The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

[istodolez]

I thought I explained it quite well. Did you not comprehend?

You haven't shown how I am wrong either.

I showed you the ARGO data showing heating throughtout the water column. So focusing solely on the upper few mm because of absorption spectra would seem to be inadequate to explain the larger warming in the ocean. Warming sufficient to attribute to global sea level rise.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, I am merely noting my understanding of how you are formulating your responses.

I think I'm pretty close.



Trust me, I couldn't care less what "impresses" you. I see you as playing a shallow game predicated on facile use of philosophy in a topic you have no experience in to confirm your bias.

Again, I think I'm pretty close.

Of course you do.

 

[Lord of Planar]

In reality Lord P has no reason to believe I have any of the degrees or experience which I have mentioned. I fully accept that. I have actually been quite complimentary of Lord P's personal work on here, but his desire is to do nothing but personally insult me. And given his clear lack of close reading of the posts he'll, no doubt, complain that I have not complimented him on his work. But that's only par for the course for those with outstandingly high IQ's.

I'm sorry that you feel insulted. I often don't recall exactly what I say. One of my personal problems is that my level of tact isn't real good. It really comes out when there are people like 3G who constantly insult me in one way or another, and it then tends to go unrestrained with all.

You are right. I sometime misinterpret what someone is saying, and I constantly find people doing the same with what I say.

I suspect you were talking of my criticism of of GWP. I ask you to consider, why can the Climate Science community accept such deception as science?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You really don't read very closely do you? Details not your thing?

This tells me a lot.

As noted before I have consistently supported my position, usually with primary resources from peer reviewed literature.

I knew what he was saying. I turned it around on him.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I showed you the ARGO data showing heating throughtout the water column. So focusing solely on the upper few mm because of absorption spectra would seem to be inadequate to explain the larger warming in the ocean. Warming sufficient to attribute to global sea level rise.

The immediate surface of the ocean is where evaporation takes place. Much of the delta heat is returned to the atmosphere in this evaporation process, and reemitted upward IR. It doesn't all stay in the ocean. That is why I call IR from CO2 insignificant for heating the ocean. It no doubt increase evaporation though.

 

[Jack Hays]

“Observation and experience can and must drastically restrict the range of admissible scientific belief, else there would be no science. But they cannot alone determine a particular body of such belief. An apparently arbitrary element, compounded of personal and historical accident, is always a formative ingredient of the beliefs espoused by a given scientific community at a given time”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

[Surface Detail]

The immediate surface of the ocean is where evaporation takes place. Much of the delta heat is returned to the atmosphere in this evaporation process, and reemitted upward IR. It doesn't all stay in the ocean. That is why I call IR from CO2 insignificant for heating the ocean. It no doubt increase evaporation though.

But the rate of evaporation of water is a function of its temperature. If all other conditions are kept the same, the rate of evaporation can only increase if the temperature of the water increases. It's physically impossible for additional energy to increase evaporation without an accompanying increase in temperature.

 

[istodolez]

The immediate surface of the ocean is where evaporation takes place. Much of the delta heat is returned to the atmosphere in this evaporation process, and reemitted upward IR.

Yet the ocean column still warms above and beyond solar insolation values. Almost as if there is some OTHER factor...hmmmm, could it be greenhouse gases and anthropogenic global warming at play? Interesting! If only the models could predict this...OH WAIT, THEY DO! They fit the data far superior to solar forcing alone!

It doesn't all stay in the ocean. That is why I call IR from CO2 insignificant for heating the ocean. It no doubt increase evaporation though.

Since virtually no one in the scientific community sees solar variability as sufficiently explanatory for the last 60 years or so of temperature increase in the ocean (not just the surface)...what do you think is causing it?

(And why aren't you publishing???)

 

[longview]

But the rate of evaporation of water is a function of its temperature. If all other conditions are kept the same, the rate of evaporation can only increase if the temperature of the water increases. It's physically impossible for additional energy to increase evaporation without an accompanying increase in temperature.

Not true, I used to run a little demo for grad and undergrad students, using vacuum to boil water into ice.
(The idea was to get them to think outside the box a bit) They had all heard about the triple point in their physics classes,
but it is a very different thing to see it happen!

 

[Surface Detail]

Not true, I used to run a little demo for grad and undergrad students, using vacuum to boil water into ice.
(The idea was to get them to think outside the box a bit) They had all heard about the triple point in their physics classes,
but it is a very different thing to see it happen!

"If all other conditions are kept the same, the rate of evaporation can only increase if the temperature of the water increases."

I wish you would actually read what I write before replying!

 

[longview]

"If all other conditions are kept the same, the rate of evaporation can only increase if the temperature of the water increases."

I wish you would actually read what I write before replying!

Fair enough!

 

[Lord of Planar]

But the rate of evaporation of water is a function of its temperature. If all other conditions are kept the same, the rate of evaporation can only increase if the temperature of the water increases. It's physically impossible for additional energy to increase evaporation without an accompanying increase in temperature.

CO2 already causes a global average above 30 W/m^2 of absolute forcing, and sea water absorbs all of this in the first few microns of surface depth. Only about 10% of the water from the oceans make landfall because the rest returns to the oceans. This latent heat ends up mostly back in the atmosphere. Not the ocean.

I don't know if the average 39" global precipitation is only over land, or land and sea combined. I assume it land and sea since it is a global metric. This means the oceans are evaporating about 1.4 meters annually. Now the ocean is only losing an average of 44.4 nanometers per second at this rate, but over the area of one square meter, that is .0444 grams per second. This still seems insignificant without perspective. It takes 2,257 joules of energy (2,257 watt-seconds) to evaporate one gram of water at 100 C. Seawater is only much less than that, so we can safely add another 70 calories (1 calories/degree) or 293 or more grams, for an energy exchange of 2,550 joules per meter, to evaporate that water. This means it takes above 113 W/m^2 to evaporate that water.

This is more than three times what CO2 has to offer for forcing. Now there is other greenhouse gas forcing, the sun, and the other primary variable... The wind... The wind dramatically modulates the evaporation process.

What this evaporation amounts to in itself, is an average 100+ (113 calculated here) W/m^2 of cooling. The increased forcing by CO2, since it is at the immediate surface, increases this evaporation process, and possible increases ocean cooling rather than warming it. Regardless, if it warms, the increased evaporation it causes means that only a fraction of that increased CO2 spectra warms the ocean past the immediate surface area.

Now I know you cannot follow my explanation here, as I know it's above your head. You have proven to be an activist without understanding the facts. That said, we have a new person to these forums that probably can follows what I wasted my time on you for.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yet the ocean column still warms above and beyond solar insolation values. Almost as if there is some OTHER factor...hmmmm, could it be greenhouse gases and anthropogenic global warming at play? Interesting! If only the models could predict this...OH WAIT, THEY DO! They fit the data far superior to solar forcing alone!

How do you figure? I don't follow that line of reasoning. Keep in mind not only TSI, but the fact that the shortwave spectrum us what TSI changes affect. The longwave remains insignificantly change from the sun as it changes temperature. I'll remind you again, that when I say isolation, I speak of the surface. Not the TOA. The surface insolation is affected by all the changes in the atmosphere. Also keep in mind that the thermal inertial of the oceans is very, very slow due to it's mass. TSI and insolation changes take centuries to fully realize, and they aren't stable enough to see the full effect of their changes.

Since virtually no one in the scientific community sees solar variability as sufficiently explanatory for the last 60 years or so of temperature increase in the ocean (not just the surface)...what do you think is causing it?

I have seen limited others who agree with the sun and the changes in the atmospheres optical density speak of this, but again...

Nobody is funding such research to the scale that AGW research is funded.

Have you found any research yet that uses long term bolometer data? If you look, you will find very, very few studies. Don't you think this would be a significant variable that shouldn't be ignored?

(And why aren't you publishing???)

No desire to. I already have my hand full in life.

 

[istodolez]

How do you figure? I don't follow that line of reasoning.

The graph should have been sufficient.

Keep in mind not only TSI, but the fact that the shortwave spectrum us what TSI changes affect.

You seem to be looking at some finer detail which, in aggregate won't be such a big impact. Yes we need to "radiatively transfer" energy into the water. BUT, once it is in there the "absorption spectrum" for water in relation to UV isn't going to be much of an issue.

As noted by the ARGO float data we KNOW the water column is increasingly warming. All things being equal what is changing in the system to cause an INCREASE in the warming?. We know that the solar insolation data shows no net increase (when deseasonalized for the solar cycles) over the last several decades yet the oceans are increasingly warming.. So you can't point to the sun as the culprit. You have to look at some other factor. And that factor is perfectly fine to be AGW-heating.

Yes we have to radiatively transfer (but presumably also through some degree of convection, we are talking about gas in contact with a fluid) the heat from the CO2 to the water molecule. That's OK, water can absorb it. The fact that water has a reasonably high heat capacity indicates a lot of energy is transferring. But, again, when transferred it is in the system...so the absorption spectrum will be less of an issue for the discussion.

AGAIN: we know the ocean is warming, indicating an INCREASING amount of energy into the system. The sun, the primary heater of ocean water, has had a relatively flat 11-year averaged change in terms of insolation....so that can't explain the heating over the last several decades.

No desire to. I already have my hand full in life.

You should try. Take your best to the game. See how it pans out. It's fun but it can be pretty harsh at times.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The graph should have been sufficient.

Why?

It doesn't explain the source of the heat. Only that the heat content is increasing.

Is this what your confirmation bias says to you? I keep a careful check on my confirmation bias. I know how difficult it is once you believe a specific position.

You seem to be looking at some finer detail which, in aggregate won't be such a big impact. Yes we need to "radiatively transfer" energy into the water. BUT, once it is in there the "absorption spectrum" for water in relation to UV isn't going to be much of an issue.

As noted by the ARGO float data we KNOW the water column is increasingly warming. All things being equal what is changing in the system to cause an INCREASE in the warming?. We know that the solar insolation data shows no net increase (when deseasonalized for the solar cycles) over the last several decades yet the oceans are increasingly warming.. So you can't point to the sun as the culprit. You have to look at some other factor. And that factor is perfectly fine to be AGW-heating.

Do you think the oceans have equalized to the surface insolation since, say, 1800? If they haven't equalized to that lower insolation value yet, then the current solar output will continue to warm the oceans until it does.

Your using the term "deseasonalized" reminds me of something I don't understand. Maybe you can explain it. The TSI hitting the earth is about 7% greater in January, than July, with the southern hemisphere facing it more at this point due to obliquity and eccentricity of the earths orbit. The sounthern hemisphere has a far greater ocean volume than the northern hemisphere.

Why do studies use the data that is "correct to 1 AU" when this make a rather large difference?

Yes we have to radiatively transfer (but presumably also through some degree of convection, we are talking about gas in contact with a fluid) the heat from the CO2 to the water molecule. That's OK, water can absorb it. The fact that water has a reasonably high heat capacity indicates a lot of energy is transferring. But, again, when transferred it is in the system...so the absorption spectrum will be less of an issue for the discussion.

The latent heat into the atmosphere is estimated to be about three times that of sensible heat, on just about any earth energy balance data out there.

AGAIN: we know the ocean is warming, indicating an INCREASING amount of energy into the system. The sun, the primary heater of ocean water, has had a relatively flat 11-year averaged change in terms of insolation....so that can't explain the heating over the last several decades.

Again, thermal inertial and length of equalization.

 

[Jack Hays]

“Gravity, interpreted as an innate attraction between every pair of particles of matter, was an occult quality in the same sense as the scholastics' "tendency to fall" had been”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

[Threegoofs]

“Gravity, interpreted as an innate attraction between every pair of particles of matter, was an occult quality in the same sense as the scholastics' "tendency to fall" had been”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Isn’t the existence of gravity a consensus?

I know a guy who thinks the earth just sucks.

According to you, he will win a Nobel soon because he’s the ‘disruptor’.

Conversely, your ideas may just be fantastically idiotic.

I guess.....we shall see.

 

[Jack Hays]

Isn’t the existence of gravity a consensus?

I know a guy who thinks the earth just sucks.

According to you, he will win a Nobel soon because he’s the ‘disruptor’.

Conversely, your ideas may just be fantastically idiotic.

I guess.....we shall see.

Actually, conceptions of gravity have changed radically over the centuries.

 

[Threegoofs]

Actually, conceptions of gravity have changed radically over the centuries.

Yes. I thought so. It all sucks.

Can’t wait for them to give me my Nobel now.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Yes. I thought so. It all sucks.

Can’t wait for them to give me my Nobel now.

You mean it's not the FSM pressing gently down on everyone with a noodly appendage? :shock:

 

[Threegoofs]

You mean it's not the FSM pressing gently down on everyone with a noodly appendage? :shock:

Oh my God.

Now YOU get the Nobel.


Unless that’s a consensus. Then my crazy ass idea wins.

 

[Jack Hays]

“Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

[istodolez]

“Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Why do you post this sort of thing? What do you think it says about "Environment and Climate"?

Do you think that because Max Planck had a specific impression of his experience with regards to quantum mechanics that you can simply assume that any science YOU disagree with is ipso facto incorrect?

Also: I'm assuming you know the history of quantum as well as the development of the model of the atom. From the discovery of electrons and the sub-structure of atoms to the development of quantum was only the space of less than 40 years. Thompson's work was in 1897 showing that atoms were, themselves, made up of other things. Quantum came to the fore relatively quickly and by the 1920's it was well on its way.

Planck won the NOBEL in 1918 for the discovery of the "quanta" and within 27 years we had an ATOMIC BOMB.

Now compare that with "AGW" as a hypothesis. It's been around for more than a century and is continually confirmed by empirical data. The only real "questions" are around some of the finer details.

In fact since Revelle's work in the 1950's many, many generations of scientists have died and yet the hypothesis persists and gains more and more and more adherents within the professional ranks of climate, earth and atmospheric sciences.

 

[Jack Hays]

Why do you post this sort of thing? What do you think it says about "Environment and Climate"?

Do you think that because Max Planck had a specific impression of his experience with regards to quantum mechanics that you can simply assume that any science YOU disagree with is ipso facto incorrect?

Also: I'm assuming you know the history of quantum as well as the development of the model of the atom. From the discovery of electrons and the sub-structure of atoms to the development of quantum was only the space of less than 40 years. Thompson's work was in 1897 showing that atoms were, themselves, made up of other things. Quantum came to the fore relatively quickly and by the 1920's it was well on its way.

Planck won the NOBEL in 1918 for the discovery of the "quanta" and within 27 years we had an ATOMIC BOMB.

Now compare that with "AGW" as a hypothesis. It's been around for more than a century and is continually confirmed by empirical data. The only real "questions" are around some of the finer details.

In fact since Revelle's work in the 1950's many, many generations of scientists have died and yet the hypothesis persists and gains more and more and more adherents within the professional ranks of climate, earth and atmospheric sciences.

The post is about the process of change, as is this thread.

 

[Threegoofs]

The post is about the process of change, as is this thread.

Yes, and I believe you have indirectly declared Manc Skipper a Future Nobelist with the logic of your argument.