Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Once again, the crazy idea that downwelling longwave radiation (DLR, also called infra-red or IR, or “greenhouse radiation”) can’t heat the ocean has raised its ugly head on one of my threads.
Figure 1. The question in question.
There are lots of good arguments against the AGW consensus, but this one is just silly. Here are four entirely separate and distinct lines of reasoning showing that DLR does in fact heat the oceans.
Argument 1. People claim that because the DLR is absorbed in the first mm of water, it can’t heat the mass of the ocean. But the same is true of the land. DLR is absorbed in the first mm of rock or soil. Yet the same people who claim that DLR can’t heat the ocean (because it’s absorbed in the first mm) still believe that DLR can heat the land (despite the fact that it’s absorbed in the first mm).
And this is in spite of the fact that the ocean can circulate the heat downwards through turbulence, while there is no such circulation in the land … but still people claim the ocean can’t heat from DLR but the land can. Logical contradiction, no cookies.
Argument 2. If the DLR isn’t heating the water, where is it going? It can’t be heating the air, because the atmosphere has far too little thermal mass. If DLR were heating the air we’d all be on fire.
Nor can it be going to evaporation as many claim, because the numbers are way too large. Evaporation is known to be on the order of 70 w/m2, while average downwelling longwave radiation is more than four times that amount … and some of the evaporation is surely coming from the heating from the visible light.
So if the DLR is not heating the ocean, and we know that a maximum of less than a quarter of the energy of the DLR might be going into evaporation, and the DLR is not heating the air … then where is it going?
Rumor has it that energy can’t be created or destroyed, so where is the energy from the DLR going after it is absorbed by the ocean, and what is it heating?
Argument 3. The claim is often made that warming the top millimetre can’t affect the heat of the bulk ocean. But in addition to the wind-driven turbulence of the topmost layer mixing the DLR energy downwards into lower layers, heating the surface affects the entire upper bulk temperature of the ocean every night when the ocean is overturning. At night the top layer of the ocean naturally overturns, driven by the temperature differences between surface and deeper waters (see the diagrams here). DLR heating of the top mm of the ocean reduces those differences and thus delays the onset of that oceanic overturning by slowing the night-time cooling of the topmost layer, and it also slows the speed of the overturning once it is established. This reduces the heat flow from the body of the upper ocean, and leaves the entire mass warmer than it would have been had the DLR not slowed the overturning.
Argument 4. Without the heating from the DLR, there’s not enough heating to explain the current liquid state of the ocean. The DLR is about two-thirds of the total downwelling radiation (solar plus DLR). Given the known heat losses of the ocean, it would be an ice-cube if it weren’t being warmed by the DLR. We know the radiative losses of the ocean, which depend only on its temperature, and are about 390 w/m2. In addition there are losses of sensible heat (~ 30 w/m2) and evaporative losses (~ 70 w/m2). That’s a total loss of 390 + 30 + 70 = 490 w/m2.
But the average solar input to the surface is only about 170 watts/square metre.
So if the DLR isn’t heating the ocean, with heat gains of only the solar 170 w/m2 and losses of 390 w/m2 … then why isn’t the ocean an ice-cube?
Note that each of these arguments against the idea that DLR can’t warm the ocean stands on its own. None of them depends on any of the others to be valid. So if you still think DLR can’t warm the ocean, you have to refute not one, but all four of those arguments.
Look, folks, there’s lot’s of good, valid scientific objections against the AGW claims, but the idea that DLR can’t heat the ocean is nonsense. Go buy an infrared lamp, put it over a pan of water, and see what happens. It only hurts the general skeptical arguments when people believe and espouse impossible things …
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dave in Delaware says:
August 16, 2011 at 5:33 am
Lets be mindful of our definitions and look carefully at what is happening at different wavelengths of radiant energy. The phrase “Downwelling Longwave Radiation (DLR)” is often used in the context and implied as ‘backradiation from CO2 as a GHG’. The two are NOT identical.
Hence the opening statement – ‘downwelling longwave radiation (DLR also called infra-red or IR, or ‘greenhouse radiation’) – lumps together things which should be considered separately.
Ah thank you – another apparent sleight of hand meme which has confused many here. Downwelling should only refer to thermal infrared direct from the Sun, and uwelling direct from the Earth, seems a move to sidestep the arguments about ‘backradiation’, of which there are many and already proved nonsense.
AGWScience fiction meme now widespread in the education system has always claimed there is no or no signifcant downwell infrared direct from the Sun, as in KT97.
Which NASA is now promoting contrary to its previous real science fact teaching that the heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared. Therefore it must be reaching the surface…
As some mention has already been made by others here, Visible light is transmitted through water – it does not heat it. The KT97 is therefore actually saying that the Sun isn’t heating our Earth at all! Visible, Light, can’t and Thermal IR (Heat) they claim doesn’t reach us..
So what’s the energy budget all about?
@Dave in Delaware says:August 16, 2011 at 5:33 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ABSOLUTELY
I had not seen your comment (which was no doubt in the pipe;ine) when I posted my above comment (addrssed to Willis).
The warmists need to carefully examine each area and not some conglomerate average.
It is obvious that over the oceans, the role of CO2 is greatly diminished because of the high concentrations of water vapour which dwarf its effect.
Further, the more solar energy received, the more water vapour produced. Now if this increase in water vapour caused the ocean temperature to rise, one would get even more of an increase in water vapour possibly leading to a run away effect. There therefore needs to be some negative feed back in all of this or otherwise the oceans would have evaporated long ago.
From tallbloke on August 16, 2011 at 6:03 am:
Same mistake, different part. On this one, I’m a bit guilty as well. Willis has stuck consistently to how he worded it in Argument 3:
The DLR effect is discussed as with or without, on or off. Increases are not mentioned. Actually I see nothing mentioning global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise. The closest he’s come to talking about a “warming ocean” is the ocean is warmer with heating from DLR than if there was no heating from DLR.
So no increasing, no “warming ocean,” no call for invoking CO2 increases.
Tom in Florida says:
August 16, 2011 at 4:44 am
Exactly, it is extremely small and shows the same result with a volume of water. It is easy to show that DLR can’t warm a volume of water during a day and relies only on solar energy. DLR occurs all the time during day and night so to distinguish this between solar energy, one only has to place identical volumes of water in the sun and in the shade. The shade volume must be outside exposed to the atmosphere and not in the sun so only the DLR is still reaching it. The result which anyone can easily demonstrate (but some at least choose to ignore this observation) shows the water in the shade during one day doesn’t warm, yet the volume in the sun warms greatly. Therefore this experiment provides the scientific evidence that solar energy warms a volume of water and not DLR. The other experiment that also backs this up are based on solar ponds.
http://www.solarponds.com/
All the DLR is mostly (if not all – look later into why) the emissions from solar energy as they escape the Earth’s atmosphere. Thus the 170w/m2 inward and 390w/m2 outward are not really different entities, but from the same source. Both are values measured from the atmosphere only and therefore can’t be compared with a much higher specific heat capacity of water. The water is warmed differently depending on the source of radiation.
Solar energy at 170w/m2 warms the ocean much greater than DLR despite the observed atmospheric value over 2 times greater because it reaches downwards up to 100m. (the experiments above back this with scientific evidence) The warming caused by this is orders greater than DLR just reaching the skin surface. The reason why the oceans don’t freeze is because despite the atmospsheric observed outflux, the energy in the ocean is orders time greater warmed by the sun. If the solar energy 170w/m2 only reached ths skin surface like DLR, then the oceans would freeze.
One difference between Dr. Pratt’s post on Climate Etc. and Wilis’ is that at the surface Dr. Pratt emphasizes the conduction plays a larger role than radiation at the skin layer. The change in conduction is still due to reduction in the net radiation flux, but the mechanism limiting the rate of cooling at the surface is primarily the change in conduction due to the increase in air temperature.
In the tropical ocean some one listed the percentage of heat loss was 5% for conduction, 25% for radiation and 70% for evaporation. In a colder ocean the percentages would be closer to 10% conduction, 25% radiation and 65% evaporation. You could find more accurate numbers, but the radiative heat loss would be fairly constant with conduction and evaporation responding more to the temperature difference than radiation.
So the take away is that an increase in DWLR decreases the radiation flux, increasing the air temperature, reducing conductive heat loss. It makes perfectly good sense, since the CO2 and water vapor respond to the DWLR just as they would to the OLR.
It may seem to be picking nits, but Dr. Pratt’s position is more realistic while not violating any laws of physics. Surface warming is a response to a warming atmosphere caused by a reduction in net radiative cooling flux.
TimTheToolMan says:
August 16, 2011 at 5:46 am
Mosh writes “You note that nobody (except willis) wants to look at the empirical evidence. I posted it up there boys..”
The reference to the Minnett experiment isn’t empirical evidence of anything other than the SST warms relative to the depth of 5cm when the clouds come over. When the DSR induced temperature profile disappears (when the clouds come over) but convection keeps the war water rising for a time what do you think will happen to the SST vs the 5cm depth?
That experiment is far from supporting the argument that temperature gradient determines heat loss and therefore supports ocean warming. AFAIK its not even an actual paper let alone a peer reviewed paper.
Empirical evidence? FAIL.
Quite so. It was a symposium presentation which never made it into the peer reviewed litereature.
Willis,
I did not read all the comments so this may repeat some of what has been said. The DLR can heat water (or the ground) if the water is cooler than the air, and this sometimes occurs (especially at night or in higher latitudes), however on the average, the air temperature drops with increasing altitude in the atmosphere (the lapse rate), and thus, on the average, the DLR does not heat the water or ground. While energy flows down in the DLR, energy is also flowing up (ULR), and heat only flows from warmer to colder. Thus it is the difference in up and down energy flows that cause heating. The fact that DLR can, under special conditions do some heating is not important on the average and is misleading of the cause of the heating due to greenhouse gases. The increase in ground and water temperature and the DLR are a result, not cause, of the atmospheric greenhouse gas warming effect.
Your argument about where does the extra energy go is bases on misunderstanding the insulation effect. Any type of insulation effect over a heat source raises the temperature of the surface. Consider a blanket over a person (internally heated). It is not the blanket that warms, and if the body were for a dead person, the skin would be cool, even under the blanket. Also consider an insulating layer over an electrically heated resistor. The insulator is not doing the heating, but raises the temperature of the resistor.
In the case of Earth, the source of the net heating is absorbed shorter wave Solar energy (and a small amount of radiation decay heating). However, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are different from passive insulation layers. The air is free to rise from convection so no trapping occurs even though the gases absorb ULR. It is the added feature of the lapse rate that causes the temperature increase, since the temperature at a higher altitude has been raised from the movement up of the location of radiation to space, but the lapse rate is independent of temperature (it only depends on Cp and gravity). The effect of the greenhouse gases is to raise the average altitude of outgoing radiation to space, and it is the lapse rate (due to gravity) that raises the temperature going down from this average location, and thus is the source of the extra heating.
The result is that both the higher surface temperature and significant DLR are the result of, not cause of the surface being warmer.
The main disagreement here appears to be between net energy flow and gross energy flow. Willis points out the gross radiation flows and others point out that is really meaningless.
OK, if gross flows are important than why hasn’t anyone computed the gross energy flows of kinetic energy? There are trillions and trillions of molecular interactions between the surface and the atmosphere where energy is transferred one way or the other. We always see this discussed by looking ONLY at the net energy flow which is not all that high. So, why isn’t what’s good for the goose also good for the gander? Why don’t we discuss the gross energy flows of conduction? Could it be because the gross flow really isn’t important? So, why would anyone think the gross flows are important for the case of radiation? Maybe Willis or someone can explain to me the difference.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 16, 2011 at 6:34 am
The closest he’s come to talking about a “warming ocean” is the ocean is warmer with heating from DLR than if there was no heating from DLR. So no increasing, no “warming ocean,” no call for invoking CO2 increases.
Point taken. He’s still wrong though, because the long wave radiative flux cools the ocean rather than warming it, and the DLR component is solar derived energy emitted from the ocean as ULR in the first place. So if there were no DLR, there would be no ULR either, and the ocean would be up in the atmosphere having been boiled by solar shortwave it couldn’t get rid of other than by evaporation.
Warming the ocean is the Sun’s job. Cooling it and losing the heat to space is the atmosphere’s job.
Some random thoughts and comments after reading most of the above.
My washing on the line drys much much quicker when there is a breeze; however gentle. No white horses necessary.
Average atmosphere temperature is 14-15DegC. Average ocean temperature is 3DegC.
It’s been well over 10,000 years since the last ice age ended. If the atmosphere could warm the oceans, the oceans should be closer to the 14-15DegC level. 10,000 years not enough?
Regards semantics, if we are saying GHGs “reduce rate of cooling” rather than actually “warming”, then the ocean had to be warmer in the first place for it’s rate of cooling to be reduced. What warmed it in the first place then?
Oceans warm in 3 dimensions but cool in 2 dimensions. So I have my doubts about the figures quoted, i.e. 170Wm2 solar input in 3 dimensions, but 390Wm2 radiant heat loss in 2 dimensions. this doesn’t make sense to me.
According to the AGW theory, the sun warms the surface first, the surface then warms the atmosphere, which in turn further warms the surface.
But if the solar input is only 170Wm2, then that’s the maximum the ocean can radiate back up. The atmosphere cannot ‘back-radiate’ any more than the 170Wm2 it receives from the surface for a total of 340Wm2. Where did the 390Wm2 come from? And I haven’t even allowed for the atmospheric window nor the sunlight that reaches down to about 100 metres, the energy from which doesnt make it back up to the top straight away.
The well mixed portion of the oceans are the top few hundred metres. But the oceans are 4-5 kilometres deep. How does warm water mix “down” thousands of metres? physically impossible I would have thought.
The strongest GHG effect, hence the most DWLWIR happens at the tropics. How come the deep even at the tropics is around 2-3DegC only? Why is the deep much the same temperature at the tropics as it is at the poles?
The “bulk” of the ocean is the deep. The temperature of the tropical deep tells me that GHGs cannot warm the deep.
[Reply] Check your figures, ocean avg surface temp is ~17C, warmer than the atmosphere at sea level. TB-mod
Some interesting analysis of ocean heating recently.. Regarding CO2 and H2O specific ‘DLR’, you must realise that because Kirchhoff’s Law requires that emissivity and absorptivity are the same at equilibrium, any change in the ratio of the two partial emissivities/absorptivities simply reflects what is happening on the ground [assuming the radiometer is at ground level].
So, if there’s dew, the H20 emission from the ground will increase and this will lead to more ‘DLR’ from the sky in that wavelength interval. Over the ocean, it’s temperature that counts.
So, as ‘DLR’ isn’t real energy, just a sort of standing wave, and the nearly half the solar energy that is IR is absorbed in the atmosphere, what really heats the oceans and how did it change from the ’80s to the early 00s?
The answer is obvious: Asian industrialisation poured increasing aerosols into the atmosphere and this decreased cloud albedo, particularly in the short wavelengths which penetrate deeply into the sea, possibly up to 150 feet. This was probably the main AGW and because it’s self limiting switched off when aerosol concentration became high [the ‘Asian Brown Cloud’]
Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I hope to have dispelled some of the false assumptions that have driven ‘climate science’ in the wrong direction. Those working in it really do need to readup about Hottel, e.g: 203.158.253.140/media/e-Book/Engineer/…/DK2834_13.pdf
PS cloud IR emission is from the water but it has gettered CO2 so is also a strong CO2 IR emitter because the CO2 is concentrated.
From memory the equation for 2 plates (infinite or very large ) radiating at each other.
q/A = (SB(T1^4-T2^4))/ ((1-e1) + (1-e2) -1)
Let T1 be ocean surface and T2 be atmosphere. What emissivity should be used for e2 of a CO2 & H2O atmosphere at 1 atm?
@ur momisugly TB-mod
I beg to differ. Ocean average T is nowhere near that.
oceans
hmmm image thingy didn’t work.
Here is the URL
http://www.john-daly.com/deep-sea.gif
Baa Humbug says:
August 16, 2011 at 7:47 am
@ur momisugly TB-mod
I beg to differ. Ocean average T is nowhere near that.
Baa, you’re right. I was thinking average SST, since that’s where the radiative interface is. I’ll correct my note on your comment.
Baa Humbug says:
August 16, 2011 at 7:48 am
“hmmm image thingy didn’t work.
Here is the URL
http://www.john-daly.com/deep-sea.gif “
Many thanks for that link. Never knew sea bottom could get that cold and how shallow is the warm layer is. Learn something new every day! 🙂
Thanks Leonard Weinstein.
From tallbloke on August 16, 2011 at 7:16 am:
The net effect may be cooling, but he’s still looking at individual energy flows. When it’s all added up without DLR, there’s a deficit that indicates severe cooling. So either the DLR effect is there, or the upwelling LR figure is very wrong. Nothing else but DLR is in the range where it can cover that deficit.
That part fails the logic test right at the start. There’s a black surface in vacuum. Sunlight falls on it, the surface warms, the surface emits longwave radiation. No atmosphere, no greenhouse effect, none of that emitted LR goes back to the surface. Thus there can be ULR without DLR. Likewise if there is atmosphere but it lacks GHG’s thus is transparent to LR.
I think I get Willis’ point. Net flow (~390-~320) only matters if you accept that the two are equal currencies and that downwelling LR warms the ocean as much as upwelling LR cools it. And the mechanism for this is a warming of the skin layer, a more even temperature gradient between this layer and the one below it, and less convective cooling.
But this would also suggest a steeper temperature gradient between the (warmer) ocean surface and air, and more heat loss through evaporation and conduction. In the absence of hard numbers, the question becomes like so many, to what extent is this forcing mitigated by the natural processes of the environment?
Kadaka,
“Thus there can be ULR without DLR. Likewise if there is atmosphere but it lacks GHG’s thus is transparent to LR.” That is an interesting thought. With a pure nitrogen atmosphere there would be no absorption of ULR of significance so a nitrogen filled double pane glass window with a 100% reflective coating would be a perfect insulator of conductive, convective and radiant heat transfer. We know that is not true, it is a much better insulator, but not perfect. A vacuum with a reflective surface is better. Nitrogen molecules collide so there is some conductive heat transfer.
Generally speaking, the conductive heat transfer is small and can be neglected. There is a point where it is significant enough that it should be considered. Earth with a pure nitrogen atmosphere would be warmer than an Earth with no atmosphere. Earth with a 99.97% nitrogen and .03% CO2 would be warmer than an Earth with no CO2. So how significant would conduction of surface thermal energy to the atmosphere be with respect to radiative retention of the 0.03% CO2?
Konrad.
I suppose If I write up the experimental notes like the “famous” “Woods” experiment ( with a green house) that explains I have done the exact experiment you describe that you and everyone else here will accept it with the same eagerness that you accept Woods paragraph.
The point is that no amount of theory, physics, experiment, will convince some people because they do not want to be convinced. We have a word for that. It starts with D
Willis
Further to my earlier post, I revert on the comment you make in the final paragraph of your post Willis Eschenbach says: August 15, 2011 at 10:33 pm which comments upon my post richard verney says:August 15, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Your final paragraphs reads: “What I don’t understand is what slightest difference this makes. If the ocean is losing 400 w/m2, and it is gaining 170 w/m2, I don’t care in the slightest what you call that. What I want to know is, if DLR isn’t heating the ocean, what makes up the missing energy? Gamma rays? So enough with the semantics, and answer the question—what’s keeping the oceans liquid, call it what you want, if it’s not DLR?”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have had this debate with you before, and I consider the attitude that you adopt to be somewhat out of character, as a self proclaimed heretic. It is you who make a bald statement that without DLR, the oceans would freeze. I say, I don’t accept this bald statement, and ask you to prove it. Instead of proving it, you seek to reverse the burden of proof and suggest that I must prove that the oceans wouldn’t freeze but for DLR. You have things topsy turvy in the scientific world (albeit this may not be that unusual in climate science where it would appear that climate scientistist do not like dealing with complex issues and seek to parry by passing the akward parcel back to the other side).
I have previously asked you to detail the energy budget for the ocean at 62 N 8 deg 45 E, and at 62N 19 deg 04 42 E. Both of these are at the same latitude (62 deg N) and I envisage that as a consequence, the atmosphere comprises a similar mix of GHGs and they have broadly similar solar and DWLWIR budgets. The ocean at one of these locations freezes each winter, the ocean at the other location does not. I have asked you to explain (with your energy budgets) why that is the case. You have consistently failed/declined to answer. Perhaps this time, ou will not evade/ignore the question and will instead provide the answer.
As I see it, the answer is simple and it lies in the tropics. The fact is that the tropical ocean is a huge heat reservoir. Over the course of a year, the tropical ocean absorbs enormous quanities of solar radiation/energy and in the process it heats up. Some of this heat is distributed/pumped around the globe but not in the same measure in all places. The fact is that the ocean at 62 N 8 deg 45 E receives a greater quantity of the heat absorbed by the tropical ocean and this is sufficient to prevent the ocean at 62 N 8 deg 45 E freezing.
I therefore say to you, that YOU need to do an energy budget for the ocean at the tropics on a daily basis and see whether the ocean at that spot freezes. If it does not (as I am confident is the case), you need to perform successive energy budget calculations (on a daily basis) working your way outwards further north and south until you ascertain the latitude at which the ocean would begin to freeze (based upon the solar/DLR budgets). Once that has been ascertained, you need to introduce the effect of the heat transport/conveyor belt system of the ocean into the equastion. The location where you calculate would first freeze would not in practice freeze due to warm currents being transported by the conveyor belt. Accordingly, you need to carry on with successive energy budget calculations gradually working your way further and further northwards and southwards. You will gradually be working your way to higher latitudes. By the time you get to the Artic you will find that it will freeze over and melt etc with the seasons.
Turning now to your figures, you use Alice in Wonderland figures because you are using those employed in an Alice and Wonderland cartoon (suggested by Trenberth and others). In your comment at 15th August 11:39pm (commenting on a comment by Dave Springer), you state “You (and the cited paper) are talking about net radiation flows. Trenberth and I are talking about individual radiation flows.”
We all know that you can add any figure that you like to both sides of an equation and provided that this is the same figure, it will not alter the result. Hence, if 170 + 60 + 20 is 40 more than 160 + 35 +80 -65, I could add 390 to each of these equations and I would still be left with the result that the first equation is 40 greater than the second. I could subtract 99 from each equation and I would still be left with the fact that the first equation totals 40 more than the second equation. The adding (or the subtraction) of such numbers is of no import since what one is looking at is the net flux between the two equations.
IF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS TRUE, IT SHOULD FOLLOW THAT THE OCEANS ARE UNAFFECTED BY THE DIFFERENCE IN CALCULATION WHEN PERFORMED UPON A NET RADIATION FLOW BASIS AND ON A GROSS RADIATION FLOW BASIS. This follows from the fact that whatever additional input they receive from DLR, they give up a corresponding equal and opposite output amount. We are therefore really considering the net flux out.
The problem is that the 390 mw per sqm of DWLWIR can only have come into existence because of and as a factor of the 170 mw per sqm of solar ebergy received. Unless one can truly get something for nothing, this is flase. There is a failure of double accounting.
The reason why all of this is wrong is well explained by Alexander Daranko in his comment of 15 August at 11:08pm and by Kuhnkat in his comment at Aug 15th 11:37pm. It may be that you did not have the benefit of reading those comments before you posted your response of 15th August 11:39pm. There is no such thing in life as a free lunch, and we all know that the 390 mw per sqm of so called back radiation exists as a signal only, and has no energy/ability to do real work because it is cancelled out by equal and oppositite radiative flux in the opposite direction.
If the 390 mw per sqm of so called backradiation had the ability to do work or had the ability to heat up an object which is warmer than it, this would end the worlds energy problems. Rather than wasting time and effort in the pursuit of exploiting solar radiation which is only 170 mw per sqm (on your figures), we would be exploiting the 390 mw per sqm of DLR (on your figures) which is a constant 24/7 energy source come rain, cloud or shine. We are not seeking to exploit this since this ‘imagined’ energy is not sensible energy capable of real work. It is one side of account on which those that propogate this conjecture convienently forget to take into account the opposite cancelling out budget.
The oceans are not radiating away about 490 mw per sq m. This figure is an artificail figure and fails to properly address the net flux out of the oceans. When the net fluxes are properly considered, the oceans do not freeze.
Underpinning this problem is an incorrect assumption that the earth can be considered as if it were a blackbody. It is not. Such an approach is completely unacceptable for a water world which has the ability to absorb and store significant quantities of energy and to release that stored energy not instantaneously but rather at a later date and the position is yet further complicated by the phase changes of water itself.
I consider myself to be a sceptic which means that I do not have absolute views either way and I am open to be persuaded as to the correctness of the AGW conjecture. However, save for a few elements, I am unpersuaded by most of the pillars upon which it is based and I consider it has particular problems with the oceans. Given the heat capacity of the oceans, the oceans and how these behave will determine whether there is any milage in the AGW conjecture.
Finally, I point out the obvious, one explanation as to why there may be less sensitivity to CO2 than the IPCC would have one believe may be due to ocean temperature being less effected by DWLWIR than the warmist would have one believe. This would also explain why Trenberth is having so much trouble finding his missing heat.
I look forward to hearing from you with your detailed calculations expalining why the ocean at 62N 19 deg 04 42 E freezes but not at 62 N 8 deg 45 E.
Artic vs Tropical and duration (from somewhere above)… The refractive index of ‘water’ is 1.33 yielding a critical angle of 48+ degrees (48.6?) RI = 1/Sin(theta). That assumes that RI of ‘water’ and sea water are equal. With sun angles at lower than 48 degrees, the surface should become, as a sum, reflective. It would bear out if the water temp curve and the air temp curve followed different step functions. The water temp curve would not match the air temp curve increase until the sun angle was above 49 degrees. You could then probably model conductive vs direct heating of the water on the difference using the Critical Angle as the location of the significant phase change.
I guess it’s time for me to ask the same question I have asked for years and still have not gotten a decent answer:
A greenhouse made of IR-transparent plastic will get no hotter at noon in
Guam than it gets in Phoenix, despite the much greater DWR in Guam.
Why?
In my opinion I think that semantics is a really big and important issue not to be ignored. Much of the confusion and misunderstandings probably arise because of the various interpretations of warming and people waste time arguing things on which they in fact agree upon just because they interpret words differently. For most people warming probably means increasing the temperature rather than “preventing cooling”. Many of the critics to the claim that GHGs can’t warm the planet probably uses this definition of the word warming. To describe the action of GHGs as warming the planet sounds scary because it gives you the impression that even at night, when the heat source (the Sun) is turned off the GHGs will keep on warming the Earth so that when we wake up in the morning the temp has increased from evening +20C to maybe +25C and then when the Sun is turned on again the temp increase will continue and soon the planet boils. So why not try to be scientific and avoid talking about warming? GHG molecules can not create energy, thus they can’t warm, but they can continuously absorb and reemit energy already present and prevent it from dissipating into outer space as quickly as it would otherwise.