What If The Missing Heat Returned To The Surface?

Climate experts claim that there is missing heat, hiding in 3ºC water at the bottom of the sea.

If that frigid water every turned over and came to the surface, temperatures at the surface would become extremely cold.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to What If The Missing Heat Returned To The Surface?

  1. omanuel says:

    Climate experts will claim anything to delay being stripped of their deceptive titles.

  2. bobmaginnis says:

    But the deep water does return to the surface, upwelling off Peru etc. It hasn’t been warmed much, but it cools the warm equatorial East Pacific some hundredths of a degree less than it would otherwise.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upwelling
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    • Temperatures in Peru have plummeted over the past few decades.

    • nielszoo says:

      The problem is the “missing” heat doesn’t exist to begin with. It is the fictional child of a flawed belief that our atmosphere exhibits a “greenhouse effect” that warms it up because of another fabricated process called “back radiation” supposedly driven by a trace gas with powers even Superman would envy. The climate “science” these folks use violates both the first and second laws of thermodynamics allowing them to create a fantasy framework for an amazingly naive application of S-B black body radiation theory for low pressure gasses and a gross misunderstanding of the differences between radiative and convective heat transfer. Add on rejecting ideal gas laws (the sciency ones, not the EPA ones) and ignoring the properties of our atmospheric components and you’ve got a clean sweep of ignorance… most of which could have been avoided had they paid attention in High School chemistry and physics which is where most real scientists and engineers first learn about all those fundamental energy relationships.

      Climate “science” may be the only place they can get work because if you tried to run factory processes, using their vast pool of practical scientific knowledge, we would quickly be up to our scorched eyebrows in Bhopal level accidents, surrounded by exploding distillation towers, clouds of toxic gasses and hypersonic shards of over pressure reaction vessels.

      • darrylb says:

        Niel, I an not going to debate this in detail. but back radiation can be measured with a simple hand held device
        Without the greenhouse effect we would not have a temperature gradient which causes vertical movement of air which causes weather.
        Without it we would not have life on earth as we know it. Also, water vapor is the most significant green house gas
        I am very skeptical of a significant anthropogenic (Human) cause of some change in the climate, but I am just sayin’
        Gail Combs (whom I would like to meet) and I have discussed this to some degree on this blog.
        By the way I taught advanced placement chem and physics.
        I also would bet on the fact that the ‘missing heat’ does not exist.
        You may have gotten some info from the “slaying the sky dragon group’
        Consider just one aspect of Thermodynamics. Radiation can come from (through) cold space and heat up a warmer body like earth.

        • squid2112 says:

          I don’t believe Nielszoo is suggesting there isn’t any such thing as “back radiation”, what Nielszoo is correctly describing is that, a cooler object cannot make a warmer object warmer still, or put very simply, you cannot warm yourself using “back radiation”.

          Furthermore, if you knew anything of which you speak, you would realize that the temperature of 15u (the bandwidth that CO2 is capable of “back radiating”) is approximately -80C! … -80C isn’t going to heat anything on this planet.

          Radiation can come from (through) cold space and heat up a warmer body like earth.

          This quote says it all … you know not a thing about physics and certainly nothing about thermodynamics. I suggest you refrain from commenting on these subjects, you look incredibly stupid.

        • Robert Austin says:

          “-80C isn’t going to heat anything on this planet.”
          It doesn’t “heat”, it just slows cooling relative to radiating directly to space at close to 0K. The real “greenhouse” effect is that the CO2’s radiation to space occurs at the tropopause, not at the Earth’s surface.

        • Robert B says:

          “Without the greenhouse effect we would not have a temperature gradient which causes vertical movement of air which causes weather.”

          We still would have a temperature gradient of 0.1 C per 15 m. What would be slower would be transfer of energy from surfaces to the air.

        • squid2112 says:

          @Robert Austin,

          And you cannot heat the surface from the tropopause, and therefore, you cannot have a “greenhouse effect” either. No matter how you spin it, you simply cannot heat our planet with CO2, there is no way you can spin it to make this happen. It is impossible.

        • darrylb says:

          Robert B. of course, I stand corrected on the temp gradient quantity.

        • daveburton says:

          darrylb wrote, “Radiation can come from (through) cold space and heat up a warmer body like earth,” which is true.

          squid2112 replied, ” you know not a thing about physics and certainly nothing about thermodynamics. I suggest you refrain from commenting on these subjects, you look incredibly stupid,” which was incorrect, and very impolite.

          Look up the word “transparent,” squid2112. If radiation passes through matter which is transparent to that radiation, then the radiation does not affect the transparent matter’s temperature, even though that radiation may have a dramatic effect on the temperature of whatever eventually absorbs it.

          The fact is, a cooler object certainly can and commonly does make a warmer object warmer than it otherwise would have been, simply by reducing radiative and/or convective heat loss. The effect may make a cooling object cool more slowly, or a warming object heat more quickly.

          Try this experiment: instead of pan-frying your steak in just one frying pan, cut it in half, and cook it in two identical frying pans, on two identical burners of your electric stove, both set to the same setting. Leave one of the frying pans uncovered, but lay a sheet of aluminum foil over the other. Which cooks faster?

          Or, take a couple of thermometers to bed with you on a chilly night, with the air, bed, sheets & blankets all initially at about 16°C (61°C). Hold one thermometer between the toes of your left foot, and one between the toes of your right foot, both initially at about 98°F (37°C). Pull the sheet and blankets over your left foot, but leave your right foot uncovered. Wait 15 minutes, and check the temperatures registered by the two thermometers. What effect did the cooler sheet & blankets have on the temperature of your warmer left foot?

          Or, put a roll of plastic wrap in the freezer, and leave it overnight. Then put a pair of thermometers into a pair of glass jars, and fill the jars with very hot water. Verify that the thermometers read the same temperature. Then remove the plastic wrap from the freezer, tear off a piece, and use it to cover one of the two jars. Which jar of water cools more quickly?

          Now, there’s no need to apologize for your mistake about the physics. Everyone makes mistakes. But please apologize to Darryl for being so rude.

        • daveburton says:

          typo: “16°C (61°C)” should be “16°C (61°F),” of course.

          Here’s another experiment. Using a large magnifying glass, at ambient outdoor temperature, focus the rays of the sun onto an ant, and ask the ant whether the cool glass caused his body to get warmer. (In case you don’t happen to speak antish, I can translate for you: “sizzle, pop!” means “yes, I feel warmer.”)

        • kuhnkat says:

          DaveBurton,

          your magnifying glass example is ridiculous. It refracts the suns energy which is from a hotter object so does not prove anything as far as LWR.

          your pan frying example is equally ridiculous as, like a real greenhouse, the main job of the aluminum foil is to stop convective cooling of the steaks upper surface. Stick your tongue on the aluminum when the steak is done.

          finally, whether you believe in LWR heating anything or not it is absorbed in the top layer of the surface of the ocean evaporating water which carries the energy away which has little effect either warming or slowing the cooling. The fact is that overturning is common in the ocean due to the surface cooling faster than the water underneath can conduct energy upwards.

        • kuhnkat says:

          DaveBurton,

          when will you think of an experiment that does not conflate the effects of stopping convection and slowing conduction with Long Wave energy?!?!?!

        • nielszoo says:

          I have tried answering this three times and WordPress keeps sending my reply into the aether no matter how I format my links so I’ll go without. A greenhouse physically traps warm gas with a mechanical barrier. No gas can do that nor can it mimic those effects. It is not how our atmosphere works. If you actually taught chemistry and physics I certainly hope you did not teach that water vapor is a gas, acted like a gas or absorbed and emitted energy like a gas. Water vapor is NOT a gas and cannot be treated as one. There is no such thing as “backradiation” from CO2 at atmospheric pressures. The only thing it can do, along with the rest of the gases in the atmosphere, is mechanically transfer energy via convection. There is not enough time to excite the molecules and allow them to shed that energy via a drop to ground state nor is there a lower energy path for those photons under normal atmospheric conditions. You cannot use black body energy formulas for gases. They are not black body radiators in either gas or plasma states. The energy distribution for radiating gases do not fall into nice smooth Gaussian curves, they are line emitters and using BB formulas for them massively over-predicts the amount of energy involved in violation of the first law of thermodynamics… can’t make energy up out of nothing… not even math.

          I don’t know what you think you’re measuring with that hand held sensor, but it’s not -84°C line emissions from CO2 unless you were at the USSR’s Vostok Station back in ’83 when they measured something like -89°C. Thermodynamics… the “dynamic” part is the giveaway. No potential difference equals no energy transfer. The other nail in the coffin is that none of the free air ambient temperature microbolometers currently in use (FLIR etc.) would work if CO2 was really “backradiating” like the Climateers say it does. It would make the atmosphere into an opaque thermal fog. Almost nothing in the atmosphere is going to be transferring heat via radiative flux at the pressures of most of the atmosphere and the fact that CO2 isn’t hotter than the surrounding gases.

          “Greenhouse” effects have nothing whatsoever to do with atmospheric temperature gradients. Gas pressure produced by gravity does all that. Higher pressures equals higher temperatures. Lower pressures equals lower temperatures. Hot gas rises, trading thermal energy for potential kinetic energy (in our gravity field.) Eventually it gets high enough that the molecules are no longer close enough to transfer energy mechanically and any leftover energy not used by the planet is now radiated into the -3°K of space as convection is halted by the near vacuum surrounding us. If it didn’t work this way the Australian Outback and the Atacama Desert would be the same temperature… they aren’t. Same latitude, same flat arid landscape but Atacama gets more solar radiation than the Outback so which is hotter? The Outback as it is in a higher pressure zone than Atacama. This would still be true if we had no CO2 or CH4 in our atmosphere.

          p.s. I have no idea what your “sky dragon” comment is about.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Another fundamental mistake is the ASSumption that the earth’s energy is in equilibrium. It is not. There are lag times involved so it never was and never will be in equilibrium.

      • bobmaginnis says:

        It was you that didn’t pay attention in physics class. There is no violation of thermodynamics. The Sun warms the below surface Ocean, GHGs slightly reduce surface losses.

      • darrylb says:

        Squid common, I know the laws of thermodynamics quite well.
        You begin by contradicting yourself when you write that he isn’t arguing that there is no back radiation. ANY back radiation is coming from a place which is cooler to the earth’s surface which is warmer. I know of no atmospheric scientist who would disagree with that
        Heat cannot transfer from a cold to a hot body by conduction etc that is basic, and the argument continues that this law is being violated.
        Are you familiar with quantum mechanics?
        A substance such as some gases having molecules in the excited state radiates spherically. Some downward radiation, if it is not absorbed in the atmosphere will be absorbed by the earth if photons are radiated to a substance such as water that has internal molecular or atomic vibrations that are sympathetic to the photon frequency, When the earth substance absorbs the photon, it will move to an excited state then later readmit it.
        This is independent of kinetic energy, it is internal to the electron structures within atoms.
        This has been argued at Roy Spencer’s blog and he has it explained it in detail several timesl
        The point about radiation through space, is that EM energy is moving through an environment in which there is no (or almost no) matter and therefore cannot contain heat. Give that a thought, and then reference any written material if you can which contradicts that.
        and Squid, please refrain from Ad Hominen remarks, I see it all the time among the warmist trolls and it only serves to make you seem smaller.

        • darrylb says:

          Maybe I will take this a bit further. The laws of thermodynamics are fundamental and very important to classical physics. Another item in classical physics that involves transfer of energy causing one body to change in temp while the other the other remains at constant temp is when one changes state. That does not violate the Thermo- laws
          But Classical physics comes up short in two areas. In addition to quantum mechanics which involves electrons jumping to different energy levels as I just wrote a short line about. The other is nuclear.
          From a cool atom (in terms of kinetic or potential energy) in the classical sense a tremendous amount of energy can be emitted to a warmer body by a change in the nucleus. I do not think that requires any more of an explanation.

        • Gail Combs says:

          darrylb,

          I think part of the confusion is just what the 2nd law is actually saying.

          All matter above 0K radiates. (Stefan–Boltzmann law)

          Therefore:

          Colder ==> Hotter
          BUT you also have
          Hotter ============> Colder
          where the NET heat transfer (vector) is
          Hotter ==========>Colder
          where each = represents a photon.

  3. darrylb says:

    The heat would only be manifested in a tiny fraction of a degree higher temp over a vast quantity of water.
    Trenberth, in his tautological reanalysis of models gave one of dozens of explanations of missing heat.
    The water at significant depths will always be at about 4 deg celsius because at that temp it is the most dense under tremendous pressure.
    Now, here is one of God’s wonderful wonders. Water is unique in that to freeze it it must expand. Almost every other substance in liquid form will contract when it freezes.
    So at great pressure it cannot freeze because it cannot expand.
    If water contracted when it froze, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and we would not have life as we know it.

    • stewart pid says:

      Didn’t some guy named Vonnegut invent ice 9 that freezes bottom up 😉

      • emsnews says:

        Correct. It formed a new latticework for crystallization. Turned the world into Pluto.

        • Gail Combs says:

          A company I worked for managed to pull this one off. There was a new chemical compound* that was a liquid at room temp. Some how L.C managed to get a crystal to form. (How they did that in South Carolina is anyones guess) After that the compound world wide became a solid.

          *VANDRIDE: A LIQUID ANHYDRIDE CURING AGENT FOR RESINS

    • The semiconductors GaP and GaAs also share this same property.

    • daveburton says:

      darrylb wrote, “water at significant depths will always be at about 4 deg celsius because at that temp it is the most dense under tremendous pressure.”

      That’s not correct.

      1. Water at tremendous depths/pressures can be either considerably colder than 4°C or much hotter, while remaining liquid. Deep ocean temperatures are extremely stable, but vary somewhat with location. Most water in the deep ocean is a bit colder than 4°C, typically between 0 and 3°C. And

      2. The maximum density of seawater does not occur at +4°C. The temperature of maximum density depends on pressure (depth), and exact salinity, but it is considerably colder than 4°C.

      You’re thinking of freshwater. Seawater is different. Here’s a calculator to calculate density of seawater from temperature, salinity & pressure:
      http://www.csgnetwork.com/water_density_calculator.html

      At a pressure of 1600 decibars (about one mile depth), and salinity of 35 PSU (a typical number), that calculator reports:

      -10°C => 1035.936 kilogram/cubic-meter
      -9°C => 1035.967 kg/cu-m
      -8°C => 1035.982 kg/cu-m
      -7.5°C => 1035.983 kg/cu-m <— maximum density
      -7°C => 1035.981 kg/cu-m
      -6°C => 1035.967 kg/cu-m
      -5°C => 1035.938 kg/cu-m
      -4°C => 1035.895 kg/cu-m
      -3°C => 1035.840 kg/cu-m
      -2°C => 1035.771 kg/cu-m
      -1°C => 1035.690 kg/cu-m
      0°C => 1035.597 kg/cu-m
      1°C => 1035.492 kg/cu-m
      2°C => 1035.376 kg/cu-m
      3°C => 1035.249 kg/cu-m
      4°C => 1035.111 kg/cu-m
      5°C => 1034.962 kg/cu-m

      Near the surface, the maximum density of seawater is a bit warmer than that, only 2 to 4 °C below zero.

  4. Mike says:

    The missing heat is like “Bigfoot” theory of global warming. Every warmists think they have seen it, but yet no one has proof.

  5. Send Al to the Pole says:

    This fantasy heat discovered at depth is what? .01C? It’s a calibration mirage.

  6. RMB says:

    There is no missing heat. The only “heat” that makes it into the ocean goes in via radiation from the sun no additional “heat” can pass through the ocean’s surface by the process of convection because the heat is blocked by surface tension. If this sounds far fetched try heating the surface of water using a heat gun . Trenberth is a clot, there is no such thing as a green house gas and no such thing as AGW period.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The surface tension on the ocean is broken by waves however IR in the CO2 absorption band, between 13.5 and 16.5 microns doesn’t go more than 5 to 10 microns deep.
      SEE: http://www.klimaatfraude.info/oceaanopwarming-of-zeespiegelstijging-door-co2-is-niet-mogelijk_193094.html

      Essentially all the ‘extra’ IR does is cause a bit more evaporation. This is the basis of the ” notion that positive feedback from water vapour triples the effects of CO2″

      However the real world results do not show that is what is happening. The Climatastrologists neglected the formation of more clouds means an increase in albedo, a NEGATIVE not positive feedback. OOPS!

      • RMB says:

        You say that disturbance of water breaks up surface tension. That is not the experience I’m having.You must try this for yourself. Fire a heat gun at the surface of water in a bucket. The heat gun is fan forced and disturbs the water significantly. After 5mins you will notice there is no steam arising despite the fact that the gun operates at 600degs C. If you test the water temp you will find that it has remained stone cold including the surface where the heat is being directed.
        Now don’t take my word for it try it for yourself.If you get any heat into the water let me know because I want to know what I am doing wrong.Heat can go into water by radiation, the sun does that every day, you can float a metal object on the surface and apply the heat to that, that’ll work. What you can not do is put heat into water by convection.
        If the disturbance of water reduced surface tension you would not need soap in a washing machine. Because of surface tension no additional heat can pass from the atmosphere into the ocean therefore there can be no build up of heat. Heat in the ocean is all down to radiation. There is no such thing as AGW.

  7. Password protected says:

    I can control the climate in my car, my house and my work place. It’s totally unfair I can’t control it outside. Oh wait, maybe I can, right Mr President?

  8. Ed Martin says:

    Pamela Gray talks about Ocean turnover setting off ice age. I’ve seen the big reservoirs over 200ft deep in the Ozarks turn over quite dramatically. It’s a much more dramatic change than when the shallow lakes in lower elevations turn.

    The Earth’s great air conditioner is cooling down. No need to look for heat being hidden in the deep oceans, none there. It is freezing cold, not warming. The Arctic is not warming and melting. The Antarctic sea ice is freezing over at a record rate. More ice means less solar energy going in, dropping the overall net energy.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “…More ice means less solar energy going in, dropping the overall net energy.”

      Yes, that is what happened to the ‘Missing Heat’ The Sun shifts the wavelengths at which it emits energy. TSI may remain relatively constant but the amount of energy at EUV, UV and Vis wavelengths does not. Since different wavelengths affect different portions of the atmosphere (think Ozone) and penetrate to different depths of water the changes caused by Solar Cycle 24 show up as ‘Missing Heat’

      NASA: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

      …the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

      There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet…

      Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

      Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth’s surface. There are many “top-down” pathways for the sun’s influence. For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth’s surface.

      Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. “The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies.” In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course. [Polar Vortex anyone?]….

      Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.

      The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them…..

      The full report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” is available from the National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519

      • Robertv says:

        http://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/observacion/radiacion/ultravioleta?l=barcelona&f=anual

        Question ,Is the sun’s surface (5778 K) warming the corona (1,000,000–2,000,000) K or is the corona warming the sun’s surface ? If it is the corona warming the surface of the sun then it is the sun’s surface back radiation which is warming the Earth.

      • darrylb says:

        thanks for the info Gail, I am learning (and getting corrected) more from this thread than I believe any other I have been on.
        Although there are some points of which I will not stand corrected, nor will I belabor the point. As you stated, skeptics cannot afford to make mistakes, better to keep our mouth shut — or a keyboard still.

        • geran says:

          darrylb, if you think that “back radiation can be measured with a simple hand held device” in any way proves the GHE, then you may have to be corrected once again.

          🙂

        • Gail Combs says:

          geran,
          All matter above 0 kelvin radiates. (SEE: Stefan–Boltzmann law below) That is the “back radiation [that] can be measured with a simple hand held device” It really has nothing to do with greenhouse gases and everything to do with the fact that the atoms and molecules in the atmosphere are not at 0 kelvin and therefore radiate according to their temperature.

          Trainbreath uses that fact to trick people as John Kehr explains in his two articles.

          The Earth’s Energy Balance: Simple Overview

          The Difference between “Forcing” and Heat Transfer

          I am also going to stick in this article because it covers a critical point on energy balance and the application of the Stefan–Boltzmann law.
          The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

          From WIKI en(DOT)wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law

          The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan’s law, describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant exitance or emissive power), , is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T….

          A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity: e < 1

          The irradiance j has dimensions of energy flux (energy per time per area), and the SI units of measure are joules per second per square metre, or equivalently, watts per square metre. The SI unit for absolute temperature T is the kelvin. e is the emissivity of the grey body; if it is a perfect blackbody, e = 1 . In the still more general (and realistic) case, the emissivity depends on the wavelength, e = e(λ) .

          To find the total power radiated from an object, multiply by its surface area…..

          That was the very simple ‘idealized’ view. Jennifer Marohasy posts a note from an engineer known at WUWT and other blogs as Cementafriend that gets into an Engineer’s take on the
          the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation instead of that of a theoretical academic view.

        • geran says:

          Yup, but you forgot to mention how they also incorrectly calculate Earth’s “effective temperature”, which then leads to the false concept of the GHE.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Geran,
          I think Tony is doing a really fine job of covering the temperature issues.

        • geran says:

          Oh, sorry, I thought you might know about “effective temperature”.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature

        • Gail Combs says:

          geran,
          That certainly explains why L. Svalgaard is guarding “The Total Solar Insolation is Constant” Assumption like a Mamma bear guards her cubs.

    • Ed Martin says:

      You get a huge body of water like that cooling down it will naturally create more clouds and fog, reducing the Sun’s rays even more by blocking and deflection. More cooling without cosmic ray sound like your smart bullshyt. I rather liked D’Aleo comments about LS.

      http://m.ustream.tv/recorded/49739795?rmalang=en_US

      • Gail Combs says:

        Dang my old computer does not support vids of any kind.

        Can you point to a transcript or paraphrase what he said?

        For what it is worth there is this solar forecast from May 26, 2008 by Joe. He refers to several scientists but L.S. is conspicuous in his absence. If you read WUWT you would think L.S. was the leading Solar Physicist and the only one to predict cycle 24 correctly.

        http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=130

        And an update:
        http://m.solarcycle25.com/?id=391

        Jun 13th 2012
        …BTW, all of the continental heat extremes occurred in the lower solar periods.
        This is because the meridional patterns seem to persist when the sun is less active. That partially explains the persistant cold in the Paciifc Northwest down to coastal California while areas to the east have been stuck warm….

        And now we see the reverse pattern.

  9. theyouk says:

    Shouldn’t any ‘missing heat’ reveal itself in thermal expansion of the oceans? Shouldn’t we hold these clowns accountable and ask not just “where’s the missing heat?” but also “where’s the missing acceleration in sea level rise?”

  10. tom0mason says:

    The denser super-salt-and CO2-saturated warm water appears at imaginable depths by teleportation, where, over time, the CO2 seeps away to the atmosphere causing more poitive forcing on the natural warming variability. The warm body of water meanwhile telports the IR radiation back to the atmoshpere causing runaway global warming, until the now less dense and now cold water rises to the surface and nearly rebalances the energy just after we are all cooked, and earth becomes the new Venus.

    Now where’s my grant?

  11. rah says:

    “The Second Law essentially says that it is impossible to obtain a process where the unique effect is the subtraction of a positive heat from a reservoir and the production of a positive work. Energy exhibits entropy. It moves away form its source. In this sense, energy or heat cannot flow form a colder body to a hotter body.”

    • bobmaginnis says:

      rah, if the colder body is warmer than it was before, there will be less net heat loss from the warmer body, allowing it to become warmer, while the Sun shines. No violation of the 2nd law.

      • stewart pid says:

        Are you saying the net net is less or gross net is less or as a percent the net is less but not net net less of the net gross ….. except on even numbered days when all heat goes straight to Davy Jones locker for the barby.

      • squid2112 says:

        With all due respect Bob, what you just said makes little sense. As Rah, correctly points out, heat cannot flow from a colder body to a hotter one.

        Example, if you have a coffee cup full of hot coffee sitting on your table, and you place a cup of cold water next to it, can you increase the temperature of the cup of coffee?

        Answer: NO

        You may be able to slow the cooling of that cup of coffee, slightly. But you cannot, in no uncertain terms heat the cup of coffee above the temperature is already was without introducing additional energyperiod

        • emsnews says:

          A cold cup will not ‘slow the cooling’ it will accelerate the cooling. Heat moves relentlessly towards cold to make it ‘level out’.

          The only things heating our earth is the sun and the earth’s hot core via plate tectonics and volcanoes. Sans either, our planet will be a block of ice.

        • darrylb says:

          Squid, see above, you are comparing oranges and apples.

        • bobmaginnis says:

          Squid, I never implied that a cold cup of coffee could increase the temp of the hot cup. I said ” if the colder body (sky) is warmer than it was before, there will be less net heat loss from the warmer body (Ocean,) allowing it to become warmer, while (as long as) the Sun shines. No violation of the 2nd law.” There will be less net radiative loss from the surface is there is smaller radiative delta t between the surface and the sky. About downward radiation:
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/11/the-spencer-challenge-to-slayersprincipia/

        • squid2112 says:

          Bob, I understand what you are trying to say, and it is not so.

          And paaaaleeeeze, with the Spencer bullshit. The garbage that Spencer was trying to pull with his challenge to PSI was a joke, and he got his ass handed to him badly. You are just proving my point even more.

          You cannot heat something by simply slowing the rate of cooling. But that still is not even the correct topic of discussion, the correct topic is, “is there a GHE?” and the answer is unconditionally, NO. And even more narrowly, can CO2 create such a condition? And again, the answer is a resounding NO. I am not going to into all of the details why, as they have been discussed adnausium in a plethora of forums and have been demonstrated empirically. Case closed … look for a new boogie man cause this ain’t it!

      • thegriss says:

        ” the colder body is warmer than it was before”

        So…. are you saying that space has become warmer ??

      • rah says:

        The sun does not shine on the deep oceans. Thus the supposedly increased water temperatures there could not be there unless conducted through the upper levels of the oceans if one discounts all geothermal activity which it seems that climatologists nearly always do? So exactly how, when, and where did the water at those depths get warmed all of a sudden?

  12. DedaEda says:

    Maxwell’s demons are hard at work… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

  13. Argiris Diamantis says:

    Early snow blankets Sierra Nevada, delighting drought-weary California
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-snow-california-mountains-drought-20140929-story.html
    Anything that could point in the direction of global warming is MSM headline news. Also weather news is climate.news.
    Anything that indicates global cooling is just local weather news. Weather is not climate.

  14. Don says:

    Mann Made Global Warming, it can do anything!

  15. Yep… total load of shit…

    Common sense dictates that the oceans surface warms first… rather than use common sense the Alarmists are spouting off on this deep ocean heat without any explanation… the Sun penetrates about 300 feet down, that’s about it..

    Get real… someone needs to file a lawsuit for FRAUD… busted manipulating data while accepting Grant money.. FRAUD..

  16. Latitude says:

    if the missing heat is in the bottom of the ocean….then the oceans are a heat sink

    …we would all be freezing our asses off

  17. Robert B says:

    If the 3m of deep ocean at 3C suddenly becomes in equilibrium with the atmosphere, we should see a drop of about 5C in temperature. This shows how much the ocean currents affect what is called the global temperature.

    Have I educated anyone or have I just inspired excuse 54 for the pause?

  18. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    If you look at ocean heat content and global temperature* you see the two curves track each other very closely…with a 7 year lag in the case of heat content.

    In other words the 1st Law of Thermodynamics has not been repealed. Because the 60 year cycle is in the decline phase and the Sun too, OHC is about to turn down too.

    * I’ve included a 36 month moving average to show the shape of the curve better.

  19. darrylb says:

    squid, I saw remarks such as yours from a group presenting something titled like :slaying the sky dragon” It got completely shot down.
    1) Name one scientist on EITHER SIDE of the issue or list one written source which states that there is no green house effect. It is completely fundamental. but a kind of a misnomer.
    2) Who shot Roy Spencer down?
    3) What are your qualifications that you know what the rest of the scientific world does not knowl

    • Truthseeker says:

      Here is a practicing Astrophysicist who is not on the government payroll and is a rocket scientist (actually a satellite designer) giving Roy a 10-0 drubbing …

      http://climateofsophistry.com/2014/05/01/roy-spencer-leaked-his-pants/

      • Gail Combs says:

        This is the take away:

        A “two-way flow” of energy results in a one-way flow of heat only, with heat flowing only one way, from hot to cold. The cold does not heat up the hot while the hot is heating up the cold. It is only heat flow from hot to cold, with the balance of the energy flow, the differential between the hot and cold temperatures, determining the intensity or rate of heat flow, which determines how quickly the cold object changes temperature…..

        • Truthseeker says:

          DING! DING! DING!

          We have a winner!

          The other error that is often made by the pro-GHE crowd is that they believe that the conservation of energy means that energy flux must balance (W/m2). Wrong. Energy must balance, not the flux of energy. This means that energy flux at sea level will be greater than at TOA because there is a difference in the area involved. If the total surface area at sea level (SL) is X and the total surface area at TOA is Y and the flux at SL is Fx and the flux at TOA is Fy, then

          Fx * X = Fy * Y

          and since Y is greater than X, Fy must be proportionally smaller than Fx for this balance to occur.

          Simples …

        • Gail Combs says:

          “The other error that is often made by the pro-GHE crowd is that they believe that the conservation of energy means that energy flux must balance (W/m2)……”

          John Kehr did a tap dance on Trainbreath’s Cartoon because he pull a fast one by mixing energy transfers and radiative flux. link

        • Truthseeker says:

          Dr Latour also picked on the adding of scalars to vectors to create “whatchamacallits” …

          http://quixoteslaststand.com/2013/07/30/that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect/

        • Gail Combs says:

          Truthseeker says: …. Dr Latour ….
          If you read between the lines of what Peter Morcombe, Dr Brown and Dr Happer** say, CO2 is helping convection in the lower atmosphere and radiating energy to space in the upper atmosphere.
          **All three of the above men are teaching and have to be careful they do not cut their own throats.

          However in ALL cases the energy originally comes from the sun (with a bit from geothermal) and CO2 and water can do nothing but modify how the energy is transfered around the surface and the atmosphere. H2O and CO2 do not CREATE energy as is shown in Trainbreath’s very misleading cartoon.

          Trainbreath has incoming solar at 341.3 Wm^2, while CO2, CO and H20 some how magically produce 333Wm^2

          He lists the solar energy absorbed by the surface as 161 Wm^2
          But has the surface RADIATING 396 Wm^2 with only 40 Wm^2 escaping back to space. Great perpetual motion machine he has going there. (If CO2 was actually transferring 333Wm^2 of energy then we should be able to use that energy to generate electricity since CO2 is uniformly distributed and radiates day and night.)

          The key to the scam is Surface Radiation (396 Wm^2) and Back Radiation (333Wm^2) are not actually measures of energy transfer, they are only measures of the potential for transfer based on the fact the surface and the atmosphere are not at 0K. A rather nasty bit of sleight of hand designed to confuse the majority of people who have not taken at least a few courses in physics. That is the bulk of the US voting population unfortunately.

        • bobmaginnis says:

          Gail wrote: “…The key to the scam is Surface Radiation (396 Wm^2) and Back Radiation (333Wm^2) are not actually measures of energy transfer, they are only measures of the potential for transfer based on the fact the surface and the atmosphere are not at 0K. A rather nasty bit of sleight of hand designed to confuse the majority of people who have not taken at least a few courses in physics….”

          Gail, if there were no GHGs in the (clear) atmosphere, the surface would see the 3 K of outer space, and there would be some 396 W/m^2 outgoing radiation, but there wouldn’t be the 333 W/m^2 ‘back radiation,’ and it would be very cold on Earth. GHGs reduce net radiative losses from the surface, allowing a warmer surface, and don’t violate the 2nd law.

        • geran says:

          Nope, Bob. If there were no atmosphere, Earth would be very similar to the Moon, which gets EXTREMELY hot during it’s “day”, and EXTREMELY cold during it’s “night”. Earth’s atmosphere moderates the temperature swings, as it radiates excess heat to space.

          What you call “GHG’s” are NOT heat sources. CO2 is NOT a heat source. Trying to “assign” a “climate forcing” of 1.7 W/m^2 to CO2 is bogus. That is just one of the reasons all the IPCC climate models have been wrong.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Bob you are ignoring the fact that the rest of the atmosphere is also composed of atoms and molecules. You are ignoring the fact that much of the heat transfer to the atmosphere is via CONDUCTION/CONVECTION not radiation.

          Not to mention you are ignoring the fact that water is the elephant in the room and much of the heat transfer is via evaporation/sublimation ===>condensation

          NOAA The Transfer of Heat Energy
          Conduction
          Conduction is the transfer of heat energy from one substance to another or within a substance. Have you ever left a metal spoon in a pot of soup being heated on a stove? After a short time the handle of the spoon will become hot.

          This is due to transfer of heat energy from molecule to molecule or from atom to atom. Also, when objects are welded together, the metal becomes hot (the orange-red glow) by the transfer of heat from an arc. This is called conduction and is a very effective method of heat transfer in metals. However, air conducts heat poorly.

          Convection
          Convection is the transfer of heat energy in a fluid. This type of heating is most commonly seen in the kitchen when you see liquid boiling.

          Air in the atmosphere acts as a fluid. The sun’s radiation strikes the ground, thus warming the rocks. As the rock’s temperature rises due to conduction, heat energy is released into the atmosphere, forming a bubble of air which is warmer than the surrounding air. This bubble of air rises into the atmosphere. As it rises, the bubble cools with the heat contained in the bubble moving into the atmosphere.

          As the hot air mass rises, the air is replaced by the surrounding cooler, more dense air, what we feel as wind. These movements of air masses can be small in a certain region, such as local cumulus clouds, or large cycles in the troposphere, covering large sections of the earth. Convection currents are responsible for many weather patterns in the troposphere.

        • bobmaginnis says:

          geran, I didn’t say no atmosphere, I said if there were no GHGs, greenhouse gases (those molecules that absorb and emit LWIR.) And BTW, the Sun provides the heat.
          Gail, I wasn’t ignoring other processes, but even with them, the Earth would be a very cold place without GHGs (including water vapor.) To quote a Ph.D:
          “…But what many people don’t realize is that the 33 deg. C of surface warming is not actually a measure of the greenhouse warming – it represents the balance between TWO competing effects: a greenhouse warming effect of about 60 deg. C (the so-called “pure radiative equilibrium” case), and a convective cooling effect of about 30 deg. C. When these two are combined, we get the real-world observed “radiative-convective equilibrium” case….”
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/why-33-deg-c-for-the-earths-greenhouse-effect-is-misleading/

        • geran says:

          Well, okay Bob, if you want to play games, here’s what you said, and why it is WRONG.

          “…if there were no GHGs in the (clear) atmosphere, the surface would see the 3 K of outer space…” >>>> NOPE. The Sun would still be heating the planet. (See Moon “day” temps.)

          “…and there would be some 396 W/m^2 outgoing radiation, but there wouldn’t be the 333 W/m^2 ‘back radiation,’ and it would be very cold on Earth.” >>>> NOPE. The outgoing radiation would actually be greater, but the Sun would still hold temps above 3K.

          “GHGs reduce net radiative losses from the surface, allowing a warmer surface…” >>>> NOPE. Radiative gasses RADIATE to space, thereby COOLING. They provide NO warming.

          You’ve got to get away from the IPCC Bad Science, unless you want to stay confused.

  20. darrylb says:

    It seems very unlikely that any heat could be sequestered at great ocean depths, even the tiny fraction of a degree in question, but I supposed with significant ocean currents it might be there for a while. But we are talking ten years at pressures of over 1,000 psi.

    • Gail Combs says:

      If I recall correctly the ocean turn over is about 800 years.
      From H. H. Lamb
      “Typical ages for the Atlantic Deep Water appear to be 500—800 years.”

      On a geologic timescale CO2 lags temperature by about 600-800 years. link

      A rather ‘interesting coincidence’ given Henry’s law and The Medieval Warm Period: AD 950 to 1250
      Also of interest: Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years

      ABSTRACT

      Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

  21. omanuel says:

    Bob Tisdale’s Climate Observations and Kim’s Climate Realist Ponderings are now questioning Climate Science That Mainstream Media Ignores

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/the-obvious-failures-of-climate-science-that-mainstream-media-ignores/

    http://climaterealistponderings.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/the-obvious-failures-of-climate-science-that-mainstream-media-ignores/

    I asked both of them to post the question that is repeated below:

    The global climate debate has raised questions that are still not resolved. Who falsified mainstream astronomy, astro- and nuclear physics, and cosmology after WWII?

    On the one hand,

    1. There is no doubt the swindle began in 1946 when the Royal Society published false information on stars that became the Standard Solar Model.

    2. And in 1980 I was invited to Moscow (USSR) to present indisputable evidence the Standard Solar Model is wrong. The Sun birthed the Solar System five billion year (5Ga) ago.

    On the other hand, there is convincing evidence Stalin (or his forces)

    1. Captured Japan’s atomic bomb plant at Konan, Korea in August 1945.
    2. Downed an American plane; Held the crew until Japan surrendered in Sept 1945.
    3. Helped establish the United Nations and totalitarian global rule on 24 Oct 1945.

    Additional comments to help elucidate this puzzle would be appreciated.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver

  22. Gail Combs says:

    bobmaginnis says:

    “geran, I didn’t say no atmosphere, I said if there were no GHGs, greenhouse gases (those molecules that absorb and emit LWIR.) And BTW, the Sun provides the heat.
    Gail, I wasn’t ignoring other processes, but even with them, the Earth would be a very cold place without GHGs (including water vapor.)….”

    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Bob Maginnis is providing us with a classic example of CAGW sleight of hand. Remember the goal is to tax and regulate CO2 NOT water vapor. The primary ‘GHG’ is water vapor, with the water vapor spectrum over lapping the CO2 spectrum SEE: graph

    The other CAGW sleight of hand of course is to take pictures of the water vapor column from coal fired power plants and show them as dark gray against the sky while misnaming CO2, ‘Carbon’ as in SOOT. In other words play to the emotions not to reason – pure propaganda not science.

    Back to Bob’s and Trainbreath’s sleight of hand.

    To get a cold earth without GHGs, Trenberth’s cartoon is using arithmetic, 1364/4 = 341 instead of using calculus as he should. This gives a completely false picture of what is going on. However that isn’t enough lying to be scary so Trainbreath pulls an even bigger WHOPER out of his hat.

    These …are radiation received on the equinox for solar radiation at each latitude at noon… Remember, top-of-atmosphere radiation is going to vary over the year from 1410 (high, on January 3) to the 1320 (the “low” value on July 3 each year). This is for a day in mid-September, near that “average” value on the equinox at time of minimum Arctic sea ice extents….

    The value of 1150 W/m^2 at the equator at mid day vs TOA for that day receiving 1353 W/m^2 gives a much better idea of how much energy is really ‘lost’ before it encounters the oceans at the Equator and is absorbed or reflected. ‘Lost’ is being reflected or being available to interact with the upper atmosphere such as forming ozone. In other words at that latitude at midday the atmosphere is pretty darn transparent especially when you consider the chemical reactions taking place in the atmosphere and the fact that some of the incoming radiation is absorbed and transformed in to ‘heat’ – kinetic energy.

    Using arithmetic you get 1353 – 1150 = 203 Wm^2 loss to the atmosphere or 15% of the radiation received at TOA.

    Let’s look at Trainbreath’s sleight of hand.
    102 Wm^2 reflected and
    79 Wm^2 Absorbed
    _______________________
    181 loss to the atmosphere (Pretty darn close to the 203 Wm^2 loss isn’t it?) or 53% of the incoming 341 Wm^2

    NO WONDER a Trainbreath’s flat earth is so cold! Less than 1/2 of the sun’s energy reaches the earth!!!

    • bobmaginnis says:

      Gail, nobody is saying that water vapor isn’t the major player, except at high altitudes and winter polar latitudes where is has precipitated out. AGWers are saying a doubling of CO2 to 560 ppm will eventually increase temps 2 or 3 C., but existing IR absorbing gases including H2O and CO2 allow our Earth to be 30 some C warmer, as explained by Spencer, an AGW skeptic:
      “…But what many people don’t realize is that the 33 deg. C of surface warming is not actually a measure of the greenhouse warming – it represents the balance between TWO competing effects: a greenhouse warming effect of about 60 deg. C (the so-called “pure radiative equilibrium” case), and a convective cooling effect of about 30 deg. C. When these two are combined, we get the real-world observed “radiative-convective equilibrium” case….”
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/why-33-deg-c-for-the-earths-greenhouse-effect-is-misleading/

  23. Gail Combs says:

    Another part of Trainbreath’s sleight of hand is what happens to the ‘161 Wm^2’ that reaches the earth. Notice how ALL the attention is focused on the Atmosphere while ignoring the Oceans, the 77 ton Rhinorex in the room.

    In the tropics you are actually getting ~ 1150 Wm^2 at noon. If you look at the top graph in the Transmition/Absorption spectrum image (and they only shave about 15% off that graph not 53%) you see that a large chunk of the incoming energy is in the UV/Visible part of the spectrum. If you look at a map of the earth, much of the land mass is towards the poles and NOT towards the equator. So with over 70% of the area between 30 degrees N (1121 Wm^2) and 30 degrees S (1122 Wm^2) being water AND receiving the most sunlight. What happens. The energy from the sun enters the oceans and warms the water to a depth of 300 meters (984 feet) SEE: graph

    That ‘heat’ STAYS THERE Bob because it is replenished ever 24 hours, and it ain’t no measly 0.9 Wm^2. The earth does not instantaneously radiate ALL the energy back to space as soon as the sun goes down. Dr Brown puts this concept in one simple sentence, ” The atmosphere has almost no heat capacity relative to the ocean.” Think giant hot water bottle warming the earth via the ocean currents. Remember the UK and Europe have balmy weather because of the Gulf Stream not atmospheric circulation patterns. Do not forget that it was the closing of the Isthmus of Panama and the opening of Drake Passage that tossed the earth into the latest Ice Age. If CO2 and the Atmosphere were the ‘Control Knob’ that would not happened.

    You can not have the oceans warming over time (according to CAGW gospel) AND the oceans losing all their heat and becoming solid ice every 24 hours.

    Notice this is all between the Sun’s Energy and LIQUID water no GHG needed.

  24. Gail Combs says:

    The last point is to look at what is actually happening in the atmosphere.

    Sleepalot in July, 2012 at WUWT pointed out the actual effects of the water vapor on the temperature by comparing high vs low humidity.

    … Temp: monthly min 20C, monthly max 33C, monthly average 26C
    Average humidity 90%

    … Temp: monthly min 9C monthly max 44C, monthly average 30C
    Average humidity around 0%

    Take a good hard look at those two pieces of real world data and ask yourself what it is telling you.

    #1. The solar eclipse data tells you the sand (not water) & air temperature response to a change in solar energy is FAST if the humidity is low.

    #2 The effect of the addition of water vapor (~ 4%) is not to raise the temperature but to even the temperature out. The monthly high is 10C lower and the monthly low is ~ 10C higher when the GHG H2O is added to the atmosphere in this example. The average temperature is about 4C lower in Brazil despite the fact that Algeria is further north above the tropic of Cancer. Some of the difference is from the effect of clouds/albedo but the dramatic effect on the temperature extremes is also from the humidity.

    I took a rough look at the data from Brazil. Twelve days were sunny. I had to toss the data for two days because it was bogus. The average humidity was 80% for those ten days. The high was 32 with a range of 1.7C and the low was 22.7C with a range of 2.8C. Given the small range in values over the month the data is probably a pretty good estimate for the effects of humidity only. You still get the day-night variation of ~ 10C with a high humidity vs a day-night variation of 35C without and the average temp is STILL going to be lower when the humidity is high.

    This data would indicate water vapor has two effects. One is to even out the temperature and the second is to act as a “coolant”.

    The latent heat of evaporation could be why the average is 4C lower when in Brazil vs Algeria. As one of the commenters at WUWT mentioned using temperature without humidity to estimate the global heat content is VERY bad physics.

    So the actual real world effect of the GHG water vapor is to moderate the temperature AND to act as a “coolant”.

  25. Gail Combs says:

    What about CO2?
    We will start with GallopingCamel:

    …While I am a physicist, I am not a climate scientist. My field is quantum electro-optics; I have been building lasers since 1970 for fun and profit…

    The main absorption lines for CO2 that relate to the capture of thermal IR from the Earth’s surface are in the 4 and 15 micron bands. The corresponding frequencies are 75 and 20 Tera-Hertz. The periods are 0.013 and 0.050 femto-seconds.

    As you correctly point out, these periods are shorter than the mean time between molecular collisions by at least seven orders of magnitude. However, a molecule cannot emit a photon unless it has first been raised to an “excited state”. The lifetime of these excited states is typically measured in micro-seconds or milli-seconds.

    If left undisturbed, excited atoms or molecules will eventually give up their excess energy via radiative transitions to lower energy states or via collisions with other molecules. When total pressure is low, radiative transfer dominates so the outgoing radiation is absorbed by CO2 (or water vapor) is re-radiated isotropically. This means that half of the outgoing radiation is returned to the surface exactly as claimed by Trenberth & Co.

    In the troposphere the mean time between collisions is quite short (~200 pico-seconds) so most of the outgoing IR radiation absorbed by complex molecules will be lost in collisions before a photon can be radiated. This means that in the lower atmosphere it makes no difference whether the energy is transfered by radiation or by convection. In either case the energy is retained in the troposphere.
    stevengoddard(dot)wordpress.com/2014/05/24/whats-up-with-that/#comment-357834

    The go onto Dr Robert Brown, a physicist at Duke University.

    The question is, “What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon”. That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule.

    The lifetime of the excited state(s) is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and the (usually nitrogen or oxygen or argon) other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around. Periodically CO_2 is thermally excited in-band by just such a collision and radiates energy away, but it is not like an elastic scattering process such as occurs in specular reflection within clouds. In band/thermal radiative energy gradually diffuses upwards, with the mean free path of the photons increasing the higher one goes, until it starts to equal the remaining depth of the atmosphere and photons emitted “up” have a good chance of escaping, cooling the molecules (on average) that emit them. It takes order of 100s of absorptions and emissions for radiation to diffuse upward to escape, and there is an almost equal probability that radiation will diffuse downward (especially from the lower levels) where we observe it as back-radiation/greenhouse radiative forcing of the surface.

    Even this is oversimplified. Because of pressure broadening, molecules close to the ground emit photons “in the wings” at frequencies that less broadened molecules at higher altitudes/lower pressures are nearly transparent to. That means that there is a steady CO_2-mediated “leakage” even from lower altitudes directly to space from the edges of the monotonically decreasing-with-height absorptive bandwidth. It also means that there is a MAJOR change in atmospheric absorptivity/emissivity with simple high and low pressure centers as they move around, as well as a modulation of the size of the emission-wing “hole”.

    Grant Petty’s book can walk you through much of the physics.
    source

    And finally you have Dr.Happer who, using actual real world data chops down the calculated: ” pressure broadening, molecules close to the ground emit photons “in the wings” at frequencies that less broadened molecules at higher altitudes/lower pressures are nearly transparent to.”

    The take away from his UNC lecture (9/2014) was the CO2 ‘modeling’ is a mish-mash of theoretical equations and experimentally derived data. Where the Climate alarmists missed the boat is in using equations for ‘line broadening’ aka the ‘wings’ where the current CO2 absorption ( at 400 ppm) is supposedly taking place. These equations produce results that do not match up to the experimental data. The lines are not as broad as theory would have it,
    Slide 22: Lorentzian line shape nor Voigt line shapes are correct in the far wings!

    This was the point of the lecture. Why was the theory wrong?

    Since the experimental data shows less broadening this flattens the exponential curve and essentially lowers the ‘Climate Sensitivity’ of CO2 for a doubling to 800 ppm to less than 1C===> 0C

    At the lecture Dr. Will Happer did agree with what Dr Brown and GallopingCamel said about the time to radiate being about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere. Dr Happer in his lecture also answered my question about where CO2 energy is radiated instead of being handed off via collision. Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface. Seems the ‘Sky Dragon Slayers’ are not as wrong as everyone tries to say they are. CO2 IS radiating far above the surface and not at the surface.

    David Burton put up an audio and slides of Dr Happer’s presentation at this. link

    SLIDES: link
    Slides 22, 42, 43 and 44 are the critical slides.

    You can get useful background for the physics in these comments from WIKI .
    SUBJECTS:
    Mössbauer effect (recoil energy lost during absorption <===CRITICAL)

    The Pound–Rebka experiment (VERY IMPORTANT because gases are moving randomly and in random directions)

    …The test is based on the following principle: When an atom transits from an excited state to a base state, it emits a photon with a specific frequency and energy. When an atom of the same species in its base state encounters a photon with that same frequency and energy, it will absorb that photon and transit to the excited state. If the photon’s frequency and energy is different by even a little, the atom cannot absorb it (this is the basis of quantum theory). When the photon travels through a gravitational field, its frequency and therefore its energy will change due to the gravitational redshift. As a result, the receiving atom cannot absorb it. But if the emitting atom moves with just the right speed relative to the receiving atom the resulting doppler shift cancels out the gravitational shift and the receiving atom can absorb the photon….

    Motional narrowing

    Voigt effect

  26. Gail Combs says:

    While we are talking of Climastrologists and their Whoppers, here is the biggest lie of all. The one needed to make the whole scam scary enough to frighten the sheeple.

    The Climastrologists get that high CO2 climate sensitivity by making water a FEEDBACK of CO2 and therefore multiplying the actual CO2 climate sensitivity threefold. This is the heart of the BIG LIE. They swap cause and effect. Water (ocean temperature) drives CO2 as seen by the known few hundred year lag in the ice records. Instead the scammers are saying CO2 increased DRIVES water vapor increases and dance around the fact CO2 levels FOLLOW the ocean temperature increases.

    The present day data shows the lie too. CO2 has steadily increased according to Climastrologists, while NASA satellite data shows a decline in water vapor

    NOAA Atmospheric Specific Humidity Graph. also shows a decline.

    And Albedo declined until 1998 when it started increasing and the global temperature went flat.

    Here is the ‘BIG LIE’ straight from NASA:

    Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change Page Last Updated: November 18, 2008
    Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change. [In other words water is what has a big effect on earth’s climate not CO2.]

    Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere….

    “Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”

    The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. [There is the twisting of cause and effect used to make CO2 increases catastrophic.] Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. [Adding in the fear component just in case you need to be hit by a hammer and completely neglecting the fact that the temperature on earth has upper bounds as seen in the geological record.]

    Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

    “The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous,” Dessler said. [Well at least he has that part correct.]

    Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth’s surface temperature. That’s because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth’s troposphere — the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth’s surface to about 10 miles in altitude….

    Andrew Dessler has a great career ahead of him as a used care salesman gypsy horse trader.

  27. Gail Combs says:

    This brings up another point. What do these traitors to humankind think is going to happen to THEM if the elite succeed in collapsing western civilization? Stalin was notorious for a bullet to the head of those who had help spread his lies and whose usefulness was then over. Just ask Willi Muenzenberg.

    The Chinese, who Clinton set up as the next great civilization, hate the whites especially those of British descent related to the Hundred Years of Humilitation. Do the Climastrologists actually think they will survive when their usefulness is over?

    Ted Turner, founder of CNN and the UN Foundation said:
    “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

    Timothy Wirth, now President of Truner’s UN foundation and the scamming politician who helped Hansen scare the US Congress into believing in CAGW said: “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

    John Holdren (1973), Obama’s Science Czar wrote:
    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”

    And now we have a case of Ebola showing up in Texas, not that far from the Mexican border that Janet Napolitano refused to close. We have the Obummer government INSTEAD of quarantining these South American teenagers as he should, distributing the teenagers into the school systems in all fifty states. These are teenagers from areas where Muslim Jihadists are active and our government is giving them free access to schools over the entire USA!

    EVIL or nimcompoops, I can’t decide which but I lean towards down right EVIL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s