Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

[SSDD]

Already answered that question....ocean water is a very poor absorber of IR in the peak radiating wavelength of CO2...come on guy...you are supposed to be a fake ocean engineer...at least you could try to be up on some of this stuff.

According to this graph from the hockeyschtick blog, the emissivity of water remains above 0.75 to 0.9 in the far IR. I wouldn't consider that very poor absorption unless you have a source that gives finer detail.

.

Sorry guy, but of ocean, vegetation, desert, and snow/ice, ocean is the poorest absorber by far in the peak emission range of CO2... Couple that with the fact that the IR from CO2 can only penetrate the first 10 microns of the ocean's surface and you don't have a leg to stand on with the claim that back radiation from CO2 (even if it existed) could warm the oceans...and there is the fact that the ocean is as poor an emitter in that wavelength as it is an emitter.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Already answered that question....ocean water is a very poor absorber of IR in the peak radiating wavelength of CO2...come on guy...you are supposed to be a fake ocean engineer...at least you could try to be up on some of this stuff.

According to this graph from the hockeyschtick blog, the emissivity of water remains above 0.75 to 0.9 in the far IR. I wouldn't consider that very poor absorption unless you have a source that gives finer detail.

.

if it takes 4 times as much heat to raise ocean temps 1 deg C and CO2 is just 400ppm and barely emits 30% of its absorbed IR back to the ocean how much IR is necessary for it to warm the ocean? During the night time there is not enough remitted IR to stop anything and during the day it is barely over the 4/1 ratio needed at noon time above the equator. For a good 3/4 of the day the oceans cool more then they are warmed, near surface, near the equator, and above 40 deg Lat it never gets above the 4/1 ratio needed.

Do the math!

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Net Back Radiation: The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation).

You'll need to argue with your pal SSDD about that, as he violently disagrees with you. He says that the temperature of the adjacent atmosphere affects how much backradiation the ocean puts out. Just pointing out that you kooks can't get your conspiracy theories consistent.

This radiation is at much longer wavelengths than that of the solar radiation (greater than 10 micros, in the infrared range), because the ocean surface is far cooler that the sun's surface. The infrared radiation emitted from the ocean is quickly absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases residing in the lower atmosphere. Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter."

That paragraph did most certainly _not_ say that atmospheric backradiation causes the oceans to cool, as you've been insanely claiming.

Damn, you're stupid. You don't even understand what the world "net" means. If a net total is negative, that in no way says that individual components can't be positive. You'd have to be a piss-guzzling moron of epic proportions to claim it does say that ... so that's exactly what you're doing. The atmospheric backradiation contribution is a positive. The ocean radiates away more, so the total is a negative. Quite simple, yet you still fail hard at it.

Holy shit, you're stupid. I know it's been mentioned before, but it bears repeating.

Wow... You cant even get your math right or your pile of conspiracy theroys either..

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy, but of ocean, vegetation, desert, and snow/ice, ocean is the poorest absorber by far in the peak emission range of CO2... Couple that with the fact that the IR from CO2 can only penetrate the first 10 microns of the ocean's surface and you don't have a leg to stand on with the claim that back radiation from CO2 (even if it existed) could warm the oceans...and there is the fact that the ocean is as poor an emitter in that wavelength as it is an emitter.

At the peak emission range, the emissivity of CO2 is above 0.9. I think most scientists would consider that to be a rather good absorber. Yes other substances may be even better, but that doesn't make water a poor absorber. Contrary to what you say, the ocean is also a good emitter since for black body radiation high emissivity works for both absorption and radiation.

 

[Wuwei]

if it takes 4 times as much heat to raise ocean temps 1 deg C and CO2 is just 400ppm and barely emits 30% of its absorbed IR back to the ocean how much IR is necessary for it to warm the ocean? During the night time there is not enough remitted IR to stop anything and during the day it is barely over the 4/1 ratio needed at noon time above the equator. For a good 3/4 of the day the oceans cool more then they are warmed, near surface, near the equator, and above 40 deg Lat it never gets above the 4/1 ratio needed.

Do the math!

Why are you talking to me? I never made any claim one way or another about what you are whining about.

 

[SSDD]

At the peak emission range, the emissivity of CO2 is above 0.9. I think most scientists would consider that to be a rather good absorber. Yes other substances may be even better, but that doesn't make water a poor absorber. Contrary to what you say, the ocean is also a good emitter since for black body radiation high emissivity works for both absorption and radiation.

Sorry again guy...but Kirchhoff's Law says that emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths....sea water is a poor absorber at CO2's peak radiating wavelength and therefore also a poor emitter....and by the way...the ocean is not a black body.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry again guy...but Kirchhoff's Law says that emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths....sea water is a poor absorber at CO2's peak radiating wavelength and therefore also a poor emitter....and by the way...the ocean is not a black body.

That's exactly what I said about emission and absorption being the same. And it's quite obvious that a substance with an emissivity less than 1.0 is not a true black body. It is also quite obvious that no existing substance is a true black body. What's your point?

If you want to argue that any substance with an absorption of 90% efficiency is a poor absorber, that's your prerogative. But every scientists will disagree with you.

 

[Crick]

While we're at it: where is the GCM that successfully reproduces the 20th century temperature patterns without AGW?

Why exactly do you nee a GCM? There was nothing happening in the 20th century that even approached the bounds of natural variability?

Then someone on your side of the argument should be able to construct a GCM that uses only natural variability - no AGW - and reproduces the performance of the Earth's climate over the last 150 years. It HAS been tried and every attempt has failed. Why would that be?

 

[Kosh]

While we're at it: where is the GCM that successfully reproduces the 20th century temperature patterns without AGW?

Why exactly do you nee a GCM? There was nothing happening in the 20th century that even approached the bounds of natural variability?

Then someone on your side of the argument should be able to construct a GCM that uses only natural variability - no AGW - and reproduces the performance of the Earth's climate over the last 150 years. It HAS been tried and every attempt has failed. Why would that be?

And how would one use natural variability when the AGW cult makes sure that all money goes to prove Humans are the cause. It is hard to show something that has never really be studied in order to fund the AGW religion..

But then again not one AGW cult member can show the proof via datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

 

[SSDD]

If you want to argue that any substance with an absorption of 90% efficiency is a poor absorber, that's your prerogative. But every scientists will disagree with you.

You don't seem to be able to see through the hype to the real problem with that number...which by the way is less than 90...the GCM's assume wrongly first, that backradition exists, and second that sea water absorbs 100% of it and that it causes warming. Even if you believe back radiation exists, sea water absorbs less than 90% and that can only penetrate 10 microns 10 MICRONS into the surface where it does nothing but cause evaporation...which is a cooling feedback...even if you believe in back radiation...it would be a cooling feedback. It is that sort of misunderstanding of physics that has led to the epic failure of climate models...

There is a reason that with every day the models diverge further away from reality....and the miscalculation of sea water's absorptivity is just one part of it.

 

[SSDD]

Then someone on your side of the argument should be able to construct a GCM that uses only natural variability - no AGW - and reproduces the performance of the Earth's climate over the last 150 years. It HAS been tried and every attempt has failed. Why would that be?

Here is some early work on just such a model...

Applying Basic Physics to Climate · Science Speak

Do feel free to point out any actual errors you find rather than just a general dislike for anything that questions your faith.

Here are the conclusions...they still require some CO2 forcing but as we learn more about the actual route of energy through our system, that number will continue to decrease till eventually it reaches zero....or so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from the number.

• The ECS might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C, and most likely less than 0.5 °C.
  
  
•  The fraction of global warming caused by increasing CO2 in recent decades, μ, is like- ly less than 20%.
  
  
•  The CO2 sensitivity, C , is likely less than 0.15 °C W−1 m2 (less than a third of the so- lar sensitivity).

 

[SSDD]

And how would one use natural variability when the AGW cult makes sure that all money goes to prove Humans are the cause. It is hard to show something that has never really be studied in order to fund the AGW religion..

But then again not one AGW cult member can show the proof via datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

Hell, they can't even provide any empirical evidence that proves the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis...that being that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperatures to increase.

 

[Wuwei]

.which by the way is less than 90...the GCM's assume wrongly first, that backradition exists, and second that sea water absorbs 100% of it

The sea absorbs over 90% of the IR spectrum, including CO2 backscatter. Please quote a reliable source that says the ocean is a poor absorber of IR. I already provided data that it's over 90%. Please quote a reliable source that says backscatter doesn't exist.

 

[jc456]

.which by the way is less than 90...the GCM's assume wrongly first, that backradition exists, and second that sea water absorbs 100% of it

The sea absorbs over 90% of the IR spectrum, including CO2 backscatter. Please quote a reliable source that says the ocean is a poor absorber of IR. I already provided data that it's over 90%. Please quote a reliable source that says backscatter doesn't exist.

why don't you just post up the empirical evidence that exists that shows what you post first. it seem you violate the very thing you complain about. Post up the evidence of your claim bubba.

 

[Wuwei]

.which by the way is less than 90...the GCM's assume wrongly first, that backradition exists, and second that sea water absorbs 100% of it

The sea absorbs over 90% of the IR spectrum, including CO2 backscatter. Please quote a reliable source that says the ocean is a poor absorber of IR. I already provided data that it's over 90%. Please quote a reliable source that says backscatter doesn't exist.

why don't you just post up the empirical evidence that exists that shows what you post first. it seem you violate the very thing you complain about. Post up the evidence of your claim bubba.

Read the above where I said that I already did. If you need more info, it's in post #63.

 

[jc456]

.which by the way is less than 90...the GCM's assume wrongly first, that backradition exists, and second that sea water absorbs 100% of it

The sea absorbs over 90% of the IR spectrum, including CO2 backscatter. Please quote a reliable source that says the ocean is a poor absorber of IR. I already provided data that it's over 90%. Please quote a reliable source that says backscatter doesn't exist.

why don't you just post up the empirical evidence that exists that shows what you post first. it seem you violate the very thing you complain about. Post up the evidence of your claim bubba.

Read the above where I said that I already did. If you need more info, it's in post #63.

ok, so I looked at your post, do you believe that is empirical data or calculated data?

 

[Wuwei]

ok, so I looked at your post, do you believe that is empirical data or calculated data?

It is very difficult if not impossible to calculate emissivity. I know it is measured data. There are many sources that have measured the IR emissivity of water to be around .96.

 

[jc456]

ok, so I looked at your post, do you believe that is empirical data or calculated data?

It is very difficult if not impossible to calculate emissivity. I know it is measured data. There are many sources that have measured the IR emissivity of water to be around .96.

then why does it show calculated?

 

[Wuwei]

then why does it show calculated?

The emissivity shown is the hemispheric average of data over all angles. That is a non-controversial calculation. For more info see
Emissivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emissivities ε can be measured using simple devices such as Leslie's Cube in conjunction with a thermal radiation detector such as a thermopile or a bolometer.​

That source shows the hemispherical emissivity at ambient temperatures. Water is listed at 0.96. See the notes just under the table for the conditions of the measurements.

In short. SSDD was wrong when he said water is a poor absorber of CO2 IR.

 

[jc456]

then why does it show calculated?

The emissivity shown is the hemispheric average of data over all angles. That is a non-controversial calculation. For more info see
Emissivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emissivities ε can be measured using simple devices such as Leslie's Cube in conjunction with a thermal radiation detector such as a thermopile or a bolometer.​

That source shows the hemispherical emissivity at ambient temperatures. Water is listed at 0.96. See the notes just under the table for the conditions of the measurements.

In short. SSDD was wrong when he said water is a poor absorber of CO2 IR.

that is pure water, do you know what that is?