tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post5674206243033843771..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds a huge false physical assumption of IPCC climate modelsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-34364441439823637232014-11-11T14:47:07.201-08:002014-11-11T14:47:07.201-08:00http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/one-...http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/one-more-time-2/#comment-454418<br /><br />nielszoo says:<br />November 10, 2014 at 7:02 pm<br /><br />A large part of this is that people keep using S-B math and black body math to deal with low pressure gases and that is flat out wrong. Low pressure gases are line absorbers/emitters and treating them like black bodies overstates their energy properties by several orders of magnitude. They should be dealt with via Gas Law as there is no radiative transfer of energy going on in our atmosphere anywhere below the stratosphere. Water droplets and suspended particulates may be able to emit some radiation but at 1 bar none of the gases in our atmosphere can. If they did, thermal cameras and the FLIR sights our military uses would not work. CO2 and CH4 cannot radiate at these low pressures as they never have the time to drop to ground state and emit before they bump into another molecule and transfer heat via convection. Since the energy level of a photon emitted from one of these gases is so small, the only place they have a chance of emitting radiative energy is Antarctica in the middle of the night in the dead of winter. (Still wouldn’t emit as convection still reigns supreme at 1 bar.)<br /><br />The problem is that explaining this scientifically requires quite a bit of math and our wonderful public education system has fixed that little hitch for us… no one learns real math anymore so they believe anything they are told.<br /><br /><br />mkelly says:<br />November 10, 2014 at 9:11 pm<br /><br />Nielszoo I used to operate FLIR (forward looking infrared) in an S3 aircraft. The unit had a cooling unit for the mirrors down to -140 F or so. The heat IR signature is what we saw. Clouds were a disruption. Clouds were a disruption for radar too. The water looked black/cold but the wake of ships were easily seen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-47561156853390566662014-11-08T16:51:52.382-08:002014-11-08T16:51:52.382-08:00Article on this paper:
http://environmentalresear...Article on this paper:<br /><br />http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/59215MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-40311501943392463692014-11-06T15:08:19.774-08:002014-11-06T15:08:19.774-08:00Thank you for that link, and I agree with you, and...Thank you for that link, and I agree with you, and have many prior posts making the same points. I hope you won't mind if I repost that here.<br /><br />Yes, the whole CAGW hypothesis is based on violations of "basic physics," including thinking <br /><br />P/A = εσ(Th^4 – Tc^4) = εσTh^4 - εσTc^4 <br /><br />which although is true algebraically, the second equation implying independent flows of heat is false in a physical senseMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-44423531863714031132014-11-05T12:51:32.312-08:002014-11-05T12:51:32.312-08:00I'm afraid radiative physics IS at fault if it...I'm afraid radiative physics IS at fault if it in any way suggests that 'radiative insulation' makes a heated object warmer in absolute terms because of an increased total INPUT of energy to it (the addition of "back-radiated" energy).<br /><br />Prevost's ancient bidirectional flux principle for a radiative thermal process ends up doing just that.<br /><br />http://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/why-atmospheric-radiative-gh-warming-is-a-chimaera/#more-61Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-12540441797369594322014-11-05T12:49:33.639-08:002014-11-05T12:49:33.639-08:00I'm afraid radiative physics IS at fault if it...I'm afraid radiative physics IS at fault if it in any way suggests that 'radiative insulation' makes a heated object warmer in absolute terms because of an increased total INPUT of energy to it (the addition of "back-radiated" energy).<br /><br />Prevost's ancient bidirectional flux principle for a radiative thermal process ends up doing just that.<br /><br />http://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/why-atmospheric-radiative-gh-warming-is-a-chimaera/#more-61Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-55653801966207720922014-11-05T07:46:00.742-08:002014-11-05T07:46:00.742-08:00Thanks for that, makes complete sense and explains...Thanks for that, makes complete sense and explains why the "GHE" is in the oceans, not atmosphere, with IR heat "trapped" in the ocean, but more efficiently radiated to space by GHGs. The more GHGs, the more radiative surface area and the more cooling. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-76320700841381794352014-11-04T22:48:14.680-08:002014-11-04T22:48:14.680-08:00Doug,
I'm disappointed to see HS allow your p...Doug,<br />I'm disappointed to see HS allow your posts here. I don't normally agree with censorship, but in your case...<br /><br />You don’t understand radiative physics. Radiative physics is not at fault, climastrologists just miss- applied two shell maxwellian physics to a gas atmosphere. Then everything went south, so fast. <br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KniKvVxaM1o (no, don't look if you are easily offended)<br /><br />You fell for “PSI” Doug. And the false flag was being waved right under your nose. They were set up to combat.....me. (or any engineer like me). <br /><br />You may be a sceptic, but you have done sceptics no service. Because you fell for a false flag operation, and promoted it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-52866304530073499442014-11-04T20:32:42.741-08:002014-11-04T20:32:42.741-08:00MS,
335K is not calculated, it is a conservative e...MS,<br />335K is not calculated, it is a conservative estimate from empirical experiment. After I had done the two selective surface experiments, I found that the work had already been done by researchers at Texas A&M in 1965 -<br /><i>Harris, W. B., Davison, R. R., and Hood, D. W. (1965) ‘Design and operating characteristics of an experimental solar water heater’ Solar Energy, 9(4), pp. 193-196.</i><br /><br />They were working on a now abandoned technology, convecting evaporation constrained solar ponds.<br />http://oi62.tinypic.com/1ekg8o.jpg<br /> (salt gradient type won). However this is what our oceans would become if they could be retained without an atmosphere. This type of solar pond suffered from overnight radiative cooling. The solutions were a) insulated night covers, b) pumped overnight storage into insulated tanks or c) make the ponds very deep. While simple experiment shows that surface Tmax for such a pond can reach 80C or beyond, <br />http://i40.tinypic.com/27xhuzr.jpg<br />over night surface temperatures are lower due to radiative cooling. <br /><br />However, condition “C” exists for our oceans with solar radiation penetrating even up to 200m. For deeper ponds Tmin converges closer to Tmax. No one has ever built a wide evaporation constrained pond 200m deep. Hence I do not estimate 353K as the average temperature of oceans without atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR. Even with SW absorptivity higher than IR emissivity, I conservatively estimate a 80K increase on the 255K blackbody assumption.<br /><br />If we want an exact figure for “ocean surface without atmosphere” there are two approaches -<br />1. Build a 200m deep solar pond (using IR transparent LDPE film) in the Atacama desert at 6000m altitude where there is little atmospheric IR.<br />2. CFD (computational fluid dynamics)<br /><br />Option 1 would be the most spectacular (if somewhat expensive). According to the climastrologist calcs it should freeze solid. Instead the covers would explode, as the water would be driven far above the boiling temp of water at that altitude. <br /><br />As I say, It's not just that SW absorptivity of the oceans is far higher than their IR emissivity, It is also that climastrologists forgot the five rules of SW translucent materials -<br />http://i59.tinypic.com/10pdqur.jpg (graphical)<br />That 255K “surface without atmosphere” figure is the foundation to all of AGW. And it's wrong. Spectacularly wrong. The oceans are not a “near blackbody” and climastrologists are not scientists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-9716049032506611992014-11-04T15:54:08.754-08:002014-11-04T15:54:08.754-08:00Unfortunately this statement in the paper is incor...Unfortunately this statement in the paper is incorrect:<br /><br /><i>"The ~89% or less of greenhouse gas far-infrared that is absorbed entirely within < 10 microns of the ocean skin surface is entirely used up in the phase change from liquid to gas and causes evaporative cooling, not warming, of the ocean skin surface."</i><br /><br />The electro-magnetic energy in radiation from the cooler atmosphere is not converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface skin of the oceans. Its photons resonate and identical photons are immediately emitted as part of the surface's quota of radiation as per its Planck function. That's why it doesn't penetrate beyond the first molecule a photon finds with which it can resonate. See my paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" for details.Doug Cottonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08564342660783793003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-22872505613187112322014-11-04T15:36:55.367-08:002014-11-04T15:36:55.367-08:00In fact it's worse than the article indicates....In fact it's worse than the article indicates. We should consider only the thin surface layer of the oceans (say 1m deep at the most) because that is what interacts with the troposphere. Solar radiation mostly passes right through this surface layer in non-polar regions. The majority of the absorption is spread over about 20m where, in the ocean thermocline the colder temperatures are not raised to that of the surface. Hence that new thermal energy follows isotherms and can only surface again in polar regions.<br /><br />People can argue all they like about Earths without GHG or atmospheres, but empirical data (30 years of real world temperature data from three continents) has been used to prove with statistical significance that moist regions have lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. Water vapour cools because its radiation properties reduce the effect of the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient, thus lowering the thermal profile at the surface end.<br /><br /><b>It is ludicrous to think that people can be so gullible as to believe that water vapour jacks up the temperature at the surface end by about 30 degrees whilst at the same time we know it reduces the temperature gradient by nearly a third in magnitude. What on Earth would happen to radiative balance if both these really did occur simultaneously? Are you one of the gullible people, or do you think?</b> Doug Cottonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08564342660783793003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-27442337476828502172014-11-04T15:20:08.009-08:002014-11-04T15:20:08.009-08:00Thanks much Konrad.
Link to calculations for 335K...Thanks much Konrad.<br /><br />Link to calculations for 335K equilibrium surface temp?<br /><br />Personally, I'm of the belief these RF calculations are dandy, but completely dominated by convection in the troposphere rendering them of academic interest only, e.g.<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-physicist-ponders-pause-explains.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-6978636909778429482014-11-04T15:16:53.795-08:002014-11-04T15:16:53.795-08:00Contrary to popular belief, water vapor has a nega...Contrary to popular belief, water vapor has a negative feedback cooling effect, not warming effect.<br /><br />Several posts demonstrating why:<br /><br />https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=hockeyschtick.blogspot.com%3Awater%20vapor%20negative%20feedbackMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-6918662048700522352014-11-04T15:15:24.308-08:002014-11-04T15:15:24.308-08:00Yes true, but nonetheless, this paper demonstrates...Yes true, but nonetheless, this paper demonstrates even in the topics the ocean is acting as a LWIR selective surface of only <=89% "efficiency," conversely near 100% blackbody "efficiency" for solar wavelengths. As Konrad points out, the GHE is in the oceans, not the atmosphere.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-55493808319101121892014-11-04T15:11:55.731-08:002014-11-04T15:11:55.731-08:00True, and even the published literature [before th...True, and even the published literature [before this paper] indicated water emissivities of 0.96-0.984, not 1.0, but they were too lazy to distinguish relative emissivities of any surfaces. As fig 3 above shows, the emissivity of deserts, oceans, vegetation, snow/ice significantly varies and is <1.0 throughout, but the lazy modelers factored in none of this.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-6237174923451505052014-11-04T14:31:01.867-08:002014-11-04T14:31:01.867-08:00With regard to my comment at WUWT and the two SW s...With regard to my comment at WUWT and the two SW selective surface factors -<br /><br />The first can be checked by cancelling background IR with a cryo cooled “sky”. This is difficult to do without expensive lab equipment, as there are difficulties getting fast response liquid thermocouples and avoiding conductive coupling between “sky” and water surface. I have measured at 15 degrees of perpendicular with “sky” dropped to -40C -<br /> http://i61.tinypic.com/24ozslk.jpg<br />- This causes a significant drop in apparent emissivity. To get a full hemispherical effective (not apparent) emissivity plot for water would require an expensive lab experiment with a liquid nitrogen cooled “sky”, multi band IR sensors and multiple sensing angles. This should have been done, but climastrologists made a lazy “blackbody” assumption instead.<br /><br />The second factor involving SW translucency is far more significant in ocean deviation from blackbody. The five rules can be easily checked by others with these two simple experiments -<br />http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg<br />http://oi62.tinypic.com/zn7a4y.jpg<br />I have built and run these. The temperature differential between Blocks A & B after 3 hours of solar exposure is dramatic at around 20C. The five rules apply if the materials are only radiativly cooled. They apply if the materials are radiativly and conductively cooled. They apply if the materials are radiativly, conductively and evaporatively cooled. Climastrologists provably ignored these rules when claiming 255K for surface without atmosphere.<br /><br />That 255K assumption for “surface without atmosphere” is the very foundation of not just AGW but the radiative GHE hypothesis as well. My best estimate is that it is in error by around +80K. This effectively rules out a “warming but less than we thought” soft landing for the hoax.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-78398009478111927032014-11-04T11:53:06.655-08:002014-11-04T11:53:06.655-08:00and here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/03/cl...and here<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/03/claim-berkeley-lab-scientists-identify-a-new-driver-behind-arctic-warming/#comment-1778651<br /><br />Konrad. November 3, 2014 at 2:05 pm<br /><br />Oooh hello….<br />After 30 years of doom-shrieking, climastrology finally works out that the oceans are not a “near blackbody” after all?<br /><br />Well they haven’t identified a new driver behind Arctic warming. They have just collided with the reason that AGW is physically impossible. The oceans are not a near blackbody they are a SW selective surface.<br /><br />There are two main factors behind this.<br /><br />The first is that SW absorptivity for the oceans is higher than IR emissivity. However to get an accurate figure for IR emissivity, more field measurements are not what is required at all. IR measurement in the lab is what is required with background IR eliminated by an artificial 3K “sky”. (you may find it incredible, but this simple experiment has not been done, climastrologists just assumed.) Instead of the old 0.96 figure, IR emissivity for water should be down near 0.7 for the 5 to 100 micron range. This alone would mean the “surface without atmosphere” figure for a SW and IR opaque surface constantly illuminated with 240 w/m2 would be raised from 255K to 273K.<br /><br />And the second SW selective surface factor? The oceans are not SW opaque, they are SW translucent. They are liquid and convect and illumination is not constant but intermittent. There a five simple physical rules for materials with these properties –<br /><br />For SW translucent / IR opaque (material A) compared to SW opaque / IR opaque (material B) with both materials having equal IR emissivity and total watts for both constant or intermittent SW illumination being equal, the results of empirical experiment are clear –<br /><br />1. If materials are solid, constant SW illumination will result in close surface temps for A & B with average temp of A higher than B<br /><br />2. If materials are solid, intermittent SW illumination will result in surface temps for A higher than B, with average temp of A also higher than B.<br /><br />3. If materials are liquid and convect, constant SW illumination will result in surface temps for A higher than B, with average temp of A higher than B.<br /><br />4. If materials are liquid and convect, intermittent SW illumination will result in higher temperature differential (both surface and average) between A & B than condition 3.<br /><br />5. If materials are liquid and convect, intermittently SW illuminated and deeper than condition 4, temperature differential between A & B will be greater again than condition 4.<br /><br />The combination of these two factors means a conservative “surface without atmosphere” figure for the oceans should be 335K, but probably higher. Even if the figure for land is kept at 255K, that still results in a global figure of 312K. Current surface average is around 288K, which means the net effect of our radiativly cooled atmosphere on surface temps is….?<br /><br />[cooling]MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-69942206544156080932014-11-04T11:52:07.452-08:002014-11-04T11:52:07.452-08:00"The oceans are the greenhouse effect"
..."The oceans are the greenhouse effect"<br /><br />Great point - as stated in the comments at WUWT:<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/03/claim-berkeley-lab-scientists-identify-a-new-driver-behind-arctic-warming/#comment-1778735<br /><br />Konrad. November 3, 2014 at 1:40 pm<br />The more correct form: emissivity is equal to absorptivity for a given wavelength.<br /><br />For the oceans SW absorption is higher than IR emissivity.<br /><br />Johanus November 3, 2014 at 4:14 pm<br />Konrad<br />“… for a given wavelength”<br />Good point, which resolves the conundrum being discussed.<br /><br />Ferdinand Engelbeen November 3, 2014 at 10:43 pm<br /><br />Konrad:<br /><br />For the oceans SW absorption is higher than IR emissivity.<br /><br />And for snow (and ice), SW absorption is much lower than IR emissivity…<br /><br />Michael D November 3, 2014 at 1:14 pm<br />The Earth tends to absorb energy around the Visible wavelengths, and then emit energy in the infrared. Something can be a poor emitter in the IR and a good absorber in VNIR. The proverbial (and perhaps legendary) greenhouse effect is an example.<br /><br /><br />Konrad. November 3, 2014 at 3:11 pm<br /><br />It will “click” when you realise that the atmosphere is a better IR emitter than the oceans ;-)<br /><br />There is a greenhouse effect on earth, but it is in the oceans not atmosphere.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-48968783412761355452014-11-04T06:13:59.092-08:002014-11-04T06:13:59.092-08:00The authors state climate models falsely assume wa...<i>The authors state climate models falsely assume water (71% of Earth's surface) is 100% efficient in emitting (and absorbing) far-infrared energy, but instead find "that is not the case," and that this discovery is allegedly a "previously unknown phenomenon."</i><br /><br />Who in their right mind would assume that anything is 100% efficient? That should have been the first clue that they don't have a clue.<br /><br />pinroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05584997377097902088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-68215528621332550852014-11-04T05:57:43.895-08:002014-11-04T05:57:43.895-08:00"The minority of greenhouse gas IR that is ab..."The minority of greenhouse gas IR that is absorbed entirely within < 10 microns of the ocean skin surface is entirely used up in the phase change from liquid to gas and causes evaporative cooling, not warming, of the ocean skin surface."<br /><br />Right, but since the energy is entirely used up, it does create more vapour, and water vapour is a again GHG. So the result is lukewarming of the Arctic region, right?<br /><br />What is uncertain to me, is how the resulting precipitation (sp?) -- what goes up must come down -- come and where, in Greenland it could be more snow, but it could end up coming down as rain or mist. And how does the sea currents / winds relate to this, because only open sea can evaporate water vapour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-89537743705679374002014-11-04T05:29:06.551-08:002014-11-04T05:29:06.551-08:00On a sphere the surface area between the 30˚ latit...On a sphere the surface area between the 30˚ latitudes is 50% of the earths surface area. On a circle the two 30˚ segments from the diameter is 64% of the area.<br /><br />64% of the suns solar insolation falls on the surface between the 30˚ latitudes (the tropics) That is where the heating takes place primarily in the ocean.Genghisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-37564835460420555642014-11-04T05:24:40.589-08:002014-11-04T05:24:40.589-08:00testing. The oceans are the greenhouse effect.testing. The oceans are the greenhouse effect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-69644982072658047002014-11-04T03:08:01.940-08:002014-11-04T03:08:01.940-08:00Very salient points, thanks!Very salient points, thanks!MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-68401364531634617572014-11-04T00:34:40.112-08:002014-11-04T00:34:40.112-08:00All of this blog article is interesting and helpfu...All of this blog article is interesting and helpful. I offer a little background for readers who might have difficulty following the radiation science.<br /><br />Solar radiation as discussed in the paper cited is shown in the diagram on page 4 of Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, Goody and Yung. OUP, 1989 reprinted 1995.<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=Ji0vfj4MMH0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br />Don't pay a lot of attention to the values of the parameters. They have all been updated since 1989 when the book was first published. Errors have been corrected: the Earth is not exactly a sphere; the use of geographic instead of geodesic coordinates makes a difference; the effect of the terminator is now accounted for; total solar irradiance and albedo have been refined; etc. <br /><br />The total amount of energy emitted by the Sun and falling on the Earth (left) is equal to the total amount of energy re-emitted by the Earth (left). <br /><br />Actually the AGW theory holds that the total amount of energy emitted by the Earth is not in equilibrium and that the Earth is warming at the rate of about 0.5 to 0.6 Wm-2 compared with about 340 Wm-2 incoming from the Sun. So the theory claims that the outgoing is less than the incoming by about 0.18% and that this should cause visible warming. <br /><br />A chemist or physicist or geologist might suggest that such a small imbalance should not be expected to cause visible warming. The visible heat that is missing is so little that it could be stored, not as temperature change, but as potential energy in the form of heat sinks, such as latent heat of phase change in water (more water vapor) or stored in increased organic material (enhanced photosynthesis) or stored in inorganic material (endothermic reactions such as formation of carbonates resulting from increased foraminifera, etc). <br /><br />Although the areas under the Goody and Yung curves may not be equal, they are almost the same. The horizontal position of each curve is set by the temperature of each body, the Sun around 6000 degree Kelvin and the Earth around 300 degrees Kelvin.<br /><br />However, for each region of the Earth and each season, the horizontal position of the curve will shift left or right because of differences in temperature and differences in conformance to blackbody criteria. And the shape of the curve may change for specific Earth regions. <br /><br />The reason for the change in shape of the curve is this: The figure in Goody and Yung is the average for the whole Earth based on idealization of the Earth as a blackbody whereas the Earth is a greybody with varying degrees of greyness. The shape of the curve for a region would depend on the degree of greyness. <br /><br />This seems to me the key point of this new study: that the average value for the Earth may be incorrect. If so, Goody and Yung must be modified to conform to the "average of many curves" rather than based on a single curve derived average temperature of the Earth.<br /><br />Peak radiation from the Earth is around 15 microns with a lower cutoff at 5 microns (mid-IR) and an upper cutoff at 100 microns. Thermal infrared is anything over about 3.5 microns. <br /><br />Where I have a problem with this paper is that for each region they should compare incoming and outgoing. At first glance they seem to be saying that Earth is warming much faster than we thought because we overestimated radiation emitted from the open water of the Arctic Ocean.<br /><br />I will read the paper carefully to see if they have actually looked at only one side of the equations (the outgoing). That would not do of course. What counts is the net energy flow. Best to remember that members of PNAS can publish more or less what they like.<br /><br />Even if their conclusions about the sign of the net energy flow is not correct, they deserve congratulations on showing that Goody and Yung have oversimplified the theory behind the Earth's energy budget. Frank Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17403044995764984391noreply@blogger.com