Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The CERES dataset contains three main parts—downwelling solar radiation, upwelling solar radiation, and upwelling longwave radiation. With the exception of leap-year variations, the solar dataset does not change from year to year over a few decades at least. It is fixed by unchanging physical laws.
The upwelling longwave radiation and the reflected solar radiation, on the other hand, are under no such restrictions. This gives us the opportunity to see distinguish between my hypothesis that the system responds in such a way as to counteract changes in forcing, and the consensus view that the system responds to changes in forcing by changing the surface temperature.
In the consensus view, the system works as follows. At equilibrium, what is emitted by the earth has to equal the incoming radiation, 340 watts per metre squared (W/m2). Of this, about 100 W/m2 are reflected solar shortwave radiation (which I’ll call “SW” for “shortwave”), and 240 W/m2 of which are upwelling longwave (thermal infrared) radiation (which I’ll call “LW”).
In the consensus view, the system works as follows. When the GHGs increase, the TOA upwelling longwave (LW) radiation decreases because more LW is absorbed. In response, the entire system warms until the longwave gets back to its previous value, 240 W/m2. That plus the 100 W/m2 of reflected solar shortwave radiation (SR) equals the incoming 340 W/m2, and so the equilibrium is restored.
In my view, on the other hand, the system works as follows. When the GHGs increase, the TOA upwelling longwave radiation decreases because more is absorbed. In response, the albedo increases proportionately, increases the SR. This counteracts the decrease in upwelling LW, and leaves the surface temperature unchanged. This is a great simplification, but sufficient for this discussion. Figure 1 shows the difference between the two views, my view and the consensus view.
Figure 1. What happens as a result of increased absorption of longwave (LW) by greenhouse gases (GHGs), in the consensus view and in my view. “SW” is reflected solar (shortwave) radiation, LW is upwelling longwave radiation, and “surface” is upwelling longwave radiation from the surface.
So what should we expect to find if we look at a map of the correlation (gridcell by gridcell) between SW and LW? Will the correlation be generally negative, as my view suggests, a situation where when the SW goes up the LW goes down?
Or will it be positive, both going either up or down at the same time? Or will the two be somewhat disconnected from each other, with low correlation in either direction, as is suggested by the consensus view? I ask because I was surprised by what I found.
The figure below shows the answer to the question regarding the correlation of the SW and the LW …
Figure 2. Correlation of the month-by-month gridcell values of reflected solar shortwave radiation, and thermal longwave radiation. The dark blue line outlines areas with strong negative correlation (more negative than – 0.5). These are areas where an increase in one kind of upwelling radiation is counteracted by a proportionate decrease in the other kind of upwelling radiation.
How about that? There are only a few tiny areas where the correlation is positive. Everywhere else the correlation is negative, and over much of the tropics and the northern hemisphere the correlation is more negative than – 0.5.
Note that in much of the critical tropical regions, increases in LW are strongly counteracted by decreases in SW, and vice versa.
Let me repeat an earlier comment and graphic in this regard. The amounts of reflected solar (100 W/m2) and upwelling longwave (240 W/m2) are quite different. Despite that, however, the variations in SW and LW are quite similar, both globally and in each hemisphere individually.
Figure 3. Variations in the global monthly area-weighted averages of LW and SW after the removal of the seasonal signal.
This close correspondence in the size of the response supports the idea that the two are reacting to each other.
Anyhow, that’s today’s news from CERES … the longwave and the reflected shortwave is strongly negatively correlated, and averages -0.65 globally. This strongly supports my theory that the earth has a strong active thermoregulation system which functions in part by adjusting the albedo (through the regulation of daily tropical cloud onset time) to maintain the earth within a narrow (± 0.3°C over the 20th century) temperature range.
w.
As with my last post, the code for this post is available as a separate file, which calls on both the associated files (data and functions). The code for this post itself only contains a grand total of seven lines …
Data (in R format, 220 megabytes)
Trick says:
January 10, 2014 at 10:10 am
———————————————
“LWIR to LH to LWIR 100% efficient. If you expand the real experiment and integrate over the ocean surface, then instruments can easily detect the slowed water surface cooling rate by LWIR from a cooler source as shown by Willis CERES data, text books and many supporting papers.”
I am not making an argument about LWIR from a cooler source not being able to slow the cooling of liquid water. It is clear from the experiment shown and instruction given I am using 40C water and a 90C LWIR source.
I am quite clear showing that not even LWIR from a powerful source can slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
So I can demonstrate with simple experiments incident LWIR slowing the cooling rate of almost any material but not liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
Trick, every time you run back to babbling about “text books an many supporting papers” my confidence doesn’t reduce as you hope. You are increasing my confidence that you will never be able to produce an actual empirical experiment that others can replicate showing LWIR heating liquid water that is free to evaporative cool.
The experiment should be oh-so-easy. AGW believers say LWIR is so powerful that it keeps the oceans from freezing! Just one little empirical experiment. But you can’t do it can you Trick?
“ CERES data, text books and many supporting papers” means you have nothing.
1sky1 says:
January 10, 2014 at 3:13 pm
“BTW, your surmise that the great convective cells (e.g., Hadley) would then disappear is likewise physically untenable; they are the product of latitudinal pressure-differentials, not GHGs.”
—————————————————————————-
Kevin E. Trenberth is a great believer in strong vertical tropospheric circulation being driven solely by the pole to equator temperature differential.
Dr. Spencer is of my view. Radiative cooling is critical to buoyancy loss and subsidence of air masses from altitude, without which the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cell would stall and the bulk of the atmosphere would trend isothermal through gas conduction.
My empirical experiments in tall gas columns support Dr Spencer’s position.
I’ll take empirical results over Trenberthian bafflegab.
Konrad 5:26pm: “I am not making an argument about LWIR from a cooler source not being able to slow the cooling of liquid water….I am quite clear showing that not even LWIR from a powerful source can slow the cooling rate of liquid water…”
Huh? The 1st is the earth/atm. the 2nd? Please explain that. Liquid water that is free or not free to evaporate is subject to the same 2nd law Konrad, you can’t repeal the 2nd law with a sheet of plastic – well, maybe in your world. Entropy increase in universe can’t be stopped by anything you can build even if Konrad can’t measure the entropy increase in a small experiment – planet Earth works on entropy increase. Entropy can be held constant for learning but that is ideal only, not real.
“ CERES data, text books and many supporting papers” means you have nothing.”
Willis had a top post somewhere above that means having more than nothing based on CERES dataset. I concur these amount certainly to nothing in Konrad’s world, the rest of science is founded & built upon by 1st principle data, modern text book theory, and specialist papers – I’ve cited the particulars in the past.
“You are increasing my confidence…”
Good. I truly hope Konrad’s confidence increases enough to publish the paper on the 2nd law shattering experiments Konrad has built; I will have contributed to something historic, the repeal of 2nd law. I remain stirred, not shaken (Bond had it wrong, btw).
Willis Eschenbach: Now, if I let that kind of rubbish go on, between them Matt and Nick will soon have everyone convinced that if I measure the weight of a man and his wife on a scale together, then measure the man’s weight separately and calculate the wife’s weight from the difference … that this will somehow magically make their weights negatively correlated with a value of -.707.
With luck, lurkers may read some stat texts and realize that what Nick Stokes and I wrote about happens all the time in applied statistics, and that Willis’ “refutation” shows that he doesn’t understand the problem. We didn’t write about “magic”, we wrote about random variation in the measurement process, and how the negative correlations that Willis wrote of can happen whether the conclusion he wants to draw is true or false. Willis’ counter argument is sometimes the method does not get the wrong answer, especially when there is no unknown random variation..
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 10, 2014 at 3:12 pm
Ok, Willis you’re on 😉
“Konrad, what results did you get when you ran the experiment with the fans turned off?”
Do the fans turn off over the real ocean?
The mark up shows the fans under-volted so the breeze is very light. It is identical for both the weak and strong LWIR source. What happens if you turn the fans off is a bubble of warm air builds under the strong LWIR source and gas conduction causes the water sample to cool very slightly slower. The Fans are needed to remove the gas conduction from LWIR source to the water and to remove the convective restriction imposed by the water block LWIR sources.
Willis if you try the experiment and see what happens when evaporation is restricted with plastic film or indeed what happens when warm sand is substituted for water you will realise that there is no way out nit picking over the fans. You can even try a more complex variant using thin nichrome wire heaters over the water sample. These do not restrict convection so no fans are needed.
“[CERES..assumption..no lab experiment…blah,blah] As a result, your claim that the IR doesn’t get absorbed by the ocean because it goes into evaporation is falsified.”
No Willis, the only thing that can prove me wrong is a simple lab experiment that others can replicate that shows LWIR heating liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. You cannot provide that. (and please do not even think of pushing Minnett’s tripe)
Willis your steel greenhouse works, and I have previously posted build diagrams for others to check it as I have. It works, but only because the two shells are not fluids in a gravity field.
Radiative physics is fine, it’s just that climate scientists are giving it a bad name.
SB equations alone cannot solve for the temperature profile of moving fluids in a gravity field. This was the essence of Sir George Simpson’s warning to Callendar in 1938. Callendar chose to ignore it and here we are, trillions wasted and thousands dead.
You believe in the radiative greenhouse hypothesis. You believe down-welling LWIR keeps the oceans from freezing. I make claims on the basis of empirical experiment alone. You have challenged.
My challenge in response. Your clear and direct and direct, hand-waving free answer if you would be so good –
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
This experiment can simulate what would happen to the oceans without an atmosphere. (ignoring that they would instantly boil into space with enough force to destabilise the planet’s orbit)
The water sample is heated only by SW. Conductive and evaporative cooling is restricted. The sample can only effectively cool by LWIR emission and there is virtually no LWIR back radiated to the sample surface.
Will the sample –
A. Freeze?
B. Rise toward 80C?
Willis, you are a smart guy. You can see the diagram is an arbitrary representation in terms of dimensions, SW power and cycle and the convective restriction in the liquid. You know what the experiment is about. Forget the lurkers and remember future readers. “Trick” style nit picking about specifics serves only short term goals.
The logic is very simple.
If the average temperature of the planet without atmosphere is near 80C, then our atmosphere is clearly cooling the planet. There is only one effective way of cooling our atmosphere. Radiative gases. The radiative greenhouse hypothesis is therefore a complete load of…
But I digress…
Your answer Willis. Your move. A or B?
Regards,
K.
Trick says:
January 10, 2014 at 6:02 pm
Still no empirical experiment showing incident LWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool?
This is getting sad….
“[blah ..blah..] 1st principle data, modern text book theory, and specialist papers”
Oooh! “specialist” you say! Did they have white lab coats? Did they look “sciencey”? Are real engineers meant to bow or grovel at their feet? What is the protocol? Is it 97% bowing, or 97% grovelling?
Come on Trick. It should be so easy! That ever so effective LWIR is supposed to be keeping our oceans from freezing solid!
One little lab experiment that others can replicate. It shouldn’t be that hard.
I’m not sure what Konrad’s experiment proves, exactly, but it reminds me of another experiment. It is well-known that boiling hot water freezes faster than room-temperature water – the Mpemba effect. If I remember correctly, there are a number of theories why – more efficient heat loss from convection in warmer water, better heat conduction through the base of the glass of water, ice less likely to form on the walls of the glass first, etc, but it’s still a matter of debate. In the case of the Mpemba effect, it seems that something about the nature of water complicates the relationship between the rate of cooling and the amount of initial energy (the initial temperature) in the water.
Likewise in Konrad’s experiment he’s noted that the water with the LWIR source cools at the same rate as the one without the LWIR source, but hasn’t actually determined why – and the why is important. Is Konrad sure the difference in cooling rate is large enough, at this scale, to be measured – would an up-scaling of his experiment show a similar result? What about without the assistance of the fan? Is it possible that something about the nature of water complicates the relationship – perhaps energy from the LWIR source affects convection.
Additionally, it’s one thing to look at water in a tank, and quite another to look at water in the ocean. No one looks at the Mpemba effect and concludes that, for example, warmer ocean waters must necessarily host more sea ice, more quickly, than cooler ocean waters (when subjected to the same meteorological conditions). Things get complicated when you go out to sea. For example, you say that, in your experiment, the water is “free to evaporate,” but in the ocean, evaporation is not just an either/or thing – free or not free – it’s a rate that responds to vapor pressure of water and wind speed as well as temperature. So if we were in a particularly humid bay, would the LWIR then heat the water? Or would it remain unable to do so? Can you do an experiment or find data from oceans (or lakes or ponds) that supports your assertion that LWIR doesn’t increase water temperature?
And of course I’d expect the water below the LWIR source would have a greater rate of evaporation – wouldn’t that mean more water vapor in the air (which is, you know, climate change)? Also, while evaporation is a cooling process, condensation is a warming process (conservation of energy). So you get the energy back, right, when the water condenses? So it’s not like the extra energy goes into a hole.
Matthew R Marler says:
January 10, 2014 at 6:33 pm
Oh, please. You, Phil, and Nick all claimed that the way CERES measures LW would necessarily cause LW to be negatively correlated with the SW. Nick gave a whole example involving coins. Nick’s original post on the subject, where he claims the measurement method determines the correlation, is here.
Meanwhile, back out in the real world, the way CERES measures LW doesn’t change the correlation in the slightest. You, Phil, and Nick made a foolish mistake. I don’t care if Nick ever admits it, nothing surprises me about him … but I thought better of you.
w.
Konrad says:
January 10, 2014 at 6:38 pm
In other words, you don’t know because you didn’t do the experiment. Since that’s the case, why not say so, instead of just rambling on about fans and oceans?
Yeah, I’ve noticed before that you pay no attention to wild and crazy things like logic and math, the kinds of things which can easily prove normal scientists wrong … but not Konrad, he’s impervious to normal science.
Forget I asked, Konrad. Since you don’t believe that either mathematics, logic, thought experiments, inference, argumentum ad absurdum, circumstantial evidence, statistics, or any of a host of other normal scientific methods can touch the theories of the SuperKonrad, I’m sure there’s nothing I can say that you’ll pay any attention to.
But you might profitably consider why you are unable to get any traction either here or anywhere else with your crazy theory … and it has nothing to do with anything on this side of your eyeballs.
w.
Konrad says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:17 pm
Just curious, Konrad … the ocean is radiating at about 400 W/m2 or so, and it’s losing about another 100 W/m2 through sensible and latent heat losses.
On the other hand, only about 165 W/m2 gets to the surface from the sun … what do you think provides the additional 335 W/m2 or so necessary to keep the ocean from freezing?
Me, I think that the additional energy comes from downwelling longwave radiation. But you don’t think IR can warm water.
So … what’s your explanation for the source of the ~ 335 watts necessary to prevent icing over?
Oh, wait … I forgot, mathematics and logic can’t touch the theories of the mighty Konrad … so you’ll most likely just blow my question off and never answer it.
w.
RM says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm
————————————-
The experiment simply shows that the ability of a material to undergo phase change at the LWIR incident surface confounds normal radiative physics.
It is simply a LWIR version of the old “how do you heat a plastic tub of water with a hair dryer?” trick. Answer – point the hair dryer at the side of the tub not the surface of the water.
You state –
“Also, while evaporation is a cooling process, condensation is a warming process (conservation of energy). So you get the energy back, right, when the water condenses? So it’s not like the extra energy goes into a hole.”
It doesn’t go into a hole, it goes into the black and soulless vacuum of outer space. When water vapour condenses at altitude, it releases latent heat. This heat release occurs well above the surface level of maximum IR opacity in the atmosphere. 50 % of this is radiated toward space. Of the half radiated toward the surface, 50% of that is intercepted by radiative gases in air masses rising from the surface.
Our fluid atmosphere acts just as a heat-pipe in a modern computer heat sink. It is a giant vapour-condensate heat pump moving energy to space.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:47 pm
But that was not enough-
Willis Eschenbach also says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:54 pm
—————————————-
You brought it Willis, now you gotta wear it 😉
“In other words, you don’t know because you didn’t do the experiment.”
You just accused me of lying. Was that a good idea or a bad idea? Lets review –
http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg
I’m away from my home machine, but that is a pic of the earliest version of the experiment I ever published on the web. It just reflected outgoing IR from cooling water samples back to the surface just like the atmosphere (downwelling dependant in part on upwelling). Off blog (valid) criticism lead to the version with constant IR sources. But have a look at the early version shown. Why did I try to establish an equal pattern of airflow over both samples? How might that relate to “you don’t know because”?
Now before an hypothesis on why Willis refused to give a clear and direct answer to the question he was asked, I should probably review some of his comments. (actually probably not for the best, but I can’t resist. I just can’t…)
“Yeah, I’ve noticed before that you pay no attention to wild and crazy things like logic and math, the kinds of things which can easily prove normal scientists wrong … but not Konrad, he’s impervious to normal science”
No, but I am impervious to post-normal science 😉 (oh please, you walked right into that one.)
Logic and maths? My first job out of high school was computer programmer. I do a lot of work in engineering and design these days. A lot of CAD, CAM and FEA. Pilots licence, scuba licence, politely requested never to come back by mine warfare and demolitions unit. Lots of numbers.
“Since you don’t believe that either mathematics, logic, thought experiments, inference, argumentum ad absurdum, circumstantial evidence, statistics, or any of a host of other normal scientific methods can touch the theories of the SuperKonrad, I’m sure there’s nothing I can say that you’ll pay any attention to”
You could get my attention by answering the question you were directly asked Willis. Your complete failure to even attempt an answer is painting quite the picture. A or B Willis? Step right up. Throw your hat in the ring. Take your chances! Fabulous prizes to be won!!
Only you’re not going to do that Willis are you? You wouldn’t dare. Buk.Buk.Bucawww!
“But you might profitably consider why you are unable to get any traction either here or anywhere else with your crazy theory … and it has nothing to do with anything on this side of your eyeballs”
You just blew that. Maximum traction. Laugh and clap as Willis desperately tries to avoid admitting that the atmosphere cools the oceans and radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
“So … what’s your explanation for the source of the ~ 335 watts necessary to prevent icing over?”
What are you dribbling about? If the oceans on this planet could exist without an atmosphere they would reach almost 80C!
Oh, wait, you’ve been applying SB equations to moving fluids in a gravity field again haven’t you? Remember the oceans are being heated at depth by SW and cooled at the surface. Non radiative transports need to be considered.
“Oh, wait … I forgot, mathematics and logic can’t touch the theories of the mighty Konrad … so you’ll most likely just blow my question off and never answer it.”
See above, and remember you are the one who wants to be the mighty Willis on climate blogs. I get my engineering awards, movie credits and technology museum exhibits elsewhere 😉
Konrad says:
January 10, 2014 at 11:49 pm
Nothing of the sort. I accused you of not doing the experiment with the fans turned off.
Since you didn’t say whether you had or hadn’t done the experiment with the fans turned off, how could that be an accusation that you are a liar? I made no such accusation.
I just said that since you refused to answer my question about what happens when the experiment was done with the fans off, I assumed you haven’t done that part of the investigation.
If I’m wrong, if you have done the experiment with the fans turned off … then why didn’t you just give me the results as I requested?
w.
Konrad says:
January 10, 2014 at 11:49 pm
Konrad, I was responding to your ludicrous claim, which was that neither logic nor mathematics can show the mighty Konrad is wrong, viz:
So if you want us to believe that logic and math CAN prove you wrong … don’t make dumb claims like that one.
w.
Konrad says:
January 10, 2014 at 11:49 pm
“A” or “B” about what, Konrad? Do you actually think I read enough of your asinine tripe to have ever seen your question? If you think so, you are quite wrong. Mostly, I just skip your BS, you’re a SIF who doesn’t understand longwave. Usually you are just flogging some false scientific theory, so your posts are not worth reading 997% of the time.
However, if your question is all that important to you, run it by me, and I’ll think about it. And leave off the insults, please. Insulting me because I didn’t answer some question I’ve never even seen just makes you look vindictive and petty. You might or might not be that way, I don’t know … but you sure look like it when you abuse me over something I know nothing about.
w.
Konrad says:
January 10, 2014 at 11:49 pm
Since the atmosphere does cool the oceans, and radiative gases do cool the atmosphere, what on earth have you been smoking to make you think I would ever deny things that obvious?
I’ll state it loud and clear. The atmosphere cools the oceans and radiative gases cool the atmosphere. What ever made you think I didn’t know that? Clearly, you have no idea what I know or think.
Dude, you are seriously losing the plot. If you think I’ve denied either of those things, show us where.
w.
Konrad says:
January 10, 2014 at 11:49 pm
My congratulations. I’m so impressed, I’ll never doubt your word again. I mean, a guy with movie credits has instant cred. How could I not believe you about scientific matters, when you’ve got actual movie credits?
w.
RM says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm
Indeed it is, and your points are well taken. However, Konrad still hasn’t grasped the nettle. If the ocean is not warmed by downwelling infrared, why isn’t it frozen? Konrad wouldn’t answer the question, he just mumbled something about how the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn’t work where there is gravity … but then he’s got movie credits, so you better believe him …
w.
George C. Simpson (1929) The Distribution of Terrestrial Radiation
Memoirs of the Royal Meteorological Society, Vol. 3, No. 23, 53-78.
Konrad 11:49pm: “I am impervious to post-normal science”
Does Konrad disbelieve there are 2H atoms and one O atom in the hydrogen oxide (aka dyhydrogen monoxide or water) molecules tested? No? Then Konrad should thank a teacher, 1st principle data, modern text books and specialist papers for accurate information on that because I rather doubt Konrad has ever seen an individual water molecule or tested for its constituents.
Just like Konrad cannot see LWIR – but in this case for some reason chooses not to learn from and to disbelieve teachers, 1st principle data, text books and specialist papers and concludes from lying eyes & imprecise testing measurements LWIR which cannot be seen must not be slowing the cooling rate of liquid ocean water that is free to evaporate in order to suit a view on blogs.
“Pilots licence…”
Thank teachers, 1st principle data, modern text books and specialist papers for the machine and ability that flies Konrad around – oh wait, Konrad can’t fly until has 1st done the aero, structural, powerplant and control system testing first before takeoff to see if the thing will actually fly at the end of the runway on any given day. The engineers that did the design work & the certification process are not to be believed until Konrad 1st does the testing on his kitchen table.
Can anyone imagine Konrad buying a ticket to get on a commercial airliner? I can’t.
“If the ocean is not warmed by downwelling infrared, why isn’t it frozen?”
Simple.
It is warmed by solar shortwave that gets past the evaporative layer.
Evaporation has a net cooling effect at Earth’s normal atmospheric pressure and so any energy that fails to get past the evaporative layer must provoke additional evaporation for a net cooling effect.
The latent heat of vaporisation at I bar pressure is 5 times the energy required to provoke evaporation.
I disagree with Konrad about the need for GHGs to cause convective overturning but he is right about the effect of additional energy passing from atmosphere to ocean surface because that energy is of a wavelength that cannot get past the evaporative layer.
Note that I don’t refer to DWIR because I think that the additional energy at the surface is a result of adiabatic warming of descending air and not DWIR but that is another issue.
It isn’t that S-B doesn’t work because of gravity but rather S-B doesn’t work when you have the mass of an atmosphere absorbing energy via conduction and raising that energy off the ground via convection.
Nor is it a matter of pressure. Instead it is a matter of atmospheric mass absorbing energy via conduction and the denser the mass the more conduction and the higher the surface temperature at any given level of irradiation.
One cannot prevent convection by removing GHGs if the surface is unevenly irradiated because that uneven irradiation will always give rise to density variations in the horizontal plane and that will always result in convective overturning.
Why has my post at 8.13am gone to moderation?
Ah, it’s been approved now, but why the delay ?
Stephen 8:13am: “It is warmed by solar shortwave that gets past the evaporative layer.”
Howdy! Sure, but there isn’t enough net solar SW with ~zero net LWIR to keep from freezing oceans at Earth current epoch orbit. SW needs help from non-zero atm. net LWIR as Willis implies 3:14am.
I see Stephen still has not cracked open a good modern text on atm. thermo. Get cracking.
Trick said:
“SW (solar ShortWave rather than Stephen Wilde :)) needs help from non-zero atm. net LWIR as Willis implies 3:14am.”
Of course it does and warmed air from adiabatic descent does the ‘Trick’ just fine.
Ignore the ‘modern’ text books. They have forgotten the ‘old’ knowledge.
You can’t ignore non-radiative energy transfer mechanisms.
Conduction makes the air above the oceans warmer than the temperature of space and the denser the atmospheric mass above the oceans the warmer that temperature will be at any given level of solar irradiation.
Willis at 3.14am makes no reference to conduction.
Is he, and you, in denial ?