Ted Cruz shows his intentional CC denial by questioning NASA's need to engage in Earth science

[StudentOfClimatology]

It amazes me how smug you are when you're quite obviously wrong. Even if you were right, your condescension toward others here is so often on overdrive. And why? Because you're a grad student? Whoopty ****ing do! You're not the only one. In any event, brush up on your 1st law before you say **** like your first line there because the irony is dripping right off this post.

Actually, the problem is you're both misunderstanding the concept(s) of thermodynamic exchange in multi-domainal closed systems. Double irony.

Answer this..why are the deep oceans colder than the upper oceans? They're supposed to be in full thermal equilibrium, right?

Or..perhaps all that thermal energy in the upper oceans does more than just diffuse downward into the column..and maybe, just maybe, transfer rates decrease with depth? Kinda sounds to me like the deep oceans should respond exponentially slower than the surface-TOA to any radiative imbalance.

[skierinvermont]

Again with the fairytale world. I don't know how much easier I can make this.

Ever read this one? The vast majority of equilibration/thermal response in the surface-TOA boundary is achieved well before the deep oceans equilibrate..between 90-97%, by modeling studies. The remaining response is so small that it can be considered noise.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC085iC11p06667/abstract;jsessionid=72175AB4D88A1F17336B64C40AF125CF.f04t03

 

 

This bolded text from the article doesn't prove your point. It simply says that very slow long-term warming of the deep oceans continues. What I have said is consistent with that. 

 

The article is simply pointing out that heat gained at the 'planetary radiation field' (IE TOA) is exhanged with the 'atmosphere mixed-layer system' (IE atmosphere +100m of ocean) faster than heat is exchanged between the surface and the deep sea. This creates the well-known lag. 

 

However, this STILL does NOT mean that there can be a large imbalance in the deep oceans without a large TOA imbalance, if the rest of the system is in balance. It's that simple.

[skierinvermont]

Wrong, it's easily derivable.

 

 

What are you using derivalbe to mean exactly? You'll have to be more specific. What I said is true. If the imbalance at the TOA is 'semantically' small, then so is the imbalance of the deep ocean, if the rest of the system is in equilibrium. They are of the exact same size. It is a closed system. You can't 'derive' heat out of nothing. 

 

 

The Earth is always in radiative imbalance..this figure is highly variable from month to month, year to year, decade to decade, etc. The hiatus was caused by a temporary equilibration in the TOA imbalance due to a slew of factors..CERES clearly picked this up.

 

 

CERES did not pick this up. You are misinterpreting CERES data.

 

 

You are flying in the face of numerous papers on the topic which conclude the TOA imbalance to have been between +.5 and 1.0W/m2 for the last 10-15 years. That alone should cause you some serious reservation about your line of thinking. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

This bolded text from the article doesn't prove your point. It simply says that very slow long-term warming of the deep oceans continues. What I have said is consistent with that.

The article is simply pointing out that heat gained at the 'planetary radiation field' (IE TOA) is exhanged with the 'atmosphere mixed-layer system' (IE atmosphere +100m of ocean) that heat is exchanged between the surface and the deep sea. This creates the well-known lag.

However, this STILL does NOT mean that there can be a large imbalance in the deep oceans without a large TOA imbalance, if the rest of the system is in balance. It's that simple.

Your first two paragraphs were spot on, then you stumbled on the last one yet again. I don't know where you're getting this information from, but it's wrong.

Maybe in a magical world of equal exchange this would hold true, but sadly we don't live in a world like that. I wish we did though..everything we do would be much easier.

[skierinvermont]

Your first two paragraphs were spot on, then you stumbled on the last one yet again. I don't know where you're getting this information from, but it's wrong.

Maybe in a magical world of equal exchange this would hold true, but sadly we don't live in a world like that. I wish we did though..everything we do would be much easier.

 

A magical world of equal exchange - you've lost me here. 

 

You're simply performing mental gymnastics and getting lost in the process trying to circumvent the logical implications of the concept of a closed system.

[StudentOfClimatology]

What are you using derivalbe to mean exactly? You'll have to be more specific. What I said is true. If the imbalance at the TOA is 'semantically' small, then so is the imbalance of the deep ocean, if the rest of the system is in equilibrium. They are of the exact same size. It is a closed system. You can't 'derive' heat out of nothing.

The deep oceans are not in thermal equilibrium with the upper oceans, and they will never be. I have no idea how you're reaching these conclusions but they're misguided.

CERES did not pick this up. You are misinterpreting CERES data.

What CERES data are you looking at? It is easy to derive.

[skierinvermont]

The deep oceans are not in thermal equilibrium with the upper oceans, and they will never be. You've lost me, I'm sorry.

What CERES data are you looking at? It is easy to derive.

 

I did not say the deep oceans are in thermal equilibrium with the upper oceans. I said the exact opposite. Heat may be transferred from one to the other.

 

These figures from Trenberth et al. in the Journal of Climate show clearly a large persistent TOA imbalance measured by CERES:

 

 

 

 

If I recall correctly, CERES data is not considered reliable enough to calculate an actual TOA imbalance at all. But because it is temporaly consistent, the changes in the absolute value can be tracked over time, even if the absolute value itself is not correct. What Trenberth may have done is calibrated the data so he could perform a comparison to OHC data to more closely examine short-term variability. I'm not sure, I haven't read all of the methods yet.

[StudentOfClimatology]

A magical world of equal exchange - you've lost me here.

You're simply performing mental gymnastics and getting lost in the process trying to circumvent the logical implications of the concept of a closed system.

It sounds to me like you're treating the deep oceans as if they're in thermal equilibrium with the upper oceans. That's simply false.

[skierinvermont]

The figures clearly contradict your assertion that CERES data proves no TOA imbalance the last 15 years. In fact, they show a strong match between CERES data and deep OHC data - as I have argued throughout this conversation.

 

Numerous other papers conclude the TOA imbalance has been between +.5 and 1.0W/m2 the last 10-15 years.

 

You're wrong. I'd be less blunt about it, but you've been rather belligerent throughout this conversation. And you should have known better - flying in the face of most of the literature of the last 15 years. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

I did not say the deep oceans are in thermal equilibrium with the upper oceans. I said the exact opposite. Heat may be transferred from one to the other.

Then why treat them as if they are? The deep oceans don't radiate to the TOA..they're in exchange with the mixed layer which radiates with the atmosphere. Their absolute thermal response is on the order of a few hundreds of a degree celsius at best due to their high thermal capacity. You're not going to see much of any effect on TOA radiation because the two values are not proportional.

These figures from Trenberth et al. in the Journal of Climate show clearly a large persistent TOA imbalance measured by CERES.

If I recall correctly, CERES data is not considered reliable enough to calculate an actual TOA imbalance at all. But because it is temporaly consistent, the changes in the absolute value can be tracked over time, even if the absolute value itself is not correct. What Trenberth may have done is calibrated the data so he could perform a comparison to OHC data to more closely examine short-term variability. I'm not sure, I haven't read all of the methods yet.

Trenberth was comparing CERES to the full oceanic mixed layer, not the deep oceans. Big difference there.

They're not reliable in the short term..in the longer term, they can be easily utilized.

[skierinvermont]

Trenberth was comparing CERES to the full oceanic mixed layer, not the deep oceans. Big difference there.

They're not reliable in the short term..in the longer term, they can be easily utilized.

 

Either way, it shows a large positive imbalance the last 15 years. This directly contradicts your primary claim throughout that there has been no TOA averaged over the last 10-15 years. 

 

As we all know, much of the OHC imbalance, if not the majority the last 10-15 years, is from the deep oceans. Therefore a large % of the imbalance shown in the CERES data can be traced to an imbalance in the deep oceans when accounting for where the heat went.

 

As I said before, obviously the anthropogenic forcing that is altering the TOA imbalance is warming the surface and near surface primarily. Only very slowly, in the long run, is this heat transferred deeper. However, what we have currently is some short-term natural variability which has temporarily sped up the transfer of heat deeper. This is overlain on top of the anthropogenic signal but unrelated to it.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I'd have to look at Trenberth's calibration formula(s) before I judge his paper..can you link it?

The results I get when splicing the recent CERES/SORCE data onto the earlier data (w/ AIRS added in for stability) are completely different, with a large imbalance up until the 1998 El Niño, followed by 70-80% drop.

My hunch is he's necessarily parameterizing aspects of the raw data, but I want to read his paper before I make any accusations.

[skierinvermont]

I'd have to look at Trenberth's calibration formula(s) before I judge his paper..can you link it?

The results I get when splicing the recent CERES/SORCE onto the earlier data are completely different, with a large imbalance up until the 1998 El Niño, followed by 70-80% drop.

 

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Energy_Imbalance_OHC_v6_ss.pdf

[skierinvermont]

In the end, numerous papers conclude a TOA imbalance of .5-1.0W/m2 based on OHC data the last 10-15 years. Either all of these well-known well-reviewed scientists are wrong, or you are.

 

Trenberth shows CERES also observes the same thing - and either this data is accurate or he calibrated it because it's not accurate. In either case, the TOA energy imbalance is positive as evidenced by the increasing heat of the system as evidenced by the primary container of that heat - the oceans - much of which currently happens to be occurring in the deep oceans. 

 

Anyways, that's enough for me.  I have to go mow the lawn before it gets dark.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Read it. Apparently he's comparing (not calibrating) OHC to the pre-calibrated CERES figures, of which the eventual trend is altered to a greater extent than would the effects of both the observed drift and the annual error potential. He doesn't really explain the mathematics behind his primary calibration, only states:

After March 2000, CERES estimates of the TOA radiative imbalance are available, and although there is uncertainty in their absolute calibration, their temporal stability make them useful to compare with OHC changes over time.

I can't say I'm satisfied. Both SORCE and AIRS seem to back up the raw CERES output. I'll dig up some more literature tonight when I can get back to my computer, as I know plenty of papers take a different slant on this issue.

I'd also like to get some sleep tonight, so I hope I don't get pulled into an all-night debate here like I have elsewhere.

[skierinvermont]

Read it. Apparently he's comparing (not calibrating) OHC to the pre-calibrated CERES figures, of which the eventual trend is altered to a greater extent than both the observed drift value and the annual error potential. He doesn't really explain the mathematics behind his primary calibration, only states:

After March 2000, CERES estimates of the TOA radiative imbalance are available, and although there is uncertainty in their absolute calibration, their temporal stability make them useful to compare with OHC changes over time.

I can't say I'm satisfied. Both SORCE and AIRS seem to back up the raw CERES output. I'll dig up some more literature tonight when I can get back to my computer, as I know plenty of literature takes a different slant on this issue.

 

 

Lawn mower broken.

 

Yeah, I read that quote. So CERES data cannot be used to calculate absolute TOA imbalance and he also states there is significant drift uncertainty introduced over time. So it's really only useful for relative changes over short timescales. 

 

I'd be interested in a paper that does show CERES can be used to calculate an absolute value for the imbalance. No matter what, however, the concept of a closed system is one you still need to grasp. If the system is gaining heat, that MUST be exactly equal to the transfer of heat from outside the system, which in the case of the earth is the TOA imbalance. It doesn't matter which component of the system is gaining heat (deep ocean, upper ocean, atmosphere) if the system as a whole is gaining heat, the amount of heat gained must be exactly equal to the amount of imbalance of the system as a whole. 

 

No matter what, changes in OHC are equal to the TOA imbalance - minus any changes in atmospheric heat and ice melt which are proportionally very small values over periods greater than a few years.

[skierinvermont]

Do you really think a direct contradiction between CERES and OHC data would go unnoticed for 10+ years by the scientific community? No - it would be a raging debate about which one is right.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Yeah, I read that quote. So CERES data cannot be used to calculate absolute TOA imbalance and he also states there is significant drift uncertainty introduced over time. So it's really only useful for relative changes over short timescales.

I use CERES, SORCE and AIRS almost daily for academic/experimental reasons..currently writing a paper on the ENSO/OLR relationship, actually. This data is beautiful and has many uses.

No matter what, however, the concept of a closed system is one you still need to grasp. If the system is gaining heat, that MUST be exactly equal to the transfer of heat from outside the system, which in the case of the earth is the TOA imbalance.

Not to be rude, but this where you've been making the same mistake all evening, regarding the relationship between the deep oceans and the TOA imbalance. You're trying to equate them thermally, (Ex: K = W/m^2). You simply cannot do that, and I honestly thought you knew this.

I don't really want to continue this circular argument with you. I'd love to be doing other things right now.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Lawn mower broken.

Sorry to hear that. If you have a small lawn, I'd go electric. Much less maintenance and no fumes/emissions.

[skierinvermont]

I use CERES, SORCE and AIRS almost daily for academic/experimental reasons..currently writing a paper on the ENSO/OLR relationship, actually. This data is beautiful and has many uses.

Not to be rude, but this where you've been making the same mistake all evening, regarding the relationship between the deep oceans and the TOA imbalance. You're trying to equate them thermally, (Ex: K = W/m^2). You simply cannot do that, and I honestly thought you knew this.

I don't really want to continue this circular argument with you. If you want to remain uninformed, that's not my problem.

 

No not K = W/m2. W/m2 = W/m2. Heat gained by the system (J) is heat that must pass through the system boundary (J). The rate of heat gained by the system (Watts) is equal to the rate of heat passing through the boundary (Watts).

 

If one part of the system gains heat (J) and the rest of the system neither gains nor loses heat (zero Joules), the system as a whole has gained heat (J). If the system as a whole gains heat, it must have come from outside the system. To do so it must pass through the boundary. This is measured by the TOA imbalance.

 

 

This is a very basic line of reasoning. There is no logical flaw and the conclusion is unavoidable. It is an assumption that scientific papers on the energy budget have relied upon for decades.

[skierinvermont]

1. If the system as a whole gains X Joules of heat in T time, X heat must come from outside the system.

 

2. If X heat comes from outside the system, X heat must pass through the boundary of the system.

 

3. If X heat passes through the boundary of the system, there is a TOA imbalance equal to X heat / T time.

 

4. If in scenario A part of the system (the deep ocean) gains X heat in T time, and the rest of the system neither gains nor loses heat, the system as a whole has gained X heat in T time.

 

5. Therefore, via 1,2,3, 4, in scenario A the rate of heat gained by the deep ocean is equal to the TOA imbalance.

 

 

Find me a logical flaw. Be specific.

[skierinvermont]

I don't really want to continue this circular argument with you. I'd love to be doing other things right now.

 

You're flying in the face of dozens of papers that use OHC as a means to measure the TOA imbalance and you're calling me uninformed?

[StudentOfClimatology]

No not K = W/m2. W/m2 = W/m2. Heat gained by the system (J) is heat that must pass through the system boundary (J). The rate of heat gained by the system (Watts) is equal to the rate of heat passing through the boundary (Watts).

If one part of the system gains heat (J) and the rest of the system neither gains nor loses heat (zero Joules), the system as a whole has gained heat (J). If the system as a whole gains heat, it must have come from outside the system. To do so it must pass through the boundary. This is measured by the TOA imbalance.

This is a very basic line of reasoning. There is no logical flaw and the conclusion is unavoidable. It is an assumption that scientific papers on the energy budget have relied upon for decades.

I don't think that's what you were saying before, but if it is, I'm sorry for misinterpreting you.

Assuming that was the case, now do you see why the upper mixing layer & surface respond more quickly to a large scale imbalance than the deep oceans? It takes a lot more joules to heat the deep oceans given their thermal capacity, and the rate of transfer at that depth is much slower than it is above. Nearly every modern modeling study agrees that the upper mixing layer would theoretically approach (not reach) equilibrium centuries before the deep oceans do.

[skierinvermont]

I don't think that's what you were saying before, but if it is, I'm sorry for misinterpreting you.

Assuming that was the case, now do you see why the upper mixing layer & surface respond more quickly to a large scale imbalance than the deep oceans? It takes a lot more joules to heat the deep oceans given their thermal capacity, and the rate of transfer at that depth is much slower than it is above. Nearly every modern modeling study agrees that the upper mixing layer would theoretically approach (not reach) equilibrium centuries before the deep oceans do.

 

 

This is a change of subject. I've agreed with this point and made this point myself several times in our conversation. The point is whether if the deep oceans were gaining heat at X rate, and the rest of the system was neither gaining heat nor losing it, there would be a TOA imbalance of X. You have objected to this point numerous times.

[StudentOfClimatology]

You're flying in the face of dozens of papers that use OHC as a means to measure the TOA imbalance and you're calling me uninformed?

I'm not flying in the face of anything..upper OHC is often compared to CERES/AIRS to gauge the net flow of energy within the system in the short term..I have do this myself in my classes. No one tries to calibrate CERES/AIRS using OHC.

[StudentOfClimatology]

This is a change of subject. I've agreed with this point and made this point myself several times in our conversation. The point is whether if the deep oceans were gaining heat at X rate, and the rest of the system was neither gaining heat nor losing it, there would be a TOA imbalance of X. You have objected to this point numerous times.

Lol, are you f**king kidding me? That's the argument I've been making since the beginning. See below:

Obviously if the deep oceans are warming, the surface-TOA layer will not be in *perfect* equilibrium, but that's physically impossible to begin with. For all intents and purposes, the surface-TOA layer equilibrates before the deep oceans do.

Any effect from deep ocean lag on TOA emissions in incomprehensibly small..unmeasurable. That's the point..the deep oceans will lag the surface-TOA boundary when it comes to thermodynamic changes.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not flying in the face of anything..upper OHC is often compared to CERES/AIRS to gauge the net flow of energy within the system in the short term..I have do this myself in my classes. No one tries to calibrate CERES/AIRS using OHC.

 

I didn't say CERES/AIRS. I said the TOA imbalance, which can be measured by CERES/AIRS. 

 

And yes, CERES and AIRS are compared to OHC. Trenberth did exactly that in the figures I just posted.

 

 

OHC - including deep ocean OHC - is consistently used in the literature to calculate the TOA imbalance. You are saying it can't. You are flying in the face of the literature and calling me uninformed.

[skierinvermont]

Lol, are you f**king kidding me? That's the argument I've been making since the beginning. See below:

 

 

So now you agree that since OHC was warming .5-1W/m2 the last 10-15 years, the TOA imbalance was also .5-1W/m2?

 

Great. That is excellent news.

[AvantHiatus]

I'm not flying in the face of anything..upper OHC is often compared to CERES/AIRS to gauge the net flow of energy within the system in the short term..I have do this myself in my classes. No one tries to calibrate CERES/AIRS using OHC.

I do, OHC is king and the ultimate measure of climate change. We can sit around and wank off to snow charts, antarctic sea ice extents, etc. This tells us nothing about how much heat is entering the system.

 

As I suspected before, you are a closet denier/skeptic of mainstream AGW theory.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I didn't say CERES/AIRS. I said the TOA imbalance, which can be measured by CERES/AIRS.

And yes, CERES and AIRS are compared to OHC. Trenberth did exactly that in the figures I just posted.

Man, you just don't read carefully enough. That's what I'd just said previously.

I'm not flying in the face of anything..upper OHC is often compared to CERES/AIRS to gauge the net flow of energy within the system in the short term..I have to do this myself in my classes. No one tries to calibrate CERES/AIRS using OHC.

Compare doesn't = Calibrate.

OHC - including deep ocean OHC - is consistently used in the literature to calculate the TOA imbalance. You are saying it can't. You are flying in the face of the literature and calling me uninformed.

Apparently you don't read the literature, because the Trenberth et al 2013 paper you just linked me explained the fact that the error bars in the deep ocean data are over 4X that of the satellite data itself. You can't be this stupid..we can measure the radiative budget to a far higher accuracy than we can the deep oceans.