Forcing The Ocean To Confess

Kristian says:
June 19, 2013 at 5:57 am
Thanks, Kristian. I will join the others who say your understanding of physics is flawed. Let me see if I can point out exactly where. You start by saying:

It’s important to note that ‘downwelling energy’ to Earth’s surface from above does and can not ‘heat’ the surface unless it comes down as … heat. So, what radiative flux comes down to the surface from above as heat? The solar flux. What about the alleged atmospheric radiative flux? It is not a heat flux.

Neither the solar flux, nor the downwelling longwave radiation (DLR) from the atmosphere, nor the upwelling longwave radiation (ULR) from the surface, is a flow of heat. They are all flows of energy. Heat, on the other hand, is a NET energy flow.
It is easier to understand if I show it in terms of money. Here are two views of the same transaction:

In the upper panel, we see the entire transaction. I give you a hundred dollars, and you give me seventy-five dollars. There is a two-way flow of money.
In the lower panel, we see the NET effect of the two individual transactions—I give you twenty-five dollars. There is a one-way flow of NET money.
Note that both of these views are entirely true and correct. They’re just different ways of looking at the two transactions.
The exact same situation exists with longwave radiation, if you consider the actual exchanges of money in the illustration as actual exchanges of energy, and the net money flow as the flow of heat.
Suppose we have 75 W/m2 of downwelling longwave radiant ENERGY (not heat) striking a planetary surface, and an upwelling longwave radiant energy of 100 W/m2. As in the illustration above, the NET heat flow is 25 W/m2 and is in one direction, from warm to cool. But the physical reality, what actually happens, is just like with the money—75 W/m2 of energy is actually flowing from atmosphere to surface, and 100 W/m2 of energy is actually flowing the other way, with a NET heat flow of 25 W/m2 going in only one direction, upwards from warm to cool.
Next, there have been thousands of electrons that died unnecessarily from folks arguing whether the downwelling radiant energy “warms” the surface. To avoid that semantic difficulty, I put it this way:
The surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of downwelling longwave radiation, by the amount of energy absorbed.
If you go back to the illustration of money, it’s like arguing about whether I’m “richer” (= “warmer”) because you pay me the $75. I don’t end up “richer”, I end up with less money than when I started. But I can put it the same way:
My wallet is fatter than it would be in the absence of the money coming from you, by the amount of money I get.
So in terms of radiation, while a cold object cannot warm a warmer object, it can slow the cooling rate by the exact amount of the back-radiation.

There is NO radiative heat coming down from the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth.

There is no such thing as “radiative heat”. It doesn’t exist. In radiative terms, heat is a NET energy flow, not a single flow of energy. There is definitely radiative energy coming down from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth, and if there weren’t, the earth would be much colder. You can call that “warming the earth” or not as you desire, the end result is that the earth ends up warmer because of the downwelling radiative energy than it would be if it weren’t there.

People need to understand and remember these most elementary thermodynamic concepts …

Always a dangerous and hubristic claim, my friend …
w.

agfosterjr says:
June 19, 2013 at 11:08 am

During the day coelacanths rest in caves as much as 5°C warmer than ambient water. This suggests that their physiology is still adapted to some extent to the Devonian surface temperature at which their vestigal lung evolved, while for survival these slow, energy efficient swimmers feed in cold, deep water. But the question arises, why are these caves warm? Possible contributing factors include: 1) ground heat, which would produce some 70mW/m^2 on much of the cave surface; 2) communal coelacanth body heat; 3) relict heat from occasional episodes of warm saline water flowing from the Red Sea or Persian Gulf.
At any rate there certainly exist mechanisms for transporting surface heat downward, including both tide turbulence at all depths and downwelling warm saline water. –AGF

Thanks, ag. I spent a reasonable chunk of my life as a commercial fishermen, and I’d never heard that. Sadly, you gave no link, but here’s one in return. I found out some interesting things about coelacanths.
No known predators. Eats less than any other known vertebrate. Slowest metabolism of any known vertebrate. Longest gestation period (3 years) of any known vertebrate. Basically they seem to drift around motionless, conserving energy, and wait for food to swim by.
Curiously, that link doesn’t mention warm caves, although it talks about caves. And it appears to contradict your claim, saying (emphasis mine):

Recruitment into the population of new coelacanths is extremely low but enough to match that of those dying so that the population does not fade.
The exception to the typically low death rates was seen in 1994. In this year the number in Comores population dropped by 32%. In this same year, Fricke also noted that the temperature of the deep water was the highest he had measured. Because of their respiratory and metabolic demands, coelacanths must avoid warm water.

Seems doubtful, given all of that, that they’d preferentially sleep where it’s warm. Unlike most creatures, they’re going for slow, not for fast. The warmer they are in their sleep, the more energy they burn, and the more they have to go out hunting …
Always more marvels in this amazing world … thanks for reminding me of an astonishing fish.
w.

Ximinyr says:
June 19, 2013 at 6:45 pm

and, your methodology is flawed.
you aren’t calculating the trend of OHC, you are calculating the trend of the derivative of OHC. that is a very different thing.

Oh, stop with the jerkwagon pronouncements. I am indeed calculating the trend of the OHC. I have also calculated the trend of the annual forcing necessary to produce the trend in the OHC. Neither one is significant.

a proper calculation of the linear trend of OHC for the 0-2000 region gives 0.27 plusmn 0.01 (1-sigma, no autocorrelation, entire Earth area). autocorrelation will increase sigma by a factor of sqrt((n_eff-2)/(n-2)), where n_eff can be calculated by your Nychka method. that’s a factor of (i’m guessing; i haven’t calculated the lag-1 correlation coefficient) 3 or so, but it’s certainly far less than 27/2, which means the trend in OHC is easily statistically signficant at the 2-sigma level.

I see. You haven’t done the work yet, you haven’t said which dataset you’re using (pentadal? quarterly? annual?), but you’re here to tell me I’m wrong? That’s hilarious, X, you don’t mind if I call you X, do you?
Around these parts it’s considered good form to provide links. Links to the dataset you are using. Links to the spreadsheet where you did your calculations. In other words, you’ve been asked several times to show your work.
You have not done the slightest thing to comply. Instead, you inform us that you haven’t even done the calculations, but you know the answer …
I’ve tried to assist you. You’ve paid no attention. Now I’m stopping. Please direct any further comments to someone else, this is bad for my blood pressure.
The rest you have to do on your own. Here’s a protip: repeating your claim once again about the slope, once again without showing your work, once again without citation or explanation, will get you no traction around here. That don’t impress anyone much.
w.