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

[mamooth]

Go and calculate about 1W/m2 being totally absorbed into about 10micron thick ocean layer and cook it for about 4 hours.

Why? It doesn't relate to the real world, so what would be the point of it? In the real world, heat moves out of the skin layer by conduction, radiation and evaporation, so your evaporation-only thought experiment is meaningless.

The surface skin of he ocean is not constantly boiling away. That's not just a theory. This stuff has been measured. Backradiation doesn't heat the deep oceans directly, but it does reduce the net heat flow out of the oceans, which heats the deep ocean indirectly.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

OK evaporation is a cooling mechanism....radiating is a cooling mechanism. The question is, what exactly, other than incoming solar radiation do you people claim is warming the oceans?

Radiative heat transfer is generally bidirectional. but in the case of H2O, incoming IR will not penetrate to any extent. So in terms of Radiative heat transfer with the atmos, it's close to a big total net loss.

Just like on firm land, the ocean loses some surface heat through both conductive heating and Long Wave radiation.. So what? The ocean surface will eventually equalize to general mean changes in the atmosphere thermal content. Even in the absence of any Radiative IR flux..

This topic just points out that the ocean is not accepting and eating all that down-dwelling CO2 thermal radiation that you deny exists. That's a losing position for you -- denying basic radiative physics -- and I have NO interest in going down that rathole with you again..

So, what happens to the IR that strikes the ocean surface?

It all gets absorbed by the very opaque surface.

Some goes down by mixing and conduction. Some goes up by evaporation and conduction. Does any of it disappear? Does any of it, at that moment, escape to space? No and no.

What else heats the ocean? SW and conduction/convection. All of that, of course, takes place at or very near the surface and conduction/convection would be affected by increases in air temperature. Other mechanisms vertically mix the ocean.

So... where do you get the idea that you've disproved the deep ocean is warming? The first thing I'd think you'd want to address if you were going to try to do so would be the actual direct measurements that show the deep ocean to be warming. Talking about the inefficiency of transfer by IR doesn't make those direct temperature measurements go away.

Nobody is disputing that we MIGHT be measuring some deep layer ocean warming. Point is (as we told you before) -- Trenberth et al have no real explanation to how this is DIRECTLY related to the couple watts/m2 of increased down IR radiation...

 

[flacaltenn]

Go and calculate about 1W/m2 being totally absorbed into about 10micron thick ocean layer and cook it for about 4 hours.

Why? It doesn't relate to the real world, so what would be the point of it? In the real world, heat moves out of the skin layer by conduction, radiation and evaporation, so your evaporation-only thought experiment is meaningless.

The surface skin of he ocean is not constantly boiling away. That's not just a theory. This stuff has been measured. Backradiation doesn't heat the deep oceans directly, but it does reduce the net heat flow out of the oceans, which heats the deep ocean indirectly.

Of course there is always heat evap from the ocean surface. Even in the Arctic Ocean. WTF you talking about?

Heating a 10micron skin is a VERY inefficient way of getting heat into lower layers by conduction.. Go check yourself..

And since the entire CO2 theory depends on ONLY a few small bands of Radiative IR -- that "excess" more than likely NEVER goes directly into the oceans..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

]You clearly aren't listening...there is no back radiation...there is no back scatter. Energy moves from cool to warm...not the other way around.]

Heat moves from cool to warm. Radiant energy is swarming all over the place, no matter what the temperature of the emitter and absorber are.

Yeah..I have heard it before...And it is clear that you don't have any observed, measured example that isn't the output of a mathematical model....and the second law of thermodynamics hasn't been rewritten to state that back radiation exists...has it?

Backscatter is totally consistent with the second law. Every physicist - warmer or denier - understands that.

Heat moves from cool to warm? The Earth is heating the Sun?

 

[Crick]

How much of the ocean do you believe is calm enough that the upper 10 microns isn't getting mixed?

 

[Wuwei]

Heat moves from cool to warm? The Earth is heating the Sun?

Oops. Typo. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[flacaltenn]

How much of the ocean do you believe is calm enough that the upper 10 microns won't get mixed?

You're not seeing "the model" here. If you KILOWATTS of thermal power in 10 micron layer to mix (and we almost do if it wasn't evaporated or reflected as IR) --- that amount of thermal energy will always be insignificant -- even in the first 10 meters of ocean.. How many 10micron layer equivalents are there in 10 meters????

 

[jc456]

How much of the ocean do you believe is calm enough that the upper 10 microns won't get mixed?

I would just like to know where the runaway heat is? If what you say happens in the real world, then the temperature of the oceans should be incrementally getting warmer. Why isn't that happening?

 

[mamooth]

Heating a 10micron skin is a VERY inefficient way of getting heat into lower layers by conduction.. Go check yourself..

Given that the theory doesn't claim heat is carried down by conduction, I again ask what the point of your strawman is.

And since the entire CO2 theory depends on ONLY a few small bands of Radiative IR -- that "excess" more than likely NEVER goes directly into the oceans..

Sounds like you're now shifting to a magical vanishing energy theory.

Again, backradiation does not heat the deep oceans directly. It decreases net heat flow out of the skin layer, which keeps more heat in the deep ocean, which results in more heat in the deep ocean.

 

[Crick]

 

[flacaltenn]

So what?? Heat is contstained to 10 or 20 micron "skin" depth.. And any EVAP of water vapor works to block that skin layer almost COMPLETELY from down-dwelling IR.. All you are doing is generating clouds and weather..

 

[SSDD]

Heat moves from cool to warm. Radiant energy is swarming all over the place, no matter what the temperature of the emitter and absorber are.

So...is heat a form of energy or is heat, the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another?

Backscatter is totally consistent with the second law. Every physicist - warmer or denier - understands that.

Guess it's just me and the second law that don't get it...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

 

[Crick]

Guess it's just me and the second law that don't get it...

No, just you.

Backscatter works exactly as described. Your concept of radiative heat transfer is as stupid as stupid can be.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Physics tells us that CO2 emitted LWIR (Long Wave Infrared Radiation) CANNOT influence anything but INCREASED evaporation rates which, actually cools the body of water.

That's absurd and contrary to the evidence. This stuff has been measured, you know. Scientists have actually put very sensitive instruments at the skin layer and shown that backradiation does not significantly increase evaporation. Backradiation simply does not raise the temperature of the skin enough to cause significantly more evaporation. Instead, it slows heat loss out of the ocean, which heats the oceans by increasing the heat that remains in the oceans,

Time for my lesson again concerning how backradiation heats the ocean. This diagram show how the ocean works during the daytime. Note that the vertical axis is a sort of log scale.

Most of the solar energy, contained in the visible and UV spectrum, penetrates deeply and warms the water. Convection causes warmer water to rise, so the oceans get warmer as they get shallower.

However, that trend reverses at the skin layer. The atmosphere is usually colder than the ocean below, so the ocean at the surface loses heat to the cooler atmosphere, which lowers the temperature of the skin layer by about 1C.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans depends on the delta-T across that skin layer. Heat conducts from hot to cold, linearly proportionally to the temperature difference. With more of a temperature gradient, more heat flows out of the oceans. Less of a gradient, less outflow.

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer, so less heat flows out of the oceans. The IR doesn't heat the deeper ocean directly. It reduces the heat flow out of the deeper ocean, so more heat stays in the deeper ocean, so the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.

Bwhaaaaaaaaa...

Tell me where your getting your depth of heat? A water layer just 50 microns thick, at the surface of the ocean, add in winds, mixing, and you get more evaporation than energy to warm it.. I am talking about LWIR you fool. You know the 12um to 18um wave length which can not penetrate teh oceans.. Again you dont have a dam clue ..

 

[Crick]

Have you noticed that everyone who argues against you on radiative transfer says the same thing while NO ONE agrees with your contentions? Have you noticed that several of us have taken and passed courses in thermodynamics while you, quite obviously, have not? Doesn't that make you think that perhaps we're right and you're wrong?

I'll bet it doesn't. Know why? Because I know you're just that stupid.

The greenhouse effect operates precisely as described. Human GHG emissions enabling that effect are warming the planet and represent a significant threat to us and our descendants.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did someone ask Crick to show the link between CO2 and temperature?

 

[Crick]

A water layer just 50 microns thick, at the surface of the ocean, add in winds, mixing, and you get more evaporation than energy to warm it.

Care to give us a link to a reputable, published source saying this?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

First, of all wiki is crap as a source for anything..

Second, pure water was used in the experiment. Sea water is not pure and has minerals along with living organisms which do not allow penetration of the oceans by wave lengths above 10um. This means that it is a poor absorber as well as emitter.

Third, the heat required to warm even that 50 micron layer is 4/1 ratio. The ambient air above the surface of the ocean would have to be 4 times greater to warm the surface layer alone.

SSDD was correct in his analysis of sea water. You are wrong becasue you do not differentiate what the experiment was actually measuring and what happens in the real world.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A water layer just 50 microns thick, at the surface of the ocean, add in winds, mixing, and you get more evaporation than energy to warm it.

Care to give us a link to a reputable, published source saying this?

TO you, reputable is anyone who pushes your agenda or lies.. You dismiss anyone who disagrees with you or any data provided that doesn't meet your agenda driven expectations..

To put it bluntly, your a left wing drone posting crap! I gave you a link up thread about how this all works and you failed to read it or you dismissed it because you disagree with it. Your not here to debate your here to push your agenda.

 

[Wuwei]

First, of all wiki is crap as a source for anything..

Wiki is reliable on math and the hard sciences. Rather that broadly dismissing wiki, show me a source that substantially disagrees with the wiki article.

Second, pure water was used in the experiment. Sea water is not pure and has minerals along with living organisms which do not allow penetration of the oceans by wave lengths above 10um. This means that it is a poor absorber as well as emitter.

Emissivity of non-reflective surfaces are generally above 0.90 in the thermal radiation range. There is no reason to believe that ocean water is much different. This source contains many examples of materials, some reflective.
ThermoWorks Emissivity Table

Third, the heat required to warm even that 50 micron layer is 4/1 ratio. The ambient air above the surface of the ocean would have to be 4 times greater to warm the surface layer alone.

CO2 or colder air or any other greenhouse gas does not warm the ocean. GHG's prevent the ocean from loosing as much heat as they would otherwise.

To put it bluntly, your a left wing drone posting crap! I gave you a link up thread about how this all works and you failed to read it or you dismissed it because you disagree with it. Your not here to debate your here to push your agenda.

Cool down. I think I answered your questions.