AGW denial is anti-science

[Gadgetmac]

So the oceans are cooling?

https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/ocean...

"The ocean absorbs vast quantities of heat as a result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mainly from fossil fuel consumption. The Fifth Assessment Report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013 revealed that the ocean had absorbed more than 93% of the excess heat from greenhouse gas emissions since the 1970s. This is causing ocean temperatures to rise."

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

My equally simple take is - if you accept IR increases evaporation that means IR is heating the surface. Delayed cooling of the shortwave-heated layers beneath the surface to the atmosphere follows from there. That's as far as I go with this - more in-depth analysis of the physics can be found elsewhere.

Erm you do know evaporation causes cooling don't you?

Erm yes I do.

Have you considered taking your special case that when you apply more energy to a body it gets colder to a forum of people capable of recognising your genius? Or is talking down to non-physicists like me more your thing?

I would put your argument in the 'stoopid scientists have got the fundamental physics wrong' category - much loved by deniers of course - but people should retain a high degree of scepticism about such claims imo - big claims require big evidence. Your argument has been around for years but for some strange reason has failed to gain any traction. I can't rule out that you're a paradigm-busting genius, but I'm afraid my default contingent postion on things like this is that you are bozo the clown (h/t Carl Sagan).

[Jinx]

Gadgetmac said:

So the oceans are cooling?

https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/ocean...

"The ocean absorbs vast quantities of heat as a result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mainly from fossil fuel consumption. The Fifth Assessment Report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013 revealed that the ocean had absorbed more than 93% of the excess heat from greenhouse gas emissions since the 1970s. This is causing ocean temperatures to rise."

Erm no - no one has said that the oceans are cooling - but the science says IR from the atmosphere above cannot warm the oceans.

So lets just follow the supporting evidence from your link.....
Follow the link " The Fifth Assessment Report" and you get "page not found".
Not sure how scientific the "International Union for Conservation of Nature" is though I suspect they are fully behind CAGW.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Erm yes I do.

Have you considered taking your special case that when you apply more energy to a body it gets colder to a forum of people capable of recognising your genius? Or is talking down to non-physicists like me more your thing?

I would put your argument in the 'stoopid scientists have got the fundamental physics wrong' category - much loved by deniers of course - but people should retain a high degree of scepticism about such claims imo - big claims require big evidence. Your argument has been around for years but for some strange reason has failed to gain any traction. I can't rule out that you're a paradigm-busting genius, but I'm afraid my default contingent postion on things like this is that you are bozo the clown (h/t Carl Sagan).

K.P. you linked OHC to CO2 - I haven't found any scientific links that support this notion. The OHC paradigm came about with the "oceans ate my missing heat" theories to explain the pause - which the current zietgeist says didn't happen and hence isn't now relevent the CO2 CAGW hypothesis.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Erm yes I do.

Have you considered taking your special case that when you apply more energy to a body it gets colder to a forum of people capable of recognising your genius? Or is talking down to non-physicists like me more your thing?

I would put your argument in the 'stoopid scientists have got the fundamental physics wrong' category - much loved by deniers of course - but people should retain a high degree of scepticism about such claims imo - big claims require big evidence. Your argument has been around for years but for some strange reason has failed to gain any traction. I can't rule out that you're a paradigm-busting genius, but I'm afraid my default contingent postion on things like this is that you are bozo the clown (h/t Carl Sagan).

K.P. you linked OHC to CO2 - I haven't found any scientific links that support this notion. The OHC paradigm came about with the "oceans ate my missing heat" theories to explain the pause - which the current zietgeist says didn't happen and hence isn't now relevent the CO2 CAGW hypothesis.

No I just observed OHC was increasing - not that the expectation of ocean heat content increasing under AGW is at all unusual or controversial

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

No I just observed OHC was increasing - not that the expectation of ocean heat content increasing under AGW is at all unusual or controversial

But OHC doing anything under AGW is unusual and controversial as there is no mechanism (and to be honest we really do not have a good handle on actual OHC levels - it is an "improper expression" after all - and where our land based data is insufficient for decent climate trends our ocean based data is infinitely worse) .

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

No I just observed OHC was increasing - not that the expectation of ocean heat content increasing under AGW is at all unusual or controversial

But OHC doing anything under AGW is unusual and controversial as there is no mechanism (and to be honest we really do not have a good handle on actual OHC levels - it is an "improper expression" after all - and where our land based data is insufficient for decent climate trends our ocean based data is infinitely worse) .

But evidently it's not unusual (it's everywhere you look) or controversial (no reporting of scientific controversy) so that suggests your no-mechanism premise has a non-existent foothold in the scientific community.

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 20th February 10:10

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

But evidently it's not unusual (it's everywhere you look) or controversial (no reporting of scientific controversy) so that suggests your no-mechanism premise has a non-existent foothold in the scientific community.

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 20th February 10:10

Linking it to AGW is unusual and controversial - that it isn't being highlighted in the scientific community would tend to suggest something about the scientific community. But I guess when climate scientists are happy to ignore the short comings of dendrochronology because it matches the narrative (after a bit of data torture) then OHC narrative matching is par for the course.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

But evidently it's not unusual (it's everywhere you look) or controversial (no reporting of scientific controversy) so that suggests your no-mechanism premise has a non-existent foothold in the scientific community.

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 20th February 10:10

Linking it to AGW is unusual and controversial - that it isn't being highlighted in the scientific community would tend to suggest something about the scientific community.

Sure it's the scientific community not recognising your genius, obviously. I'll leave you to your rabbit hole - let me know when the argument has progressed beyond Tallbloke's Talkshop.

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 20th February 11:35

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Sure it's the scientific community not recognising your genius, obviously. I'll leave you to your rabbit hole - let me know when the argument has progressed beyond Tallbloke's Talkshop.

Please KP find the scientific link for me as this rabbit hole gets awful lonesome.... State changes are a huge problem for all the GCM models so they tend to get ignored (cough parameterised out) and given state changes are the principle method of energy transfer from the oceans to the atmosphere it kinds of throws a lot of uncertainty around.
I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the OHC figures and certainly wouldn't rely on them as any indication of AGW.

Note the science behind more CO2 = higher temps is based on dry air calculations.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

Please KP find the scientific link for me

Nope - my arguments stand on their own merit and I'n not doing your research for you.

I do have one link to hand though - even wattsupwithat contributors find your arguments unconvincing (and embarrassing)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/15/radiating-t...

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Nope - my arguments stand on their own merit and I'n not doing your research for you.

I do have one link to hand though - even wattsupwithat contributors find your arguments unconvincing (and embarrassing)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/15/radiating-t...

I have argued with Willis before so I'll quote someone ele's comments this time:

Dave Springer in comments said:

The second flaw in the science of doom black body graph is that black bodies don’t give up heat by evaporation. The ocean does. In fact that’s the primary cooling mechanism. 70% of the solar heat in the ocean escapes by evaporation, 20% via radiation, and 10% via conduction. Moreover the ocean retains a lot solar heat absorbed in the summer and releases it in the winter when the air is dryer and evaporation rate is faster. That’s why there’s a much smaller seasonal temperature change in the ocean versus land. The much greater seasonal temperature variation over land is called continentality.
Willis might have learned a lot about the ocean by sailing, surfing, and diving but he evidently needs to learn more about land by doing some driving and digging. The notion that land and water are equivalent in the way they heat and cool is demonstrates utter ignorance of both.

and further on...

Dave Springer said:

Downwelling IR, because it can’t penetrate more than a few microns, is continually bumping surface molecules over the edge of latent heat of fusion and they fly away. For those molecules that don’t get enough of a bump they don’t mix downwards because wave and winds causing mixing well below the surface not actually on the surface and second because warmer water rises above cooler water. At the end of the day downwelling IR does not cause any significant heating (or, for pedants, lowered rate of cooling). All it does is raise the evaporation rate and the energy is carried aloft as latent heat of vaporization and doesn’t get released to the environment as sensible heat until it condenses.

Neither of which are addressed by Willis (article's author).

[gavsdavs]

AshVX220 said:

BiEilh said:

Got a friend in sweden who tells me that the average temperature this winter is 5 degrees. that is a sign in my eyes that global warming is affecting.

I also have a friend on Fort Worth that has said this is the 3rd coldest year on record, so it flips and flops across the globe.

I don't think a warm place being slightly cooler seems to have the same ramifications as a cool place getting significantly warmer, but nice attempt at trying to ignore the important facts anyway.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

I have argued with Willis before so I'll quote someone ele's comments this time:

As before let me know when the argument has progressed beyond the cutting edge crucible of tallbloke's talkshop (and the comments section at wattsupwithat)

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 20th February 13:35

[Jinx]

gavsdavs said:

I don't think a warm place being slightly cooler seems to have the same ramifications as a cool place getting significantly warmer, but nice attempt at trying to ignore the important facts anyway.

Warm is good for life.

[AshVX220]

Jinx said:

gavsdavs said:

I don't think a warm place being slightly cooler seems to have the same ramifications as a cool place getting significantly warmer, but nice attempt at trying to ignore the important facts anyway.

Warm is good for life.

Are you now deciding what is slight and what is significant gavsdavs?
I guess so, if it suits your agenda......

[Gadgetmac]

Jinx said:

gavsdavs said:

I don't think a warm place being slightly cooler seems to have the same ramifications as a cool place getting significantly warmer, but nice attempt at trying to ignore the important facts anyway.

Warm is good for life.

Not for human life it isn't.

Nor is it good for animal life and after an initial uplift it's ultimately not good for plant life either.

And it's not just more warm it's more extreme. You don't just get more warm weather for a couple of extra days to BBQ.

A simple Google will tell you why you are wrong about "warm is good for life".

[jet_noise]

Gadgetmac said:

Not for human life it isn't.

Nor is it good for animal life and after an initial uplift it's ultimately not good for plant life either.

And it's not just more warm it's more extreme. You don't just get more warm weather for a couple of extra days to BBQ.

A simple Google will tell you why you are wrong about "warm is good for life".

Being of a somewhat literal mind this afternoon I Googled (other search engines are available) exactly that.
The 1st page of hits seem somewhat if not exclusively more positive than you suggest.
There's even one from a learned institution.

[Terminator X]

Gadgetmac said:

Jinx said:

gavsdavs said:

I don't think a warm place being slightly cooler seems to have the same ramifications as a cool place getting significantly warmer, but nice attempt at trying to ignore the important facts anyway.

Warm is good for life.

Not for human life it isn't.

Nor is it good for animal life and after an initial uplift it's ultimately not good for plant life either.

And it's not just more warm it's more extreme. You don't just get more warm weather for a couple of extra days to BBQ.

A simple Google will tell you why you are wrong about "warm is good for life".

When we eventually tip in to another Ice Age let's see if humans prefer it cold / really cold vs just a tad warmer in the Summer. Best of luck trying to get a drink when most of the water is locked up as ice at the Poles.

TX.

[Esceptico]

It seems that that bastion of communism , JP Morgan, are now part of the great AGW conspiracy

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/2...