Jim Steele
The formula for Hollywood horror films is simple. Take a normal sized creature and magnify it into a gigantic threat suggesting we’re all going to die. Just consider King Kong, Godzilla, Alien, Jaws, Alligators, Frankenfish. To give credibility to those monsters, scary movies include a few scientists claiming those giants are “existential threats” due to pollution or radiation created by humans. Similarly, Biden fearmongers climate change is an existential threat, and Al Gore fabricates the “oceans are boiling”.
Here, Dr Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist extraordinaire and emeritus professor from Harvard and MIT, describes how alarmist scientists have scared the bejesus out of people by turning a very small temperature change into a monster.
First understand, averaging winter and summer temperatures produces a useless number that would totally obscure local weather dynamics. Barrow, Alaska averages a summertime high of 47°F (8.3°C) while the winter high averages -18°F (-27.8°C). Miami, Florida averages a summertime high of 86.3°F (30.1°C) and a winter high of 74°F (23.3°C). Averaging Miami and Barrow’s annual temperatures would be equally worthless. So, scientists don’t calculate a globally averaged temperature, but instead show the average anomalies.
Dr. Lindzen graphed the average seasonal anomalies for each weather station in the BEST temperature data base from 1900 to the present. A station’s anomaly is defined as any deviation from its 30-year mean. The results are not very scary. On any given day about half the weather stations experience warm anomalies while half experience cooling anomalies.
Most anomalies cluster between ± 4°C (+/- 7.2°F) causing each data point to merge into the thick black band of the graph. Still, larger anomalies are not uncommon, so the y-axis of the above graph scales between ± 12°C (+/- 21.6°F). The yellow dots represent the average for those anomalies on any given day. We see a small trend that is relatively tiny compared to the variation in actual temperatures. Not very scary either.
So, the showtime graphs isolate the average anomalies from reality, as done in the bottom graph. Now the scale on the y-axis only spans from -0.8°C (-1.4°F) to 1.2°C (2.2°F), turning a small 1°C (1.8°F) rise over 120 years into the illusion of a monster increase. That allows click-bait media, alarmists scientists and politicians to claim that climate change could lead to mass extinctions.
But any critically thinking person who is not so easily frightened realizes all living creatures adapt to far greater temperature changes over much smaller time spans. Typically, they experience an 8°C (14.4°F) to 20°C (36°F) change between morning and noon, and a 10°C (18°F) to 30°C (54°F) change between summer and winter. Humans escaping the cold New England climate migrate to Florida for better health and experience an increase in average temperature of 11°C (20°F).
Hopefully all critically thinking people will ask “why are these politicians and internet influencers trying to manipulate us with such a fearful Hollywood representation of climate?”
Indeed, there has been a slight warming. But there are many hypotheses explaining why. Watch: Why the Sun, Not CO2, Heats the Oceans:
Or read transcript at https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2022/07/revisiting-debate-does-greenhouse-back.html
How utterly dreadful!!! Temperatures have risen enough it is outside the error bar for the measurements, barely. We all gonna die right soon now!
I’m not sure Pat Frank would agree.
Mammals, Eutheria, placentals, primates, apes, hominins and genus Homo all evolved when it was warmer than now, in most cases much hotter. Homo developed around the start of the Pleistocene.
Our species, H. sapiens, ie anatomically modern humans, arose about 200 Ka, whether during an interglacial or glacial is hard to say, but in any case in tropical Africa. We then spread into colder climes.
We’re a heat-adapted species, with a remarkable cooling system. Mad dogs have a less advanced system, but even most Englishmen know to stay out of the midday son and to hydrate with electrolytes. Lick salt off your body if need be to recycle. Or off your mate. More fun.
And our ancestors even had fur, ie body hair, probably black, although when there was more shade in East Africa.
Interesting. Wonder who downvoted an almost certain truth.
Looney Leftie reality deniers?
Raving Right evolution deniers, probably.
Hair/fur helps thermoregulation in warm weather as well, it also protects skin from direct sunlight. Otherwise there would be a lot more bald animals roaming across Africa.
Lick each other instead of showering together to save the planet (your life). New meme.
Very nice Jim.
Lindzen made the same point a different way in his 2011 talk to British parliament.
He compared March and April from 1908 to 2008 using the Bost on Globe reports for Boston, records then ‘normals’, then just 2008.
Record lows 15-31F.
Record highs 80-85.
’Normal’ lows 38-46.
’Normal’ highs 54-61.
2008 low 35, high 80.
Global warming essentially nothing, rounding error.
I reproduced his chart in the climate chapter of The Arts of Truth, which he kindly reviewed for me at MIT just before he retired.
The doom worm in the human brain likes to be tickled. Doing so is a profitable exercise. The media, politicians and warmunists all know this and exploit it to the max. Shamefully.
“ Typically, they experience an 8°C (14.4°F) to 20°C (36°F) change between morning and noon, and a 10°C (18°F) to 30°C (54°F) change between summer and winter.”
Yes, they can tolerate short term changes. But sustained averages are something else. The average temperature in Quebec City is 4.2°C. The average in Igaliku, Greenland is 0.9°C. The last glaciation was about 6°C less than preindustrial. These are significant differences.
Thanks Nick, You provided another perfect example of the worthlessness of average temperatures in our quest to understand local climate dynamics and anomalies.
The difference was a lot more than that in the periglacial NH. And “preindustrial” means the Little Ice Age, coldest interval of the Holocene.
The difference in the tropics was less than 6 C.
You know how scientifically challenged the average dumb climate crackpot is …
50% are dumber than that !!
That distribution has a long tail. Are you implying that person is way out toward the end?
WOW.. warming in Quedec, Greenland.
Let’s all run and hide and spend billions of dollars doing totally ineffective things to counter it.
And yes, we are very close to the coldest period in 10,000 years.
Thank goodness for that slight warming..
Last thing we need from here is cooling !
“Last thing we need from here is cooling”
Unfortunately that’s what we will get. Fortunately it’s forty to sixty thousand years away.
At what point does a shirt-term change tip into a problematic sustained average?
Why does that tipping point occur?
If it’s related to the effect on a specific activity (e.g. agriculture) is it a significant effect or is it dwarfed by technology (e.g. fertiliser)?
It’s a claim worth considering but you need to put some details on it.
Story tip – Gavin ‘Gruesome’ Newsom weds his state to a foreign communist province to ‘fight climate change’ – American Thinker
Gavin Newsom’s Chinese agreements violate Article I section 10 of the US Constitution, which states:
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Noisom.
Ok all you folks out their that are so concerned about CAGW- I have the solution – for you true believers at least. I personally am in to a lower carbon foot print but only because I am cheap and it saves me money and I like to be as independent as possible and it is part of my lively hood.
But if you really think it is the end of the world please by all means lead the way! The state a little north of me called Pennsylvania has quite a population of low carbon foot print leaders you can emulate and learn from. They are the Swartzentruber Amish . You do not have to wait for the government to mandate your net zero dream or a game changing tech break through. Just do it! Better find a young lady with good hips though- your going to need like 10-15 children , labor to keep your 18-19th century world going. I’m waiting.
Not one single one of the AGW trolls will every go Net Zero
They are totally reliant on the fossil fuel advantages that modern society gives.
It is all just hypocritical gibbering from them.
We need an anthropomorphic monster of Climate Doom, like Godzilla, but on fire, well half on fire and half frozen, since CC is everything!
OK, I guess one more round of the “IR doesn’t heat the ocean”. The attached document has a lot of descriptive stuff, but misses the dynamics.
In steady state, every part of the heat flow path has to balance heat flux in and out, else it won’t stay steady. The text focusses on the top mm layer, which is a good one to think about, because the key fluxes pass through it, and it has almost no thermal inertia. The ocean below must stay in balance too, but because of its very large thermal inertia, can be a little out of balance for a while. That is the warming we speak of.
The skin layer has two fluxes in, which do not depend on its temperature. These are the sunlight, after an excursion to the depths, and IR. It actually doesn’t matter whether the IR penetrates or not; it is heat that the skin has to pass upwards.
The upward fluxes are conduction, radiation and evaporation. All increase with skin temperature. So the temperature settles at a level to keep all the fluxes in balance.
There is a fairly fixed temperature gradient associated with the ex-sunlight flux through the water, and so that determines the temperature of the depths. If it is a little out of balance, the temperatures below will rise, with the gradient remaining the same. That is the mechanism of warming.
If IR from above increases, the skin has to rise to a higher T to shed the extra heat. Then the sea follows.
Damn, another narrative to argue CO2 warms the ocean, without any evidence to support it. You are just fabricating a dynamic to fit your alarmist bias!
You say “the skin has to rise to a higher T to shed the extra heat. Then the sea follows.”
That’s bullshite!
The cool skin layer almost always exist because the skin lay radiates away any infrared it absorbs virtually immediately. Plus it cools due to evaporative cooling as well as conduction via the winds. Despite infrated absorption the skin remains cooler.
In contrast, the solar heated water, heated at depth requires convections and then conduction to bring heat up to the final mm so heat can be lost at the surface.
The vastly different rates of cooling for the different layers dictates that the IR heated skin surface must remain cooler than the solar heated subsurface.
The only time that is not observed, is very briefly when turbulence from winds and waves bring warm subsurface water to the surface.
Learn the science and stop making things up!
“Learn the science and stop making things up!”
Jim, I was for many years a research scientist in Australia’s scientific industrial research body, CSIRO. I was the leader of the CFD group. Here is a partial list of my publications on heat transfer, mostly involving phase interfaces.
The wrongness of your dynamics is here
“The cool skin layer almost always exist because the skin lay radiates away any infrared it absorbs virtually immediately”
The skin temperature is determined by balancing all the fluxes, in or out. The IR does not make it cool; the skin warms to radiate the incoming heat away. It is cooler than below, in the day, because the upward flux from the ex-sunlight must flow down a temperature gradient.
Nick still boils his water by blowing on it from above
Hilarious. !
Pretending that the immeasurably small theoretical low-energy CO2 IR that basically doesn’t exist anyway, causes ocean warming.. Very funny !
This is Nick clutching at very soggy straws, and sinking into the mire. !
What is the temperature of the skin layer after a tropical thunderstorm drops 2″ of rainwater from a height of 40,000 feet in about one hour?
Bonus question: What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Dead or alive?
LOL YOU HAVE A LIST OF PUBLICATIONS, SO YOU MUST RIGHT! LOL
A little desperate aren’t you if you think such a pompous argument means you cant be horrendously wrong!
And again you make things up! Whoever argued that “The IR makes it cool”
Your wrongness is very very simple. The cool skin layer is cooler because it loses more heat that it absorbs.
There is no pre-determined balance. The ocean’s upper 10 feet holds more heat than the entire atmosphere. In addition to the ocean’s heat capacity, the oceans warm because there is an imbalance between heat coming in and heat going out. One reason for that is salinity gradients that suppress solar heated waters from rising to the surface to ventilate. Incoming warm salty tropical water that entered into the Arctic may still remain warmer for several decades.
While such mechanism delay the ventilation of layers of solar heated water, there is no mechanism that prevents the immediate loss of heat from cool skin layer.
To repeat: The cool skin layer almost always exists because the skin layer radiates away any infrared it absorbs virtually immediately. Plus it cools due to evaporative cooling as well as conduction via the winds.Thus despite infrared absorption the skin layer remains cooler. Your bogus narratives can’t and don’t refute the physics.
“The cool skin layer is cooler because it loses more heat that it absorbs.”
The cooling of the sub-surface skin layer due to evaporation has actually been measured.
Anyone that thinks evaporation doesn’t have a cooling effect, has never done a single bit of manual work in their life. !
And probably sat in an air-conditioned office all day playing climate computer games.
Srokes only infrequently responds to me anymore, probably because, on more than one occasion, I have accused him of being more concerned about winning an argument than searching for the truth.
“A little desperate aren’t you “
Let me quote again your initial dismissal
“Learn the science and stop making things up!”
You are the amateur here, and all of science is against you.
And here is one amateurishness:
“The cool skin layer is cooler because it loses more heat that it absorbs.”
No! That would make it continuously drop in temperature. What determines the temperature is the temperature point at which the layer loses just as much heat as it absorbs. When you say cooler, you mean cooler than the water immediately below (what else?), and that is a necessary condition for the ex-sun heat to flow diffusively to the surface, which in turn it has to do.
“ there is no mechanism that prevents the immediate loss of heat from cool skin layer”
Of course there is. If it loses heat, the temperature drops, very fast with its low thermal inertia. That
These are just the mechanisms that keep temperatures mostly stable everywhere.
Very interesting.
First when you say “You are the amateur here, and all of science is against you.” Are you pulling a Mikey Mann or Tony Fauci and really claiming that YOU are science???
Second, you say the skin layer cant lose more heat than it absorbs because “ That would make it continuously drop in temperature.”
LOL. But it does continuously drop until solar heated water prevents it from dropping further. All the data I see shows the skin layer’s temperature rises during the day and drops at night determined by the temperature of the diurnal layer, but the skin always remains cooler than the subsurface water.
third, you make the dubious claim I cant “link absorption and emission events” because “it is all governed by temperature” Yet paradoxically you argue IR can warm the surface, which means when the skin surface absorbs IR, the skin temperature rises and so the skin surface would then immediately emit the same amount of IR that caused the temperature to rise. How fast do you think that dynamic happens??? The physics of black body radiation state that to stay in thermal equilibrium, it must emit radiation at the same rate as it absorbs it.
finally you make the convoluted argument that there is a mechanism that prevents the immediate loss of heat from cool skin layer, by arguing when the skin layer cools it creates a gradient that brings heat from below. But you conflate the two layers’ cooling rate and simply assume the skin surface has lost its heat, and argue irrelevantly that the resulting gradient allows subsurface heat to ventilate. But the subsurface heat takes a much longer time to reach the surface, than it takes any heat in the skin surface to be lost via radiation, evaporation and conduction. The way you argue you should have been a lawyer
The sun heats the ocean not CO2 IR.
” But it does continuously drop until solar heated water prevents it from dropping further.”
You keep trying to impose spurious changes that don’t actually happen, or at least you can’t observe. The skin that you have postulated has almost no thermal inertia. If there were such a drop it would be over in milliseconds or less. You seem to want to talk about a diurnal timescale, at which you have to work out on the basis that equilibrium gradients apply. There is a gradient which will convey the ex-solar flux to the surface, and that determines the temperature of one relative to the other.
” the skin always remains cooler than the subsurface
water”
Yes, and you can work out how much by Fourier’s Law. It depends on the flux and the effective (rutbulent) thermal conductivity.
“How fast do you think that dynamic happens???”
Very fast, millisecs, you can’t observe it. That is why equilibrium relations are used.
” it must emit radiation at the same rate as it absorbs it”
Yes, that is the right way to do the calculation. And you can’t link any particular events. The way the balance is kept is just dynamic equilibrium. You add up the fluxes, and the ones that vary with temperature determine the temperature.
“But the subsurface heat takes a much longer time to reach the surface”
No, if you want to get down to the scale of the 1 mm layer, it takes heat from the adjacent layer very fast, on the same time scale. and then a bit more, a bit slower. This is just standard solution of the transient diffusion equation. But you don’t want to get into that here. It’s all on a scale that you can’t observe.
Well at least you agree with me that ” it must emit radiation at the same rate as it absorbs it”. The issue for the ocean is only the skin surface radiates away significant heat, only the skin surfce loses heat via evaporation and only the skin surface loses heat via contact with the air. The subsurface has a very different dynamic.
To blame CO2 IR warming, you amateurishly insist “if you want to get down to the scale of the 1 mm layer, it takes heat from the adjacent layer very fast, on the same time scale.” but that’s clearly not true.
The last millimeter of heat always conducts to the skin surface much slower than than the skin surface loses heat via radiation, evaporation and conduction. The subsurface warms because it absorbs heat faster than it absorbs it, then loses heat when heat is conducted away faster than it absorbs it, which at night there’s zero external heat absorption.
The skin surface is cooler than the subsurface despite the skin surface receiving 410 joules/sec and the mm subsurface absorbing just 67 joules/sec. Clearly the layers cool at very different rates. That’s the rapidity of heat loss from skin surface that absorbs all the IR simply demonstrates the IR doesn’t warm the ocean but solar heat does.
You know half the publish peer-reviewed papers are shown to be faulty. Which one of yours fits that reality
Nick says “the skin warms to radiate the incoming heat away”
First how much does a molecule of CO2 warm before it radiates the energy away in less than a thousandth of a second??
If the ocean’s skin layer absorbs and emits infrared in less than a second, how much did the skin layer warm???
If the skin layer absorbs IR causing evaporation, how much did the skin layer warm?
Why do you believe it is the very transient warming of the skin surface that causes the ocean to warm , but the deep solar heating and trapped heat in subsurface salinity gradients does not?
I now worry about CSIRO
CSIRO has been a worry since it got taken over by leftist bureaucrats.
“First how much does a molecule of CO2 warm before it radiates the energy away in less than a thousandth of a second?”
This and below is where your thinking is all wrong. First it is irrelevant to what happens to downwelling IR at the surface. But second is the idea that you can link absorption and emission events. It’s actually true that for a Co2 molecule you could notionally have an excited CO2 molecule emit immediately. But that certainly doesn’t happen at the surface. Instead it is all governed by temperature. High above, about 95% of the excited CO2 energy from absorption is transferred to other molecules, adding heat to that region. The region emits according to it’s temperature, by an S-B like relation; the absorption adds the energy to keep the region in balance, but absorption and emission events are not linked. It emits what it was always going to emit; the IR absorption just keeps the temperature steady.
And even more so at the surface. The layer just emits according to its temperature. Emission is not related to absorption events. Water does not have memory. All the incoming IR does is transfer energy to the layer, necessary so that it can emit at that temperature without cooling over time.
Surface balance provides a constraint that determines the temperature. The sea below has to fall into line. If it isn’t warm enough, the temperature gradient is too high for the upflux, and that then diminishes, creating an upflux reduction, retaining heat until its accumulation restores the temperature gradient to match the flux.
Your notions of transients is misguided. This is a balance of near steady flows.
Stokes, you have to understand that many of us here have CVs not substantively different from yours, albeit in different disciplines. I’d rather my arguments stand on their own than try to brow beat those I disagree with by touting my credentials or publications. Respect has to be earned, not shoved down the throat of those you are arguing with. It is obvious to us that you are a bright and capable person. We just disagree with most of your interpretations of the facts.
“try to brow beat those I disagree with”
I was responding to Jim telling me to go and learn the science.
“telling me to go and learn the science.”
Which was a very good idea.
“Learn” does not mean “make-it-up” to suit your needs. !
It does raise a question of your mastery of earth science when you are so frequently at odds with other commenters here that appear to be your peers.
Is calling someone a “full retard” multiple times and “Mr stupid troll” among other ad-hominems a good way of earning someone’s respect?
Judging from the votes here, Stokes is more in need of gaining respect than Jim is. I personally try to refrain from such remarks. However, I can appreciate Jim’s frustration with Stokes because I have frequently pointed out things that Stokes has said that are either wrong or inappropriate, and have never received an acknowledgment he was wrong. Instead, he either ignores what I have said, or doubles down and finds some obscure point, which is taken out of context, to try to reinforce his original claim. That is why I have called him a Sophist.
Inasmuch as “My enemy’s enemy is my friend,” I’m not going to presume to tell Jim how to deal with Stokes.
I’m not sure that the voting, whichever direction it may go here, can be used to justify name-calling as being a respectful way to present an argument.
I confess bdgwx, that your obsession with unsupported narratives to counter the well established science I presented, drove me to the point, that I knew you would never respect any arguments from anyone, unless it agreed with your alarmism. So I opted to express what I thought about your trolling.
And also why do you and Banton always attack in tandem?
As I’ve told you before your own sources say that IR heats the ocean. For the lurkers…see [Wong & Minnett 2018] and [Gentemenn & Minnett 2008] for details.
Well bdgx, as I have tried to educate you before IR does not, but you seem easily swayed just by Minnett’s opinion and not his evidence. Wong & Minnett 2018 is a good example of how to falsely force a CO2 narrative onto their data.
During their ocean survey, they compared incoming and outgoing heat flux. To compare the effects of IR, they categorized their data in to clear and cloudy nighttime skies. Because both categories exhibited the same amount of IR emissions, they offered the hypothesis that increased IR reduced the thermal gradient, and so more CO2 inhibits the escape of subsurface heat.
But what was glaring and would never have gotten past an objective editor, was by using cloudy nights as their source of increased IR, they ignored that their data showed the clouds had also reduced solar heating. Thus adding LW and subtracting shortwave energy resulted in similar IR emissions from the skin surface, and they magically argue thus CO2 warms the ocean. Apparently in times of such heavy propaganda such bogus conclusions convince the non-critical thinkers!
You really need to read those studies more carefully bdgx, before making the unsubstantiated claim the IR heats the oceans. You dont wear it well,
I’ve never been able to warm my bathtub water, let alone my coffee cup with a 1500 watt hairdryer. That’s really strange since the same power in the heating element of my toaster will burn my toast to a crisp in a couple of minutes. It must have something to do with the material being exposed to the radiant heat I suspect.
No, it has to do with the thermal inertia of bathtub vs toast. 100 l water takes 400 kJ to raise 1°C. That is about 270 seconds per °C, or 13.5 °C/hour. But it’s true you can’t burn the water.
Poor Nick, how do you ever get a cup of tea…
… all that heating from above will get you absolutely nowhere,
On a similar experiment, while swimming in the sea, I’ve tried exhaling my CO2 laden breath underwater to see how much the top 1mm warms up. It doesn’t.
It’s also obvious that dear old Nick has spent too much time in the laboratory and not much time at sea.
“On any given day about half the weather stations experience warm anomalies while half experience cooling anomalies.”
Is that graph meant to represent daily values? It looks much more like monthly anomalies to me.
In any even I’m not sure why you think it doesn’t show much warming. At the start of the century, almost no station had an anomaly close to +8°C, by the 21st century there a quite a few more, and some over +8. Just going by the top of the top of the graph I might judge there has been something like 3°C of warming since 1900. Fortunately the average anomaly only make it look like half that. Much less scary if you don’t understand what an average temperature means.
“3°C of warming since 1900.”
Remember, this is not actual “real” data.
It is an agenda-driven fabrication from places with massive urban warming effects, aircraft jets, air-conditioners etc etc
Only scary if you are a gullible and mindless chicken-little.
“Remember, this is not actual “real” data.”
So why use it to make the graph look less “scary”?
Just imagine with all the urban and jet engine warming taken out
Then clowns like you can really start to panic about the non-existent warming.
Facing REALITY is very hard for you, isn’t it !
Try not to PANIC !
Hollywood wants to replace screenwriters and actors with an “artificial intelligence”. It looks like an insult to the “artificial intelligence”. “Artificial” should be enough for this horror.
The final and fatal solution for the UN to succeed in its equal distribution of wealth and to obtain its long-awaited global government is to magnify and enlarge normal-sized Antonio Guterres long enough to further terrorize humanity.
” Typically, they experience an . . x . . change between morning and noon, ”
Your mileage may vary, but my high temperature typically occurs in late afternoon. My low centers on 6:30am and the afternoon high about 4:30pm. On clear sky-summer days the difference is often 50 Fahrenheit degrees (28 C degrees).
Regarding Jim’s last graphic, yes, the sun heats the oceans, and lack of sun cools the oceans, and also the land surface, and it is the oceans and land surface that either heat or cool the atmosphere. The warmunists have it all exactly backwards.
The oceans and the land surface are massive heat sinks, meaning they collect and store thermal energy and then transfer that energy, via both radiation and convection, to the air that travels over their respective surfaces. Vast amounts of heat energy are stored in the massive oceans with relatively little change in their measured temperatures due to their low specific heat property.
The second law of thermodynamics requires that heat energy always moves from a warmer mass to a cooler mass absent a conversion of energy. Hence warm air warms an ocean, but in reality, however, the warming or cooling of water by air is an infinitesimal transfer of thermal energy due to their respective differences in mass and specific heat.
Both land and oceans, but especially oceans, are vastly more massive than the atmosphere, quite obviously, by factors measured in millions to one, and so oceans collect, store and release vastly more thermal energy than air. Additionally, liquid water has four times the specific heat of air – specific heat being the amount of energy in kcal required to be gained or lost per kg of mass to result in a temperature change of plus or minus deg C.
Liquid water also has four times the specific heat of the average of Earth’s land surfaces even though the masses are more comparable than with air. However, hard surfaces like pavement and building materials have much lower specific heat than vegetated surfaces, which is why deserts experience far greater diurnal temperature swings than forests or growing crop lands. This also explains the urban heat island effect, where developed surfaces store much more energy during daylight than undeveloped areas, resulting in higher air temperatures.
This effect of mass on heat transfer is the principal behind thermal insulation – materials that have relatively little mass, such as mats of fiberglass fiber containing large volumes of trapped air that act to impede the transfer of heat from one side of the insulation to the other. Materials that are more massive, or dense, with little to no air content such as concrete, steel, aluminum, glass etc. are poor thermal insulators. Double and triple pane glazing uses the same principal – sandwiching an air space between two or more layers of glass to reduce heat transfer through the glazing.
Warmunists, being the non-scientists that nearly all of them are – they’re just computer coders and politicians for the most part – don’t understand thermodynamics or physical chemistry in the slightest. They do not realize the difference between a measured temperature, and the energy content of matter.
My alien is not gigantic.
It fits on my face, neatly.
Mr Steele:
” Why the Sun, Not CO2, Heats the Oceans:”
Actually with an absence of handwaving – here the science re IR “warming” the oceans ….. actually via reducing cooling.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351
“The additional energy generated from the absorption of IR radiation has been shown to support the change in the TSL temperature gradient. Our results indicate the mean curvature of the TSL has adjusted such that the gradient at the bottom boundary of the TSL adjusts from a higher to lower gradient. This was established through the lack of correlation between LWin@zenith with ΔTskin-5m and LWout indicating that the absorption of LWin@zenith is independent of ΔTskin-subskin and the correlation observed between LWin@zenith with ΔT0.1mm and ΔT0.1mm/ΔT5m which illustrates that more of the TSL profile exists within the EM skin layer’s emission depth of ∼0.1 mm as LWin@zenith increases.
Our findings provide an explanation of the mechanism for retaining upper ocean heat content as the incident IR radiation increases. The absorption of increased longwave has been deduced to compress vertically the curvature of the TSL, with a higher gradient forming close to the interface and a lower gradient at subskin depths. The smaller vertical gradient at subskin depths impedes the transfer of heat from the mixed layer into the TSL. Because the heat sink at the interface does not change measurably on the scales of our individual measurements, this means that less heat from the mixed layer contributes to the loss of heat at the interface. This analysis was based on the immediate changes of the TSL to the heat fluxes due to the instantaneous response of the TSL. Greater downwelling infrared forcing would alter the upper ocean heat budget by adjusting the TSL such that more heat beneath the TSL, resulting from the absorption of solar radiation, is retained. This thus provides an explanation for the indirect heating of the ocean by increasing levels of incident infrared radiation and the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017JC01335
“Abstract Ocean warming trends are observed and coincide with the increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities. At the ocean surface, most of the incoming infrared (IR) radiation is absorbed within the top micrometers of the ocean’s surface where the thermal skin layer (TSL) exists. Thus, the incident IR radiation does not directly heat the upper few meters of the ocean.
This paper investigates the physical mechanism between the absorption of IR radiation and its effect on heat transfer at the air-sea boundary. The hypothesis is that given the heat lost through the air-sea interface is controlled by the TSL, the TSL adjusts in response to variations in incident IR radiation to maintain the surface heat loss. This modulates the flow of heat from below and hence controls upper ocean heat content.
This hypothesis is tested using the increase in incoming longwave radiation from clouds and analyzing vertical temperature profiles in the TSL retrieved from sea-surface emission spectra. The additional energy from the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is reduced. The additional energy absorbed within the TSL supports more of the surface heat loss. Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.”
I will repeat my reply to bdgx, because the only paper using actual data to claim CO2 waarms the ocean had a bogus conclusion.
as I have tried to educate people before IR does not, but you seem easily swayed just by Minnett’s opinion and not his evidence. Wong & Minnett 2018 is a good example of how to falsely force a CO2 narrative onto their data.
During their ocean survey, they compared incoming and outgoing heat flux. To compare the effects of IR, they categorized their data in to clear and cloudy nighttime skies. Because both categories exhibited the same amount of IR emissions, they offered the hypothesis that increased IR reduced the thermal gradient, and so more CO2 inhibits the escape of subsurface heat.
But what was glaring and would never have gotten past an objective editor, was by using cloudy nights as their source of increased IR, they ignored that their data showed the clouds had also reduced solar heating. Thus adding LW and subtracting shortwave energy resulted in similar IR emissions from the skin surface, and they magically argue thus CO2 warms the ocean. Apparently in times of such heavy propaganda such bogus conclusions convince the non-critical thinkers!
I’ve already gone over all of this with Jim Steele.
And you’re going to love the irony here. Some of the graphics that he uses here, here, here, and here in attempt to convince people that IR cannot warm the ocean come from Minnett via [Wong & Minnett 2018] and [Gentemenn & Minnett 2008] who says that IR does indeed warm the ocean.
LOL BDGX, How many tomes to you need to be shown that there is damn good reasons why I use the evidence from WOng and Minnett but dismiss his bogus hypothesis that IR is heating the ocean. And that is also just half the story. The science of solar ponds have proven conclusively how salinity gradients trap solar heat, yet ClimateDopes want to argue ocean its CO2 and ignore that science.
So bdgx, I’ll repeat why your obsession with Wong and Minnett’s hypothesis shows a complete lack of your critical examination of their paper. Tet you keep repeating bad science.
Wong and Minnett is the only paper using actual data to claim CO2 warms the oceanbut conclude witha bogus conclusion only made possible by ignoring half ther own data. Wong & Minnett 2018 is a good example of how to falsely force a CO2 narrative onto good data and how alarmist blindly acceept it and repeat it ad nauseum.
During their ocean survey, they compared incoming and outgoing heat flux. To compare the effects of varying IR, they categorized their data in to clear and cloudy nighttime skies. Despite different absorption of IR, and because both categories exhibited the same amount of IR emissions, they offered the hypothesis that increased IR reduced the thermal gradient, and so concluded more CO2 inhibits the escape of subsurface heat.
But what was glaringly wrong and would never have gotten past an objective editor, was by using cloudy nights as their source of increased IR, they ignored that their data also showed the clouds had also reduced solar heating.
Thus adding LW but subtracting shortwave energy resulted in similar IR emissions from the skin surface. So they magically argue thus CO2 warms the ocean. Apparently in times of such heavy propaganda such bogus conclusions convince the non-critical thinkers!
Wong & Minnett 2018 is not the only paper. A simple review of their bibliography takes you back to the early 1900’s when cross referencing only 3 deep. And a Google Scholar search of the topic takes me back to the 1800s. I will say that what Wong & Minnett do is present a very detailed (perhaps the most detailed to date) microphysical explanation with real ocean and ambient backradiation data as opposed to controlled laboratory experiments. But that doesn’t mean they are the only game in town.
But my point is that you are using their work to make statements about infrared heating that is inconsistent with their work. If you don’t think water can be heated by infrared radiation then why use the graphics that Minnett published in the first place? And how do you explain and the countless experiments that occur every single day showing that infrared radiation upon a vessel of water causes the vessel to be at a higher temperature than it would be otherwise? It’s an experiment so simple you can do it in your own home.
Well bdgwx, by all means provide links to the papers that prove IR is warming the ocean and not the sun.
Please consider the greatest flux of heat into the ocean is limited to certain regions, eastern tropical oceans, where La Nina-like conditions allow greater uptake of solar heating.
Isnt it curious to you at all that ocean heating is driven by local conditions of soar heating and not by some imaginary global heating?
It’s also interesting that you , Stokes and Balnton have all have avoided the focus of this article, that using the average anomaly exaggerates a warming trend by uncoupling the avearge anomalies from the far greater variations in real temperatures
bdgwx:
After a quick scan of your, err, discussion with Mr Steele – it only cements my resolve to minimise my, my interaction with him.
This just one of his choice responses to you ….
”You are so dishonestly slimy bdgwx.”
Now, I have had a similar experience with him resorting to ad hom some time ago, and as I far as I am concerned he loses all credibility/respect at that point. And patently it is useless to continue.
Have you come across this from Minnett’s 2004 voyage on the Tangaroa ….
Re Steele’s “…. by using cloudy nights as their source of increased IR, they ignored that their data showed the clouds had also reduced solar heating.”
The above clearly shows that Minnett used both day and night as data points (colour coded), and clearly shows that increasing DLWIR causes and the deltaT between the skin-lyr temp and the bulk below to reduce. More DWLWIR warmer skin, thereby slowing conduction of the bulk heat to the skin-lyr and hence necessarily onward to space.
This under all times and sky conditions.
Also Roy Spencer maintains that LWIR “warms” the oceans, so even “sceptics” can’t agree.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
“As can be seen in the 5 minute temperature data overnight, the cooler with the IR shield stayed a little warmer. The relative faster cooling of the unshielded cooler was slowed when high-level clouds moved in around 1:30 a.m. (as deduced from GOES satellite imagery).”
Well both you Anthony and bdgwx have attacked me personally before. You both like to attack the messenger when you cant refute the message. So I see here again you had to go digging up my past characterizing of bdgwx as “dishonestly slimy” from some past disagreements that ypu take out of context. Indeed when commenters punch me, I gladly punch back, and simply call them how I see them.
What I see as a slimy argument tactic is using irrelevant data to dismiss the issue in question. Its an obfuscation tactic. For example, I have shown the Wong and Minnett concluded by offering a bad alarmist hypothesis by cherrypicking their own data, ignoring how clouds reduced the observed solar heating which had reduced the temperature gradient. Instead they present nothing more than a guess that it was increased IR from the clouds.
I must say, I also find it slimy to obfuscate the 2018 paper being discussed by inserting an irrelevant comment from a 2004 Minnett paper saying then he used “both day and night data”. LOL That does not refute my criticism of W&M 2018 at all. But such tactics are common when a commenters’ science is lacking.
And then there’s your reference to Roy Spencer’s backyard experiment (that really needed more controls) to show some skeptics believe IR heats the oceans. I highly respect Roy and think he is a man of absolute integrity. Indeed we skeptics do not mindlessly repeat the dogma like alarmist so often do. Instead we debate with each other hoping to get closer to the truth. That’s why we skeptics are such good scientists. So your reference to Roy, is really just another obfuscation tactic without ever addressing or refuting my arguments. Now if you have a better word for such a ‘debating style” other than slimy, I’d love to hear it.
Finally, I fully support your “resolve to minimise your interaction with me”. It has never advanced the scientific debate at hand.
I most sincerely want you to improve your understanding of ocean heating, so I encourage you learn some science by visiting my video Science of Solar Ponds Challenges the Climate Crisis at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl3_YQ_Vufo&t=10s . If you prefer to read, there’s a link to the transcript! Enjoy!
That conversation took several unexpected turns as well. I was told that only the water in the skin layer emits radiation and that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not apply to bodies that are not in equilibrium with their surroundings. Yeah, it got pretty weird.
For the lurkers…you can actually prove that subsurface water parcels emit radiation with a simple experiment. Here is what I did. I filled a large bowl with hot water at 50 C measured with a standard K type thermocouple. I then took my trusty Fluke 62 out and did a few control measurements. It read 50 C when pointed at the water, 20 C pointed at various room items, and 3 C when pointed into the refrigerator. I then put the Fluke 62 into a ZipLock bag. BTW…ZipLock was chosen because it is water-tight and because it is made of polyethylene which has a high IR transmittance. Anyway, I repeated the measurements with the instrument in the ZipLock bag. Again, I got 50, 20, and 3 C measurements (within 1 or 2 C anyway) verifying that the ZipLock bag is indeed IR transparent at least in the 8-14 um band. I then dunked the Fluke 62 into the middle of the bowl. You guessed it. It read 50 C. No matter how deep or shallow I put it or which direction it was oriented it always read 50 C. I removed the ZipLock bag and Fluke 62 and it immediately went back to reading 20 C. If subsurface water parcels didn’t emit radiation then my Fluke 62 wouldn’t have reported anything nevermind the correct temperature.
I was cordially rewarded with the title “full retard” for my efforts in the conversation.
Hmmm. Instead of discussing the science presented here, bdgwwx wants to cry about how I hurt his feelings after he shared his brilliance. Bad Jim.
Here he presents again that all the past physics of heat transfer is wrong. All the satellites measuring heat radiating from the ocean measure IR to get the surface temperature and microwave to estimate subsurface temperatures should have instead used his method. All the scientific efforts to get accurate temperature data using satellites had proven that they can’t get subsurface temperatures from IR and that the skin surface that does not emit IR, underestimates the subsurface temperatures. But bdgwx knows better
How could I ever have doubted bdgwx brilliant experiment with a ziplock bag and a thermocouple?
However Wong and Minnett would likely challenge bdgwx with sold tested science. They wrote, “the majority of the [IR] emissions originate from depths of less than 0.1 mm, within the The Skin Layer. This property is the basis of the use of IR radiometers on ships, aircraft and satellites as the radiation measured by these instruments originates from this layer thereby facilitating the estimation of surface temperatures, referred to as the skin temperature.”
I feel so bad! If NASA used bdgwx’s method they would have saved billions. How dare I think the bdgwx’s incessant argument suggested he had gone “full retard.” I was just passing on the sage advice from the movie Tropic Thunder, “never go full retard.”
Something for you to think about bdgwx . If you place your Ziplock bag inside a bowl of 50 C water, to what temperature would the Ziplock become. I again suggest that what your Fluke62 is measuring is IR emitted from the warmed Ziplock and reaching your trusty FLuke62 passing only through air, or also possibly emitted from the “skin surface” surrounding the Ziplock. It doesn’t represent IR from the interior of the water as much as you want to believe you have disproved established science.
Oh my…how could I be so stupid and not think about the possibility of IR being emitted and absorbed by the ZipLock. I really should have demonstrated that the bag isn’t emitting or absorbing 8-14 um radiation before I dunked everything under water. This is so embarrassing. Oh wait…nevermind…I did do that.
LOL There’s just one the possible problems with your experiment. At room temperature, EVERY solid would emit 8-14 um radiation.
I suggest just letting it go. All of science disagrees with you. Yet you have been whining about me not accepting your conclusions for about a year.
So now back to the meat of this post. Do you disagree with Dr. Lindzen too?
Patently False.
If he thinks that subsurface water parcels do not emit radiation or that the SB law only applies to bodies that are in equilibrium with their surroundings then yes, I disagree with Dr. Lindzen.
Patently false you say. Hmmm
First I dont know of anyone who disagrees with observations that hen solids are heated they emit all wavelengths of light (a continuous spectrum)
And attached is a graph of the wavelengths that a blackbody emits at 300 k (80F). This spectrum has been measured and expected from theoretical physics. Notice that some of the most intense IR is around 8-14 um . But you bdgwx, have prove all the scientists wrong and claim its “patently false” because your Fluke62 didnt detect it from your Ziplock.
Gee bdgwx, I dont know why you haven’t received the NOBEL for your revolutionary science.
However it should be clear to everyone why a labeled you as I did when you first pushed this long ago.
No. I have not proved all scientists wrong. I’ve only proved wrong any scientist who still thinks that the polyethylene used by ZipLock is a blackbody or has a transmittance in the 8-14 um band that is so low it would prevent an IR gun from distinguishing between a high emissivity bodies at 50 C, 20 C, and 3 C.
And I’m not going to be getting a Nobel Prize for this observation because it is already well known. One of the best examinations of polyethylene’s absorption spectrum is from [Thompson & Torkington 1944] from almost 80 years ago.
LOL You do know absorption spectrums and emission spectrums can differ??? Your graph shows the shortwave/solar energy that your Ziplock absorbs. It doesnt prove your claim that a solid at 80F emits a continuous spectrum. Its amazing how Tropic Thunder quotes apply.
Yes it does. It’s good to know that you can read the graph. Now what does it say for the 8-14 um band?
I made no such claim.
What I claimed is that ZipLock bags have high transmittance in the 8-14 um band. I demonstrated it as part of my experiment proving that subsurface water parcels do, in fact, emit radiation. I then posted a link to a publication showing scientists have known about polyethylene’s high transmittance in the 8-14 um band for nearly 80 years thus making me ineligible for a Nobel Prize.
Let me clear…your claim that subsurface water parcels do not emit radiation is not only dead wrong, but it is completely absurd.
Sigh! As I have informed you countless times before, the subsurface does not emit IR. IR only gets emitted from the skin layer. The subsurface does emit microwaves, which is what our satellite technology measures.
And the more you flail about trying to save face, the more you expose you ignorance and some apparent dishonesty.
You wrote: I then posted a link to a publication showing scientists have known about polyethylene’s high transmittance in the 8-14 um band”.
First your link discusses absorbtion peaks and does not talk about transmission or emission of IR. In fact, they wrote that your polyethylene does absorb quite a bit in the 6.85 and 13.85um band, just the opposite of your claims and incessant attempts to deflect from the science presented in this article.. Perhaps you missed it, but that pretty well covers the 8-14 um band you have been ranting about.
“The absorption at about 2900 cm.-1 (3-4um) is due to absorption of frequencies associated with the vibrations of C—H bonds. It has-been examined in detail by Fox & Martin (1940) for extracts of polythene in carbon tetrachloride, using the higher resolving power of a grating spectrometer. The dispersion and resolving power which we have so far used for this region does not bring out the fine details of this group of bands. Next in intensity are the two bands at 6.85 and 13.85um.”
I understand it is difficult to find good science that supports your dubious claims. So I suggest to re-gain a shred of credibility, that you link to papers that actually support your narratives.
I must say I am very worried about your lack of understanding of physics. You really need to up your game so you can carry on intelligent debates here on WUWT.
I suggest start with learning Kirchhoff’s Laws of Radiation. You do realized Laws are the only settled science.
As the Law states: hot solid, liquid or gas, under high pressure, gives off a continuous spectrum.”
Thus you plastic bag heated by 50C water will most defintitely emit continuous spectrum, of which you have confused with originating from deeper in the water’s subsurface.
Perhaps going to this website will provide you with the needed help
https://phys.libretexts.org/Courses/HACC_Central_Pennsylvania's_Community_College/Astronomy_103%3A_Introduction_to_Planetary_Astronomy/04%3A_Electromagnetic_Radiation/4.04%3A_Kirchhoffs_Laws
Yes. You keep saying it. That’s all you do…only say it. I actually tested it. I encouraged you to repeat my experiment and prove it for yourself. So far you have declined.
I’m talking about transmittance. It is the amount of radiation that passes through a substance.
Is 6.85 um between 8 um and 14 um?
What percent does 13.85 – 14.00 um represent out of 8 – 14 um?
Answer the question. Don’t deflect. Don’t divert.
This has to be a joke right?
Is 3-4 um between 8 and 14 um?
It was so easy to find good science I was able to track down polyethylene’s absorption spectrum from nearly 80 years ago.
I’m quite familiar with it. It says in the simplest form that emissivity is equal to absorptivity. This why I posted the Thompson & Torkington absorption spectrum. I knew before had that absorption and emission are equivalent and I assumed you knew that as well.
Irrelevant. The ZipLock bag is neither hot nor under high pressure.
And yet it didn’t do that. I’ll repeat again. I tested the polyethylene for transmittance before doing the water dunk experiment. It did NOT emit in a continuous spectrum. Specifically it was highly transparent to 8-14 um radiation exactly like what Thompson & Torkington and the countless scientists after them said.
BTW…I repeated the control experiment just now. I cut out a rectangle piece of polyethylene from a ZipLock bag and covered the thermopile of my Fluke 62. My Fluke 62 now has to look through the polyethylene film. After taking several measurements with the film at 295 K I was getting transmittances through the film of roughly 95% which is actually higher than Thompson & Torkington’s plot would have suggested. Of course, ZipLock having over 50 years to perfect their product likely uses a more pure polyethylene material than what T&T had in 1944. Anyway, the point is that the ZipLock material is almost completely transparent to the 8-14 um radiation that my Fluke 62 is measuring. Why I point the instrument at a body it is telling me the temperature of that body within 2-4 K with the polyethylene filter in place.
This has to be a joke right?
I only wish your posts were just a joke, so I could laugh with you instead of at you. The illustration you posted showed between 8-14 um absorbed 10% of the solar energy.
Certainly not the complete transmission you keep whining about! Never mind how any absorbed energy is quickly transmitted throughout the solid plastic causing the complete spectrum of wavelengths.
You really need to understand the physics.
First, incoming solar radiation peaks at 0.5 um nowhere close to the 8-14 um band. Second, solar energy has nothing to do with this. I’m not pointing my Fluke 62 at the Sun nor am I expecting water or any other substance I was point the instrument at to emit like the Sun.
I never said polyethylene had complete transmittance. In fact, when we first had this conversation I said it was probably closer to 80% consistent with the T&T 1944 graph above. After doing some more experiments today I now know I was too conservative and that the transmittance is actually higher.
If it’s absorbed it then it wasn’t transmitted through.
BTW…I’m still waiting for answers the questions.
Is 6.85 um between 8 um and 14 um?
What percent does 13.85 – 14.00 um represent out of 8 – 14 um?