Why Water will not allow LWIR energy beyond the skin layer...

[Billy_Bob]

Over that last two weeks I've been in a rather interesting debate with fellow grad students and a few professors. The question I posed was rather interesting.

Why has the earths oceans not warmed with the increase in CO2 and the corresponding increase in LWIR near surface?

The answer is relatively simple.


If you place a pot on the stove full of water and turn on the flame the water temperature will rise until it reaches the point of boiling (100 deg C). Once the water begins to boil the temperature rise STOPS and the molecular changes in the water from liquid to gas expend the heat energy until it boils dry. The temperature of the water is equal in gradient to the ambient air temperature to which it is evaporating into. There is a thermal input and output balance. Below is why it is important in answering my question.

LWIR is instantaneously absorbed by the skin layer of earths oceans where the water is ALWAYS changing to gas and energy is expended (thermal input and output balance). Long Wave Infrared Radiation is simply discarded by the earths oceans. Its the gas laws again; Henry’s, Charles’, Boyle’s, and, Avogadro’s Hypothesis.

Here is how it plays out. Conduction of water vapor to cold air plus rapid upward convection does it. When the air descends again into adjoining lower levels it heats up at the dry adiabatic lapse rate so as to reduce surface cooling.

Many are beginning to realize there is nothing in the published energy budgets of Trenberth and others to deal with that aspect since they ignore non-radiative transfers completely.

The thing is, if conduction and convection are doing it, then the net effect on surface by DWIR must be zero, IF convection can change to neutralise radiative imbalances as stated here:
“Radiative equilibrium profile could be unstable; convection restores it to stability (or neutrality)"

http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf

Just one more reason CO2 has Zero net affect on our globe and why CAGW is nothing more than a scam....

Merry Christmas....

 

[Billy_Bob]

And for the really simple answer.... The wavelength of the EME (LWIR) is to big to penetrate beyond the surface layer where 100% of it is trapped or reflected.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This process is independent of CO2 and reacts to any increase in external energy input by merely cycling faster rather than increasing the operating temperature.

So..... You can add as much CO2 as you want but it will never warm the oceans or increase the temperature as the cycle will simply move faster negating CO2 influence. Our 72% covered in water earth and 18% covered in snow earth will not allow LWIR to influence the temperature in any measurable amount.

This is why ambient air temps above the oceans never rise outside of its normal range and why only small regional areas of the land mass are affected.

see also "Rankine Cycle"

 

[Billy_Bob]

Too Funny..

I expected a bunch of BS from Old Fraud and all he left me were shit pellets.. But as with all fact based science he cant refute it, so it is all he has.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Willis did an article along the same premise lines a couple of days back and its an interesting read. He produced graphing showing how the earths real temperature control works using empirical evidence to show how it works...

I have colleges today trying desperately to defend the CO2 hypothesis without empirical observations to back them up..

Where The Temperature Rules The Total Surface Absorption

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha, it is a sick joke that you think Willis holds a position close to yours.

From the link-

According to the CERES satellite data, globally, the solar energy absorbed by the surface averages 162 W/m2. The downwelling longwave averages 345 W/m2. Conveniently, this means that on average the earth’s surface absorbs about a half a kilowatt per square meter on an ongoing basis. (And no, I have no interest in debating whether downwelling longwave radiation actually exists. It’s been measured by scientists around the world for decades, so get over it, Sky Dragons. Debate it somewhere else, please, this is not the thread for that.)

Willis does agree with me that although CO2 has a warming influence, it is minor and will not lead to tipping points or catastrophe.

Let me note in passing that a doubling of CO2, which will increase the DWIR by something on the order of 3.7 W/m2, and which it is claimed would lead to Thermageddon, would be less than a 1% change in total downwelling radiation at the surface… which would easily be offset by a small change in total cloud cover. But I digress.

 

[IanC]

This process is independent of CO2 and reacts to any increase in external energy input by merely cycling faster rather than increasing the operating temperature.

I can agree with this statement, although in an oblique fashion.

Incoming IR reduces the outgoing ocean IR heat loss. It is predominantly high density solar energy that gives the extra kick necessary to get a water molecule moving fast enough to break free of the surface. Even cold water evaporates but warm water evaporates faster.

Evaporation causes the skin of the ocean to be cooler than the water just below it. IR keeps the skin warmer than it would have been, therefore less energy moves up from below it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This process is independent of CO2 and reacts to any increase in external energy input by merely cycling faster rather than increasing the operating temperature.

I can agree with this statement, although in an oblique fashion.

Incoming IR reduces the outgoing ocean IR heat loss. It is predominantly high density solar energy that gives the extra kick necessary to get a water molecule moving fast enough to break free of the surface. Even cold water evaporates but warm water evaporates faster.

Evaporation causes the skin of the ocean to be cooler than the water just below it. IR keeps the skin warmer than it would have been, therefore less energy moves up from below it.

WOW...

I am surprised that you acknowledge the mechanism that prevents sea water from being warmed by LWIR.. But No, the DWLWIR is not what slows the heat release. It is the DRY air falling that does this.

Now that you admit that CO2 based LWIR can not heat the oceans where are you to find the heat to drive the climate? The oceans, by the energy input/energy release balance of water phase change, will not warm.

This blows a huge hole in the CAGW meme. The fact there is no "hot spot" makes the original hypothesis false. The whole premise is falling apart with repeatable and observable science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hahahaha, it is a sick joke that you think Willis holds a position close to yours.

From the link-

According to the CERES satellite data, globally, the solar energy absorbed by the surface averages 162 W/m2. The downwelling longwave averages 345 W/m2. Conveniently, this means that on average the earth’s surface absorbs about a half a kilowatt per square meter on an ongoing basis. (And no, I have no interest in debating whether downwelling longwave radiation actually exists. It’s been measured by scientists around the world for decades, so get over it, Sky Dragons. Debate it somewhere else, please, this is not the thread for that.)

Willis does agree with me that although CO2 has a warming influence, it is minor and will not lead to tipping points or catastrophe.

Let me note in passing that a doubling of CO2, which will increase the DWIR by something on the order of 3.7 W/m2, and which it is claimed would lead to Thermageddon, would be less than a 1% change in total downwelling radiation at the surface… which would easily be offset by a small change in total cloud cover. But I digress.

Willis's work clearly lays waste to that belief. He shows clearly that even an increase of that much DWLWIR energy would cause the oceans to cycle faster and cool. The net effect would be Zero.

You obviously didn't pay attention to his explanation of the thermal cycle. How it affects clouds, the air humidity, and convection rates...

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha, it is a sick joke that you think Willis holds a position close to yours.

From the link-

According to the CERES satellite data, globally, the solar energy absorbed by the surface averages 162 W/m2. The downwelling longwave averages 345 W/m2. Conveniently, this means that on average the earth’s surface absorbs about a half a kilowatt per square meter on an ongoing basis. (And no, I have no interest in debating whether downwelling longwave radiation actually exists. It’s been measured by scientists around the world for decades, so get over it, Sky Dragons. Debate it somewhere else, please, this is not the thread for that.)

Willis does agree with me that although CO2 has a warming influence, it is minor and will not lead to tipping points or catastrophe.

Let me note in passing that a doubling of CO2, which will increase the DWIR by something on the order of 3.7 W/m2, and which it is claimed would lead to Thermageddon, would be less than a 1% change in total downwelling radiation at the surface… which would easily be offset by a small change in total cloud cover. But I digress.

Willis's work clearly lays waste to that belief. He shows clearly that even an increase of that much DWLWIR energy would cause the oceans to cycle faster and cool. The net effect would be Zero.

You obviously didn't pay attention to his explanation of the thermal cycle. How it affects clouds, the air humidity, and convection rates...

You are fucking dense.

I have repeatedly used many of the same arguments as Willis, which you simply denied. Probably because you are unable to comprehend them.

If the ocean surface absorbs IR, and it does, then there is no possibility that there is zero effect.

I have said, hundreds of times, that the Sun heats the surface. I have also said, hundreds of times, that back radiation alters the temperature that the solar energy can achieve by reducing the radiation loss. Temperature is the function of energy input minus energy output.

When the Sun is not shining there is no increase in surface temperature. BUT there is reduced cooling because of the downwelling IR radiation.

I am sure you won't be capable of understanding the concept this time either. Or the thousandth time you are told.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hahahaha, it is a sick joke that you think Willis holds a position close to yours.

From the link-

According to the CERES satellite data, globally, the solar energy absorbed by the surface averages 162 W/m2. The downwelling longwave averages 345 W/m2. Conveniently, this means that on average the earth’s surface absorbs about a half a kilowatt per square meter on an ongoing basis. (And no, I have no interest in debating whether downwelling longwave radiation actually exists. It’s been measured by scientists around the world for decades, so get over it, Sky Dragons. Debate it somewhere else, please, this is not the thread for that.)

Willis does agree with me that although CO2 has a warming influence, it is minor and will not lead to tipping points or catastrophe.

Let me note in passing that a doubling of CO2, which will increase the DWIR by something on the order of 3.7 W/m2, and which it is claimed would lead to Thermageddon, would be less than a 1% change in total downwelling radiation at the surface… which would easily be offset by a small change in total cloud cover. But I digress.

Willis's work clearly lays waste to that belief. He shows clearly that even an increase of that much DWLWIR energy would cause the oceans to cycle faster and cool. The net effect would be Zero.

You obviously didn't pay attention to his explanation of the thermal cycle. How it affects clouds, the air humidity, and convection rates...

You are fucking dense.

I have repeatedly used many of the same arguments as Willis, which you simply denied. Probably because you are unable to comprehend them.

If the ocean surface absorbs IR, and it does, then there is no possibility that there is zero effect.

I have said, hundreds of times, that the Sun heats the surface. I have also said, hundreds of times, that back radiation alters the temperature that the solar energy can achieve by reducing the radiation loss. Temperature is the function of energy input minus energy output.

When the Sun is not shining there is no increase in surface temperature. BUT there is reduced cooling because of the downwelling IR radiation.

I am sure you won't be capable of understanding the concept this time either. Or the thousandth time you are told.

You simply do not understand the process and WHY it can not raise the temperature. I tried to show you the process and you refuse to acknowledge it simply because it fly's in the face of your UN-testable and UN-observable modeling. Empirical Evidence of the process and the physical observations show that it can not warm the oceans and the Rankine cycle is the mechanism by which it does it. Water is the perfect insulator/emitter of itself. Thermal equilibrium in water happens on a gradient. As its temp rises the chemical process removes the heat. IN the case of LWIR it happens in the first ten microns of the surface WHERE IT IS COOLER THAN THE WATER BELOW IT (by physical empirical observations). Heat is therefore not entering the oceans by LWIR, backradiation or any other long wave function.

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha, it is a sick joke that you think Willis holds a position close to yours.

From the link-

According to the CERES satellite data, globally, the solar energy absorbed by the surface averages 162 W/m2. The downwelling longwave averages 345 W/m2. Conveniently, this means that on average the earth’s surface absorbs about a half a kilowatt per square meter on an ongoing basis. (And no, I have no interest in debating whether downwelling longwave radiation actually exists. It’s been measured by scientists around the world for decades, so get over it, Sky Dragons. Debate it somewhere else, please, this is not the thread for that.)

Willis does agree with me that although CO2 has a warming influence, it is minor and will not lead to tipping points or catastrophe.

Let me note in passing that a doubling of CO2, which will increase the DWIR by something on the order of 3.7 W/m2, and which it is claimed would lead to Thermageddon, would be less than a 1% change in total downwelling radiation at the surface… which would easily be offset by a small change in total cloud cover. But I digress.

Willis's work clearly lays waste to that belief. He shows clearly that even an increase of that much DWLWIR energy would cause the oceans to cycle faster and cool. The net effect would be Zero.

You obviously didn't pay attention to his explanation of the thermal cycle. How it affects clouds, the air humidity, and convection rates...

You are fucking dense.

I have repeatedly used many of the same arguments as Willis, which you simply denied. Probably because you are unable to comprehend them.

If the ocean surface absorbs IR, and it does, then there is no possibility that there is zero effect.

I have said, hundreds of times, that the Sun heats the surface. I have also said, hundreds of times, that back radiation alters the temperature that the solar energy can achieve by reducing the radiation loss. Temperature is the function of energy input minus energy output.

When the Sun is not shining there is no increase in surface temperature. BUT there is reduced cooling because of the downwelling IR radiation.

I am sure you won't be capable of understanding the concept this time either. Or the thousandth time you are told.

You simply do not understand the process and WHY it can not raise the temperature. I tried to show you the process and you refuse to acknowledge it simply because it fly's in the face of your UN-testable and UN-observable modeling. Empirical Evidence of the process and the physical observations show that it can not warm the oceans and the Rankine cycle is the mechanism by which it does it. Water is the perfect insulator/emitter of itself. Thermal equilibrium in water happens on a gradient. As its temp rises the chemical process removes the heat. IN the case of LWIR it happens in the first ten microns of the surface WHERE IT IS COOLER THAN THE WATER BELOW IT (by physical empirical observations). Heat is therefore not entering the oceans by LWIR, backradiation or any other long wave function.

Hahahaha, like I said, you are just fucking stupid!

You string together some 'sciency' words in a nonsensical fashion and play make believe that you have said something important. Hahahaha.

The Rankine Cycle? A real thing that is important in heat pumps like steam engines or refrigerators. Google it. The water cycle is a RC, it pumps heat up to the cloudtops past the radiation bottleneck at the surface.

.Water is the perfect insulator/emitter of itself

Hahahaha, what is THAT supposed to mean!

. As its temp rises the chemical process removes the heat.

More gobbledygook. Which CHEMICAL process would that be?



I have explained in simple terms where you have gone wrong many times in the past. You never put in the slightest effort to understand the concepts I am pointing out. At least SSDD has the brainpower to make me defend my statements, you are too stupid to have even the faintest glimmer of understanding.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hahahaha, it is a sick joke that you think Willis holds a position close to yours.

From the link-

According to the CERES satellite data, globally, the solar energy absorbed by the surface averages 162 W/m2. The downwelling longwave averages 345 W/m2. Conveniently, this means that on average the earth’s surface absorbs about a half a kilowatt per square meter on an ongoing basis. (And no, I have no interest in debating whether downwelling longwave radiation actually exists. It’s been measured by scientists around the world for decades, so get over it, Sky Dragons. Debate it somewhere else, please, this is not the thread for that.)

Willis does agree with me that although CO2 has a warming influence, it is minor and will not lead to tipping points or catastrophe.

Let me note in passing that a doubling of CO2, which will increase the DWIR by something on the order of 3.7 W/m2, and which it is claimed would lead to Thermageddon, would be less than a 1% change in total downwelling radiation at the surface… which would easily be offset by a small change in total cloud cover. But I digress.

Willis's work clearly lays waste to that belief. He shows clearly that even an increase of that much DWLWIR energy would cause the oceans to cycle faster and cool. The net effect would be Zero.

You obviously didn't pay attention to his explanation of the thermal cycle. How it affects clouds, the air humidity, and convection rates...

You are fucking dense.

I have repeatedly used many of the same arguments as Willis, which you simply denied. Probably because you are unable to comprehend them.

If the ocean surface absorbs IR, and it does, then there is no possibility that there is zero effect.

I have said, hundreds of times, that the Sun heats the surface. I have also said, hundreds of times, that back radiation alters the temperature that the solar energy can achieve by reducing the radiation loss. Temperature is the function of energy input minus energy output.

When the Sun is not shining there is no increase in surface temperature. BUT there is reduced cooling because of the downwelling IR radiation.

I am sure you won't be capable of understanding the concept this time either. Or the thousandth time you are told.

You simply do not understand the process and WHY it can not raise the temperature. I tried to show you the process and you refuse to acknowledge it simply because it fly's in the face of your UN-testable and UN-observable modeling. Empirical Evidence of the process and the physical observations show that it can not warm the oceans and the Rankine cycle is the mechanism by which it does it. Water is the perfect insulator/emitter of itself. Thermal equilibrium in water happens on a gradient. As its temp rises the chemical process removes the heat. IN the case of LWIR it happens in the first ten microns of the surface WHERE IT IS COOLER THAN THE WATER BELOW IT (by physical empirical observations). Heat is therefore not entering the oceans by LWIR, backradiation or any other long wave function.

Hahahaha, like I said, you are just fucking stupid!

You string together some 'sciency' words in a nonsensical fashion and play make believe that you have said something important. Hahahaha.

The Rankine Cycle? A real thing that is important in heat pumps like steam engines or refrigerators. Google it. The water cycle is a RC, it pumps heat up to the cloudtops past the radiation bottleneck at the surface.

.Water is the perfect insulator/emitter of itself

Hahahaha, what is THAT supposed to mean!

. As its temp rises the chemical process removes the heat.

More gobbledygook. Which CHEMICAL process would that be?



I have explained in simple terms where you have gone wrong many times in the past. You never put in the slightest effort to understand the concepts I am pointing out. At least SSDD has the brainpower to make me defend my statements, you are too stupid to have even the faintest glimmer of understanding.

Why do you play stupid?

Your using the same failed logic here as you do with SSDD. But I differ in that I won't put up with it.

1. You know water has a thermal input output balance controlled by evaporation (or boiling which is the upper limit of water temp in our atmosphere and its pressure). That chemical phase change expends energy.

2. LWIR is absorbed or reflected in the first 10 microns of the surface which is also where an ongoing phase change is physically happening and evidenced by cooling of it.

3. The phase change area of waters surface, also called the skin, is cooler, due to this chemical/properties change than the water just 50 microns below it. Thermal dynamics tells us energy can only flow from higher temp/energy concentrations to cooler thus any LWIR absorbed in the skin never makes it beyond the skin before it is released back to the atmosphere or space.

You can do your mental gymnastics with SSDD over net transfer but you have yet to show any of it as being factual beyond hypothesis. Until you can show me by empirically observed evidence of your magical CO2 rebound into the deep oceans I will continue to point to empirically observed evidence and repeatable science which tells me your fantasy is just that, a fantasy.

 

[IanC]

You're a fucking retard.

.
Chemical process - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Chem...
In a scientific sense, a chemical process is a method or means of somehow changing one or more chemicals or chemical compounds. Such a chemical process can occur by itself or be caused by an outside force, and involves a chemical reaction of some sort.

.
a usually irreversible chemical reaction involving the rearrangement of the atoms of one or more substances and a change in their chemical properties or composition, resulting in the formation of at least one new substance: The formation of rust on iron is a chemical change.
Chemical change | Define Chemical change at Dictionary.com

Latent heat of phase change does have an overlap between chemistry and physics but it is a long stretch to call it a chemical change or chemical process. As per usual you mangle your description of anything scientific. I have stopped trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I am going to respond to what you say, rather than what you might potentially mean.

IR is immediately absorbed by water, it has an effect, period.

Thank goodness that water is NOT such a good absorber of visible light or UV, otherwise the ocean surface would boil in daytime and freeze at night.

Downwelling atmospheric IR does not heat the ocean surface except in the unusual circumstances of nighttime inversions. At all other times it reduces the amount of heat being lost to the atmosphere or outer space. Why are you incapable of grasping that simple concept?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why has the earths oceans not warmed with the increase in CO2 and the corresponding increase in LWIR near surface?

I dont know, internet sensation Grumpy Cat...why has oceans not warm?

Oh wait, they have:

Merry Christmas, denier goofballs!

 

[Billy_Bob]

I guess we need to get back to the basics According to NOAA;

Why evaporation occurs

Heat (energy) is necessary for evaporation to occur. Energy is used to break the bonds that hold water molecules together, which is why water easily evaporates at the boiling point (212° F, 100° C) but evaporates much more slowly at the freezing point. Net evaporation occurs when the rate of evaporation exceeds the rate of condensation. A state of saturation exists when these two process rates are equal, at which point the relative humidity of the air is 100 percent. Condensation, the opposite of evaporation, occurs when saturated air is cooled below the dew point (the temperature to which air must be cooled at a constant pressure for it to become fully saturated with water), such as on the outside of a glass of ice water. In fact, the process of evaporation removes heat from the environment, which is why water evaporating from your skin cools you.

Thermal equilibrium happens at 100 deg C in water at 1 atmosphere pressure. This is why the temp will not rise.

Evaporation of earths oceans happens at all temperatures above zero C. Which means any increase in energy input will result in a corresponding energy release of the same amount at the boundary. (skin layer or top ten microns in the case of LWIR)

You keep missing the very basics of the process.. LWIR can not penetrate the oceans skin layer, by observed physical evidence, and the result is instant cooling and energy being pushed upward through conduction and convection.

Follow a water drop through the water cycle: USGS Water Cycle

While the NOAA site is very basic, the macro level of the skin layer is a chemical phase change of water into a gas. Keep on with your dreams..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why has the earths oceans not warmed with the increase in CO2 and the corresponding increase in LWIR near surface?

I dont know, internet sensation Grumpy Cat...why has oceans not warm?

Oh wait, they have:

Merry Christmas, denier goofballs!

LOL

100ths of joules....

More precisely 0.001 deg C... at over 700m in depth...

You idiots are so funny... Accuracy that no physical measuring device has... Your MOE (margin of error) is +/- 1 deg C making your whole graph a subjective crap assumption....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

According to NOAA:

Ocean warming doubles in recent decades

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evaporation causes the skin of the ocean to be cooler than the water just below it. IR keeps the skin warmer than it would have been, therefore less energy moves up from below it.

Wrong!

You using "smart photons" now?

 

[Billy_Bob]

According to NOAA:

Ocean warming doubles in recent decades

LOL

More Garbage based on a MODEL....

When will you idiots get it thorough your heads that MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING.

And yet the physical measurements say your full of crap... The unadjusted data sets of our buoy system say no warming has occurred. Our records are not long enough to determine what the bounds, of the natural cycles, of the oceans are.