Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach.
For all of its faults, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) lays out their idea of the climate paradigm pretty clearly. A fundamental part of this paradigm is that the long-term change in global average surface temperature is a linear function of the long-term change in what is called the “radiative forcing”. Today I found myself contemplating the concept of radiative forcing, usually referred to just as “forcing”.
So … what is radiative forcing when it’s at home? Well, that gets a bit complex … in the history chapter of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the IPCC says of the origination of the concept (emphasis mine):
The concept of radiative forcing (RF) as the radiative imbalance (W m–2) in the climate system at the top of the atmosphere caused by the addition of a greenhouse gas (or other change) was established at the time and summarised in Chapter 2 of the WGI FAR [First Assessment Report].
Figure 1. A graph of temperature versus altitude, showing how the tropopause is higher in the tropics and lower at the poles. The tropopause marks the boundary between the troposphere (the lowest atmospheric layer) and the stratosphere. SOURCE
The concept of radiative forcing was clearly stated in the Third Assessment Report (TAR), which defined radiative forcing as follows:
The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values.
In the context of climate change, the term forcing is restricted to changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system imposed by external factors, with no changes in stratospheric dynamics, without any surface and tropospheric feedbacks in operation (i.e., no secondary effects induced because of changes in tropospheric motions or its thermodynamic state), and with no dynamically-induced changes in the amount and distribution of atmospheric water (vapour, liquid, and solid forms).
So what’s not to like about that definition of forcing?
Well, the main thing that I don’t like about the definition is that it is not a definition of a measurable physical quantity.
We can measure the average surface temperature, or at least estimate it in a consistent fashion from a number of measurements. But we can never measure the change in the radiation balance at the troposphere AFTER the stratosphere has readjusted, but with the surface and tropospheric temperatures held fixed. You can’t hold any part of the climate fixed. It simply can not be done. This means that the IPCC vision of radiative forcing is a purely imaginary value, forever incapable of experimental confirmation or measurement.
The problem is that the surface and tropospheric temperatures respond to changes in radiation with a time scale on the order of seconds. The instant that the sun hits the surface, it starts affecting the surface temperature. Even hourly measurements of radiative imbalances reflect the changing temperatures of the surface and the troposphere during that hour. There is no way that we can have the “surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values” as is required by the IPCC formulation.
There is a second difficulty with the IPCC definition of radiative forcing, a practical problem. This is that the forcing is defined by the IPCC as being measured at the tropopause. The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere (the lowest atmospheric layer, where weather occurs), and the stratosphere above it. Unfortunately, the tropopause varies in height from the tropics to the poles, from day to night, and from summer to winter. The tropopause is a most vaguely located, vagrant, and ill-mannered creature that is neither stratosphere nor troposphere. One authority defines it as:
The boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere, where an abrupt change in lapse rate usually occurs. It is defined as the lowest level at which the lapse rate decreases to 2 °C/km or less, provided that the average lapse rate between this level and all higher levels within 2 km does not exceed 2 °C/km.
This is an interesting definition. It highlights that there can be two or more layers that look like the tropopause (little temperature change with altitude), and if there is more than one, this definition always chooses the one at the higher altitude.
In any case, the issue arises because under the IPCC definition the radiation balance is measured at the tropopause. But it is very difficult to measure the radiation, either upwelling or downwelling, at the tropopause. You can’t do it from the ground, and you can’t do it from a satellite. You have to do it from a balloon or an airplane, while taking continuous temperature measurements so you can identify the altitude of the tropopause at that particular place and time. As a result, we will never be able to measure it on a global basis.
So even if we were not already talking about an unmeasurable quantity (radiative change with stratosphere reacting and surface and tropospheric temperatures held fixed), because of practical difficulties we still wouldn’t be able to measure the radiation at the tropopause in any global, regional, or even local sense. All we have is scattered point measurements, far from enough to establish a global average.
This is very unfortunate. It means that “radiative forcing” as defined by the IPCC is not measurable for two separate reasons, one practical, the other that the definition involves an imaginary and physically impossible situation.
In my experience, this is unusual in theories of physical phenomena. I don’t know of other scientific fields that base fundamental concepts on an unmeasurable imaginary variable rather than a measurable physical variable. Climate science is already strange enough, because it studies averages rather than observations. But this definition of forcing pushes the field into unreality.
Here is the main problem. Under the IPCC’s definition, radiative forcing cannot ever be measured. This makes it impossible to falsify the central idea that the change in surface temperature is a linear function of the change in forcing. Since we cannot measure the forcing, how can that be falsified (or proven)?
It is for this reason that I use a slightly different definition of the forcing. This is the net radiative change, not at the troposphere, but at the TOA (top of atmosphere, often taken to mean 20 km for practical purposes).
And rather than some imaginary measurement after some but not all parts of the climate have reacted, I use the forcing AFTER all parts of the climate have readjusted to the change. Any measurement we can take already must include whatever readjustments of the surface and tropospheric temperatures that have taken place since the last measurement. It is this definition of “radiative forcing” that I used in my recent post, An Interim Look at Intermediate Sensitivity.
I don’t have any particular conclusions in this post, other than this is a heck of a way to run a railroad, using imaginary values that can never be measured or verified.
w.
“Why does the Porridge Bird lay his egg in the air?”
UNHAPPY MACNAM. UNHAPPY MACNAM.
(firesign theater, I Think We’re All Bozos on This Bus)
conundrum has been reduced to absurdity.
gnite.
Willis writes : “Finally, note that the situation you correctly describe, of a surface layer which is slightly cooler than the underlying layers, is thermally unstable. As a result, that layer is constantly sinking, and being replaced by warmer water from below.”
I’ll start here and…no. Below is one of my quotes from the earlier thread and can I say that I know its never easy with so many posts but if someone disagrees and provides a reference (sorry it wasn’t a link at the time though) then that deserves a look.
In the skin layer, its conduction not convection that transmits energy.
“Molecular transport is the only mechanism for the vertical diffusion of heat and momentum in the cool skin and viscous layer”
…from “Cool-skin simulation by a one-column ocean model – Chia-Ying Tu and Ben-Jei Tsuang” http://researcher.nsc.gov.tw/public/tsuang/Data/722815193371.pdf
The final mile so to speak is conduction through the viscous layer. And that makes some sort of sense because if convection were possible then there wouldn’t be a cool skin.
Ok, so for your example “This radiation is balanced by 160 W/m2 of solar energy, and 340 W/m2 of DLR.”
The way I see it is that the 160W non-IR + 340W of DLR is balanced by more than 340W of ULR such that the ULR (eg 340+some W) + sensible heat loss (eg 20W) + evaporation (eg 80W) + any residual mixed and conducted down longer term into the ocean (eg the rest) = the 500W supplied.
So the very surface is radiating all the 340W DLR (because the ocean is radiating at least this much to be cooling at the surface) and then a bit more which is being supplied from the bulk.
From your example, the “bit more” might be 59.4W because the amount of energy thought to be accumulating in the ocean is, I believe, about 0.6W. This is “the rest”. Personally I dont have a lot of faith in those figures.
So…The very surface is radiating at the same rate its being absorbed. If DLR increases, then the very surface radiates that new larger amount because despite that increase the DLR still less than the ULR.
There is no problem with energy needing to “go somewhere” in the case of more DLR. The ocean surface is always cooling. That is why its vital to keep “cooling” in mind when considering this.
This post is already too long so you can see my posts in the other thread that describe the mechanism for warming that involves changes to the SST driven from below.
One final comment though regarding overturning is… yes, overturning happens and changes in DLR leading to changes in overturning is possibly another mechanism to accumulate energy in the ocean.
Heat transfer is by conduction and convection. It is only above the tropopause where thermal radiation makes a difference.
–Ryan
As an engineer, I am very interested in thermal mechanisms that can do useful work. I’m itching to discover and develop the technology, get the patents and trade secrets locked down and get ready for the IPO that will make me even more filthy stinking rich. However, when an academic climatologist tells me about radiation effects above the troposphere, the first thing I think is: how much is the air above the troposphere different from empty space? The answer? Not much, So, this nearly empty space won’t have much interaction with radiation–like the vacuum of space, it’s a more a place where radiation passes freely than a place where much thermodynamic interchange takes place.
There is a central difference between engineering and academia. In academia (like politics), all that is needed is a complex (the more convoluted, the better) storyline…a plausible or semi-plausible path from data and theory to support the peer-reviewed paper and the grant/paycheck pipeline. The most absurd nonsense can pass through this system like grease through water fowl.
Ken Coffman: As an engineer myself I certainly agree with your points. In fact it turns out to be even more bizarre than you might think. The top of the stratosphere is much warmer than the bottom. So in reality there isn’t any real cooling at all in the atmosphere as it stands at present until you get to 50km up, when the atmosphere starts to cool in the mesosphere, Even then it doesn’t cool very fast – at the top of the mesosphere at 85km up it is still at -85Celsius so quite warm.
The real cooling is done at the thermosphere but then it becomes a bit more abstract because if you measure a temperature in the exosphere the air molecules are so far apart that the thermometer doesn’t get to meet many of them – so the molecules clearly have energy but you can’t measure it! So do you say that the top of the atmosphere is at absolute zero and take the temperature gradient from there, or do you admit there is still some energy even at the top of the atmosphere and in fact the top of the atmosphere never loses all its heat.That makes a big difference because the thermosphere can range from 350km to 800km deep.
The theory is that radiative heat transfer occurs above the tropopause, but I’m not convinced. The temperature gradient through the stratosphere is so low that you wouldn’t expect any net radiative transfer. You would still expect conduction, just at such a low level of energy that it doesn’t cause much turbulence and hence is difficult to measure. As you say, once you get to the upper levels of the atmosphere where radiative heat transfer could occur, most of it probably just flies through the atmosphere without every seeing a molecule, let alone specifically a CO2 molecule. Lets be honest, most of the visible light reflected from the Earth’s surface passes through unchecked and looks the same from the ISS as from the ground. IR cameras on weather satellites see the land, sea and top of clouds – no real sign of obscuring radiation from the upper atmosphere even from water vapour. Where is the evidence of IR from the upper atmosphere? Has anybody tried deploying an IR camera on a satellite that is tuned to look for the signal blocked by CO2? This would give us a clearer picture of what the CO2 is really doing and where, surely?
Fascinating discussion. TTTL I haven’t read your other thread comments so forgive me if I’ve mangled your logic, but if I understand you correctly you are implying that an increase in DLR (say from a doubling of CO2) will increase the ocean skin temperature and therefore ULR will increase in an offsetting manner. Correct? If this is the case then would it be fair to say that the ocean energy imbalance created by perturbing DLR would be expressed by a disequilibrium in the ocean skin vs bulk temperature differential?
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 18, 2012 at 10:23 pm
In other words, the average has nothing to do with what you fantasize it is about. Instead, it’s about the average distance from the sun. The clue is where they say “At Earth’s average distance from the sun, the average intensity …”
========================================================
No, look at the formulation again: “At Earth’s average distance from the Sun (about 150 million kilometers), the average intensity of solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere directly facing the Sun is about 1,360 watts per square meter, according to measurements made by the most recent NASA satellite missions. This amount of power is known as the total solar irradiance”.
They use the word “average” twice in the same sentence with obviously different meanings: one time it is “the average distance from the sun” and the second time it is “the average intensity of solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere directly facing the Sun”. That means that they average twice, and the second time it can be only over the whole hemisphere, directly facing the Sun, as they put it.
And again, in this formulation there is nothing that suggests any “perpendicular” thing. So, who is fantasizing here? OK, you have not made it up personally, as your link demonstrates, but it does not change the essence of that distortion.
I am sorry, but what we can see is a pattern, I am afraid:
1)To cope with the problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, “climate science” invented the “NET” thing that is not to be found in the historical formulations of the 2nd Law.
2)To somehow theoretically substantiate the experimentally unproven “warming via back radiation”, they cut the solar power in half.
3)And the last not least they calculate a so called “global temperature” without any basis in science (“extracting” temperatures for large areas from single or few weather stations, “reconstructing” temperatures etc.) and apparently even without any scientifically established definition.
I often wonder at the concept of “Fraunhofer” heaters as defined by Mosher and others. Sure, certain narrow wavelengths are blocked (actually converted from coherence to incoherence, but nevermind) as if there is a direct correlation between this “blocking” and heating. If this was an effective method of heating or insulating, it would be another miracle for engineering. Hot diggity, let’s make us some CO2-thermal insulators or stimulated CO2-thermal heaters and make the world a much more comfortable place. Academic knuckleheads don’t seem to realize how great it would be to heat something by 33C (or block this effect for cooling purpose) with a radiation-modulating machine built only from cold, thin air. It’s a good thing these guys aren’t designing iPhones…you know, things from the engineering domain that actually have to work and do useful stuff.
gnomish says:
December 19, 2012 at 12:34 am
Great link by the way
http://www.phpdoc.info/brew/boilcalc.html
You missed an important point, those equations only work inside a calorimeter. Insulated sides and top are required. But lets reverse the equation and see what happens if we remove 400 W/m2. Assuming a start temperature of 15C (a bit high).
Volume: 1 gallon
Energy: 400W
Start Temp: 0C
End Temp: 15C
Efficiency 95%
Time to Temp: 10 minutes
Yes, I know that the amount of energy leaving the system will decrease as the temperature decreases. At 4C (maximum density), the system should loose 334W/m2. Assuming that is the typical value (since the upper skin cools almost immediately to that temperature), it takes about 12 minutes to cool that much. It should actually take a bit longer to account for mechanical mixing since only the surface is able to loose heat. After 15 minutes or so, ice begins to form. Given an 8 hour night, the gallon should freeze solid .. unless there is some other source of heat to replace that lost by radiation.
To determine the amount of heat radiated at a given temperature use the SB equation. This is the page I use – just set the Albedo to zero to get an approximate value.
http://mc-computing.com/Science_Facts/Temperature_Conversions.html
Ryan says:
December 19, 2012 at 6:45 am
That’s because the monitored frequency is in the water vapor/CO2 hole. Otherwise, the ground would not be visible.
Apologies “TTTL” should have been TTTM in my comment above.
Willis:
Thanks for the link. I’ve read that Idso paper several times, but not recently; so I read it again. Willis, the paper is mainly about SENSITIVITY, and I don’t see how it addresses my question. In fact, it highlights my quandry. If the temperature sensititivity to increases in radiation is about 0.1C/Watt m-2, per the Idso paper, that would indicate that it should be MUCH, MUCH hotter in Atlanta than in Poenix, since there would be MUCH more downwelling radiation from all the water vapor in the air in Atlanta. But it is much cooler, day and night.
What I believe is going on is that the water in humid areas like Atlanta exerts a negative feedback (via evaporation and clouds) and acts as a thermostat, similar to what you see in the tropics. In fact, Idso says the following under the subtitle “Cooling the Global Greenhouse,” in the paper you linked (page 7):
“Within this context, it has been shown that a 10% increase in the amount of low-level clouds could completely cancel the typically-predicted warming of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content by reflecting more solar radiation back to space (Webster & Stephens 1984). In addition, Ramanathan & Collins (1991), by the use of their own natural experiments, have shown how
the warming-induced production of high-level clouds over the equatorial oceans totally nullifies the green-house effect of water vapor there, with high clouds dramatically increasing from close to 0% coverage at sea surface temperatures of 26°C to fully 30% coverage at 29°C (Kiehl 1994). And in describing the implications of this strong negative feedback mechanism,
Ramanathan & Collins state that ‘it would take more than an order-of-magnitude increase in atmospheric CO2 to increase the maximum sea surface temperature by a few degrees,’ which they acknowledge is a considerable departure from the predictions of most general circulation models of the atmosphere.”
If such negative feedback does, indeed, exist, then increases in any GHGs will affect only very dry areas (and in normally wet areas when they are in drought (it never goes above 100 F in humid areas like Atlanta, unless it is extremely dry).
IOW, we probably cannot affect the temperature much by adding GHGs…
Mr. Clemenzi:
“You missed an important point, those equations only work inside a calorimeter. Insulated sides and top are required.”
I didn’t miss that but it wasn’t the point at all.
The point was 400W/sq.m. radiation is being claimed.
IF 400W is being radiated, then it can be used to power a half horsepower generator,
if that isn’t the case, then watts up with that?
the answer is, logically, that there is no 400W of radiated power.
Don’t tell me that radiation can’t be concentrated by a reflector, please.
the only radiation that can not be concentrated by a reflector is nonexistent.
That’s the conundrum reduced to absurdity.
please feel free to address that point.
gnomish says:
December 19, 2012 at 11:12 am
I swear, to you guys, theory is far more important than measurements.
There is, in fact, something on the order of 400 W/m2 being emitted by everything around the planet that is at around 20°C. You can measure it. You can look through night-vision glasses and see it. People have measured it around the world. Stefan-Boltzmann studied it at great length.
And you want to stand there and say it doesn’t fit your theories, so it can’t be happening.
A much more valuable question for you would be, what’s wrong with my theories, which obviously and blatantly disagree with observations? Because trying to claim that an object at around 20°C is NOT radiating around 400 W/m2, well, that’s flying in the face of centuries of evidence.
w.
gnomish says:
December 19, 2012 at 12:34 am
No, that’s not what “those instruments are saying”. Instruments don’t deal with theories about parabolic mirrors. That is what your flawed understanding is saying.
Since the energy source is at ~ 20°C, how do you plan to make heat flow uphill to water at ~ 100°C?
Yes, the energy source is radiating at 400 W/m2 … but let’s say the water starts out at 20°C like your energy source. The water (and the pot it is in) are both radiating at 400 W/m2 just like the energy source.
So how much heat is going to flow?
If you said “None, Willis”, then you are following the story.
The problem is, radiation at 400 W/m2 won’t warm something radiating at 400 W/m2.
Gnomish, when I come up with something that seems impossible, that seems to contradict the laws of nature, the first place I look for a problem is in my own understanding. It is by far the most likely explanation.
In this case, you seem to have forgotten that if water is at 20°C, it is constantly losing energy at the rate of 400 W/m2. If you put it next to something radiating 400 W/m2, all that does is break even. It keeps the water from cooling. But it will never boil it.
Look up or think about the difference between energy and heat. Heat is net energy flow. The water at 20°C is radiating at 400 W/m2, and the heat source is radiating the same. So while there is a constant exchange of energy between the two objects, there is no flow of heat.
For example, if the pot of water started out frozen, then there would be much less radiation leaving the pot of water, only about 315 W/m2. In that case, putting it by my desk (at 20°C) will definitely warm it by radiation. Why? Because the net heat flow starts out at about 400 – 315 = 85 W/m2, so it warms the water. But it can never warm it to above 20°C, at that point the energy going each way is equal, so there is no net heat flow.
You need to distinguish between a flow of energy and a flow of heat. They are very different creatures.
All the best,
w.
gnomish says:
December 19, 2012 at 11:12 am
“the only radiation that can not be concentrated by a reflector is nonexistent.”
Try that with diffuse radiation.
so when are watts not heat? are you channeling myrhh now?
are radiant watts going to refuse to flow when directed?
everything you said re checking the premises when logic contradicts them is valid.
try it, then.
forget about parabolic mirrors which are used all the time to focus radiant energy- that’s just one of those immutable facts that passes every empirical test.
talk to my CO2 laser that burns the neighbor’s ants 10 meters away.
it’s your theory that must be made to fit that reality.
something is obviously and absurdly wrong with your theory.
otherwise, show me how to boil water with your magic desk.
gotta tell you, too- my microwave oven doesn’t need to be 100C to boil water.
reconcile that with your theory if you can.
there are no downhill watts, willis.
watts don’t have varying potentials.
watts don’t have to climb up hills.
watts is watts. that measure converts directly to joules/s, calories/s, btu/s
but it does not convert to temperature, willis.
gnomish says:
December 19, 2012 at 12:31 pm
“watts is watts. that measure converts directly to joules/s, calories/s, btu/s
but it does not convert to temperature, willis.”
It does:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law
LL writes “if I understand you correctly you are implying that an increase in DLR (say from a doubling of CO2) will increase the ocean skin temperature and therefore ULR will increase in an offsetting manner.”
Yes, the ocean skin temperature, the SST, is set by the waters just below the surface. If DLR is higher then the “compensating” ULR as you put it is also higher and the energy required from below is less. The top of the ocean (the “hook”) accumulates energy (ie warms up) until the SST has increased to the point where S-B is again satisfied for equilibrium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp_fig2.i.jpg
So to warm the ocean from increased DLR, it is the SST driven by the hook temperature that is a little higher and then it would indeed be fair to say
“If this is the case then would it be fair to say that the ocean energy imbalance created by perturbing DLR would be expressed by a disequilibrium in the ocean skin vs bulk temperature differential?”
So specifically to change the SST by changing the DLR means the temperature gradient in the skin changes as a result of changes in conduction. ie for more DLR, conduction reduces and the gradient reduces. But once the new equilibrium is established the temperature gradient in the skin changes back to what it was because that reflects the gradient required to radiate the incoming solar energy + sensible + latent heats.
At RC they suggested the change in this temperature gradient would be permanent less energy leaves the ocean and the ocean accumulates energy and thats how AGW warms the ocean. They are wrong. IMO this (ocean energy accumulation) is the most important process for AGW and so it’d be nice if they understood it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
“Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature.”
LL writes “if I understand you correctly you are implying that an increase in DLR (say from a doubling of CO2) will increase the ocean skin temperature and therefore ULR will increase in an offsetting manner.”
Actually a slight alteration to my previous pos for clarificationt, its not the *temperature* that changes in the ocean skin due to the increased DLR. Not directly anyway. But the energies for ULR and from conduction through the skin change and the resulting hook changes alter the skin temperature
gnomish says:
December 19, 2012 at 11:12 am
It is easy to concentrate energy from a point source using a mirror or lens. However, DWIR is coming from a diffuse source (everywhere). As a result, it is difficult, but not impossible, to concentrate that energy with a mirror. Several papers claim 2x to 4x increases. For example,
http://optoelectronics.eecs.berkeley.edu/ey1990sem2123.pdf
It seems logical that a reverse design could cool things (freeze water).
However, that does not change the fact that the calculator you are using computes the time for 400 W/m2 greater than what the surface is emitting. That is why the calorimeter is important. In that case, the water is not loosing any radiation. In the case of the oceans, you have to account for and replace the additional losses.
TimTheToolMan says:
December 19, 2012 at 1:51 pm
LL writes “if I understand you correctly you are implying that an increase in DLR (say from a doubling of CO2) will increase the ocean skin temperature and therefore ULR will increase in an offsetting manner.”
Yes, the ocean skin temperature, the SST, is set by the waters just below the surface. If DLR is higher then the “compensating” ULR as you put it is also higher and the energy required from below is less. The top of the ocean (the “hook”) accumulates energy (ie warms up) until the SST has increased to the point where S-B is again satisfied for equilibrium…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How can that happen when Infra-red wavelengths do not penetrate the ocean beyond a few microns and also have very little actual energy? graph
The downward long wave infrared radiation from the atmosphere has a lot of low energy spread over a large number of wavelengths and can not penetrate deeper than a fraction of a millimeter (10 micrometers). This is much less than the boundary layer where evaporation takes place (500 microns), and that is the only thing the DLR infrared radiation can do; help to evaporate water. This is a close up graph
The wavelengths of CO2 are between 13.5 and 16.5 microns, and penetrates only 5 to 10 microns deep. That is a very loose translation of the information from this site in Dutch.
The other missing piece is the amount of energy you are talking about when speaking of the earth’s black/grey body radiation. It is miniscule at each wavelength compared to the sun graph
Yes the CO2 down radiation can warm the ocean but so does a little boy who isn’t potty trained and I am not sure who actually has the most influence.
Gail writes “How can that happen when Infra-red wavelengths do not penetrate the ocean beyond a few microns and also have very little actual energy?”
You need to read the rest of my posts Gail. DLR doesn’t directly increase the energy of the ocean, DLR is absorbed into that top 10um and radiated again at the same rate. You’re right in that it does not and cannot enter the bulk of the ocean as “energy input”
Ryan says:
December 19, 2012 at 1:00 am
“This 400W/sqm concept is what is causing the problem. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only flow from a hot object to a colder object.”
Ryan, refrigeration flows the heat from a cold object to a hotter sink. Indeed it makes the condensing coils even hotter! Mind you, it requires energy input to do it. And of course, the “heat” from your frozen pork chops is “used” to effect a phase change in the refrigerant. Remember, heat is not a synonym for temperature. Don’t be sloppy with the 2nd law.