Guest essay by Mike Jonas
“so much to say…so little time.” – Roy Spencer
I have at last found the time for the next step in my Sun-Cloud-Ocean calculations. But first, I would like to thank everyone who commented on my previous article. Some are addressed directly below, and all comments (well, most) were useful. You found, or helped me to find, a number of important errors and new lines of thought. As I said last time “If I’ve stuffed up, I want to know that right away, so please get a critical comment in asap.“. The same applies this time!
[For those not familiar with some of the abbreviations used, there is a list of abbreviations at the end of this article, along with data and code files].
Table of Contents:
1. Preamble
2. Quick Summary
3. Summary
3.1 Energy balance
3.2 Evaporation
3.3 IR vs solar radiation
4. Method
4.1 Input Data
4.2 The Matching Process
5. Absorption changes from last time
Abbreviations
1. Preamble
In an earlier article, I expressed the opinion that Infra-Red radiation (IR), eg. as from Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), did not warm the ocean as effectively as the wavelengths of direct solar radiation which penetrated into the ocean (ITO): “The GHG process involves only IR, which cannot penetrate the ocean more than a fraction of a millimetre, where its energy goes mainly into evaporation. ie, the energy goes straight back into the atmosphere.” and “The ITO warms the ocean well below the surface with little direct effect on the atmosphere.”.
Some time after my last article was published, I realised that Nick Stokes’ (NS) diagram (Figure 2) provided an opportunity to test my statement. If I could reproduce the diagram from first principles – ie. reverse engineer it – then I would have the means to calculate whether IR and direct solar radiation did indeed differ in their effect, and if so by how much.
It took me a long time, but I have completed (to my satisfaction) the reverse engineering, using a notional “average” patch of ocean over one 24-hour day without upwelling. The comparisons for IR and direct solar radiation were then very simple. The results are summarised below, and then the whole process is described in more detail.
There is one important caveat. The results can only be as good as the assumptions that went into them. The ocean surface is a pretty volatile place, and everything is necessarily some kind of approximation. It is possible that changed assumptions could give significantly different results.
2. Quick Summary
· With no upwelling, nearly a third of all input radiation remains in the ocean at the end of the day. It is not all lost on the same day.
· Results do support the idea that a proportion of inward IR is immediately lost in evaporation, but the proportion comes out at about 17% rather than “mainly”.
· IR and solar radiation do differ in their ability to warm the ocean. A Watt of direct solar radiation is nearly 50% more effective at warming the ocean than a Watt of IR.
· Retained energy can build up for later upwelling, eg. with El Niño, AMO or PDO, or for transport towards the poles.
· Results suggest that from 1983-2009, cloud changes were responsible for a bit over 90% (90.6%) of global warming, man-made CO2 for less than 10% (9.4%).
My take: Changes to direct solar radiation as caused by changes in cloud cover are much more important than changes to back radiation as caused by man-made GHGs. Solar energy is always being stored in the ocean, and it is reasonable to suppose that this energy is the key to Earth’s climate, as also evidenced by the global climate (= atmospheric temperature) changes that result from warming/cooling phases of ENSO, AMO, PDO, etc. Upwelling would seem to be a (or the?) major mechanism by which the stored energy is delivered from the ocean to the atmosphere. We have to understand the ocean if we want to understand climate.
3. Summary
3.1 Energy balance
The Kiehl and Trenberth (K&T) energy balance (Figure 1) that I use for some of the input information is useful and informative, but it conceals as much information as it reveals. It shows a perfect energy balance, but it shows nothing of the different timescales involved. Looking at K&T it would be easy to suppose that the energy coming in during a day also goes out – as is shown, for example, in the diagrams that Nick Stokes presented (Figure 2).
In fact, much of the energy from solar radiation remains in the ocean at the end of the day. This is the heat which builds up and is transported poleward or is later released by an El Niño or by the AMO or PDO, etc. In the “average” patch of ocean, 168 Wm-2 of direct solar radiation and 324 Wm-2 of back radiation enter the ocean, and if there is no upwelling then 160 Wm-2 stays there – only 332 Wm-2 escapes to the atmosphere. The actual numbers may be surprising, but the concept should not be. We all know that the ocean transports heat from the tropics towards the poles, and that the ocean oscillations release heat that has built up in the ocean over a period of time. Heat cannot build up if it is not being retained in the first place. An implication is that much of the energy shown by K&T escaping from the ocean has been there for quite a long time – it does not all escape on the day it came in, it does not escape at a steady rate, and it is not released uniformly across the oceans. By implication, over short periods or even up to a few decades, atmospheric temperature may bear little or no relationship to the global temperature.
3.2 Evaporation
In the calculations, I test the possibility that some of the inward IR gets lost in evaporation by, for example, exciting water molecules at the surface so that they escape into the atmosphere. There is an obvious limit to how much can get lost in this way, because less than half of the excited molecules would go in the right direction. I don’t put any restriction on the parameterisation for this, so the reverse engineering is free to settle on any percentage.
For the balance of thermals and evaporation, I assume that the rate varies linearly with temperature. In the real world, other factors such as wind speed are important, so there is an implicit assumption that these other factors remain unchanged. Given that we are working with a notional “average” patch of ocean over a single day, that should not be an issue.
Results suggest that about 17% of the energy from inward radiation that does not get past the top 10µm goes straight into evaporation (see parameter ‘v’ in worksheet parms). This evaporation is not temperature dependent. Results also indicate that my earlier assertion that IR’s energy “goes mainly into evaporation” is incorrect : partly, yes, but “mainly”, no (Roy Spencer will be pleased, I think).
3.3 IR vs solar radiation
IR and solar radiation do indeed differ in their ability to warm the ocean. Looked at in isolation, a Watt of direct solar radiation is nearly 50% more effective at warming the ocean than a Watt of IR.
I had expected a difference, but I had thought that the ratio would be higher. The result also shows the reason for the lower ratio: the mechanism is not what I had expected. The major factor is the temperature gradient near the ocean surface – IR isn’t fully effective at slowing the flow of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.
In the previous article, I estimated that man-made CO2 contributed only 9% or less of the global warming over the 1983-2009 period. There were some errors in that article, addressed below. The corrected figures for the 19983-2009 period are +0.65 Wm-2 for man-made CO2, and +4.5 Wm-2 for direct solar radiation (all direct solar radiation, not just ITO). The CO2 figure is much higher than before, as explained below, and the direct solar figure is a bit lower. With the results from the NS reverse engineering, the man-made CO2 contribution to 1983-2009 global warming came out at about 9.4%, but the calculation has changed as described below.
If Dr. Antero Ollila is correct, then the figure for CO2 1983-2009 would be +0.38 Wm-2, not +0.65 Wm-2, giving a lower contribution (only 5.7%) from CO2.
3.4. Energy Accumulation
The results for different SSTs (see worksheet parms in spreadsheet OceanDiurnal.xlsx) are so similar, that the notion that absorbed solar energy at depth can build up over a long period is supported. [NB. Just ‘supported’, not proven. In interpretation of the figures, be aware of how they were calculated.]. The fact that ocean temperature just below the surface is higher than at depth means that the only way that energy at depth can escape to the atmosphere is by convection, ie. by mixing or by upwelling.
The ~118 Wm-2 retained from 10m to 100m depth is enough to warm that ocean band by nearly 10 deg C in a year (see the Heat content calculator in worksheet FluxDescr in spreadsheet OceanDiurnal.xlsx). Obviously the heat wouldn’t necessarily be retained for a whole year, but this shows that significant heat build-up is possible.
Note: After writing everything up, I have noticed that the ‘Thermals and evapotranspiration’, at 104 Wm-2, is higher than K&T’s 102 Wm-2. It should if anything be a bit lower, which suggests that I should have used a slightly higher SST. Maybe 19 deg C instead of the 18 deg C that I used. The results would change slightly, but the overall pattern and conclusions would remain unchanged. Percentage of inward IR lost to immediate evaporation would come down from 18% to 17%. I have changed the text above to use the lower number.
4. Method
The aim was to reproduce the Day & Night temperature profiles in the NS diagrams using the K&T energy budget figures, and using solar and absorption data as presented in the previous article.
The spreadsheet, OceanDiurnal.xlsx, models the upper ocean bands of a notional “average” patch of ocean in 20-second steps over one 24-hour day. Data for all inputs of energy is used unchanged, but data for outputs is used as a guide only with variable parameters. The parameters were then optimised to find the combination of inputs and outputs, together with the energy flows within the ocean, which matched both the Day and the Night NS temperature profiles in a single daily cycle.
It is all explained in spreadsheet OceanDiurnal.xlsx, worksheet FluxDescr, so I won’t repeat the details here. You can play with the figures in the spreadsheet, of course, but to run new optimisations you will need an external optimiser. You can verify that the result is correctly optimised by changing the ‘optimised’ parameters in worksheet parms.
4.1 Input Data
K&T data is taken from:
Figure 1. Global annual average energy budget, from here).
The data that the reverse engineering is trying to match is taken from the NS diagram:
Figure 2. The diurnal (day-night) cycle in the top few metres of the ocean. From Nick Stokes’ blog Moyhu. NB. The two panels have different scales on the x-axes (that’s not an issue at all, just be careful to see the panels correctly).
The part of the NS diagrams that I am trying to match is the top part, ie. below 1m. If you look closely at the diagrams you will see that the vertical axis is vague (“5-10m”), and that it is not accurately to scale. On a true log scale, using 10m for the last point, it looks like this:
Figure 3. Data from the NS ‘Day’ diagram. Y axis is ocean band number. “-1” is surface, 0 is to 1µm, 1 is to 10µm, then increase by a factor of 10 per band to: band 7 is to 10m. Bands 8 to 100m and 9 >100m are not covered in the NS diagrams. In the spreadsheet, band 1 is surface to 10µm.
I also use absorption data as reported on last time, but with corrections (see 5. below) and with the IR wavelengths that are missing from SORCE data estimated to match the K&T data. See spreadsheet OceanDiurnal.xlsx worksheet Absorption.
4.2 The MatchingProcess
Bands 1, 2 (10µm, 0.1mm) are very thin, and a large amount of energy goes into and out of them with very small residuals, so calculating their temperature accurately is not practical. I therefore tie bands 1 and 2 to band 3 (1mm) for optimising purposes, using temperature differences from band 3 to match the NS diagram. The adjustments needed are small, averaging a lot less than 0.01 Wm-2. I then optimise for just band 3.
The resulting match looked like this:
Figure 4. The match to NS Data obtained by the reverse engineering process.
The match at band 3 is accurate, but any attempt to match the deeper bands exactly failed because the entire profile is effectively dictated by band 3. Put simply, if energy flows more between bands – conduction radiation or mixing – then band 3 cannot get up to its daytime temperature in the NS diagram. If they flow less then the heat can’t get out fast enough at night.
5. Absorption changes from last time
This para refers to assumptions and calculations in the previous post. The changes listed here were made in the absorption spreadsheet from last time. The results as used are shown in worksheet Absorption of spreadsheet OceanDiurnal.xlsx.
Changes were:
· Previously, I effectively ignored energy entering the ocean at depths beyond 10m. This energy is undoubtedly added to the system, so this time I account for it. Note that this energy cannot be released into the atmosphere by conduction or radiation because the higher ocean layers are warmer, so it is actually likely to accumulate in the system for longer than energy from other wavelengths. The ocean thermocline is typically well below 100m, so is not an issue.
· A bad arithmetic error in a RF calculation, pointed out by commenter Donald L. Klipstein was corrected. Thanks, Donald, much appreciated.
· Error corrected: Different units were used for CO2 (Wm-2 actual) and ITO (ocean Wm-2 global equivalent).
· A more subtle logical error was corrected: Last time, I left out non-ITO wavelengths when estimating the proportions of warming from CO2 and ITO, because I argued that it’s the ITO wavelengths that drive multi-decadal global temperature. But CO2 operates via non-ITO wavelengths, so I should have included those wavelengths from the sun too, for correct comparison.
· For 1983-2009, I previously used solar and cloud data averaged over all the ocean. This time, I calculated them in 5-degree latitude bands in order to get a more accurate weighted trend 1983-2009. The end result was a slightly smaller trend in cloud effect over the period.
The latest results show that IR is not as effective, Watt for Watt, as direct solar radiation at warming the ocean. This is now taken into account, too.
One of my statements (“I use SORCE data for 2003. All years are almost identical.”) was challenged by Bob Weber (“All years are not ‘almost identical’ in solar activity …”). I do agree that over extended periods all years are not ‘almost identical’, but the years covered in the SORCE data, 2003-2016, were almost identical:
Figure 5. Composition of solar radiation by wavelength, from SORCE. 14 separate curves are plotted, for the 14 years 2003-2016. They are all almost exactly the same, apart from gaps where data is missing..
Bob also asked ‘A practical question’: “how long does it take for varying solar energy deposited at depth to resurface?”. The question goes to climate’s absolute core. The results reported here show that a lot of energy is deposited. I argue that the upwelling timescale is variable. In an earlier post, I said the time taken “could be days or months (eg, it might up-well quite quickly), it could be years (eg, waiting to be scooped up in an El Nino), it could be decades (eg, accumulating until an ocean oscillation such as the AMO or PDO brings it to the surface), or it could even be many centuries (eg, taken down into the deep ocean by the THC).”.
I will try to reply to Leif Svalgaard’s comments (eg. here, here) in a later post.
Abbreviations
AMO – Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
C – Celsius or Centigrade
CO2 – Carbon Dioxide
GHG – GreenHouse Gas
IR – Infra-Red radiation
ITO – Into The Ocean [Band of Wavelengths approx 200nm to 1000nm]
K&T – Kiehl and Trenberth
NS – Nick Stokes
PDO – Pacific Decadal Oscillation
RF – Radiative Forcing
SORCE – Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment
SST – Sea Surface Temperature
THC – ThermoHaline Circulation
Wm-2 or W/m2 – Watts per square metre
Attachments (data and code)
· The calculations reported here are in spreadsheet OceanDiurnal.xlsx. The spreadsheet also contains a guide to the calculations, see worksheet FluxDescr.
· Spreadsheet DifferenceSummary.xlsx shows the differences referenced in 3.3 below.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I vaguely remembered reading about ocean temperatures, and that there were layers of different temperatures. So I looked up a graph,
http://www.villasmunta.it/oceanografia/the_three.htm
and found that there is indeed a fairly homogeneous top layer, called the mixed layer, that has a fairly constant temperature down to about 1500 feet, in the middle latitudes. This mixed layer has a varying thickness, based upon the latitude where the measurement is taken. In what seems to be counter-intuitive, higher latitudes have a deeper mixed layer (I would have assumed the equator would have the deepest layer, because it receives more direct sunlight).
Since there is such a difference, depending upon latitude, it would seem that any discussion of ocean warming should include a mechanism for differentiating between the various latitudes, as well as some mechanism for the mixed layer going deeper in the higher latitudes.
Not since a certain group got banned from this site, and any mention of them forbidden, have I seen this much decent argument. Many on this thread don’t know what thermodynamics says, nor do they know the definition of HEAT but we are arguing science not politics and that is a good thing. I would link to some cogent explanations of some of these items, but then I would be breaking the site policy.
So, all I can say is carry on.
I will say that the IPCC (and others) claim that if any radiation from a cold upper atmosphere travels down to the surface of the earth, then it will heat the surface. I tried an experiment to show that once back when I smoked cigarettes. I lit a match and put it in front of a mirror and then placed another mirror behind it. The heat generated burned down the house. Darn did the insurance company have trouble understanding my story. (note: some exaggeration and snark may be involved in the telling of that story)
Oh, and one should know the precise definition of heat before making up too many thought experiments.
“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon. If we consider the hot block of copper as a system and the cold water in the beaker as another system, we recognize that originally neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy, of course.) When the copper is placed in the water and the two are in thermal communication, heat is transferred from the copper to the water, until equilibrium of temperature is established. At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference. Neither of the systems contains any heat at the conclusion of the process. It also follows that heat is identified at the boundaries of the system, for heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.” ~~~ from G. J. V. Wylen, Thermodynamics
To the author of the article
Thanks for the article. It started a thread that needs to happen here much more often than it does. You really brightened up my Sunday afternoon: and at my age and health that is most welcome. “You done good kid”
+1
“Not since a certain group got banned from this site, and any mention of them forbidden”
It’s not often that I end up confusing myself, so can someone PLEASE help me now, I clearly am in way way over my head right now..
Is this the blog for the Judean Peoples Popular Front OR The People’s Front of Judea ?
Heat doesn’t transfer from hot to cold in the deep ocean because the energy of convection is greater than the energy transferring through conduction or radiation. Thus the deep ocean is colder than adjacent layers that should be transferring their warmer energy towards IE warm water floats better than energy transfers from hot to cold.
The atmosphere is warmest at the bottom but is also aided by convection. I just hope people know that ALL air cools by radiation. It isn’t just CO2 or H2O radiating. Its every element,, compound,, (isotope or aerosol) in the atmosphere back radiating and out radiating, Radiation is a cooling process not a heating process. The emptiness of space has drained all the radiation of vast amounts of stars over vast amounts of time and we have trouble believing that it can maintain energy ballance on our wimpy planet. CO2 is like a pebble thrown in the Mississippi.
++++
This is going off on a slightly related tangent. Consider 2 bald men outdoors on a cold night. One is wearing a toque, while the other is not. We’ll get back to them later.
The assumption seems to be a constant ocean area. The exposed surface area of the Arctic actually varies, due to changing amount of ice pack area. Let’s consider 2 scenarios;
1) Ice-covered ocean with surface temperature of -23°C = 250°K
2) Open, salty, Arctic water with surface temperature of -3°C = 270°K (I did say salty water).
Plugging the numbers into the Stefan-Boltzmann law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law we get radiated energy of approximately 221 watts per square metre in scenario 1) and 301 watts per square metre in scenario 2)
That’s a difference of 80 watts per square metre == 80 megawatts per square kilometre. Given a situation where we’re approximately a million square km below average, that’s an extra 80 terawatts being radiated from the ocean surface, The open Arctic Ocean is the bald man without a toque, and the ice-covered ocean is the bald man with a toque.
* yes, ice has a higher albedo than open water, but
* even in summer, solar radiation comes in at a low angle, easy to reflect
* for a significant part of the year, there is no sunlight to absorb
* water vapour (H2O) is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2). In the tropics and subtropics, H2O vapour pressure is a lot higher than in polar regions. Therefore a higher percentage of the radiated energy would escape from polar seas.
– Maybe Dr. Trenberth is looking in the wrong direction. maybe his “missing heat” has gone up to be lost in space, rather than down into the oceans.
– Arctic Ocean ice cover may be a negative feedback for climate
It would be interesting to see a model (bleagh) of what happens if we magically melt the entire Arctic Ocean ice pack. How long would it take to re-form?
Yes. Ice loss carries into Fall. That which was gained through lower albedo may be lost without ice on it. Thinner ice all year round, is going to send more towards the TOA. This is what Karl has been counting. Warmth going to the TOA. If we were going into the glacial, the ice would expand and thicken, retaining warmth.
The Arctic had a below average maximum winter extent this year, but is melting unusually slowly, thanks to the colder than normal SST there. Basically, the ice that didn’t form where it often does naturally didn’t melt. This was explained to Griff when he said that a new record low summer minimum this year was a “sure” thing, because of the lower maximum.
That could still happen, but, as always, it will take one or two August Arctic cyclones for it to happen. Arctic sea ice is bottoming, unless a new record lower than 2012 is set due to WX events.
Heat is work is energy. Thermals perform work on the atmosphere be they dry or moist. This is the nature of the troposphere..a type of heat engine where the energy flux is from surface to tropopause. Dry air movement is adiabatic which means heat transfer is based solely on movement of water vapor.
Using precipitation rates is a good rough metric on latent heat mode of surface heat loss but it misses virga effects.
Dry air movement is adiabatic which means heat transfer is based solely on movement of water vapor. Not true whatsoever. How about albedo (at all wavelengths including infrared? Deserts stay hot overnight because their energy loss depended on water? Radiation is always the key ingredient in cooling not water vapour movement. The water moves upward as an effect of heat but gains and loses its heat via radiation.
… which means that heat transfer is based solely on movement of water vapor.
Have you been in the desert at night so you can report how hot.
Simple, when the sun goes down in the desert, the temperature will drop very quickly.
There is no (or very little water vapor) and the idea that there is enough CO2, forget it.
Go to the desert after the sun goes down and bring a jacket and a long pair of pants.
“When passing from land to water, this will see all of the available heat energy taken up by water if the temperature of the air mass exceeds that of water (Morton, 1983, 1986), with the temperature of the overpassing air mass reaching equilibrium with the water beneath within a very short time.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/31/a-ground-breaking-new-paper-putting-climate-models-to-the-test-yields-an-unexpected-result-steps-and-pauses-in-the-climate-signal/
Say there was a wind from the West 10 miles off the Coast of Maine on a hot Spring day. They are saying the temperature just above the surface is about the SST. Where did that 80 F air temperature from the land go? Does heat have a preference to go up towards the TOA over a cooler ocean but not so much over warm land.
Let change things around. A cool air mass over a warm ocean. The cool air mass warms to about the SST. Joules went from water to atmosphere. The temperature and humidity of the air mass heavily influences the flow of joules given a static SST.
Take an industrial cooling pond that is cylindrical and flat. Given a constant input of 95 C water, do more joules transfer to the atmosphere when the atmospheric temperature is 30 C or 5 C? The atmosphere can negative cool the water.
Ragnaar
This (cooler air over a warmer open ocean) IS what happens over the Arctic (and Antarctic) oceans when the sea ice is “below average” for that location. MORE heat LOSS from the exposed Arctic Ocean over 7 months of the year when sea ice declines! It does NOT happen in more temperate climes except for short periods during unusual storms and cold fronts.
Mike, thanks for the post. However, there is a very large problem with what you say, viz:
I’m sorry, but this is simply not true. Downwelling IR is about 340 W/m2. Evaporation is about 80 W/m2. Even if we were to wrongly assume that 100% of evaporation is from IR, that is still less than a quarter of the energy going into evaporation … which is far from your claim that the IR goes “mainly” into evaporation.
And of course, strong sunlight in the tropics, plus thunderstorms, are causing a large amount of the evaporation. And even in the temperate zones, the dew doesn’t come off of the grass until the sun comes up.
So a conservative estimate might be that half of the evaporation is from IR and half from sunlight. That means 40 W/m2 of the 340 W/m2 of IR goes into evaporation. This means that only about 10% of the IR is going into evaporation.
Given that you are starting from a demonstrably very false premise, I fear that you need to reconsider your entire argument.
Regards,
w.
Willis
The vast bulk of the kinetic energy at the surface over and above that derived from continuing insolation is derived from the adiabatic warming of descending air columns around the globe
The readings of IR sensors have been misinterpreted. They simply record the temperature of radiative material at the height along the lapse rate slope that optical opacity triggers the sensor.
In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth’s surface is around 52 to 55% IR, 42 to 43% visible and only 3 to 5% UV. At the top of the atmosphere, it’s about 30% more intense than at the surface, with around 8% UV. Most of the extra UV consists of biologically damaging short-wave UVC and UVB. All the UVC, some 90% of UVB and about half of UVA radiation is blocked by the atmosphere, to include ozone, which is made and broken up by the effect of UVC on O2. The UV share fluctuates much more than do the less energetic wavelengths.
I had to check:
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter3/Ency_Atmos/Radiation_Solar.pdf
Hi Willis – actually, I am testing my previous statement, as explained in the preamble, and finding that it was incorrect. See where I say “partly yes mainly no”. So we’re on the same wavelength.
Willis Eschenbach: which is far from your claim that the IR goes “mainly” into evaporation.
This means that only about 10% of the IR is going into evaporation.
He worked “mainly” down to 17%, and he was working on an idealized patch of ocean.
I am hoping that he’ll follow up with more work along these lines.
Thanks, Matt. Best regards.
w.
I have just realised why Mike has found that approximately 17% of the kinetic energy at the surface is taken up by evaporation
The energy cost of evaporation at 1 bar atmospheric pressure is a little over 5:1 which means that one needs a little more than 5 units of surface energy to support each 1 unit of evaporation. 17% as evaporation fits perfectly.
Accordingly my contention that the rate of evaporation is controlled by atmospheric pressure must be correct since that pressure determines the energy cost of evaporation
That pressure also determines the surface temperature enhancement above the S-B calculation that occurs beneath atmospheres that conduct and convect
Nothing to do with GHGs at all, just the simple thermodynamics of conduction and convection within the mass of the disparate gases that comprise any atmosphere above a rough surfaced sphere possessing a gravitational field and irradiated from outside the atmosphere
I appreciate your work and your openness, including sharing of your data. I have two problems with this, though, if I may respectfully state them. First, there is no experimentation behind this. This is the problem with AGW proponents, and has brought us to where we are now. Second, there is no downwelling of IR from CO2. I don’t know about water vapor in this regard, but for CO2, there has been none measured, and the statistics are that CO2 is about a million times more likely to transfer energy by conduction to adjacent molecules than by radiation.
There seems to be a lot of discussion in this post regarding what is possibly a major input into climate models that are commonly cited as ‘settled science’.
Which of the myriad of explanations of oceanic heat transfer above is used in the models?
Who to believe?
@ur momisugly Michael Moon
April 30, 2017 at 8:04 am
‘324 Absorbed by Surface. No, no such thing happens, the sky does not heat the Earth. The SUN heats the Earth, alone. Trenberth’s diagram is an embarrassment to my Alma Mater, U of Michigan. I had to look it up, as it was not covered in my amazingly difficult Transport of Heat and Mass class senior year, but, when radiation from a cooler body falls on a warmer body it is simply reflected and no Heat or Energy is transferred. Second Law, not just a good idea but…’
Thankyou Michael and others, who are on the same page as James Clerk Maxwell, Kelvin, Woods, Feynman, etc.. The correct page. Radiation is only an effect of heat, which is the result of work done (energy expended) on molecules. They vibrate faster and may ‘feel’ hotter. Sensible Heat. The vibration in the magnetic field of matter, causes an EM Flux called radiation. It has a spectral peak corresponding to the energy of its creation which is not itself heat. The flux has to do its own work to result in heat, and the negative fourth power rule comes into play there. Many claims re radiative heating etc ignore the fact that such equations are theoretical, to 0K from a surface. None of which relates to gases. They also ignore how ‘quantum oscillators’ work re radiative transfer, and forget the emissive side of things too…
The question of Venus’ surface T is answered by the AU distance and pressure given above, and the lapse rate in Venus’ gravity. This is evidenced in the data banks of NASA and other space explorers.
Very good, Brett, and nicely explained. And you even managed to explain the surface temperature of Venus WITHOUT mentioning the Gravity Induced Temperature Gradient, well not directly anyway, you did say lapse rate and used the word gravity.
But who can teach the unteachable? Ah well, the dustbin of history awaits…..
A snapshot of clouds making extreme events captured here at 2:30pm EDT:
Did cosmic rays or CO2 back radiation drive the cloud formation?
TSI spiked upwards and higher last week to its highest peak since early Nov 2016, coming off it’s lowest TSI point in 50 weeks on April 2.
What did it do?
The TSI spike drove equatorial ocean surface evaporation, sending atmospheric rivers of water vapor that created weather havoc on the way north, directly into the cold air firmly in place in northern latitudes from the low TSI several weeks ago. The clash caused all manner of extreme weather events.
All the clouds, tornadoes, hail, wind, rain, and snow the US is getting this weekend resulted from variable solar activity within the last month!
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/yesterday_filtered.gif
There are many more such pronounced examples in the books.
Those clouds came from solar-driven ocean evaporation, not cosmic rays or CO2 back radiation!
Solar weather effects are layered and time dependent.
Mike Jonas, you say:
The Badger is totally right in the topmost comment: This paragraph alone renders your entire argument useless. Because what you say here is simply un-physical to the point of being nonsensical.
It doesn’t matter AT ALL how far into the ocean surface IR photons from the atmosphere are able to penetrate. They will never be able to “warm the ocean”, as in “raise its absolute temperature”, even one tiny bit. Why? ‘Thermodynamics 101’: Because the ocean surface is – on average – already warmer than the air above it. Which means that, at each instant, more IR photons are being thermally emitted by the surface (to the atmosphere (and space)) than are being absorbed (from the atmosphere). And so there can never be a gain in “internal energy” [U] resulting from the spontaneous and continuous thermal exchange between ocean and atmosphere. There will ALWAYS be a deficit – a LOSS of internal energy.
And as everyone SHOULD know, if there is no increase in U, then it is impossible for there to be an increase in T. Another ‘Thermodynamics 101’ fact. Which is to say that the ocean surface is COOLING radiatively to the atmosphere (and space).
So the energy carried by the incoming photons CANNOT directly produce a rise in ocean surface T, and – as a natural corollary of this – it CANNOT produce an increase in evaporation either, since this would require … a rise in ocean surface T.
Shortwave radiation from the Sun, however, CAN and DOES warm the ocean directly. Why? Because the Sun is warmer than the ocean.
“Because the ocean surface is – on average – already warmer than the air above it.”
Say the GMST over oceans is 15 C and that the oceans SST are 16 C on average. Closing that difference to 0.5 C does what? It changes the rate accross the SST interface.
Ragnaar says, April 30, 2017 at 4:59 pm:
It would reduce the average heat transfer rate from the surface to the air above. This is how (any kind of) insulation actually works. In the case of the surface/atmosphere system, it doesn’t work by the atmosphere directly heating the surface by irradiating it with IR photons, as Mike Jonas (and “Climate Science” in general) implies.
Kristian –
1. The “nonsensical” statement was being tested in this post, and was found to be an overstatement. The “mainly” should have been “partly”.
2. Yes, more IR photons are being thermally emitted by the surface (to the atmosphere (and space)) than are being absorbed (from the atmosphere). If you check the spreadsheet, back radiation from atmosphere to ocean is 324 Wm-2, transfer from ocean to atmosphere (or beyond) is 332 Wm-2. A gain is the same as (or equivalent to) a smaller loss.
3. Conventional wisdom does require a rise in temperature in order to achieve a rise in evaporation, but I think that’s wrong. Conceptually, some evaporation can occur without a rise in temperature, and I think it does. For example, if incoming IR knocks an H2O molecule out into the atmosphere, the remaining water does not warm because all of the energy went into the escaping molecule. That’s not the only possible mechanism that can produce the same result, but it’s enough.
Mike Jonas says, May 1, 2017 at 5:50 am:
No. It should be “none whatsoever”. IR photons from the atmosphere can and do NOT induce evaporation from the surface. If they could, it would mean they could also heat the surface directly, which would be a violation of the 2nd Law.
Most assuredly not! “A gain in U” is an absolute INCREASE in “internal energy” from t_0 to t_1: U_1 > U_0. When the U of a system is larger at the end of a thermal exchange than at the start, then the system has GAINED “internal energy” during the process. This does not happen in the thermal exchange between the surface and the atmosphere above. In the thermal exchange between the surface and the atmosphere above, U_sfc1 < U_sfc0. Which means the surface LOSES energy to the atmosphere, thus COOLS (the T goes down).
You don’t need a rise in T_sfc to increase evaporation rates. There are other ways. But IR photons from the cooler atmosphere are NOT such a way …
The other solar factor, UV, comes into play in the NH between the equinoxes. UVI is an integral mature science that NOAA, NCEP, the NWS, and commercial weather services use to guide daily weather and seasonal forecasting. NCEP says the south is going to get blasted by high UVI on Monday.
AGW will once again be blamed for daytime solar heating:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/uv_index/uvi_map.gif
Today the UVI in the Gulf of Mexico at 2:30p EDT was in the 10-11 range, extreme, near the area where the water vapor plume evaporated out of the gulf just SW of New Orleans, where the waters had warmed up at least 0.5C in two weeks while TSI was climbing, peaking a few days after the recent TSI spike a week ago:
http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/gomssta.png
During the afternoon on May 1 you’ll see the effect of the high UVI forecast on daytime heat and the weather it spawns, as the heat out of the high UVI areas spreads outward, north & east:
Since UVI is regulated by cloud cover, and if cloud cover from ocean evaporation is driven by either or both UV and TSI, well, now it’s not so simple anymore and good luck with reducing it down to micro-physics, especially if you’re thinking about relating the solar input to energy deposited at ocean depths modulated by cloud cover.
When the oceans first formed, ie. water first condensed, the ocean temperature was over 100 C – impurities, higher atmospheric pressure, and so on.
Current abyssal temperatures are generally 2 – 3 C. The oceans have demonstrably cooled, as has the Earth. Both continue to cool – slowly and inexorably. Radiogenic heat decreases as shorter half – life isotopes progressively decay. Remnant heat of creation leaves the Earth, and the core progressively cools, resulting in an ever thicker crust – but slowly, oh so slowly.
No GHE to be found. No foundation to support the bizarre notion that thermometers can be made hotter by the cunning application of CO2! Complete nonsense.
Cheers.
Dang and I thought I might witness a nobel prize winning effort in real time.
then the 2nd law nuts derailed you.
even flat earth Flynn showed up.
So, you’re saying you are late to the party ?
You and your fellow Curry-calumnizer just cannot help it, can you. More reasons to drain the swamp…..
There are two camps of people misunderstanding thermodynamics on these threads. Both these camps damage the credibility of this site. Camp 1 are those who insist the ideal gas law shows that pressure determines temperature without any regard for other variables. Camp 2 are those who insist, wrongly, that the second law of thermodynamics precludes any transfer of energy from a cold body to a warm one by radiation.
All bodies possessing temperature above zero K, emit electromagnetic radiation also known as thermal radiation–cold bodies emit less power hotter ones emit higher power. By what means would photons leaving a cold body determine that they could not intercept or be absorbed by a hot body? How would they avoid the hot body? They have no means of course to do any of this. The second law says nothing about how individual quanta of radiation pass from body to body. Stop this silly argument.
“Stop this silly argument.”
+2k
Stokes, Mosher, and all of you who do not understand the 2nd Law,
Here is the thing about heat transfer: When Heat is Transferred, the object to which Heat is Transferred gets WARMER. Photon or wave, radiation from a Cooler Body never ever makes the Warmer Body STILL Warmer! It just never does.
Stokes you are silly beyond words…
Ah yes, the other calumnizer turns up.
Michael Moon May 1, 2017 at 5:30 am
Here is the thing about heat transfer: When Heat is Transferred, the object to which Heat is Transferred gets WARMER. Photon or wave, radiation from a Cooler Body never ever makes the Warmer Body STILL Warmer! It just never does.
Does it all the time, put a thermocouple in a flame in a furnace and it will record a temperature defined by the heat balance between the flame, the thermocouple and the furnace wall. That temperature will be lower than the flame and higher than the wall. Interpose a quartz shield between the thermocouple and the wall and the thermocouple temperature goes up even though the temperature of the shield is lower than the thermocouple. It’s basic radiation heat transfer.
Phil. says, May 1, 2017 at 6:26 pm:
Phil.
That’s a THREE-body exchange. Moon is talking about a TWO-body exchange. ONE single heat transfer. Like the sfc-atm/space system during the night. The discussion here is about whether photons from the sky – ALL BY THEMSELVES – are able to directly raise the surface temperature. Are they? And if they aren’t, why not?
Camp 1 points out that the gas laws describe a mechanism whereby convection is able to neutralise any radiative imbalances caused by GHGs so as to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium at a given atmospheric mass, strength of gravitational field and level of external irradiation
There is of course a circulation adjustment but that adjustment is too small to measure in comparison to the changes induced by solar and ocean variability
+273K
+8008135
@ur momisugly K.kilty
April 30, 2017 at 7:46 pm: Flux is emitted. You know, EM blasted F. It is never power until work is performed. Inferior flux = no work, no vibration rise, nor more sensible heat. Hippy ‘science’, like hippies, does not work :). One cannot push away a load moving at 5m/sec with a hand moving at 4m/sec. I had to get into quantum thermodynamics to see the mechanics of why not. So can you. While at it, you might check why BB and SB etc. do not apply to gases (hence those pesky gas laws); nor to atmospheric temperatures.
And all quite unnecessary, since water vapour, a very buoyant gas, does 80% of the cartage. It has immense spare capacity in our world, but other worlds show equi-partition by their own means….
it’s actually regulating the cooling rates to try and limit how cold it gets.
K.kilty wrote, “There are two camps of people misunderstanding thermodynamics on these threads. Both these camps damage the credibility of this site… Stop this silly argument.”
+3k
[3k? Or 3K? (Well, 2.7 K, but who’s counting?) .mod]
Mike Jonas, thank you for the essay. I think it is a step forward (“A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step” — but it also finishes one step at a time, and I think this journey has many steps left to take.)
About this: For the balance of thermals and evaporation, I assume that the rate varies linearly with temperature. In the real world, other factors such as wind speed are important, so there is an implicit assumption that these other factors remain unchanged. Given that we are working with a notional “average” patch of ocean over a single day, that should not be an issue.
Results suggest that about 17% of the energy from inward radiation that does not get past the top 10µm goes straight into evaporation (see parameter ‘v’ in worksheet parms). This evaporation is not temperature dependent. Results also indicate that my earlier assertion that IR’s energy “goes mainly into evaporation” is incorrect : partly, yes, but “mainly”, no (Roy Spencer will be pleased, I think).
At temperatures characteristic of most of the ocean surface, water vapor pressure increases 6% per C, i.e. nonlinearly. Does that square with your calculations?
If I understand your question correctly, I used 7% (parameter ‘c’). But it doesn’t apply to the “17%” because that is independent of temperature. I’m sure the atmosphere can carry it away because dry air is continually drawn down to the surface by the turbulence. How far does it then go? I don’t know because I wasn’t looking that far. That’s another step …
… and I agree with you re the steps.
IR isn’t fully effective at slowing the flow of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.
What does that mean? If increase IR results in increased evaporation, then there is increased flow of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.
The AGW argument is that a unit of downward IR warms the ocean by just as much as a unit of any other warming agent (eg. SW). The IR doesn’t penetrate past the skin, so the logic is that it warms by slowing the rate of heat loss (the heat in question is from the sun not from IR). The logic is OK – IR can slow the rate of heat loss – but my finding is that it is only 69% effective at slowing the heat loss, ie. one unit of downward IR contributes only 0.69 units to the ocean that day. A unit of direct solar radiation contributes 0.97 units to the ocean because much of it is delivered at depth.
Mike Jonas: The logic is OK – IR can slow the rate of heat loss – but my finding is that it is only 69% effective at slowing the heat loss, ie. one unit of downward IR contributes only 0.69 units to the ocean that day.
thank you.
“The AGW argument is that a unit of downward IR warms the ocean by just as much as a unit of any other warming agent (eg. SW).”
citation needed.
Backradiation is an EFFECT of GHGs, it is not the cause of warming.
The surfaces warms ( emits more IR because the ERL is raised and the rate of energy loss to space is lowered.
sorry you blew your chance at a Nobel.
First start with the REAL LITERATURE, and cite it.. you know science 101
“Results suggest that about 17% of the energy from inward radiation that does not get past the top 10µm goes straight into evaporation (see parameter ‘v’ in worksheet parms).”
I really can’t see that this makes sense at all. Heat in the top few microns is fungible. There is a flux from below, a flux from above (IR) and an up flux via evap. Also an up flux from IR and some conduction. It all has to add up to zero over time, and that requirement settles the temperature. But there isn’t any point in trying to say that one flux causes part of another. Each responds in its own way to temperature independently, and through temp the balance is struck.
Nick – I tested the hypothesis that some of the evaporation occurs independently of temperature. The result indicated that there was indeed some evaporation that was independent of temperature. Therefore “through temp the balance is struck” appears to be incorrect.
What caused me to test the hypothesis was the fact that a very large amount of inward IR stops in the ocean skin and the skin remains at low temperature. Sure there can be other things going on, but if “through temp the balance is struck” is correct then the ocean skin would be warmer. It isn’t, it’s cooler.
Mike,
I can’t check your calculations – the spreadsheet just won’t open here. But what you are saying makes no physical sense. There just isn’t the mechanism to do the sort of apportionment that you postulate. Evaporation happens in response to vapor pressure and the external fluid flow. Vapor pressure is a function of temperature. Evaporation can’t know whether the [heat] is provided by IR or conduction from below. It is determined by state variables, of which the main one is temperature.
Nick – The ocean surface is a pretty wild place, and I don’t think that the conventional wisdom about evaporation being driven by temperature is always correct. As I said in reply to a comment above: Conceptually, some evaporation can occur without a rise in temperature, and I think it does. For example, if incoming IR knocks an H2O molecule out into the atmosphere, the remaining water does not warm because all of the energy went into the escaping molecule. That’s not the only possible mechanism that can produce the same result, but it’s enough.
Sorry the spreadsheet doesn’t open for you, not much I can do about that. It’s over 30mb, which may be the reason.
Earth is NOT a “Water World”! But do not try to argue that to the US Navy!
And a substantial portion of the northern hemisphere land enjoys a freeze-thaw cycle, as well as the Arctic Ocean and seas, the Trumpet Curve!
http://permafrosttunnel.crrel.usace.army.mil/permafrost/general_facts.html
A little fun:
http://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/be70aaff-1ab1-46e7-a5d8-67c70773e629
Here’s what happens if the atmosphere can warm the oceans. TCS is reduced to the extent the oceans can hold onto the joules. Here’s what happens if warming at depth in the oceans is occurring despite objections, the TCS is reduced and these joules will stay away for a long time.
Mike Jonas wrote: “In an earlier article, I expressed the opinion that Infra-Red radiation (IR), eg. as from Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), did not warm the ocean as effectively as the wavelengths of direct solar radiation which penetrated into the ocean”
Mike, do you believe in conservation of energy? Doesn’t 1 W/m2 of thermal IR (LWR) contain exactly as much energy per unit time as 1 W/m2 of SWR?
Heat is net energy transferred between to objects. It can be transferred by conduction, radiation or convection. Whenever an object receives more or less energy (by all routes) than it emits (by all routes), it warms or cools. It’s “internal energy” changes. The factor used to convert energy to heat is heat capacity (sometimes measured in joules/m3). An imbalance of 1 W/m2 produces the same RATE of temperature change (and that rate depends on the depth of the material being heated).
When you imply that 1 W/m2 of LWR produces less warming that 1 W/m2 of SWR. you are implying you don’t believe in conservation of energy.
Frank – the energy is conserved OK, it’s just that a third of the incoming IR energy doesn’t stick, the ocean spits it straight back into the atmosphere. Incoming direct solar radiation, on the other hand, goes mostly a lot deeper into the ocean and stays there. One Watt is indeed one Watt wherever it comes from, but that doesn’t mean it has to go to the same place too.
Mike: Latent heat, simple heat (conduction to the atmosphere) and thermal IR are all lost from the skin layer of the ocean (top 10 um). They total on the average 390 + 100 W/m2. DLR provides on the average 333 W/m2. If nothing else happened, the skin layer of the ocean would soon freezer, not boil away.
We know the skin layer doesn’t freeze. So where is it getting the extra 157 W/m2 it needs to keep a constant temperature? 1) Some comes from conduction from below driven by a temperature gradient – but only a short distance. Perhaps the 1 mm distance in your diagram. 2) Some comes from SWR absorbed by the skin layer. Around noon on a sunny day, SWR provides far more than the average of 160 W/m2 than reaches the surface. Perhaps 500-1000 W/m2, so the modest fraction that is absorbed by the top 10 um (and the top 1 mm that conducts heat to the skin layer) can sometimes close the deficit. 3) The rest of the day and at night, the skin layer is a net loser of heat. It cools, becomes more dense than the water below, sinks in some locations and warmer water rises in others: convection. 4) The water below has been heated by SWR during the daytime. The energy that allows the skin layer to radiate, conduct and evaporated comes partly from SWR absorbed well below and convected to the surface. (The rest comes from DLR.)
To the best of my knowledge, there is no way (or no easy way) for you to calculate how much heat is convected to the skin layer from the water below, just like we can’t calculate how much heat convection will transport in the atmosphere. Density/buoyancy determines whether air and water will rise or sink – but it doesn’t easily determine how much heat is transferred when convection is occurring. In the atmosphere, convection results in the release of latent heat. The average rainfall of 1 m (1 m^3/m^2) per year can be converted to 80 W/m2, plus a little more for precipitation that falls as snow or ice. In the ocean when the skin temperature isn’t changing with time, conservation of energy tells you that: radiation up + evaporation up + conduction up = radiation down (DLR + SWR) + conduction up + convection up. You can calculate or approximate all of these quantities except for convection up and therefore calculate convection up when temperature isn’t changing. When is temperature not changing? Never. Daily change. Seasonal change. So somehow you need to average over all of these changes.
So I don’t understand how you can calculate that 1/3 of incoming IR doesn’t stick. The skin layer needs all of it to keep from freezing. Convection that delivers heat from SWR absorbed below doesn’t flow unless the skin layer is colder than that water below.
What does the phrase “doesn’t stick” mean? Reflection/scattering? Yes some DLR is scattered. Absorptivity = emissivity. The emissivity of the ocean is 0.99 according to some sources and 0.97 according to other. You can’t say 1/3 “doesn’t stick” because of scattering without saying that the emissivity of the ocean is only 2/3.
Frank says, April 30, 2017 at 9:10 pm:
The point is, the SW flux comes IN to the surface, and so CAN and DOES heat it. The LW flux, however, goes OUT from the surface, and so can and does NOT heat it; it COOLS it. There’s no violation of the “conservation of energy” principle here.
Kristian wrote: “The LW flux, however, goes OUT from the surface, and so can and does NOT heat it; it COOLS it.”
The LWR flux come in from the atmosphere. No single energy flux “heats” the skin layer of the ocean. Heat is the NET energy flow from all sources. The skin layer of the ocean “heats” heats the atmosphere even though DLR from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface. When counting the NET flux of energy from all sources, all W/m2 are equal. Otherwise energy is not being conserved.
See my response to you upthread, Frank:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/30/sun-cloud-ocean-update/#comment-2491526
Few people realize that the skin layer of the ocean (the top 10 um) is almost always colder than the bulk ocean below. Everyone knows that the skin layer absorbs almost all of the DLR; they forget that it also EMITS all of the OLR. Since most infrared photons travel less than 10 um through water, outgoing photons need to be emitted from the skin layer. Since the atmosphere is usually cooler than the ocean and has a lower emissivity, net LWR removes heat from the skin layer, typically about (390-333 = 57 W/m2).
Evaporation takes place from the top layer of water molecules on the surface of water. Conduction (simple heat) occurs at the same location. 100 W/m2 of latent and simple heat are transferred from the skin layer by these processes. That makes the total deficit in the skin layer about 157 W/m2 in the KT diagram.
This deficit is made up by conduction and then convection from the deeper ocean below – which is where SWR is deposited. We have formulae that fell us about radiative and conductive heat transfer, but no law tells us how much heat is transferred by conduction. We know when the top of the ocean is colder (and therefore denser) than the bulk of the water below and therefore susceptible to buoyancy-driven convection. Likewise, we know about unstable lapse rates in the atmosphere. In neither case can we accurately transfer convective transfer of heat. This is partly because water sinking in one location is always accompanied the water rising somewhere else.