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

[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.

jc, neither you nor Silly Billy have the faintest idea about what empirical data is. It is just another phrase you repeat like a mantra. It is truly sad to see adults as ignorant and foolish as you two.

well then show some of what you got. Cause I'm confident you ain't got any.

 

[Wuwei]

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

If you have a solid point. Then make it. If you believe that minerals significantly reduces the emissivity of water from .96 then just say it and give evidence. I agree with Old Rocks - you are acting like a rude little brat.

 

[SSDD]

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

If you have a solid point. Then make it. If you believe that minerals significantly reduces the emissivity of water from .96 then just say it and give evidence. I agree with Old Rocks - you are acting like a rude little brat.

Look at your own graph... See the vertical line at the peak emission frequency for sea water? See the sea water line...do the two lines intersect at .96...of course they don't and do you really believe that minerals in sea water would not cause its emissivity to be different from fresh water? And keep in mind that the emissivity for sea water described in that graph is calm water in a lab and doesn't take normal sea surface conditions or foam into account.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

The other misconception is that all radiation from CO2 will hit the water, when in reality less than 30% of the energy absorbed is remitted towards the water. When you start doing the math there is simply to much loss to over come the 4/1 ratio required to warm the surface of the ocean at night or when there are clouds. The 10 micron average penetration leads to evaporation of surface tension water cooling the surface layer more than it is warmed at night. The math simply doesn't work out in the alarmists favor.

 

[Wuwei]

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

If you have a solid point. Then make it. If you believe that minerals significantly reduces the emissivity of water from .96 then just say it and give evidence. I agree with Old Rocks - you are acting like a rude little brat.

Look at your own graph... See the vertical line at the peak emission frequency for sea water? See the sea water line...do the two lines intersect at .96...of course they don't and do you really believe that minerals in sea water would not cause its emissivity to be different from fresh water? And keep in mind that the emissivity for sea water described in that graph is calm water in a lab and doesn't take normal sea surface conditions or foam into account.

Foam? What percentage of the vast ocean surface is foam? Do you have any idea? What is the emissivity of a water bubble? How much IR will pass through the bubble and hit water surface and then be absorbed?
If you read the fine print on the graph you will see that the emissivity is "angularly averaged". That compensates for any wave motion since all the directions of absorption are averaged out.
Finally the emissivity is still well above 0.9. Look at the following graph of the CO2 spectrum.

Compare this with the emissivity graph. The bulk of the spectrum is at wave number 2300 to 2400. A lesser peak is at wave number 700. The emissivitys at these two points are 0.93 and 0.96 respectively.

As I said it's your prerogative to believe whatever your gut tells you. But you have no argument when you say the ocean is a poor absorber of the CO2 spectral lines. Every scientist will disagree with you.

 

[jc456]

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

If you have a solid point. Then make it. If you believe that minerals significantly reduces the emissivity of water from .96 then just say it and give evidence. I agree with Old Rocks - you are acting like a rude little brat.

Look at your own graph... See the vertical line at the peak emission frequency for sea water? See the sea water line...do the two lines intersect at .96...of course they don't and do you really believe that minerals in sea water would not cause its emissivity to be different from fresh water? And keep in mind that the emissivity for sea water described in that graph is calm water in a lab and doesn't take normal sea surface conditions or foam into account.

Foam? What percentage of the vast ocean surface is foam? Do you have any idea? What is the emissivity of a water bubble? How much IR will pass through the bubble and hit water surface and then be absorbed?
If you read the fine print on the graph you will see that the emissivity is "angularly averaged". That compensates for any wave motion since all the directions of absorption are averaged out.
Finally the emissivity is still well above 0.9. Look at the following graph of the CO2 spectrum.

Compare this with the emissivity graph. The bulk of the spectrum is at wave number 2300 to 2400. A lesser peak is at wave number 700. The emissivitys at these two points are 0.93 and 0.96 respectively.

As I said it's your prerogative to believe whatever your gut tells you. But you have no argument when you say the ocean is a poor absorber of the CO2 spectral lines. Every scientist will disagree with you.

What about calm, or warm?

 

[jc456]

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

If you have a solid point. Then make it. If you believe that minerals significantly reduces the emissivity of water from .96 then just say it and give evidence. I agree with Old Rocks - you are acting like a rude little brat.

Look at your own graph... See the vertical line at the peak emission frequency for sea water? See the sea water line...do the two lines intersect at .96...of course they don't and do you really believe that minerals in sea water would not cause its emissivity to be different from fresh water? And keep in mind that the emissivity for sea water described in that graph is calm water in a lab and doesn't take normal sea surface conditions or foam into account.

Foam? What percentage of the vast ocean surface is foam? Do you have any idea? What is the emissivity of a water bubble? How much IR will pass through the bubble and hit water surface and then be absorbed?
If you read the fine print on the graph you will see that the emissivity is "angularly averaged". That compensates for any wave motion since all the directions of absorption are averaged out.
Finally the emissivity is still well above 0.9. Look at the following graph of the CO2 spectrum.

Compare this with the emissivity graph. The bulk of the spectrum is at wave number 2300 to 2400. A lesser peak is at wave number 700. The emissivitys at these two points are 0.93 and 0.96 respectively.

As I said it's your prerogative to believe whatever your gut tells you. But you have no argument when you say the ocean is a poor absorber of the CO2 spectral lines. Every scientist will disagree with you.

Sure it is, it is you denying

 

[Wuwei]

What about calm, or warm?

What about it? Please state your point more clearly.

Sure it is, it is you denying

If you mean denying that 93 to 96% is a poor absorption. Then you are correct.

 

[jc456]

What about calm, or warm?

What about it? Please state your point more clearly.

Sure it is, it is you denying

If you mean denying that 93 to 96% is a poor absorption. Then you are correct.

do you believe that the oceans are calm? What about the temperature of the oceans, do either of these factor in to emissivity for you?

 

[Wuwei]

That has nothing to do with the emissivity of Sea water.....you are grabbing at straws. If you want to discuss the topic, then address the FACT that even if IR from atmospheric C02 did radiate towards the surface it would be a small percentage and if it actually did hit the surface, it could only penetrate 10 microns....and then only aid in evaporation which is IN FACT a cooling mechanism. Why do you refuse to address the observable facts that discredit the claim that CO2 causes the ocean to warm?

How can I address the topic if you don't believe the measured values of emissivity, and don't believe in backscatter from CO2. These are scientific principles believed by both warmers and deniers.

You are taking a complex problem and simplifying it to only one point without a full grasp of the whole problem. Evaporation is only one cooling mechanism. The ocean re-radiates energy across a broad spectrum of IR, unlike the narrow spectra of CO2 input. The ocean will never cool below it's ambient temperature because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The unspecified amount of vapor created from any evaporation would act as a further greenhouse barrier since water is a predominant greenhouse gas. That barrier would further lower the amount of heat the ocean might loose from the short wave radiation from the sun. That complicates the problem to the extent that neither you nor I can make any logical or viable conclusions.

 

[Wuwei]

do you believe that the oceans are calm? What about the temperature of the oceans, do either of these factor in to emissivity for you?

Emissivity is a concept that depends only on mechanisms at the atomic level. Atomic properties of that sort can't be changed by any energy levels that occur in the ocean. So waves, foam, temperature will not change the absorption rate of radiation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

The other misconception is that all radiation from CO2 will hit the water, when in reality less than 30% of the energy absorbed is remitted towards the water. When you start doing the math there is simply to much loss to over come the 4/1 ratio required to warm the surface of the ocean at night or when there are clouds. The 10 micron average penetration leads to evaporation of surface tension water cooling the surface layer more than it is warmed at night. The math simply doesn't work out in the alarmists favor.

Hey, wait a second. AR5 claims 93% of the "excess heat" is absorbed

 

[jc456]

do you believe that the oceans are calm? What about the temperature of the oceans, do either of these factor in to emissivity for you?

Emissivity is a concept that depends only on mechanisms at the atomic level. Atomic properties of that sort can't be changed by any energy levels that occur in the ocean. So waves, foam, temperature will not change the absorption rate of radiation.

do you believe that the oceans are calm? What about the temperature of the oceans, do either of these factor in to emissivity for you?

Emissivity is a concept that depends only on mechanisms at the atomic level. Atomic properties of that sort can't be changed by any energy levels that occur in the ocean. So waves, foam, temperature will not change the absorption rate of radiation.

I find at,
Emissivity of the Ocean

"Smith et al – 1996
Another excellent paper which measured the emissivity of the ocean is by Smith et al (1996):


It is also a challenge to demonstrate that such accuracies are being achieved, and conventional approaches, which compare the SST derived from drifting or moored buoys, generally produce results with a scatter of ±0.5 to 0.7K. This scatter cannot be explained solely by uncertainties in the buoy thermometers or the noise equivalent temperature difference of the AVHRR, as these are both on the order of 0.2K or less but are likely to be surface emissivity/reflectivity uncertainties, residual atmospheric effects, or result from the methods of comparison

Note that the primary focus of this research was to have accurate SST measurements from satellites.


From Smith et al (1996)

The experimental work on the research vessel Pelican included a high spectral resolution Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) which was configured to make spectral observations of the sea surface radiance at several view angles. Any measurement from the surface of course, is the sum of the emitted radiance from the surface as well as the reflected sky radiance.

Also measured:

• ocean salinity
• intake water temperature
• surface air temperature
• humidity
• wind velocity
• SST within the top 15cm of depth"

 

[SSDD]

How can I address the topic if you don't believe the measured values of emissivity, and don't believe in backscatter from CO2. These are scientific principles believed by both warmers and deniers.

Now you are just tilting at straw men...by your own graph, the emissivity of sea water is less than .90 and you are claiming that it is .96...and you are not addressing the fact that the IR only penetrates 10 microns into the surface of the ocean and does nothing more than set up evaporation which causes cooling... the claim is that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the ocean to warm...are you agreeing with me that it does not, in fact cause the ocean to warm?

 

[Wuwei]

do you believe that the oceans are calm? What about the temperature of the oceans, do either of these factor in to emissivity for you?

Emissivity is a concept that depends only on mechanisms at the atomic level. Atomic properties of that sort can't be changed by any energy levels that occur in the ocean. So waves, foam, temperature will not change the absorption rate of radiation.

do you believe that the oceans are calm? What about the temperature of the oceans, do either of these factor in to emissivity for you?

Emissivity is a concept that depends only on mechanisms at the atomic level. Atomic properties of that sort can't be changed by any energy levels that occur in the ocean. So waves, foam, temperature will not change the absorption rate of radiation.

I find at,
Emissivity of the Ocean

"Smith et al – 1996
Another excellent paper which measured the emissivity of the ocean is by Smith et al (1996):


It is also a challenge to demonstrate that such accuracies are being achieved, and conventional approaches, which compare the SST derived from drifting or moored buoys, generally produce results with a scatter of ±0.5 to 0.7K. This scatter cannot be explained solely by uncertainties in the buoy thermometers or the noise equivalent temperature difference of the AVHRR, as these are both on the order of 0.2K or less but are likely to be surface emissivity/reflectivity uncertainties, residual atmospheric effects, or result from the methods of comparison

Note that the primary focus of this research was to have accurate SST measurements from satellites.


From Smith et al (1996)

The experimental work on the research vessel Pelican included a high spectral resolution Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) which was configured to make spectral observations of the sea surface radiance at several view angles. Any measurement from the surface of course, is the sum of the emitted radiance from the surface as well as the reflected sky radiance.

Also measured:

• ocean salinity
• intake water temperature
• surface air temperature
• humidity
• wind velocity
• SST within the top 15cm of depth"

Yes, I agree that the sea surface temperature is hard to measure.

 

[Wuwei]

Now you are just tilting at straw men...by your own graph, the emissivity of sea water is less than .90 and you are claiming that it is .96...and you are not addressing the fact that the IR only penetrates 10 microns into the surface of the ocean and does nothing more than set up evaporation which causes cooling... the claim is that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the ocean to warm...are you agreeing with me that it does not, in fact cause the ocean to warm?

I already addressed that question. I will repeat it here:
You are taking a complex problem and simplifying it to only one point without a full grasp of the whole problem. Evaporation is only one cooling mechanism. The ocean re-radiates energy across a broad spectrum of IR, unlike the narrow spectra of CO2 input. The ocean will never cool below it's ambient temperature because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The unspecified amount of vapor created from any evaporation would act as a further greenhouse barrier since water is a predominant greenhouse gas. That water vapor barrier would further lower the amount of heat the ocean might loose from the short wave radiation from the sun. That complicates the problem to the extent that neither you nor I can make any logical or viable conclusions.

The emissivity of sea water varies in the graph I showed. However at the major CO2 spectral line the emissivity is around 0.93 That is what pertains the question at hand.

 

[jc456]

Now you are just tilting at straw men...by your own graph, the emissivity of sea water is less than .90 and you are claiming that it is .96...and you are not addressing the fact that the IR only penetrates 10 microns into the surface of the ocean and does nothing more than set up evaporation which causes cooling... the claim is that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the ocean to warm...are you agreeing with me that it does not, in fact cause the ocean to warm?

I already addressed that question. I will repeat it here:
You are taking a complex problem and simplifying it to only one point without a full grasp of the whole problem. Evaporation is only one cooling mechanism. The ocean re-radiates energy across a broad spectrum of IR, unlike the narrow spectra of CO2 input. The ocean will never cool below it's ambient temperature because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The unspecified amount of vapor created from any evaporation would act as a further greenhouse barrier since water is a predominant greenhouse gas. That water vapor barrier would further lower the amount of heat the ocean might loose from the short wave radiation from the sun. That complicates the problem to the extent that neither you nor I can make any logical or viable conclusions.

The emissivity of sea water varies in the graph I showed. However at the major CO2 spectral line the emissivity is around 0.93 That is what pertains the question at hand.

and yet, there is the improbable measuring that seems can't be done. so what is the true conclusion? Is there one? If you can't validate the theory, then the theory is not good. That is science.

 

[Wuwei]

Now you are just tilting at straw men...by your own graph, the emissivity of sea water is less than .90 and you are claiming that it is .96...and you are not addressing the fact that the IR only penetrates 10 microns into the surface of the ocean and does nothing more than set up evaporation which causes cooling... the claim is that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the ocean to warm...are you agreeing with me that it does not, in fact cause the ocean to warm?

I already addressed that question. I will repeat it here:
You are taking a complex problem and simplifying it to only one point without a full grasp of the whole problem. Evaporation is only one cooling mechanism. The ocean re-radiates energy across a broad spectrum of IR, unlike the narrow spectra of CO2 input. The ocean will never cool below it's ambient temperature because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The unspecified amount of vapor created from any evaporation would act as a further greenhouse barrier since water is a predominant greenhouse gas. That water vapor barrier would further lower the amount of heat the ocean might loose from the short wave radiation from the sun. That complicates the problem to the extent that neither you nor I can make any logical or viable conclusions.

The emissivity of sea water varies in the graph I showed. However at the major CO2 spectral line the emissivity is around 0.93 That is what pertains the question at hand.

and yet, there is the improbable measuring that seems can't be done. so what is the true conclusion? Is there one? If you can't validate the theory, then the theory is not good. That is science.

My only case or conclusion is that SSDD has not presented any case because he oversimplified the problem. Any solution must address the complete dynamics of the energy flow at the sea surface, and nobody has done that on this forum, including me.

 

[jc456]

Now you are just tilting at straw men...by your own graph, the emissivity of sea water is less than .90 and you are claiming that it is .96...and you are not addressing the fact that the IR only penetrates 10 microns into the surface of the ocean and does nothing more than set up evaporation which causes cooling... the claim is that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the ocean to warm...are you agreeing with me that it does not, in fact cause the ocean to warm?

I already addressed that question. I will repeat it here:
You are taking a complex problem and simplifying it to only one point without a full grasp of the whole problem. Evaporation is only one cooling mechanism. The ocean re-radiates energy across a broad spectrum of IR, unlike the narrow spectra of CO2 input. The ocean will never cool below it's ambient temperature because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The unspecified amount of vapor created from any evaporation would act as a further greenhouse barrier since water is a predominant greenhouse gas. That water vapor barrier would further lower the amount of heat the ocean might loose from the short wave radiation from the sun. That complicates the problem to the extent that neither you nor I can make any logical or viable conclusions.

The emissivity of sea water varies in the graph I showed. However at the major CO2 spectral line the emissivity is around 0.93 That is what pertains the question at hand.

and yet, there is the improbable measuring that seems can't be done. so what is the true conclusion? Is there one? If you can't validate the theory, then the theory is not good. That is science.

My only case or conclusion is that SSDD has not presented any case because he oversimplified the problem. Any solution must address the complete dynamics of the energy flow at the sea surface, and nobody has done that on this forum, including me.

well I can't completely comment on that, but I will say that in the IPCC AR5 report, they did claim the ocean ate the heat without explaining where and how. Called 'excess heat'. Can you define excess heat?

 

[Wuwei]

I have not read AR5, so I don't know what they they mean by "excess".