Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
It has been known for some time that the “Pacific Warm Pool”, the area just northeast of Australia, has a maximum temperature. It never gets much warmer than around 30 – 31°C. This has been borne out by the Argo floats. I discussed this in passing in “Jason and the Argo Notes“, and “Argo Notes Part 2“. I’d like to expand on this a bit. Let me be clear that I am by no means the originator of the claim that there is a thermostat regulating the maximum ocean temperature. See among many others the Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment. I am merely looking at the Argo data with this thermostat in mind.
First, Figure 1 shows the distribution of all of the ~ 700,000 surface temperature measurements taken by Argo floats to date.
Figure 1. A “histogram” shows how many data points fall in each of the 1°C intervals shown along the bottom axis. The maximum is in the interval 28°-29°C.
The number of temperature records peaks around 29°C, and drops quickly for temperatures above 30°C. This clearly establishes the existence of the mechanism limiting the oceanic temperatures.
What else can the Argo data tell us about this phenomenon? Quite a bit, as it turns out.
First, a look at the year by year evolution of the limit, and how it affects the temperatures at different latitudes.
Figure 2. Annual temperature variations measured by all northern hemisphere argo floats that exceeded 30°C. Temperature observations are colored by latitude. Click on image for full-sized graphic.
A couple points of interest. First, the cap clearly affects only the warm parts of the year. Close to the equator, that is most of the year. The further from the equator, the less of the annual cycle is affected.
Second, the majority of the breakthroughs through the ~30° ceiling that do occur are from areas further from the equator, and are short-lived. By and large, nobody exceeds the speed limit, especially those along the equator.
Figure 3 is a closeup of the years since 2005. I chose this starting point because prior to that the numbers are still changing due to limited coverage. To show how the mechanism is cropping the tops of the warmer parts of the year, I have added a Gaussian average (129 point width) in dark gray for each two-degree latitudinal band from 0°-2°N up to 10°-12°N.
Figure 3. Annual temperature variations measured by all northern hemisphere argo floats that exceeded 30°C. Dark lines have been added to highlight the average annual swings of the data by latitude band. Click on image for full-sized graphic.
As you can see, the warm parts of the yearly cycle have their high points cropped off flat, with the amount cropped increasing with increasing average temperatures.
Finally, here is the corresponding plot for the southern hemisphere:
Figure 4. Annual temperature variations measured by all southern hemisphere argo floats that exceeded 30°C. Click on image for full-sized graphic.
Note that there is less of the southern ocean that reaches 30°C, and it is restricted to areas closer to the equator.
Next, where are these areas that are affected by the temperature cap? I had always thought from the descriptions I’d read that the limitation on ocean temperature was only visible in the “Pacific Warm Pool” to the northeast of Australia. Figure 5 shows the areas which have at some point been over 30°C.
Figure 5. Locations in the ocean which are recorded at some time as having reached or exceeded 30°C.
Figure 5a. A commenter requested a Pacific-centered view of the data. We are nothing if not a full-service website.
Clearly this mechanism operates in a wider variety of oceans and seas than I had realized, not just in the Pacific Warm Pool.
Finally, here is another way to consider the effect of the temperature maximum. Here are the average annual temperature changes by latitude band. I have chosen to look at the northern hemisphere area from 160 to 180 East and from the Equator to 45°N (upper right of Figure 5, outlined in cyan), as it has areas that do and do not reach the ~ 30° maximum.
Figure 6. Average annual temperature swings by latitude band. Two years (the average year , shown twice) are shown for clarity.
Note that at say 40°N, we see the kind of peaked summer high temperatures that we would expect from a T^4 radiation loss plus a T^2 or more evaporative loss. It’s hard to get something warm, and when the heat is turned down it cools off fast. This is why the summer high temperature comes to a point, while the winter low is rounded.
But as the temperature starts to rise towards the ocean maximum, you can see how that sharp peak visible at 40°N starts first to round over, then to flatten out at the top. Curiously, the effect is visible even when the temperatures are well below the maximum ocean temperature.
Speculations on the mechanism
I want to highlight something very important that is often overlooked in discussions of this thermostatic mechanism. It is regulated by temperature, and not by forcing. It is insensitive to excess incoming radiation, whether from CO2 or from the sun. During the part of the year when the incoming radiation would be enough to increase the temperature over ~ 30°, the temperature simply stops rising at 30°. It is no longer a function of the forcing.
This is very important because of the oft-repeated AGW claim that surface temperature is a linear function of forcing, and that when forcing increases (say from CO2) the temperature also has to increase. The ocean proves that this is not true. There is a hard limit on ocean temperature that just doesn’t get exceeded no matter how much the sun shines.
As to the mechanism, to me that is a simple question of the crossing lines. As temperature rises, clouds and thunderstorms increase. This cuts down the incoming energy, as well as cooling the surface in a variety of ways. Next, this same process moves an increasing amount of excess energy polewards. In addition, as temperature rises, parasitic losses (latent and sensible energy transfers from the surface to the atmosphere) also go up.
So … as the amount of total radiation (solar + greenhouse) that is warming any location rises, more and more of the incoming solar radiation is reflected, there are more and more parasitic losses, more cold water and air move from aloft to the surface as cold wind and rain, and a greater and greater percentage of the incoming energy is simply exported out of the area. At some point, those curves have to cross. At some point, losses have to match gains.
When they do cross, all extra incoming energy above that point is simply transferred to the upper atmosphere and thence to the poles. About 30°C is where the curves cross, it is as hot as this particular natural system can get, given the physics of wind, water, and wave.
I make no overarching claims for this mechanism. It is just one more part of the many interlocking threshold-based thermostatic mechanisms that operate at all temporal and spatial scales, from minutes to millennia and kilometres to planet-wide. The mechanisms include things like the decadal oscillations (PDO, AMO, etc), the several-year Nino/Nina swings, the seasonally opposing effects of clouds (warming the winters and cooling the summers), and the hourly changes in clouds and thunderstorms.
All of these work together to maintain the earth within a fairly narrow temperature band, with a temperature drift on the order of ± 0.2% per century. It is the stability of the earth’s climate system which is impressive, not the slight rise over the last century. Until we understand the reasons for the amazing planetary temperature stability, we have no hope of understanding the slight variations in that stability.
My regards to you all,
w.
UPDATE (by Anthony):
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has some praise for this essay here:
TimTheToolMan says:
February 16, 2012 at 4:30 am
What part of “the back radiation is absorbed in the top millimetre of the ocean” don’t you understand? The top millimetre is indeed part of the ocean, so contrary to your claim, almost all of the back radiation enters the ocean. You just don’t like where and how it enters the ocean … but it definitely enters the ocean, even you admit that.
So yes … I do want you to keep up, I want everyone to keep up.
w.
Paul Bahlin says:
February 16, 2012 at 6:34 am
Paul, richard thinks that there is 16 feet average rainfall around the planet. If you ask him questions, you will surely get wrong information. Up to you if you want to be that foolish, your call …
w.
markx says:
February 16, 2012 at 7:06 am
That’s because you expect Steven Wilde to make sense, there’s your problem. Steven is an unending font of wrong facts, nasty comments, and unsubstantiated specious claims. DFTT.
w.
“That’s because you expect Steven Wilde to make sense, there’s your problem. Steven is an unending font of wrong facts, nasty comments, and unsubstantiated specious claims. DFTT.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or “projecting,” those same faults onto another person or object.
The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud – in his letters to Wilhelm Fliess, ‘”Draft H” deals with projection as a mechanism of defence'[2] – and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud; for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as Freudian Projection.[3]
Sighhhhhh
Stephen Wilde says:
February 16, 2012 at 11:27 am
Steven, thanks, but that’s much more about your personal psychological problems than I ever wanted to know. As my daughter says, “TMI” … I’d say go back to the science, because I greatly doubt whether other folks care about the inner details of your mental mis-wiring and I know I don’t.
But you never got to science in the first place, and its hard to get back to somewhere you’ve never been.
Anyone who believes your nonsense deserves all that they get.
w.
Paul, my thanks, I can only agree with much of what you are saying. However, richard won’t hear you. You do raise interesting points, which I comment on below.
Paul Bahlin says:
February 16, 2012 at 6:34 am
This is key to the understanding, in my opinion. For heat loss, all that matters is the surface layer.
Whether it is radiation as you discuss or it is conduction/convection or it is evaporation, everything happens at the surface.
Basically I agree with you, but it’s too strong. Some of the absorbed energy must make it down into the deeper ocean. Consider, for example the ocean when there are squalls and storms. There is spray, there is foam, there are breaking waves. In that situation the top “skin” is being constantly and thoroughly mixed with the underlying water.
As I mentioned above, I see this argument as meaningless. I don’t care in the slightest whether it is called “heating” or not when something ends up warmer than it would be in the absence of GHGs. The end result is the same.
Which is why I was and am careful when discussing it not to say that GHGs “heat” the ocean. It is a red herring. It is the kind of thing that richard uses to divert the discussion from the real issues.
So when you ask him about it, you’re just playing into his hands. He doesn’t want to talk about things like his claim that the global average rainfall is 16 feet. He’s more than happy to pick semantic nits all day long, with you or anyone else.
All the best,
w.
Let me give an example which might clarify how DLR slows the cooling of the entire mixed layer while only penetrating a few microns, and thus leaves the entire upper ocean warmer than it would be without DLR. Consider the following:
Suppose that we put a bit of oil on the surface of the ocean. A monomolecular layer is enough. What happens is that the evaporation from the water basically goes to zero. It can still radiate, and it can still conduct/convect, but it hardly evaporates at all.
Of course, this slows the heat loss from the ocean. And as a result, the entire mixed layer will warm up.
But the oil doesn’t mix with the ocean, it doesn’t penetrate deeply into the ocean, it only affects the very skin layer of the ocean … and yet as a result the entire upper ocean will end up warmer than it would be without the oil.
The situation is very similar with downwelling longwave radiation. Yes, it is only absorbed in the topmost layer, just as the oil only sits on the topmost layer.
So what? Both of them leave the ocean warmer than it would be in their absence. This seems to be the part that people have a hard time understanding, but it is quite true—any change in the ocean skin surface can affect the entire mixed layer.
w.
“There is spray, there is foam, there are breaking waves. In that situation the top “skin” is being constantly and thoroughly mixed with the underlying water.”
Rough water has a larger surface area which increases evaporation as does wind. Thus the net effect is a faster cooling ocean rather than mixing down of any energy found at the surface.
Willis:
I was going to write something about how the incoming photons hit some molecules just as they get splashed by rogue micro waves (get it) that twist the molecule such that the photon comes in on the top but can’t get out before it turns over. This causes the little buggers to go off into the deep, never to be heard from again. This of course means they don’t really get absorbed at all, just disappeared.
As a general rule I always thought it a good idea to agree on first principles applied to pristine conditions before moving onto reality. Now I see that I was wrong.
“But the oil doesn’t mix with the ocean, it doesn’t penetrate deeply into the ocean, it only affects the very skin layer of the ocean … and yet as a result the entire upper ocean will end up warmer than it would be without the oil.”
Oil doesn’t evaporate with a net cooling effect.
BTW: has anybody given any thought to the spatial distribution of these maxed out hot spots? It seems they occur mostly where there is not easy access to the poles. The biggest one of all is tucked under the Himalayas/Asia and there’s another good one tucked under the left side of Africa. Could it be there is a relationship to perturbed Hadley cells, i.e. the surface features preventing or limiting cool mid latitude return flow….
Not sure what it means to the ‘thermostat’ at work, but it’s an interesting feature of the data.
Willis
I revert further to the ethical issues.
For someone who so vigorously deplores the use of ad hominems, an objective reader of the comments that you have posted in reply to various commentators on this particular post (and for that matter on your posts going back for a number of months) may be some what surprised by the tone of some of your replies and may conclude that there is more than whiff of double standards being applied by you.
I do not wish to spend much time on this since I consider that the foray into so called ad hominems assertions are somewhat of a waste of time, that we should all have thicker skins, they are a diversion not central to the scientific issues raised and that our time would be better spent on debating the science, However, since it has apparently got you into something of a tissy fit, I will respond.
Preliminary observation:
The vast majority of people reading WUWT and/or commenting on articles posted are seekers of the truth. We are all trying to grapple with a complex and not well understood physical science on which regrettably, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars of public money thrown at it, there is a dearth of good quality and reliable empirical data collected from observation and/or experimentation. The task facing us is therefore a difficult one.
If there is any prospect of relatively quickly gaining an understanding of the complex physical science involved, it requires people to engage in an open and honest debate and to deal properly with complex issues raised and not seek to belittle points or deal in prevaricate with a view to side stepping the issue raised. If a point is so obviously bad, it will no doubt have a simple direct answer. There should be no need to revert to some tangential issue, which does not address the issue raised by the bad point.
Of course, I accept that it is human nature to seek to take the easy way out. We are all hot wired to seek to put off dealing with complex and awkward issues, preferring instead to adopt what we perceive to be the easy solution. To stay within our comfort zone. That approach, unfortunately, is often a dangerous game and the ultimate penalty is regretfully often high.
Your complaint.
1. As I understand the exchanges, you were concerned about a comment that I made in my post of February 14 at 05:58am.
2. This prompted you to respond (Willis Eschenbach says:February 14, 2012 at 11:40 am)
richard verney says:
February 14, 2012 at 5:58 am
… I have several times asked Willis (and others) to explain the physical mechanism involved. They have never been able to put forward an explanation, I have never seen any explanation of the physical process which deals with the above facts and explains how DWLWIR actually heats the oceans.
Bull. Put up a cite showing that I was unable to put forward an explanation, or retract your ad hominem attack. As far as I know, that’s nonsense, and I’m tired of being attacked in roundabout ways. Either substantiate your bull or retract it, richard.
…………………………………………………………………………..
3. Subsequently, you posted a comment (Willis Eschenbach says: February 14, 2012 at 5:43 pm)
richard verney said:
February 14, 2012 at 5:58 am
… I have several times asked Willis (and others) to explain the physical mechanism involved.
I said I thought his claim was untrue, and said put up or shut up, either support his allegation or withdraw it.
And now, for some unknown reason, Stephen Wilde says:
February 14, 2012 at 11:56 am
…
“Bull. Put up a cite showing that I was unable to put forward an explanation, or retract your ad hominem attack.”
…
Why are you responding at all, Stephen? Are you a sock puppet for richard or something? You have no standing in this matter.
I said nothing to or about you. I want Richard to either support or withdraw his allegation. You can’t help him do either one. Stop interfering
……………………………………………………………..
4. Subsequently, you posted a comment Willis Eschenbach says: February 14, 2012 at 11:59 pm
richard verney says:
February 14, 2012 at 9:19 pm
@ur momisuglyWillis Eschenbach says: February 14, 2012 at 5:43 pm
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Willis
I am not sure whether that response was directed at Stephen or at me. If it was intended to be your detailed explanation of the PHYSICAL PROCESS whereby DWLWIR heats the oceans (as requested in my post of February 14, 2012 at 5:58 am), it would be an understatement to say that I am disappointed.
YOU are disappointed? You attack me with false allegations, and now YOU are disappointed? I couldn’t care less if you are disappointed, richard. I’m still waiting for you to apologize. I had said:
Bull. Put up a cite showing that I was unable to put forward an explanation, or retract your ad hominem attack. As far as I know, that’s nonsense, and I’m tired of being attacked in roundabout ways. Either substantiate your bull or retract it, richard.
You haven’t had the cojones to do either one. Instead, you’re all disappointed, poor man. You have neither supported your claim that I had not explained my position, nor have you retracted it and apologized for your mistake. I have linked to exactly where I explained it to you directly. Everyone knows that your statement was a false accusation, that your claims were in fact bull as I had said.
So you can retract your unpleasant claims, and we can talk further. Or not. I don’t much care which, the claims in the rest of your post are laughable in either case. But I’m done with you until you retract your false allegations”
……………………………………………………………
5. Subsequently, you posted a comment (Willis Eschenbach says: February 15, 2012 at 11:26 pm)
richard verney says:
February 15, 2012 at 9:28 pm
… I look forward to Willis explaining the PHYSIVAL PROCESS involved whereby DWLWIR can …
And I look forward to your apology and retraction of your slimy remarks. If you expect anything before that happens, including another explanation of the PHYSIVAL PROCESS to add to the many I’ve given you already, you’re dumber than you act.
…………………………………
My Position
6. Consider the language that you have used in your posts. You talk about false allegations, unpleasant claims, posts are laughable, slimy remarks, you’re dumber than you act. I chose to ignore these comments, and some of the other outrageous remarks that you made about me in some of your other posts which were aimed at belittling me. You even sought to suggest what I was claiming and then sought to suggest that that claim that you yourself had invented was stupid!
7. I had until now ignored your posts detailed in paras 3 to 5 above. I know that your writing style is rather vitriolic and it appears that you enjoy treating people with contempt. Fine, that appears your style so I did not raise to the bait.
8. However, it does appear to me that your comments detailed in paragraphs 3 to 5 are completely unfounded in view of my post of February 14 2:27 pm. wherein I not only retracted my comment but I also apologized to you (richard verney says: February 14, 2012 at 2:27 pm
@ur momisugly Willis Eschenbach says: February 14, 2012 at 11:40 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Willis
“I did not intend my post of to be an ad hominem attack on you, and I am sorry if it was taken that way. Let me rephrase: …I trust that that rephrasing is acceptable to you and removes any notion of an ad hominem. As I say, none is intended…..”
9. So why you repeatedly ask me to retract and apologize is a complete and utter mystery to me. I did exactly what you requested and it is I who should be complaining at your repeated incorrect assertions which assertions ignored the fact that I had made a retraction and given an apology!
10. I would have hoped that you would accept my word when I say that we have been arguing about these core points for more than a year. I am not suggesting that you have never responded to me and that you have simply ignored me. I am saying that you have never put forward an explanation as to how given the problems raised with absorption at the relevant wavelength, DWLWIR is absorbed by the oceans. You have not explained the physical processes involved which enable this to be done. You merely assert that it is done. That is something rather different.
11. It is obvious that we have a very different yardstick as to what amounts to an explanation of the physical processes involved. Quite often your ‘explanation’ has amounted to nothing more than a re-statement of case. You just repeat the classical GHE energy budget (K&T) and sometimes in addition suggest we know that that budget is right because the oceans do not freeze and they would freeze, if you remove the DWLWIR component. That is neither an explanation still less proof. We all know what is outlined in the K&T budget. We all know that if that budget is correct, and if you remove one component then there will be an imbalance. You cannot use the assumptions made in a theory as evidence of the correctness of those very assumptions. This is why CGMs are no proof at all; they merely demonstrate the run out of the assumptions programmed into the model by the programmer. This is exactly what you are doing when you argue that if DWLWIR were to be removed, the oceans would freeze. IF, and I emphasise IF, the GHE theory is correct that is one implication of it (although I am far from convinced that the tropical ocean would completely freeze and in this regard you know how much solar is going in and it appears that there is an excess of solar in the tropics but much would depend upon albedo and whether there would be less clouds over the equator and tropics). Sometimes when challenged as to whether DWLWIR can find its way into the ocean, you revert by claiming that you do not necessarily mean heat the oceans, but rather that the ocean does not cool as quickly as would be the case were there to be no DWLWIR such that the ocean is warmer than it would otherwise be. There are a number of problems with that assertion, First, it relies upon the assumptions underpinning the GHE theory being correct to prove the correctness of those very assumptions. Second, and more significantly, in this scenario you are effectively accepting that the DWLWIR does not find its way into the ocean and in which case the K&T energy budget is out of balance, the oceans are losing more energy than they are receiving! Third, the oceans would be out of balance unless you accept that the oceans are only radiating 70 w/m² and not 390 w/m². However, that is a major problems since if you accept that the oceans are only radiating 70 w/m² then the oceans are in energy balance, but then you are accepting the old classical thermo energy budget with outgoings from the ocean of 70 w/m² (latent) plus 30 w/m² (sensible) plus 70 w/m² (radiation) balanced by the input of 170 w/m² (solar). So that establishes that there is no need for the GHE theory to explain anything. Underpinning this debate on absorption is given the absorption characteristics of water to LWIR, what happens to the 20% of the DWLWIR absorbed in the first micron and the 60% absorbed by the first 4 microns? We have bucket loads of energy in that very small depth that is going ‘boil’ off in evaporation AND not find its way into the ocean. Even if by some quirk, it wanted to flow downwards rather than upwards, this would appear to be all but impossible since the temperature flux is operating upwards not downwards since the warmer waters at the 10mm and below layer are moving upwards and powering the evaporation un the classical thermo energy budget. Theoretical problems, problems, problems. Willis it is these issues that requires an explanation of the physical explanation possibly at molecular level and no explanation has been put forward. I would not be asking you these questions if I knew the answers myself.
12 Reverting to the ethical issues, it is worth having a look at your post of February 15, 2012 at 12:22 am “Folks, as an example of the ridiculous nature of richard’s claims, he says (emphasis mine):
… by the time you get to 20 microns some 88% of all the available DWLWIR has been fully absorbed, ie., some 282 w/m² of the available 320 w/m² has been fully absorbed leaving only about 38 w/m² to penetrate and be absorbed in the slightly deeper environs of the top layer.
Now herein lies the problem. The oceans are evaporating. I believe that you understand this, since this was the central thrust of your last couple of posts. This evaporation takes place from the top 10 to 20 microns of the ocean. This means that all the DWLWIR energy that was absorbed in the first 10 to 20 microns does not lie in the ocean but is actually in the atmosphere. It is being carried upwards and away with the convective currents!!! Please do not underestimate the significance of that.
OK, so he is claiming that in addition to the losses he mentions from latent (70 W/m2) and sensible heat (30 W/m2) loss from the surface, that there is also some 282 W/m2 going upwards as evaporation.
Here’s why that claim is so foolish. It takes about 75 W/m2 for one year to evaporate a metre of water from the surface. So that means that richard’s 282 W/m2 is evaporating about 4 metres of water.
This is in addition to the one metre of water already accounted for (the 70 W/m2 latent heat richard discussed in his post).
Here’s the problem. What goes up must come down. If we’re evaporating 5 metres of water from the surface every year, we must be getting that much rain every year.
So richard doesn’t realize it, but he is claiming that the global average rainfall is 5 metres (16.5 feet) per year … and if you believe that, you’ll likely have no problem swallowing the rest of richard’s cockamamie theories.
In fact, global average rainfall is about a metre (39 inches).”
…………………….
13. First of all that is not what I was claiming as is readily apparent from my post of… February 14, 2012 at 9:19 pm. What I said in that post (and I paraphrase) is that IF and I emphasise IF, you utilize the accepted figure for DWLWIR and IF (again I emphasise the word IF) you utilize the accepted absorption characteristics of LWIR in water then “…some 192 w/m² of the available 320 w/m² DWLWIR has been fully absorbed and is contained in the first 4 micron layer and does not find its way to a lower depth… [and]. by the time you get to 10 microns some 84% of all the available DWLWIR has been fully absorbed, ie., some 269 w/m² of the available 320 w/m² has been fully absorbed” I was pointing out that there was a problem. This is why I said (but you failed to emphasis this) “Now herein lies the problem.”
14. So you have constructed a claim that I did not make and then suggested that the claim was ridiculous. In practice I was doing some thing rather different, I was saying if we assume the GHE claims what happens is that we get lots and lots of energy in the top microns of the ocean which would lead to lots and lots of evaporation AND as a consequence of that in any event most of the energy from DWLWIR would end up in the atmosphere, not in the ocean. I was pointing out that this is a problem. At least you understand that what I say gives rise to a potential problem. You have understood my point that it is a theoretical problem, so that is a step in the right direction. Having understood that it was a potential problem, a more preferable response from you would have been to explain why the energy from the amount of DWLWIR claimed to exist is not in fact absorbed in the first 4 microns in accordance with the accepted absorption characteristics of water or to try and explain how not withstanding that absorption and the energy entrapped in the first 4 microns, the energy does not fuel evaporation but somehow works against the direction of energy flux and makes its way downward. If that was going to be the claim, what is the physics behind the claim? How does it work in the real world? Etc.
15. Then you suggest “So richard doesn’t realize it, but he is claiming…” When you recently posted your CV, it did not state that you were clairvoyant or a mind reader. That being the case, how do you know what I realize? Then once again you distort my claim, you put out what you think I am claiming, not what I was actually claiming (you would be saying read my words) . Of course, I realized since I was pointing out the problem with all the theoretical evaporation that would arise IF DWLWIR is of the order claimed in the GHE theory, and IF LWIR is absorbed by water in accordance with the accepted absorption characteristics of water. I can envisage that if this had been the other way around, you would have reverted ‘I am highlighting the problem duh!’ or idiot or some other derogatory expression.
16. If you do not understand what I am claiming, please do not put words in my mouth (you know how frustrating that is as you are often complaining that people do that to you) and ask me to clarify. When I put forward a point which is conditional upon principles contained in a theory being correct and when I note that if those principles are correct there is a problem with the theory, I do that with a view to showing that the claimed principles appear wrong.
17. I do not, at least at this stage, intend upon commenting upon the many derogatory comments of a personal nature that you have made against me in a good number of your posts. The tone adopted does not take the debate forward and for my part, I have better things to do than to be affronted by the vitriolic style that is your want. My interest is to discuss the science. Lets act like adults and not feign upset when none is really sustained.
Come back in detail on the scientific issues raised and hopefully we can take the debate forward and shed a little bit of further light on this murky and not well understood discipline of science.
richard verney says:
February 16, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Willis
No, you don’t. You revert to whining about how your bull is being received here, trying to justify your position, and repeating your lies.
You claim that you apologized by saying:
But your damned “rephrase” is nearly identical to your previous claim, and contains the same false statement— you have changed nothing, you are trying to slip the same claim by me while butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth. Now you say (emphasis mine)
I described this as a “false accusation”, and I linked exactly where I had given you that explanation of the physical mechanisms the very first time you asked. And I have repeated it a number of times.
In response, you’ve gone all flannel-mouthed, and you say your statement was not an ad hominem. I know that, fool, I never said it was an ad hominem. Of course it’s not an ad-hom, I said it was a false statement. So your claim that it is not an ad hominem is just another sneaky way for you to seem to be apologizing, while doing nothing of the sort.
But at this point, richard, you’ve repeated your false claim that I never explained the mechanism. And that makes it a lie.
So no, richard, that’s not an apology and a retraction. That’s a pathetic attempt at self-justification while repeating the same lie as before.
Look, my friend, it’s not that tough. You screwed up. You accused me of something I didn’t do. I proved it never happened. Everyone knows your accusation was false. Not a good position to be in.
Anyone with any courage would have said “Ooops, I forgot about you explaining the mechanism to me back when I first asked, my bad, I take it back”, and gone on to talk about the science.
Come back when you have found the courage somewhere to actually apologize. As I said before, richard, until then you can wither on the vine for all I care. Because before, I just thought you were in error.
But now, you’ve proven that you quite willing to lie to convince people you are right …
w.
Paul Bahlin says:
February 16, 2012 at 6:34 am
Richard:
A question for you….
Isn’t it true that outgoing long wave radiation from the ocean is a surface phenomenon, i.e. the outgoing photons are coming from the water molecules at the interface ONLY? They don’t come from a meter down, right?
If that is true then it isn’t necessary to hypothesize about the penetration of incoming long wave radiation. It too is a surface phenomena. I maintain that (at the surface) the incoming long wave photons, that don’t get reflected, get absorbed and re-radiated (at the surface), consequently resulting in a deduction from outgoing photons. They don’t ‘heat’ anything. They reduce long wave energy flux out from what it would be in the absence of down-welling long wave.
I would take issue with this distinction between heating and reducing cooling being reduced to a case of semantics because IMO the ‘semantics’ play nicely into a fundamental understanding of what is going on. This leads people to jump on the mechanism with statements about candles ‘heating’ forest fires. They’re essentially correct, at least in their semantic universe, but this does not mean that the candle can’t result in a hotter fire.
If you reduce cooling of an object while you pour energy into it, the temperature goes up but you haven’t ‘heated’ anything
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Paul
An interesting comment.
I agree with paragraphs 1, 3 and 4. I can see the point that you make in your second paragraph, but I am not sure that I agree with it.
Isn’t the fact that you can measure absorption of various wavelength a facet that the photons from the wavelength transmitter are penetrating the medium in which they are being absorbed, i.e., it is not just a surface layer phenomena?
If it is just a surface layer phenomena, what precisely are we measuring at depth when we say that 10% of X is absorbed at 10 mm, 20% at 16mm?
In the above question, are we not saying that at a depth of 17mm we can still see the photons being emitted by X?
Stephen Wilde: February 16, 2012 at 9:30 am
said: “….Not quite. If it takes 1 extra unit of energy to cause a molecule of water to evaporate into a molecule of water vapour then the evaporative event then draws another 4 units of energy from the surrounding environment thereby removing 5 units to latent heat in all….”
I can’t quite understand which physical laws will ensure exactly 100% of energy absorbed as only 1 particular type (DWLWIR) must be instantly lost back to the atmosphere (by evaporation and/or radiation).
Why is none lost in any other direction/manner?
Won’t atmospheric pressure, wind speed, atmospheric temperature, water temperature, water currents all have an effect on this?
If you had a cold ocean, and the vast majority of water molecules had only reached the level of having 3 units of energy, but needing (say) 5 units to evaporate, would not adding an extra unit of energy lift our molecule only closer to the threshold, ie, warm it?
Willis writes “What part of “the back radiation is absorbed in the top millimetre of the ocean” don’t you understand? The top millimetre is indeed part of the ocean, so contrary to your claim, almost all of the back radiation enters the ocean.”
Right. Except you’re out by a few orders of magnitude. The DLR is absorbed in microns not millimeters. It makes a huge difference Willis. The absorbed IR is absorbed EXACTLY where the radiation and evaporation is happening.
Your approximation makes your argument valid. Except your approximation is invalid and hence makes your argument invalid.
I”f you had a cold ocean, and the vast majority of water molecules had only reached the level of having 3 units of energy, but needing (say) 5 units to evaporate, would not adding an extra unit of energy lift our molecule only closer to the threshold, ie, warm it?”
Good question but no, because evaporation occurs constantly without adding any units at all as long as the water is unfrozen.
Thus there is a constant rate of energy loss that must always be replaced by more incoming energy if equilibrium is to be maintained.
So at equilibrium an incoming 2 plus the existing 3 are always needed for the temperature to stay at equilibrium.
At any given moment the water is a mix of molecules that require a further 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 units to provoke evaporation when 5 units is achieved.
So if one adds 1 unit and it gets to a molecule carrying 4 units that extra unit provokes evaporation and all 5 units vanish into latent heat. Adding one unit has effectively cooled the water by 5 units.
If one adds 4 units to a molecule carrying 1 unit then again 5 units vanish for another net cooling event.
However much extra energy one adds the effect of the extra evaporation will always use up ALL the extra enery coming in as long as atmospheric pressure does not change because it is atmospheric pressure that fixes the 5:1 ratio.Only when ALL the extra energy coming in has been used up will the baseline rate of evaporation be restored.
If the extra energy keeps coming in then one gets a constant enhancement of the baseline rate and it can ramp up all the way to boiling pont without heating the bulk ocean below.
The boiling point itself being set by atmospheric pressure.
Willis.
Reviewing that histogram (Fig-1) we observed a discontinuous function, which is inconsistent with the functions found in nature inert. This suggests a biological response (enzymatic) for this phenomenon.
Hi Willis,
a thought here. in all the discussion of what transpires at the ocean surface WRT energy entering or not by light waves, maybe I missed it, but would not some energy be transferred to the oceans by H2O condensation from the atmosphere where the air is warmer than the ocean. I don’t mean to imply the atmosphere is heating the ocean per se, rather this may be a portion of energy transference that is overlooked since everyone seems to be focused on evaporation, but I would think where the air is warmer than the water the air is drying.
“but I would think where the air is warmer than the water the air is drying.”
Quite the opposite. Warm air above cool water draws moisture out of the water by increasing evaporation.
As the air becomes more humid evaporation slows down but usually wind and upward convection move the more humid air on to maintain the process.
If there is no air movement (very rare) then the cool water will reduce the air temperature to the water temperature which may be below the dew point in which case sea fog develops. That represents virtually 100% humidity so further evaporation stops locally where the fog is present.
Any falling of fog droplets into the water are then at the same temperature as the water so no energy transfer there.
In any event the energy content of air (thermal capacity) is so small compared to that of water that any flow of energy from air to water would be infinitesimal compared to the exchanges involved in evaporation and solar input.
Richard, let me take another swing….
I claim that outgoing and incoming radiation are surface phenomena for the following reasons. A flux of photons hitting a liquid surface can result in three things; some get reflected, some get thermalized and reradiated at the surface, some penetrate the surface. The first two things are surface phenomena, the latter is not (immediately). Here’s why.
The penetrating photons are where we are seeing things differently. Two things can happen to photons that penetrates the surface; they can either run around missing all the liquid molecules, eventually leaving the liquid at the surface, or they can be absorbed (thermalized) by a liquid molecule. You might even be able to detect some of these guys inside the liquid.
I maintain that it really doesn’t matter, in a radiation sense, with these little penetrators which of these things happen because once inside (they are no longer surface phenomena) they both represent a little packet of energy inside the liquid and they can both result in a photon leaving the surface at some point in time. It can either leave untouched or it can have a surrogate leave as a result of it adding KE to the liquid. When they leave, each represents energy radiating from the liquid and it matters not a wit what happened to it while it was cohabitating with the liquid. At such time as a photon or its surrogate leaves it returns to being a surface phenomena.
If you put a photon detector above the surface of the liquid you won’t have any way to distinguish the origins of the photons. They all look alike and they all leave the SURFACE. All of the mixing and mashing that happens inside the liquid does not change this radiative mathematics. It can all be described as a surface effect on a liquid mass with some energy in it.
Stephen Wilde says: February 17, 2012 at 5:48 am
Thanks for your answer, it seems counter-intuitive to have a cooler water molecule condense in warmer air… must be something about phase change of water that I’m not thinking of correctly.
“it seems counter-intuitive to have a cooler water molecule condense in warmer air”
The water molecule in the air is NOT cooler than the air.It is the same temperature as the air which is the same temperature as the water
What happens is that the water surface below the air COOLS THE AIR to below the dew point of the air so that the water molecule condenses out.
The reason being that the thermal capacity of water is magnitudes greater than that of air so the water temperature always controls the air temperature.
This was settled science 50 years ago but no one seems to have been taught it for decades past. That lack of education has left the field open for the potty theories about radiative gases.
TimTheToolMan says:
February 17, 2012 at 12:53 am
Great. What part of “the back radiation is absorbed in the top microns of the ocean” don’t you understand? The top microns are indeed part of the ocean, so contrary to your claim, almost all of the back radiation enters the ocean.
Unless, of course, you think the top microns of the ocean are not really the top microns of the ocean, but are really the bottom microns of the atmosphere as you appear to be claiming in your post.
Butt then why do you, Tim, and all the scientists call them “the top 20 microns of the ocean“? Gosh, could it be because they are part of the ocean? And thus when the IR is absorbed, it is absorbed BY THE OCEAN. Not by vapor. Not by some handwaving fantasy middle state.
They are absorbed by the ocean, Tim, and all of your nitpicking about microns can’t change the fact that 20 microns below the surface of the ocean is ocean. Not air. Not land. Not handwaving. Ocean.
And as a result, the IR is in fact absorbed by the ocean.
w.