Once energy re-emitted by a greenhouse gas is absorbed by the surface it becomes mixed up with all the thermal energy in there already. That's why I wouldn't say energy from greenhouse forcing has a residence time of only a millisecond or anything close to that scale.

You have actually hit the nail on the head by looking at a 'permanent' change (or equilibrium change if you like). But it seems you and I will never agree on what that change means for the climate. I mean, just how much of a change in the greenhouse effect can the ocean compensate for? If greenhouse forcing is so insignificant, could we halve the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and not see any adverse effects?

Another question just occurred to me. If the Earth does have your proposed regulatory thermostat response to longwave forcing, i.e. jets change position and then albedo/energy transfer happens faster if there is greater GHG forcing, can you think of a reason why this is not emergent from global circulation models? By which I mean, the models have all the ingredients in place. They have fairly representative ocean cycles (not perfect of course), they produce weather, they have clouds and ice so the modelled albedo changes. On the whole they're not bad at reproducing the Earth's climate. What singular feature do they lack that means they produce ~3C warming for a doubling of CO2 rather than an infinitessimal shift in the jet streams?

Good question. Have you tried asking a modeller ?

Just a guess, but there seems to be little recognition of latitudinally shifting jetstreams beyond normal seasonal variation. Just ask TomC who denies it absolutely and he is well up in the climate heirarchy it seems.

Tom does accept changes in zonality/meridionality but I've never seen that linked with cloudiness and albedo variations. Yet the Earthshine project clearly shows increasing cloudiness and albedo around the time the jets started getting less zonal in the late 90s.I first noticed it around 2000.

Throughout the late 20th century warming period the jets got more zonal with falling cloudiness and albedo.

Can you assert definitively that the models do indeed incorporate those real world phenomena?

Then you are denying, or don't know about, or don't get, the greenhouse effect.

"Then you are denying, or don't know about, or don't get, the greenhouse effect."


No, you are denying or don't know about evaporation and the failure of IR to penetrate water.

There is a greenhouse effect but it is limited to the air and the climate response is limited to the air.

 

Sorry Stephen, you need to do better than that.

Am I missing something here? You are the one who was arguing that solar energy helps to drive ocean temperatures (reference the discussion about Snowball Earth and open ocean?).

---

Never mentioned either of these things, don't deny them (though see below), so quit with the red herrings.

Try this.

It's simple. So, what's you're problem with it?

 

Because it is highly contentious and in my opinion likely to be incorrect. I have been engaged in considerable discussions on the issue elsewhere and do not wish to start here.

"Am I missing something here? "

Yes you are. Namely the difference between solar shortwave and internal system generated longwave.

C'mon, quit with the excuses and lets see why you object.

Again, it's simple. Change the greenhouse effect and you change the rate that oceans cool at.

So, is your objection to the mechanism shown in the graphic above or that the changes to the GH effect are of a magnitude that isn't great enough to be noticable?

Change the greenhouse effect and you change the rate of evaporation so that the increased energy flux upward offsets the effect of warming in the skin for a zero net effect on the upward energy flux from ocean to air.

You do get more energy passing through the air but that just results in a miniscule shift in the air circulation systems.


http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/ocean-temp-profiles-2-kawai-wada-2007.png?w=490&h=441 

Note that the cooling towards the top exists both day and night despite the huge change in energy input from above. That suggests that the subskin coolness is a constant feature independent of what happens from above. For your scenario to work the cooler subskin layer would have to dissipate to produce a warming gradient right up to the surface. The subskin layer has to reduce its temperature gradient before one can slow down the rate of upward energy transfer or reverse it but it seems that it never does reduce even under the stress of daytime solar input.

The existence of that persistent subskin layer 1mm deep and 0.3C cooler than the ocean bulk below is observational evidence that whatever goes on in the atmosphere has no effect on the natural background upward energy flow. The reason is that in response to increased downward DLR the upward energy transfer rate increases to negate the effect one would otherwise expect from the warmed skin layer

The logic is sound but I would be prepared to accept actual observational evidence to the contrary but we need actual evidence of SUBSKIN temperature changes. At present we only have evidence of SKIN and ocean BULK temperatures.

Nevertheless the creators of the graph seem content to show that persistent cooler subskin day and night despite huge downward energy changes so who am I to argue with them ?

Nonsense, the graph clearly shows that at night cooling is focussd at the ocean surface because of the very small penetration depth of 10 um IR. The short wavelength solar radiation has a greater penetration depth so the maximum warming is further below the surface.

"the graph clearly shows that at night cooling is focused at the ocean surface because of the very small penetration depth of 10 um IR. The short wavelength solar radiation has a greater penetration depth so the maximum warming is further below the surface."


The maximum warmth is at 1mm deep both day AND night.

I am only referring to the temperature gradient from 1mm deep to the surface.

It is persistent and stable day AND night and so is not affected by changes in energy input from above yet it is that gradient which determines the rate of energy flow from below 1mm to the surface.

You've evaded Toms point. He's talking about maximum warming and you're answering with a made up assertion about maximum warmth.

---

...Conveniently ignoring measurements that it is affected by changes in energy input from above.

I've discussed this with Stephen ad nauseam. He has used such logically inconsistent arguments as (paraphrasing) "although increased downward longwave might warm up the top 10 microns, the layer below this cools because of increased evaporation, cooling the ocean" which is impossible because it relies on the evaporative process not using the most readily available energy and instead getting it from deeper in the ocean.

Stephen's argument also relies on unlimited capacity to increase evaporation such that all downward longwave is used up by evaporation and hence any increase in downward longwave is compensated for by an instant increase in latent heat flux of the same magnitude. But I know this isn't the case because across large tracts of the ocean, particularly the tropics, downward longwave is greater than the latent heat flux. If the air above the water is close to saturation there's only a certain amount you can increase evaporation by.

Basically I consider that the killer blow. If not all downward longwave is used up by evaporation, it must warm up the top 10 microns of the ocean. That's the only option. Now, it's not that this energy can penetrate the mixed layer and warm the ocean directly, as the gradient is still deeper=warmer that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. But as the flowchart posted by Devonian shows the rate of energy transfer from below is reduced.

Now, I know why Stephen is looking for an alternative explanation, because his theory relies on GHGs not being able to affect the ocean. But I am yet to see any convincing scientific evidence that he's right. Either all downward IR is immediately converted to latent heat, or Stephen is incorrect.

"Conveniently ignoring measurements that it is affected by changes in energy input from above."

The top 10 microns (the skin) warms up but apparently not the region between 10 microns and 1mm (the subskin). It is the temperature gradient through the subskin that matters.

Such changes from above do not appear to affect the gradient from 1mm down back to the surface because the gradient is the same day and night. The graph confirms that. Can anyone provide evidence that the graph is wrong or misleading ?

As for the other points you are out of date. They were discussion points which I have moved on from. I now think that the net effect is zero and not enhanced cooling from more DLR because the energy available for extra evaporation is limited by the amount of extra DLR.

All the extra DLR must be converted to a mixture of increased latent heat,not just latent heat but also radiation,convection and conduction otherwise the gradient from 1mm down and up to the surface must change.

It appears not to. Evidence that it does change is needed but all the measurements appear to be at either 10 microns or 5cm. No one has yet determined that there is any change in the subskin but that is what AGW theory needs in order to demonstrate any effect from a warmed skin on the ocean bulk.

Think of it like a tributary joining a river. The volume of flow increases (from skin to air) but the rate of flow from upstream (ocean bulk to subskin) does not change. In the climate system the pressure differential between air and ocean works the same way as gravity does on a slope.

If you're referring to the graph I think you are, it's just a schematic and can confirm no such thing. And for what it's worth, the gradient in the schematic is not quite the same, with the difference between skin and subskin looking a bit bigger during the day. But without actual data that doesn't mean a great deal.

BTW, I would have engaged with you over at SoD but was pretty busy the last few days.

You'll note that I address both scenarios you have mentioned, both an enhanced cooling and zero net effect. I'm glad you at least saw the problem with the enhanced cooling situation.

Not sure this sentence makes sense. Can you clarify? If you're saying that the DLR is partitioned into those methods of energy transfer, then I have this to say: If increased DLR causes the ocean to emit more energy by radiation, then the top 10 microns must have warmed up. That's the only way it can emit more radiation. And if the top 10 microns has warmed up then the gradient across the top 1mm must have changed (edit: unless it warms at the same rate at all depths which wouldn't happen, though it might be a reasonable approximation for a small change in DLR, see the bottom of this post).

I see the logical problem with this is example, it has to do with what I highlighted above. Certain forms of energy transfer from the ocean increase if the skin temperature increases, most notably longwave radiation but also conduction (which would also increase if the air cooled down). A change in skin temperature has the effect of changing the slope so while the 'volume' increases because it's being contributed to by additional DLR, the flow of energy from below is inhibited by the slope (temp gradient) being shallower.

BTW, Scienceofdoom's article has brought Ward (2006) to my attention. From SoD:

"Below the skin, the high-resolution temperature measurements were measured by SkinDeEP, an autonomous vertical profiler. This includes the “sub-skin” measurement, from which the sea surface temperature was subtracted to calculate ΔTc (see figure 1)."

Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall so I don't know what they define the subskin as. It's possible that they do have a complete vertical profile including the subskin. I will say that with the subskin being the warmest part of the ocean (due to stratification at night and absorbtion of solar visible and infrared during the day), its temperature actually doesn't need to be altered at all by DLR for the additional DLR to indirectly warm the bulk ocean.

Here's why: If SSTsubskin stays the same and SSTskin warms up, there will be less energy transfer upwards. One can assume that, during the day at least, the mixed layer has no clue of what's going on above the subskin because the temp gradient reverses there. Anyway, this means that to maintain equilibrium the subskin transfers more energy downwards because that side of the 'slope' is steeper.

Indeed, it would be possible that because all this happens dynamically, the series of events is thus when DLR increases:

SSTskin increases -> Less energy transfer upwards from SSTskin + slight increase in transfer downwards -> SSTsubskin increases and bulk ocean temp also increases slightly. SSTsubskin increases to maintain the original temp gradient because the system is heading towards equilibrium.

Becuase of this dynamic system it occurs to me that you would see ΔTc (SSTsubskin - SSTskin) stay about the same because when SSTskin increases, so does SSTsubskin because it is holding onto more of the energy it is receiving, unless the rise in DLR was large and sudden enough to push the system significantly out of equilibrium, in which case you would observe a decrease in ΔTc. You must remember that the schematics we've seen deal with relative temps, not absolute temps, which is what we'd actually need to confirm or refute this.

Golly I do hope that makes sense.

 

"If SSTsubskin stays the same and SSTskin warms up, there will be less energy transfer upwards."

I assume you mean upwards from subskin to skin and that's where I'm not so sure. All one needs to do to maintain the flow from subskin to skin is ensure that the flow from skin to air increases in proportion so as to offset the expected slowdown.

From my reading of the energy hungry nature of evaporation that seems entirely possible and that graph as far as it goes seems to support a lack of significant response to the diurnal cycle as regards the gradient in the 1mm to 10 micron region.

I'll give it some thought and call it a day on that issue here. Suffice it to say that the science on this looks pretty confused currently but I have seen reports of new sensors that should resolve the issue.

http://noc.ac.uk/news/arctic-climate-variation-under-ancient-greenhouse-conditions

Climategate Undermined Belief In Global Warming Among Many TV Meteorologists

see -

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climategate_Undermined_Belief_In_Global_Warming_Among_Many_TV_Meteorologists_999.html

A new paper by George Mason University researchers shows that 'Climategate'-the unauthorized release in late 2009 of stolen e-mails between climate scientists in the U.S. and United Kingdom-undermined belief in global warming and possibly also trust in climate scientists among TV meteorologists in the United States, at least temporarily.

---

Well that's US TV weather presenters for you

Be interesting to compare the results with a survey on how many believe in Chemtrails

 

---

We've been here before with the imminent climatedoom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

The current vogue is to dismiss the 70s ice-age scare as skeptic spin I think.
Most of the headlines and comments from concerned scientists and pressure groups are indistinguishable from recent rantings.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html

---

This just demonstrates your completely ignorance of the weight of scientific research regarding climate change.

 

---

Don't know if this was picked up here, but, here we go -

This imo, is spot on and there is a place for Mavericks.

from -

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/thesword/2011/02/science-scepticism-and-consens.html

We need both scepticism and consensus

John Beddington is the UK government's chief scientific adviser and head of the Government Office for Science

Science is progress, but not progress unchallenged. In our era of "instant solutions" and immediate response, it is easy, and perhaps tempting, to forget that true advancement is attained through criticism, scepticism and debate. Great scientists have often challenged the status quo, but armed with the facts and evidence required to justify their view. Those who challenge the collective view should be scrutinised, and if this scrutiny results in truth, should be rightly celebrated.

and........

---

Hide the decline revisited
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller
Not funded by big oil then ?

So what's *wrong* with this guy, he doesn't seem to be saying the right thing...

---

Did you see him on Glen Beck's show claiming the Iranians would have a nuclear bomb within a year? He's clearly a froot loop.

Reading around, he appears to be a geo-engineering type. He writes articles on the subject for the Heartland Institute which is, strangely, funded by big oil.

---