththeserf
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by beththeserf
The sea is a mirror (
↧
Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang
No need to apologise. My comment was intended as Aussie humour. I know that often doesn’t arrive in US as sent from down under. :). It very interesting and I’ve already forwarded the link to some friends.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Mi Cro
I’m measuring 80F to over 100F colder zenith temps compared to the surface.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim D
I think that there are some people who don’t understand why clear nights get really cold. The desert is a great example. Compare that with a clear night in the muggy tropics that hardly cools off at all in comparison. That’s the water vapor greenhouse effect.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang
Stephen Segrest,
Beth — What is the cost of solar versus say, a combustion turbine running on oil used for peaking in Australia ? This would be an example of an apples to apples comparison.
Now you are demonstrating simple mindedness and ignorance. not even the capacity to think logically. How can you think that “solar versus say, a combustion turbine running on oil used for peaking in Australia” Are comparable. The combustion turbine is fully dispatchable. It can be brought on line quickly and ramps quickly at any time of day and night, in any climate (even Antarctica in winter) has 98% availability and used as the emergency back up system for hospitals and military installations. How can you think that solar power can be comparable to that.
You demonstrate a total lack of understanding of energy. I’d suggest you go to a blog site where your ignorance is not so obvious.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by D o u g C o t t o n
PA.
You wrote “Whether the “water vapor feedback” is positive (IPCC), or negative/not there at all (skeptic) is what the argument is about.”
Empirical evidence in my published study shows with statistical significance that moist regions have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than do drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.
The water vapour in Earth’s troposphere causes the temperature gradient to be less steep, and thus causes the temperature profile to rotate downwards at the surface end in order to maintain radiative balance with the Sun. So the supported surface temperatures are lower by about 10 to 12 degrees than the gravito-thermal effect would set in a nearly dry atmosphere. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reason, but only by about 0.1 degree.
Valid physics supports what I say, and I have explained it comprehensively in comments herein and in my book.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by PMHinSC
I can’t quarrel with “…there is a sound physical basis for expecting some warming from increased carbon dioxide.” The problem is that data must count for something and that is what seems to be missing. As an academic exercise there is merit with a lot of the comment on this blog; but they are not ready for prime time and certainly not ready for implementation as policy.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by D o u g C o t t o n
<b>Yes PA</b>
You are totally correct regarding the difference in radiation from a cooler source (the troposphere) and a warmer source (the Sun.) My March 2012 paper <i>"Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics"</i> explains why every one-way passage of radiation is an independent process and entropy cannot decrease in any such process. You cannot expect the Second Law to apply to the net effect of two or more independent processes. If your version of the Second Law says this (or you think it does) then it could be used to prove that water could flow uphill to a lake at the top of a mountain provided that it flowed further down the other side. Yes, the Second Law of Thermodynamics also applies to mechanical equilibrium as that is a part of thermodynamic equilibrium.
So back radiation from a cooler region to a warmer surface is "pseudo scattered" by the surface molecules which use its electro-magnetic energy for a part of their own quota of radiation (as per their Planck function) and these molecules never convert that electro-magnetic energy to thermal energy.
<i>Every one way passage of radiation obeys the Second Law and never increases the temperature of a warmer target, not even momentarily.</i>
<b>But the Sun's radiation cannot raise the temperature of the thin surface layer of the oceans to anywhere near to its observed temperature, because most of that radiation raises the temperature of deeper, colder regions, and then the extra energy exits near the poles. Only the gravito-thermal effect, a direct corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, explains what happens on all planets. Get with it folks!</b>
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by jim2
It’s also the water vapor heat capacity effect.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Ed Barbar
cwon14,
Really enjoyed reading your notes, (though you could drop the ad hominems, and anger, even if it is good to sound out about the insanity once in a while =).
I think this is the crux of it:
“missing” sounds much better then “we really never knew to begin with”.
That’s been my view from the very first day I heard about global warming 14 years ago. Earth’s climate is too complicated to say much about anything (sure, try, but let’s not push it with a green agenda, but rather a scientific one). I don’t know what increased CO2 levels will do to earth’s climate, much the same as I don’t know what many decisions I make during a day will do to my future.
That’s where it is, in my view, and ought to be treated that way.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by PA
DC:
“Valid physics supports what I say, and I have explained it comprehensively in comments herein and in my book.”
i’m dubious… but I can’t say you’re wrong.
Climate has behaved differently than the IPCC predicts in the 21st century. I am pretty sure they are wrong.
If you have some testable predictions from your theory that would be helpful. Anybody who claims sole CO2 forcing (no feedback) or less could be right.
“Empirical evidence in my published study shows with statistical significance that moist regions have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than do drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.”
This could be a cloud effect (ie it isn’t the forcing it’s the shading). Have to look at the book/comments and do some thinking. Don’t have an informed opinion at this point.
The AGWers are playing with the data so much it is hard to tell what is happening let alone who is right.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by jim2
I was thinking about the policy vs science discussion.
If it weren’t for the threat of heinous policy changes WRT ACO2, climate science would still be a backwater endeavor that would get zero headlines.
Anthony Watts would be selling automated weather stations and tending his solar farm. Steve McIntyre would enjoy a much quieter retirement. Dr. Curry would be staying home a lot more than of late. BEST probably would have never happened.
So, what’s really more important to climate scientists? The science or the policy argument?
I have a feeling most of them would really hate to see the policy component disappear.
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by jim2
“heinous policy changes” should have been “heinous policy suggestions”
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Energy Futures Price
OIL 88.50
BRENT 91.75
NAT GAS 3.926
RBOB GAS 2.3458
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim D
No, it isn’t. Moist air has 0.1% more heat capacity than dry air.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Rob Ellison
It is net outgoing radiation – reflected SW and emitted long wave. TSI is not considered in this. It is net energy out.
The radiative imbalance includes the Sun – better expressed as a dynamic equation.
d(W&H)/dt = energy in (J/s) – energy out (J/s)
W&H is work and heat which can be approximated by ocean heat content. The big changes are in energy out.
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Robert of Ottawa
There is no “missing heat” and I challenge anyone to show it,
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Faustino
Hi, PMH. A couple of good comments (one at 9.38, I might have missed others), I don’t think I’ve seen you here before, I hope you return.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by jim2
But there is missing knowledge. I think the heat is in an entangled state. Once it is found, the Ice Age will begin.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
