Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Reflecting upon my previous post, Where The Temperature Rules The Sun, I realized that while it was valid, it was just about temperature controlling downwelling solar energy via cloud variations. However, it didn’t cover total energy input to the surface. The total energy absorbed by the surface is the sum of the net solar energy (surface downwelling solar minus surface reflections) plus the downwelling longwave infrared, or DWIR. This is the total energy that is absorbed by and actually heats the surface.
According to the CERES satellite data, globally, the solar energy absorbed by the surface averages 162 W/m2. The downwelling longwave averages 345 W/m2. Conveniently, this means that on average the earth’s surface absorbs about a half a kilowatt per square meter on an ongoing basis. (And no, I have no interest in debating whether downwelling longwave radiation actually exists. It’s been measured by scientists around the world for decades, so get over it, Sky Dragons. Debate it somewhere else, please, this is not the thread for that.)
Let me note in passing that a doubling of CO2, which will increase the DWIR by something on the order of 3.7 W/m2, and which it is claimed would lead to Thermageddon, would be less than a 1% change in total downwelling radiation at the surface … which would easily be offset by a small change in total cloud cover. But I digress.
Here is the correlation between temperature and total surface absorption.

Figure 1. Correlation of total surface absorption with temperature.
Note the similarity to the previous graph showing just the correlation between surface temperature and downwelling solar energy at the surface.
Now, to explain how this can happen I need to take another digression. I was attracted to the study of the climate, not by questions about why the temperature was changing so much, but by why it was changing so little. As a man with some experience of heat engines and governors, I found it amazing that the temperature of such a possibly unstable system could only have changed by ± 0.3°C over the entire 20th century. Why should such a world, with clouds appearing and disappearing, with huge volcanoes popping off every few decades, with winds going up and down, with storms and hurricanes appearing and vanishing, why would it be so stable in the long-term? So I started looking for some long-term kind of feedbacks that could explain it.
I was living in Fiji at the time. After literally months of fruitless searching and thinking about long-term slow feedbacks, one day I thought “Hang on. I’m looking at the wrong end of the time spectrum.” What I realized was that if there was something that kept the daily temperatures from going outside a certain range, that would, in turn, keep the weekly, monthly, annual, decadal, centennial, and millennial temperatures from going outside that same range.
And because I was living in Fiji, the answer was right above me. The daily tropical weather typically looks like this: clear at dawn, clouding up with thermally-driven cumulus clouds in the late morning, perhaps thunderstorms in the afternoon if the day is warm enough, clearing some time after dark. Lather, rinse, repeat, as they say.
I also realized that there were two variables in that scheme—the time of onset of the cumulus clouds and the thunderstorms, and the amount of each of them. I hypothesized that these factors were what controlled the tropical temperature. Since then I have amassed a lot of evidence that my hypothesis is correct, including this post and its predecessor.
There are some important things to note about this process. First, the time of the emergence of the cumulus fields and the thunderstorms is NOT dependent on total forcing. Instead, they are responding to surface temperature. When the surface is cool at dawn, clouds form later, and more sunlight comes in, warming the surface. When the surface is warmer, clouds form earlier, throttling the energy input to the system, and cooling the system back down.
As a result, the system is not affected by small changes in insolation. For example, if a volcanic eruption reduces the amount of sunshine making it through the stratosphere, the tropics cool. And when they cool, clouds form later, letting in more sunlight, and rebalancing the system.
Next, the response is based, not on average temperatures, but instantaneous temperature. As such, it is obscured by monthly or yearly temperature averages.
Finally, the response is immediate. There is no lag of days, weeks, or months. As soon as the temperature crosses some given threshold, clouds form immediately, cooling the surface. This effect is so powerful that although the morning sun is growing stronger and stronger, when the clouds kick in, the temperature can actually drop. Here’s a graph of the long-term average daily swings of a number of TAO buoys spread across the Pacific. Here are the locations of the buoys. I’ve used those on the equator because they have the most data. The TAO buoy data is available here. 
Figure 2. Locations of the TAO buoys
These readings were taken by the automated buoys every ten minutes.

Figure 3. Daily average temperatures, equatorial TAO buoys.
In the cooler areas at the bottom of the graph, the onset of the morning cumulus field merely slows the daily warming. But in the warmer areas, when the clouds appear, the temperature actually drops. The differences can be seen clearly when they are expressed as anomalies about their individual average values, viz:

Figure 4. Daily temperature anomaly variations, equatorial TAO buoys.
Note that this “overshoot”, the ability to drive the temperature below the local initiation temperature threshold, is critical to controlling a lagged system such as the climate. It is also present in thunderstorms. They generate their own fuel once they are started, allowing them to cool the surface below the initiation temperature threshold.
Next, I divided the days into those which were warmer than usual from midnight to 5 AM, and compared them with the days which were cooler than usual during that same time span. Here’s the result:

Figure 5. Averages of warm and cool days, one of the warmest TAO buoys
This shows the temperature control in action at one of the warmest TAO buoys. On days which start out warmer than normal, the clouds and thunderstorms form earlier and more strongly. By evening the temperatures cool towards the average value. The opposite happens when the temperature from midnight to 5 AM are cooler than usual—cumulus form later and more scattered, thunderstorms may not form at all. And as a result, the surface warms towards normal.
With that understanding, we can take another look at the graphic in Figure 1, which I reproduce here:

Consider that this is a long-term average. This means, for example, that temperatures in the green and light yellow areas immediately outside the gray lines are not really slightly correlated with the total downwelling radiation.
Instead, it means that the number of days during which they are negatively correlated is slightly less than the number of days when they are positively correlated. However, this average conceals an important fact—the negative and positive correlations are not randomly distributed.
Instead, emergent phenomena like cumulus fields and thunderstorms occur earlier and more strongly exactly when and where the surface is hot. So those areas around the gray outlines of negative correlation are doing the same thing as the areas within the gray outlines—cooling down the hottest days and warming up the coolest days. The only difference is that the warm days are less frequent than inside the gray outlines. This puts limits on how much analysis we can do using averages, as I highlighted in “The Details Are In The Devil“.
In conclusion, let me say that the emergence of the tropical cumulus fields and associated thunderstorms are not the only temperature-linked phenomena which participate in global temperature regulation. Other phenomena include dust devils, squall lines, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the El Nino-La Nina pump, cyclones, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Likely more as well …
Me, I’m sitting on a hill in the Solomon Islands on what is scheduled to be my last day here … you’re welcome to read about it, along with the story of the Crocodile and Tufala Panadol over at my blog, Skating Under The Ice.
Best of life to all,
w.
My Strong Advice: When you comment, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so that we can all understand your thoughts and objections. Be forewarned that I’m likely to ignore your claims, hold you up to ridicule, and generally rubbish your name if you don’t have the polite kindness to quote someone’s words. I’m fed up with people saying things like “I disagree strongly with what you said”, when it is not clear who “you” is and it is totally unknown which of their statements the commenter disagrees with. If you wish to refute someone’s ideas, you need to QUOTE THEIR WORDS, and the TELL US WHAT IS WRONG WiTH THEM. Anything else is handwaving and with be referred to as such.
FURTHER READING:
Albedic Meanderings 2015-06-03
I’ve been considering the nature of the relationship between the albedo and temperature. I have hypothesized elsewhere that variations in tropical cloud albedo are one of the main mechanisms that maintain the global surface temperature within a fairly narrow range (e.g. within ± 0.3°C during the entire 20th Century). To…
An Inherently Stable System 2015-06-04
At the end of my last post, I said that the climate seems to be an inherently stable system. The graphic below shows ~2,000 climate simulations run by climateprediction.net. Unlike the other modelers, whose failures end up on the cutting room floor, they’ve shown all of the runs ……
The Tao That Can Be Spoken … 2011-08-14
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve started to look at the data from the TAO/TRITON buoy array in the Pacific Ocean. These are an array of moored buoys which collect hourly information on a variety of environmental variables. The results are quite interesting, because they relate directly to…
TAO/TRITON TAKE TWO 2011-08-25
I wrote before of my investigations into the surface air temperature records of the TAO/TRITON buoys in the Pacific Ocean. To refresh your memory, here are the locations of the TAO/TRITON buoys. Figure 1. Locations of the TAO/TRITON buoys (pink squares). Each buoy is equipped with a sensor array measuring…
Cloud Radiation Forcing in the TAO Dataset 2011-09-15
This is the third in a series ( Part 1, Part 2 ) of occasional posts regarding my somewhat peripatetic analysis of the data from the TAO moored buoys in the Western Pacific. I’m doing construction work these days, and so in between pounding nails into the frame of a building I continue to…
TAO Buoys Go Hot And Cold 2015-06-16
I got to thinking about how I could gain more understanding of the daily air temperature cycles in the tropics. I decided to look at what happens when the early morning (midnight to 5:00 AM) of a given day is cooler than usual, versus what happens when the early morning…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One other experiment.
The glass mirror obviously did not work.
How about a sheet of Ali foil, shiny side towards the heated object.
Did the object get warmer, yes.
Was it direct back radiation, NO.
Proof.
Remove the foil, add a slow speed fan to circulate the air.
Allow the object to reach it’s new EQUILIBRIUM and then add back the foil.
How dear, no heating whatsoever.
No magic back radiation, no reflected radiation.
Zilch, nada, nothing.
Exactly the same as the box, it heats the cooler air which changes the ambient conditions around the object.
Job done another myth exploded.
How many more can you take one asks?
A C Osborn December 24, 2017 at 2:34 pm
One other experiment.
Unfortunately you’re not very good at experiments, and your explanations of your procedures are terrible, you’d fail any freshman lab class.
The glass mirror obviously did not work.
How about a sheet of Ali foil, shiny side towards the heated object.
Did the object get warmer, yes.
Was it direct back radiation, NO.
Despite the fact that Al foil reflects ~95% of the IR incident on it.
You also claim to have measured the temperature of the foil, what method did you use and how did you do that without any radiation influencing your measurement? You also claimed to have measured the air temperature between the foil and the heated object, again what method and how did you avoid the effect of the radiation?
Proof.
Remove the foil, add a slow speed fan to circulate the air.
Allow the object to reach it’s new EQUILIBRIUM and then add back the foil.
How dear, no heating whatsoever.
No magic back radiation, no reflected radiation.
Zilch, nada, nothing.
Exactly the same as the box, it heats the cooler air which changes the ambient conditions around the object.
Job done another myth exploded.
You added cooling by forced convection, it’s a totally different experiment.
A more reasonable approach would have been to replace the foil with a non-reflective material, say black cartridge paper. Which if you’re right would increase the temperature of the object, whereas if it’s the result of reflection the temperature would be lower than in the presence of Al foil. In that case only one parameter is changed and all others kept the same a good experimental design philosophy.
It’s typical of your approach to experiments, when one is suggested you change it out of all recognition.
For example I suggested an experiment which has been carried out for at least 70 years: measure the temperature of a flame with a thermocouple, then surround it with an open ended quartz tube to act as a radiation shield. Usually results in 100+ºC increase in temperature. You proposed measuring the temperature of a 34ºC object and putting a glass jar over it, you then said that there wasn’t a 100ºC change!
What a surprise!
Willis,
I am going to try to explain this to you one more time.
The Sun is Hot. The Sky is Not Hot.
“Climate Scientists” claim Back Radiation.
When a pyrgeometer is pointed at the sky, it measures a Temperature. Not, importantly, a Flux, but simply a Temperature.
Flux means Heat Transfer, as in, something cold gets hotter, and something warm gets colder.
The Sun heats the Earth, and also the Earth’s atmosphere.
The Sky cannot heat itself, nor the surface of the Earth. All the energy comes from the Sun.
CO2 absorbs IR from the surface. It absorbs all it can at about 3 meters from the surface, all of which energy is Thermalized immediately, which means the CO2 molecule gains velocity and bounces off neighboring molecules, transferring energy to them in Brownian Motion.
A far different thing happens at the TOA. CO2 at the TOA is opaque to IR, absorbs it, and re-radiates it down, sideways, and up. The down part gets thermalized at some lower altitude. Sideways and up can escape to space.
The big question is, at just what altitude does the atmosphere cease to be opaque to CO2? Increasing CO2 raises that altitude slightly, which means the Earth’s atmosphere is freely radiating to space at a slightly higher altitude, which means a slightly lower temperature, which means Earth’s atmosphere contains some more energy, which means temperatures at the surface might be slightly higher due to the lapse rate.
Hope you followed that, and tell all your friends, as, if this is beyond comprehension, you just should not talk about things you do not understand.
Trying to help.
Michael
Michael Moon December 24, 2017 at 8:25 pm
CO2 absorbs IR from the surface. It absorbs all it can at about 3 meters from the surface, all of which energy is Thermalized immediately, which means the CO2 molecule gains velocity and bounces off neighboring molecules, transferring energy to them in Brownian Motion.
All the energy is not thermalized immediately some of it is emitted. Also the CO2 molecule does not gain velocity, it vibrates at a different frequency, collision with an air molecule causes an increase in the KE of the air molecule and a decrease in the vibration of the CO2.
Michael Moon said “When a pyrgeometer is pointed at the sky, it measures a Temperature. Not, importantly, a Flux, but simply a Temperature.”
I disagree. The only time you can define and measure a temperature is when a system is at equilibrium. At equilibrium the radiation field and the kinetic fields are consistent and not changing with time, which almost never happens in the atmosphere.
In using a pyrogeometer, radiation from someplace is incident on a black surface in which is (typically) embedded a thermocouple. You actually measure voltage arising from heating or cooling of the thermocouple referenced to (or in) the body of the device. Based on comparison with black body sources you interpret the voltage as being consistent with radiation from a body of a certain temperature. If the radiation is not thermal, say from a laser, all you know for sure is the heat intensity, in say, watts/m^2, but not the temperature of the source. A thermocouple based device is not particularly sensitive but it has a broad spectral response so can be used for both thermal and athermal sources.
Been there, done that.
Merry Christmas to all.
I have never seen anyone argue that DWLWIR does not exist. The issue is what does it do?
These figures should raise questions because of the absorption of of EMR in water. The depth to which EMR is absorbed is wavelength dependent.
Because of the wavelength of Solar Irradiance, virtually no solar insolation is absorbed in the top millimeters of the oceans. In practice, for the main part it is absorbed in a volume of water occupying about 10 metres in depth, say between 1 metre to 11 metres. This means that the energy of some 162W/m2 of incoming solar is absorbed in a volume of 10 cubic metres (ie., 1m x 1m x 10m).
By way of contrast, due to the wavelength of DWLWIR, some 90% of it is fully absorbed in about 10 microns of vertical penetrative depth. Because DWLWIR is omnidirectional, such that some is intercepting with the oceans at 10 degrees, some at 20 degrees, some at 30 degrees, this means that almost all DWLWIR is fully absorbed in no more than 5 microns. This means that the energy of some 345W/m2 of incoming DWLWIR is absorbed in a volume of 0.000005 cubic metres (ie., 1m x 1m x 5/1000,000m).
So if K&T energy budget cartoon is correct, one has twice as much energy absorbed in 2 millionths of the volume. If that does not raise eyebrows, it is difficult to know what will. This begs the question, what exactly is all this DWLWIR doing in such a small volume of water?
Fortunately, for life on this planet, solar irradiance, because it is absorbed over such a large volume, slowly hears the oceans. If solar irradiance was absorbed in the same way as DWLWIR, then the oceans would have boiled off, from the top down, long ago.
Richard, as you say “I have never seen anyone argue that DWLWIR does not exist. The issue is what does it do?”
In that context, where Heat Transfer does not occur from cold to hot, how much of the Atmosphere is actually warmer than the Surface Water?
Add to that the Heat transfer is Higher to a colder body than a warmer body, so more heat is transferred up than down
The other key part of the whole concept, especially regarding CO2 is the one I mentioned yesterday “the mean free path of IR radiation in the atmosphere is ~25 meters”.
This suggests the the IR from the CO2 only area (no H2O) of the Atmosphere has absolutely no chance of ever getting back to the surface, as every 25 or so metres (probably longer in less dense parts of the atmosphere) the Photon will have lost it’s energy to another molecule and it’s “downwardness” halved at each collision.
So it can only warm the Atmosphere immediately below it, that is assuming that you believe a cold area can warm a warmer area. Which I do not.
Richard poses this fair and thought provoking question…
“This begs the question, what exactly is all this DWLWIR doing in such a small volume of water?”
Here is my take. It got me to thinking about the same dilemma on land with insolation. It’s the same question right. What is all that SW doing in such a small volume, because it doesn’t penetrate any more than LW in water, maybe less. Why doesn’t the dirt explode?
I model a solid or liquid as two parts; the very thin surface, and all the stuff underneath it. Now it’s only the surface that can radiate; the other stuff has to conduct to it.
The surface has to be thought of as a speed of light responder to its incident energy and it radiates according to only its temperature. It receives energy from two sides; underneath slowly, on top speed of light.
With this model in mind, think about incoming radiation to a surface as a modulator that controls the rate at which the ponderous conductivity underneath gets to transfer body energy to its skin.
The skin-body differential temperature controls the conduction magnitude and direction to the body. If the skin temp exceeds the body temp it immediately radiates enough to maintain balance (of itself).
That’s the logic i would use to answer your question. The surface and body are dancing in a delicate balance to the music of the radiation. The skin only gets hotter if the conduction and radiation outflows can’t keep up.
Thanks your response.I agree that
Whether there is simply an IR exchange, without absorption, I do not know, and I need to think more about your response.
i think there has to be absorption. Anything less is a reflection and then you haven’t affected skin temperature or energy budget.
When tou think about it, make a cartoon with skin seperate from a body and connect these with a q bar vector.to represent conduction.
I make the top of the body and bottom of skin have same temp. Then it is easier to see how a 10 micron skin can instantaneosly respond to incoming radiation cranking up T of skin on top while controlling ΔT on the uppermost part of the body which is then the driving force for the magnitude of q bar.
With a model like that it is easier to wrap your head around a mechanism that can control outbound q bar without adding heat to anything more than the skin temp.
You can even think of that skin with some dx thickness and let dx approach 0. That makes it even easier to grasp.
richard verney December 25, 2017 at 1:28 am
Richard, first, why should that raise eyebrows? The same is true whatever the DWLWIR hits, a rock, a tree, a person, the ocean. It’s absorbed at the skin … so what?
Second, if it is NOT absorbed in the water as you seem to be arguing, we’re left with two questions:
1. Why isn’t the ocean frozen? It’s only getting about 165 W/m2 from the sun or so, and it’s radiating at about 390 W/m2 plus losing another 110 W/m2 to evaporation and sensible heat. Obviously, if that were the whole story it would have frozen long, long ago … so what is the source of the ~340 W/m2 energy that’s needed to balance the equation?
2. If the energy of the ~340 W/m2 of DWIR is NOT going into the ocean, then what’s happening to it? We know that it’s not evaporating the surface water because even if it were providing 100% of the energy going into the evaporation, that only accounts for ~80 W/m2 of the absorbed energy … what’s happening to the rest if it isn’t warming the ocean? It can’t just vanish, and we know it isn’t reflected. Where in your hypothesis is it going?
Regards,
w.
Willis Eschenbach said, December 25, 2017 at 11:03 am:
Nope. It gains 165 W/m^2 worth of HEAT from the Sun. This is the heat input to the surface, and is what needs to be balanced by parallel heat losses from the surface. It loses ~53 W/m^2 to the atmosphere and space via radiation, 24 W/m^2 to the atmosphere via conduction, and 88 W/m^2 to the atmosphere via evaporation. That’s [53+24+88=] 165 W/m^2 worth of OUTGOING HEAT from the surface. And we have balance!
Temperature -> thermodynamics -> heat fluxes. Conceptual (mathematically derived) “hemifluxes” and hypothetical radiant emittances won’t do, I’m sorry. Because they’re not themselves thermodynamic quantities …
No, the atmosphere INSULATES the surface, Willis. It doesn’t HEAT it som more … It insulates it by being warmer than its outside surroundings. Like all insulation does. It has a thermal mass, it CAN be warmed, via heat transfer from the body being insulated. The atmosphere can, space can’t.
Thanks your response. I do not claim to know the answers, but the point I raise is interesting. I understand the point you make, but you should also be asking yourself, why have the oceans not boiled off, from the top down, long ago?
One cannot compare a substance like water, which evaporates, with a substance like rock, but I will pick up on the point you make about skin.
Materially, we know what some 162W/m2 of incoming solar does when it is absorbed by the oceans in a volume of around 10 cubic metres, ie., it heats the oceans up to around 20 degrees. In the equatorial/tropical region where there is approximately double the incoming solar, it heats the oceans up to around 34 degC (eg Red Sea), although more typically only to about 30 to 31 degC, before evaporation, winds and oceanic currents cut in to restrict the warming reaching above 30/31 degC.
In one of your posts on ARGO, you identified the role of evaporation in capping temperatures in tropical oceans, and that is with circa 162W/m2 of incoming solar being absorbed in a volume of 10 cubic metres, so what the heck does some 345W/m2 of incoming DWLWIR being absorbed in a volume of just 0.000005 cubic metres do? Where, within the body of water, does the evaporation come from? Consider the orders of magnitude we are dealing with.
As regards your point regarding skin. I am presently in Norway, it is around minus 12 degC. There is only about 5 hours of daylight. When the sun is out, the skin on your face and hands feels warm, notwithstanding the very low solar insolation given the winter geometry. There cannot be much energy given the very high Northern Latitude. In a couple of weeks time, I will be in Southern Spain. On a cloudy day, it will probably be about plus 14 deg C, and there will be more DWLWIR hitting my body than there was solar insolation in Norway, and yet my skin will feel cold, not warm as it did in Norway.
An interesting thing about human temperature sensing is that our skin doesn’t ‘feel’ temperature. It senses direction of energy flow. In the winter sun of Norway you were gaining energy. You felt warm. In Cloudy Spain you were losing energy and felt cool.
Ever notice how walking into the same temperature house in winter and summer feels, respectively, warmer and colder. It’s your energy direction skin sensors at work.
Another good example of your skin sensors is when you walk down an aisle of freezer cases in a grocery store. You feel really cold because you are radiating like crazy to a very cold set of ‘walls’. Walk down an aisle of canned goods and you feel nothing in essentially the same air.
We feel comfy at 21C because we are in balance there.
Funny but true story… I got heat stroke symptoms one morning in Florida last summer before sun up. It was 72⁰F and dew point was 72⁰F. Couldn’t shed energy at all in dead calm air. Temperature is sometimes not a very useful comfort reading.
richard verney December 25, 2017 at 1:28 am
By way of contrast, due to the wavelength of DWLWIR, some 90% of it is fully absorbed in about 10 microns of vertical penetrative depth. Because DWLWIR is omnidirectional, such that some is intercepting with the oceans at 10 degrees, some at 20 degrees, some at 30 degrees, this means that almost all DWLWIR is fully absorbed in no more than 5 microns. This means that the energy of some 345W/m2 of incoming DWLWIR is absorbed in a volume of 0.000005 cubic metres (ie., 1m x 1m x 5/1000,000m).
So if K&T energy budget cartoon is correct, one has twice as much energy absorbed in 2 millionths of the volume. If that does not raise eyebrows, it is difficult to know what will.
But what you have neglected to consider is that it is those few microns of water which emit the thermal IR.
So if the water surface is at 25ºC it will be emitting ~440W/m^2
A C Osborn December 25, 2017 at 3:03 am
The other key part of the whole concept, especially regarding CO2 is the one I mentioned yesterday “the mean free path of IR radiation in the atmosphere is ~25 meters”.
This suggests the the IR from the CO2 only area (no H2O) of the Atmosphere has absolutely no chance of ever getting back to the surface, as every 25 or so metres (probably longer in less dense parts of the atmosphere) the Photon will have lost it’s energy to another molecule and it’s “downwardness” halved at each collision.
What does the ‘CO2 only area (no H2O) of the Atmosphere’ have to do with anything, we’re talking about the total DWIR at the surface, it doesn’t matter how high in the atmosphere it originates from, the key point is that IR from the surface is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere and some of it is re-emitted and is absorbed by the surface.
I think you are on to something very important. Your figure 3 is very nice. I would suggest that you divide your data into more groups than two for your figure 5. Perhaps you will be able to find out how much stronger the cooling/warming process gets when the days are really hot/cold compared to only somewhat hot/cold.
I do not really understand why you limit the areas where the cooling process is at play to green and yellow of figure 1.
Clouds are formed at the Swedish west coast as well during the day, at least in our too short summer. We can possibly expect that the radiation reflected from the clouds out into space is a little higher warmer days here as well.
Best regards
Johan
I always thought, well not always but for some time now, that convection is rules the day moving heat from the surface upward. Radiation plays second fiddle. No?
Willis Eschenbach
First of all best wishes.
Imo you’re viewing only part of the system. The whole system is running at maximum power already, no chance of overheating. Just realize that since the last major re-heat some 85 million year ago the deep oceans have been cooling down some 15-20K in spite of slightly increasing output from the sun.
So no, the system is not possibly unstable.
Willis Eschenbach December 25, 2017 at 11:03 am
The oceans aren’t losing that energy, they are transferring most of it to the atmosphere. Only radiation through the atmospheric window is lost directly to space. Only thing that counts is the amount of energy that is eventually lost to space, mostly from the atmosphere. Is supposed to be ~equal to the solar input.
Take a step back and consider the entire System Earth.
Hot interior insulated by the crust which is HOT.
Deep oceans sitting on this hot crust, having a shallow solar heated surface layer that almost completely blocks energy loss to the atmosphere.
Finally the atmosphere that insulates the (oceans) surface and just reduces energy loss to space.
“no change of overheating” should be “no chance of overheating”
Ben Wouters December 26, 2017 at 5:19 am
Fixed. I hate typos.
w.
Ben Wouters December 26, 2017 at 5:17 am Edit
Agreed. The Constructal Law requires that the system evolve to max power.
Yes, the oceans are indeed losing that energy. It is true that they get back something on the order of half of it, but it is assuredly lost.
My question was directed to those who, unlike you, claim that there is ZERO energy returned to the ocean by the atmosphere. They make all kinds of claims about why this is … but my question remains:
IF, as many people claim, there is no energy going from the atmosphere to the ocean, why is it not frozen solid?
Best to you,
w.
If one places a film which blocks LWIR, say just 50 cm above a shallow tray of water,, how long does it take for the surface skin to freeze?
Willis Eschenbach December 26, 2017 at 12:49 pm
I intended lost to mean “lost to space”.
The energy the oceans lose at the surface isn’t lost for System Earth, only the radiation through the atmospheric window is. Together with the energy that the sun delivers directly to the atmosphere (~20%) this energy is used to keep the atmosphere of the surface: hydrostatic equlibrium (HE).
This atmosphere in HE loses energy to space together with what the surface radiates through the atmospheric window. This should more or less balance with incoming solar less reflected radiation.
To understand why the oceans are so hot, we should realize that the temperature of the DEEP oceans (lets say below the permanent thermocline) is completely caused by geothermal energy. The sun only increases the temperature of a shallow surface layer, thus creating an impenetrable barrier for all geothermal energy entering through the ocean floor, except at (very) high latitudes. This makes their temperature a balance between geothermal heating and cooling at high latitudes. The last 84 million years this “balance” resulted in a cooling rate of roughly 1K/5 million year.
Given this cooling, Earth must be at an energy balance that results in the maximum temperature possible.
richard verney December 26, 2017 at 6:15 pm
If one places a film which blocks LWIR, say just 50 cm above a shallow tray of water,, how long does it take for the surface skin to freeze?
I assume by ‘blocked’ that you mean that the film does not emit IR either, in which case it would need to be at something like liquid nitrogen temperature. So I would say that it wouldn’t take very long to freeze.
Willis Eschenbach December 26, 2017 at 12:49 pm
It did answer your question just below your post. Awaiting a reaction.
Given your ideas about Cb’s driving the Hadley circulation, are you aware of the Hydrostatic Equlibrium (HE) the atmosphere is in, and how this mechanism is driving a lot of the weather systems on planet Earth?
HE makes it virtually impossible that a trace gas like CO2 can have a noticeable influence on our climate.
I owe Mr Eschenbach an apology for misspelling his name on this thread.
Sorry about that.
Heck, A. C., I can’t reliably spell my own name 100% of the time, so no apology required.
w.