|
Post by socold on Jun 21, 2009 13:33:30 GMT
Ah so now you are not so sure. Let's get this straight. You bring up a dodgy experiment performed with thermometers which have to be calibrated to within a cats cock hair for the experiment to have any chance of success. One of them is then chucked over the side of a boat and dragged along in the ocean. Then when I query the results you think I should be the one to run around finding out whether this 'study' made it through peer review. On your bike socold. You didn't query the results. You claimed to be "unsuprised" to find it hadn't been published to peer review at the time that realclimate article was written. "unsuprised" means you were sure that it wouldn't pass peer review when you read it. Which raises a whole plethra of interesting questions. Like why were you sure it wouldn't pass peer review? Do you still in fact believe it would not pass peer review? Would your skepticism of AGW be significantly diminished if you found out it had been published since, contrary to your certainty that it wouldn't pass peer review? Another interesting question: Are you saying that peer review generally works? Afterall you can't simulataneously believe most published climate papers are nonsense and also that nonsense wouldn't get published (and reading between the lines you are claiming the stuff is nonsense)
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 21, 2009 14:34:07 GMT
Stop trying to change the subject. If Mann's hockey stick can make it through peer review, it show's what the critical ability of the peers is. This is irrelevant. Back to Longwave radiation from co2 entering the ocean. You now seem to b backpedalling and saying that rather than warming the ocean, the co2 warmed ocean skin prevents it from cooling. Is this a fair summary of your position?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 21, 2009 14:58:30 GMT
Socold's position on this is realclimate boilerplate.
Copied and pasted, more or less.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 21, 2009 15:31:04 GMT
Stop trying to change the subject. If Mann's hockey stick can make it through peer review, it show's what the critical ability of the peers is. This is irrelevant. Back to Longwave radiation from co2 entering the ocean. You now seem to b backpedalling and saying that rather than warming the ocean, the co2 warmed ocean skin prevents it from cooling. Is this a fair summary of your position? No that has been my position all along. And no it isn't irrelevant. Skeptics keep flip flopping all over the place in gish gallop style. One will claim A and when confronted they will complain about B rather than stay on topic with A.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 21, 2009 15:35:22 GMT
Socold's position on this is realclimate boilerplate. Copied and pasted, more or less. And what's your position? That the ocean cannot be warmed by infrared radiation? Or that you don't know?
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 21, 2009 16:01:00 GMT
Stop trying to change the subject. If Mann's hockey stick can make it through peer review, it show's what the critical ability of the peers is. This is irrelevant. Back to Longwave radiation from co2 entering the ocean. You now seem to b backpedalling and saying that rather than warming the ocean, the co2 warmed ocean skin prevents it from cooling. Is this a fair summary of your position? No that has been my position all along. And no it isn't irrelevant. Skeptics keep flip flopping all over the place in gish gallop style. One will claim A and when confronted they will complain about B rather than stay on topic with A. 1) You don't know whether the experiment you claim supports your position was peer reviewed or not. 2) You switch from claiming that your 1,000,000W IR blaster ray will heat a cup of water and that's all you need to do to show the long wave radiation emitted downwards by half of 0.039% of the atmosphere is responsible for warming the oceans over the last 3 decades, to claiming it stops heat leaving the ocean instead. 3) You don't have a scoobies what you are talking about, and instead rely on rehashing codswallop from the most biased warm-mongers site on the internet. So, what evidence that increased back radiation from human emitted co2 has prevented the ocean from cooling are you going to present? Perhaps an overview of how this can work considering the oceans have been cooling since 2003 according to corrected ARGO data while the chinese have been opening a new coal fired power plant at the rate of one a week would be a good start.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 21, 2009 16:17:43 GMT
No that has been my position all along. And no it isn't irrelevant. Skeptics keep flip flopping all over the place in gish gallop style. One will claim A and when confronted they will complain about B rather than stay on topic with A. 1) You don't know whether the experiment you claim supports your position was peer reviewed or not. I do, you don't. If I told you it would affect your response to the questions. Here are the questions again in case you missed them: - Do you still believe it would not pass peer review?
- Would your skepticism of AGW be significantly diminished if you found out it had been published since, contrary to your certainty that it wouldn't pass peer review?
- Are you saying that peer review generally works? (well clearly not as your last post goes, so why then would you be suprised if it was peer reviewed?
It's the same thing. The 1,000,000W would heat the water in the same way, by reducing the heat loss. It's actually one of the few sites on the net in which climate scientists explain stuff. I think of it as a free lecture. I never said I would present this. I presented an explaination for how infrared radiation can warm the ocean, which was what was initially asked for (yes I have noticed what gets asked for continuously shifts as the answers come in) See here's another shift. This has nothing to do with whether or not IR can heat the upper ocean. I am not going to wade into deeper discussions while skeptics don't even accept IR can heat water.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 21, 2009 17:00:07 GMT
why then would you be suprised if it was peer reviewed? I said that before reflecting on who the peer reveiwers might be. So, enough evasion, provide the citation so I can download the paper and laugh at the error bars, if it exists. It's the same thing. The 1,000,000W would heat the water in the same way, by reducing the heat loss. Does your loft insulation heat your house by reducing heat loss? Reducing heat loss is a completely different thing to heating. You originally claimed the water would get hotter when you zapped it with your ray gun. You never said anything about heat loss or it's prevention in respect of your hypothetical pot of water. It's actually one of the few sites on the net in which climate scientists explain stuff. I think of it as a free lecture. It censors opposing views and contrary evidence. Which is why gullibles like you get a one sided view of climate processes. I presented an explaination for how infrared radiation can warm the ocean, which was what was initially asked for I am not going to wade into deeper discussions while skeptics don't even accept IR can heat water. Just a few moments ago you claimed that you never claimed heating, but that IR prevents or slows down heat loss. Which is it? Or are you still so confused that you still think insulation and calorification are the sme thing?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 21, 2009 18:13:16 GMT
why then would you be suprised if it was peer reviewed? I said that before reflecting on who the peer reveiwers might be. So, enough evasion, provide the citation so I can download the paper and laugh at the error bars, if it exists. Okay so you are no longer suprised at least. It wasn't published to peer review, it formed a presentation at an AGU meeting. Yep Semantics. Yes I did, I said the skin layer was warmed by the IR and therefore the heat flow from the ocean below (which has to be across that skin layer) is reduced. It censors rubbish. It's both. Increased greenhouse effect makes the ocean warmer by reducing heat loss.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 21, 2009 23:31:14 GMT
Semantics. I said the skin layer was warmed by the IR and therefore the heat flow from the ocean below (which has to be across that skin layer) is reduced. You're getting confused again. That's what Gavin said, not you. You said that a pot of water would get warmer when you zapped it with your 1,000,000W Ray Gun. Remember?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 22, 2009 3:49:39 GMT
SoCold: Real Climate censors on a regular basis. I have tried to post numerous times there and have yet to have a post posted.
My sin it seems is that I present peer reviewed papers that conflict with some of the views on that site.
So....Real Climate is not a place to get information at all. It is a propaganda site. And that is a true pity.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 22, 2009 3:52:59 GMT
Does your loft insulation heat your house by reducing heat loss?
Yep
SoCold, you are brighter than that. Your loft insulation does NOT heat your house, it only reduces heat loss.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 22, 2009 13:29:06 GMT
Socold's position on this is realclimate boilerplate. Copied and pasted, more or less. And what's your position? That the ocean cannot be warmed by infrared radiation? Or that you don't know? Something tells me that you are not very familiar, personally, with the ocean, socold. I'm quite confident that Gavin is not. The image above is of sea smoke amid wind-swept waves off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, a place that I have surfed many times. (The porpoises are incredibly friendly, btw.) Although the local co2 molecules occasionally join hands and protest the escaping heat, so far they have not had much success. The idea that atmospheric co2 either warms the seas meaningfully or slows their cooling is hilarious!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 22, 2009 16:27:32 GMT
And what's your position? That the ocean cannot be warmed by infrared radiation? Or that you don't know? Something tells me that you are not very familiar, personally, with the ocean, socold. I'm quite confident that Gavin is not. The image above is of sea smoke amid wind-swept waves off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, a place that I have surfed many times. (The porpoises are incredibly friendly, btw.) Although the local co2 molecules occasionally join hands and protest the escaping heat, so far they have not had much success. The idea that atmospheric co2 either warms the seas meaningfully or slows their cooling is hilarious! It still boils down to heat capacity and transfer. AGW has reinvented thermodynamics to explain warming of the oceans by assigning perpetual motion without calling it "free energy". The math is quite basic really by constructing a simple model to calculate how much heat is required for CO2 to absorb and transfer to the ocean surface to raise its temperature 1 degC. I will wait a few days more for someone else to run the numbers, then will post. It will then be obvious why Warmologists had to come up with some other unphysical explanation to compete with direct solar radiation. A few minutes with Mr. Obvious should be like getting hit with a sledge hammer, but I don't expect True Believers to budge. BTW, has anyone noticed deserts, which have very little GHG, are the warmest "hot spots" on the planet? ;D
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 22, 2009 17:41:07 GMT
Something tells me that you are not very familiar, personally, with the ocean, socold. I'm quite confident that Gavin is not. The image above is of sea smoke amid wind-swept waves off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, a place that I have surfed many times. (The porpoises are incredibly friendly, btw.) Although the local co2 molecules occasionally join hands and protest the escaping heat, so far they have not had much success. The idea that atmospheric co2 either warms the seas meaningfully or slows their cooling is hilarious! It still boils down to heat capacity and transfer. AGW has reinvented thermodynamics to explain warming of the oceans by assigning perpetual motion without calling it "free energy". The math is quite basic really by constructing a simple model to calculate how much heat is required for CO2 to absorb and transfer to the ocean surface to raise its temperature 1 degC. I will wait a few days more for someone else to run the numbers, then will post. It will then be obvious why Warmologists had to come up with some other unphysical explanation to compete with direct solar radiation. A few minutes with Mr. Obvious should be like getting hit with a sledge hammer, but I don't expect True Believers to budge. BTW, has anyone noticed deserts, which have very little GHG, are the warmest "hot spots" on the planet? ;D Water will radiate energy according to its temperature - proportional to T^4. The emissivity of water is close to 1 so water with a temperature of the coldest oceans, 273K, will radiate: 5.67e-8 * 280^4 = 315 Watts per metre squared The average solar irradiation is 235 Watts per metre squared after you take albedo etc. into account. So there is a difference of at least 80 Watts per metre squared just to keep the global oceans at freezing point. To illustrate, the 80W difference is enough to cool a 10cm deep layer of water at a rate of about 0.7C per hour, so the cooling rate should be measurable. If you don't like me averaging out these numbers, the solar irradiation at, say, the latitude of Loch Ness, to pick a mid-latitude body of water at random, is about 254W. At its coldest (5C) it would radiate 338W - 84 Watts difference. What prevents Loch Ness from freezing? Please show your figures.
|
|