Most recent NOAA Sea surface temperatures, note the lack of oranges and reds:
From the website CO2 is Life:
The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global Warming…Rules Out CO2 as the Cause
We have mentioned countless times on this blog that the warming oceans are evidence that CO2 is not the cause of global warming. To understand the climate you must first understand the oceans. The oceans control the global climate. As the oceans warm, they warm and alter the humidity of the atmosphere above them. The problem is, as we have pointed out countless times, CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18µ.
LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate or warm the oceans. Visible radiation, mainly from the high energy blue end of the spectrum does. CO2 is transparent to incoming visible radiation. The energy stored in the atmosphere and land is insignificant when compared to the oceans. The oceans contain 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere, so small changes to the oceans can mean big changes in the atmospheric temperature. The oceans also produce vast amounts of CO2 (20 x the amount man produces), and the most abundant and potent greenhouse gas, water vapor.
The warming oceans are evidence that CO2 ISN’T the cause of the recent warming. Oceans are warmed by more incoming radiation reaching them, and that is in fact what has been happening (Click Here). It is extremely easy to explain the recent warming due to natural causes, explanation that is backed by the evidence (Click Here), not just uneducated highly biased and conflicted opinions.
How does “Inside Climate News” report on the issue of the warming oceans? They claim that the warming oceans are the greatest evidence of fossil fuels caused global warming.
The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global Warming
The oceans hold the story of a planet warming as fossil fuels are burned
Clearly, they don’t understand the physics supporting the warming of the oceans and GHG effect, but, let’s have a look at how “Inside Climate News” defends such ignorance.
They claim to have all the proof in 4 charts:
Here is what scientists have discovered, in four charts.
Chart #1:
No one argues that the oceans are warming, they are. Warming oceans aren’t evidence that CO2 is causing the warming. As stated above, LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate or warm the oceans. “Inside Climate News” offers no explanation as to how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ could possibly warm the oceans. As mentioned above, post-1992, cleaner air has resulted in more warming visible radiation warming of the oceans, not CO2. Funny how “Inside Climate News” forgot to mention that.
Chart #2:
This graphic validates the incoming visible radiation warms the oceans theory. CO2 is transparent to incoming warming visible radiation. While it is correct that Greenhouse gases do absorb much of the outgoing radiation, CO2 is insignificant in the lower atmosphere. The first CO2 signature is identified at an altitude of about 3 km when H2O starts to precipitate out of the atmosphere. MODTRAN demonstrates that CO2 has zero impact on the energy budget in the lower atmosphere as long as H2O is present. The following MODTRAN reports show that doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm results in zero change to the 407.572 W/M^2 of outgoing radiation in the lower atmosphere. A zero change. Funny how “Inside Climate News” forgot to mention that. Who do you trust more? A computer program or “Inside Climate News.”
Chart #3:
Okay, I got it, the oceans are warming…but what does that have to do with CO2? The Oceans naturally go through cycles like El Niño and La Niña, but those aren’t caused by CO2. There was a strong El Niño, and ocean temperatures are rapidly returning to normal. CO2 has nothing to do with the ocean cycles. “Inside Climate News” conveniently choose the time period leading up to the El Niño, and forgot to mention what happened after. Funny how “Inside Climate News” forgot to mention that. (H/T Real Science)
Satellite data also shows atmospheric temperatures tightly tied to ocean cycles. Note how fast temperatures are falling post-El Niño. How can CO2 explain that? CO2 can’t cause temperature spikes, nor can it cause rapid cooling. CO2 simply can’t explain the volatility in the temperature chart. Current temperatures are below the levels set in 1998, 1996, 1990, 1988 and in line with temperatures of 1983. How can CO2 explain that, given its increase over that time period?
Chart #4:
Wow, thermal expansion of the oceans also results in a rising sea level. We can kill two birds with one stone using one single “Inside Climate News” article. If CO2 can’t cause the oceans to warm, it can’t cause thermal expansion, so it isn’t causing the increase in sea level. BTW, the sea levels aren’t rising at an increasing rate, so this is a Strawman anyway. Here is the tidal chart of Battery Park at the South end of Manhatten. It shows no increase in the rate at all going way back to 1850. Sea levels have in fact paused since 1998, and the current level is below the level reached in the late 1950s. Sea levels BTW sea levels are increasing at a rate of less than 3mm/yr. Do the math, Manhatten is at no risk of sinking anytime soon. Funny how “Inside Climate News” forgot to mention that.
Meanwhile, ocean air temperatures are back down to levels before the most recent El Nino started:
Presently sea surface temperatures (SST) are the best available indicator of heat content gained or lost from earth’s climate system. Enthalpy is the thermodynamic term for total heat content in a system, and humidity differences in air parcels affect enthalpy. Measuring water temperature directly avoids distorted impressions from air measurements. In addition, ocean covers 71% of the planet surface and thus dominates surface temperature estimates. Eventually we will likely have reliable means of recording water temperatures at depth.
Recently, Dr. Ole Humlum reported from his research that air temperatures lag 2-3 months behind changes in SST. He also observed that changes in CO2 atmospheric concentrations lag behind SST by 11-12 months. This latter point is addressed in a previous post Who to Blame for Rising CO2?
The May update to HadSST3 will appear later this month, but in the meantime we can look at lower troposphere temperatures (TLT) from UAHv6 which are already posted for May. The temperature record is derived from microwave sounding units (MSU) on board satellites like the one pictured above.
The UAH dataset includes temperature results for air above the oceans, and thus should be most comparable to the SSTs. The graph below shows monthly anomalies for ocean temps since January 2015.
Open image in new tab to enlarge.
The anomalies have reached the same levels as 2015. Taking a longer view, we can look at the record since 1995, that year being an ENSO neutral year and thus a reasonable starting point for considering the past two decades. On that basis we can see the plateau in ocean temps is persisting. Since last October all oceans have cooled, with upward bumps in Feb. 2018, now erased.
More here at Science Matters.
I only see a black rectangle following the paragraphs that start, “The warming oceans are evidence that CO2 ISN’T the cause of the recent warming.” and ” This graphic validates the incoming visible radiation warms the oceans theory.” It might be something wrong at my end, but I get those black rectangles on Firefox and Chrome.
Yes, I get the same black boxes with Firefox and IE….haven’t tried Chrome.
The SST anomaly is based on a 1971-2000 NOAA climatology.
There is no global warming due to AGW and the minor recent global warming that did take place is ending this year, year 2018.
Thus far year 2018 is cooperating with overall sea surface temperatures now less then +.15c above 1981-2010 means in contrast to +.35c during the past summer.
In addition according to satellite data the global temperatures this year are lower then a year ago through today.
One key metric that has to be watched is the North Atlantic which is now in solid negative territory around -.60c from 1981-2010 means.
Greenland Ice very healthy.
As the sun continues in a prolonged solar minimum state this is going to equate to lower overall sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo which in turn will equate to a colder climate.
The weakening geo magnetic field will compound this .
I have been saying this for years and this year 2018 , is the first year that my two solar conditions have been met in order to have the sun result in a more significant climatic impact. Those being 10+ years of sub solar activity in general(which started in year 2005) and within this sub solar activity in general a period of time of very low average value solar parameters(which started in year 2018) meaning solar reading equal to or lower in magnitude that occurs during typical solar minimums with the duration of time of these very low solar values longer then what is typical.
It is happening this year and this is the first time since the ending of the Dalton Minimum, that my two solar conditions are occurring.
In the meantime all the basic premises AGW theory is based on have failed to materialize while the global climate is not even close to being unique.
The theory should have been trashed 20 years ago but has survived due to political agendas.
it
Salvatore Del Prete – June 6, 2018 1:45 pm
Right you are, me thinks, …… Salvatore, …… and like myself, there are quite a few others who have been saying bout the same thing, for the past 10+ years.
And keep in mind, …… when the aforesaid “lower overall sea surface temperatures” (specifically in the Southern Hemisphere) become an accepted reality, …… the yearly “upward swing” of the Keeling Curve Graph will “stall” …. and then start a yearly “downward swing” as the sea surface temperatures continue to decrease.
Greenland smb has taken a very unusual turn recently. …
One-year animation of SST Anomalies, Snow Coverage, and Sea Ice Coverage (Pacific Ocean and the Americas). This animation is well suited to observing the ENSO SST Anomaly phenomenon during El-Niño/La Niña years. It also displays the yearly cycle of snow coverage over the northern landmasses.
https://weather.gc.ca/saisons/animation_e.html?id=year&bc=sea
I live on the coast in a mid-Atlantic state. In the winter months it is always a few degrees warmer there than several miles inland. The converse situation exists in the summer. Does this suggest that ocean heat has some influence on the ambient air temperature? Experts please explain this phenomena.
Influence of Ocean heat on ambiant air temperature is common knowledge. It is true between season, but also between night and day.
The basic reason is that Ocean has a larger heat capacity than land. On the heating side, Ocean resists heating with evaporation, that isn’t as strong on land, so the land heats quicker. On the cooling side, as soon as ocean surface cools, heat from below very effectively replace it, because hotter water move up; while if the land cools, heat from below very INeffectively come up, only through conduction.
A second important mechanism is that Ocean converts its energy into water vapor, and this vapor will heat the atmosphere above nearby land by converting into liquid water or even ice.
So, the clearer atmosphere since the 1990s has allowed the Sun to warm the oceans more than the conditions allowed before that. Increasing GHGs have retained heat released from the ocean oscillations?
The changes (variations) are all very subtle, but what’s the trend? No trend yet?
Stuart Nachman
Stuart, in addition to what the others said, you need to read about ……….
Land and Sea Breezes
http://www.eschooltoday.com/winds/land-breeze-and-sea-breeze.html
Many thanks for the education!
Basic facts.
Mass of seawater in ocean is 1400E18 kilograms
Mass of atmosphere is 5.15E18 kilograms
Mass ratio of ocean to atmosphere is 272
Seawater specific heat capacity is 4000 kJ/kg per degree
Atmosphere specific heat capacity is 1000 kJ/kg per degree
The heat capacity ratio of ocean to atmosphere is 272 times 4 = 1088
At the sealevel ocean surface interface, a cubic meter of seawater weighs 1030 kg.
A cubic meter of atmosphere weighs 1.22 kg
The mass ratio of seawater to air is 1030/1.22 = 844
The specific heat capacity ratio of seawater to air is still 4
For a cubic meter of air at the ocean surface, the seawater has a heat capacity of 844 times 4 = 3377
To raise the temperature of the seawater/air interface by 1C you need 3377 kilojoules for the water and 1 kilojoule for the air
No substantive comment. Just a nit. The only vowel in thee word “Manhattan” is an “a”. The word is misspelled in two places with an “e” in the last syllable.
Scott, watch those posted “nits” about misspelled words, to wit:
I have used a CO2 80 watt laser (set to 20watt output unfocussed beam diameter of approx. 1 cm) to warm 200ml of water in an insulated container.
Using a thermocouple 15mm below water surface (water depth 40mm) and STILL water 5 minutes of lasing and the thermometer reads an increase of 0.1°C (19.7 to 19.8°C). Stirring the water gives a final temperature of 21°C
Using the same water, the same laser power the same container and STIRRING the water gently gives a temperature increase of 4.5°C (21 to 25.5°C) at 15mm depth.
So yes, the penetration depth is small as physics predicts. But add in water motion, as you get in oceans, and the surface layers mix and bulk heating occurs. So it seems to me that there is a myth build up ofCO2 not warming the moving turbulent oceans.
As a matter of interest the beam power is still very large and explosive boiling (bubbles of steam) of the surface layer occurs removing some of the water heating power instantly. These explosions of stem presumably do not occur in oceans! The surface layer will of course evaporate when heated but will still be mixed into the ocean body
the explosions of steam in your experiment are 3 dimensional … I presume that the change of state in your experiment skews the total outcome opposite of the direction that you assume.
As long as warmists or for that matter, anybody don’t show the perfect relationship between temperature with CO2 [climate sensitivity factor] within plus or minus 5%, there is no need to worry on global warming. At present it is plus or minus 50%, which has no meaning in science or statistics.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
This argument is bogus. Oceans mix vertically on every spatial scale. IR has no problem heating the ocean.
If LWIR was capable of warming the oceans, it would be warmer in the top micron layer, where all DWLWIR is absorbed, than it is in the millimeter layer below.
The temperature profile of the oceans shows that there is no effective mixing night (when DWLWIR is still being received ) or day when both solar and DWLWIR is being received.
In the above plot, (a) is night and (b) is day. At night from about 15 microns down to about 5 metres it is absolutely uniform in temperature. Comapre that to the daytime profile where there is a very big temperature difference between 15 microns and 5 metres.
Since the top micron layer, both day and night, is cooler than the millimeter layer below, it follows that there can be no effective mixing of DWLWIR. One can see from the profile that it is not being sequestered to depth since, if it was, one would expect to see a similar profile (but not of course as warm) as that seen during the day where the top is warmer, but getting cooler cm by cm right down to 5 metres.
Thermal energy is fungible: once the LWIR is absorbed it loses its identity.The temperature profiles are then governed by the laws of heat transfer as applied to the convective transport below the surface, and the first law of thermodynamics applied to a control volume containing the water-air interface, and the in- depth thermal boundary condition.Analysis of this heat transfer problem will show how the LWIR “heats” the ocean by raising the interface temperature, and hence reducing the convective heat loss from the bulk ocean.The analysis is not simple and requires care.
I think you’re confusing two different things there… the top micron has an energy balance, absorbing energy from below and emitting it above. If whatever is above radiates more IR, the top micron layer becomes warmer relative to its own previous temperature but not necessarily relative to whatever is below it.
.
.
For example, put a metal plate between fire and a pile of snow. The metal plate radiates upward into the snow and is therefore cooler than the fire. Now take the snow away — the plate gets hotter than it was before, but not hotter than the fire.
And, like the plate after the snow is removed, a warmer top micron layer transfers less heat from below, because the differential is smaller.
At night, the oceans only receive DWLWIR. As can be seen from the NASA Modis data (plot a), the temperature is absolutely uniform between about 15 MICRONS and 5 metres.
If energy absorbed in the top MICRONS was being mixed and transported downwards to depth, the temperature profile between 15 MICRONS and 5 metres would not be uniform. It would have a profile somewhat similar to the daytime profile (plot b).
The source of the plot that I refer to is from Wikipedia which in turn has sourced it from NASA (MODIS).
Author: In the 3rd paragraph, the 2nd “click here” is not active.
The high level of CO2 at the surface of the North Atlantic has no impact on the ocean surface temperature, at most negative.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=-46.13,24.57,393/loc=-33.506,42.519
I don’t understand chart #1. How can you show such a wide variance of anomaly in he early years (at only a 95% level: at a decent scientific 99% how wide would it be?) and (i) stick a black line down the middle and (ii) calculate an average from that to calculate anomalies?
What the chart actually shows us that is it is as likely that there was no heating between 1960 and 1995 as there was heating.
I stopped reading when I came to 407.572 W/M^2. Who in his right mind thinks that everything after the decimal point has ANY significance (in this case)?
You may use 407.572 in the MODTRAN calcs but I suspect a correct figure is 407 +/-3, more like the real number. That’s the best we can do and people are argueing 0.6 W/M^2. Give me a break!
Oceans are not adding warmth as much as they are not mixing it in as much. Warmth rises. When that is allowed to happen in the ocean, it is far more the case that oceans are losing heat to the surface and then to the atmosphere. To the eyes of the satellites, it looks like oceans are adding heat. In reality, when the oceans are warm on top they are losing heat. Whether or not it is a short term or long term loss or more importantly a net loss are better questions.
Warmth rises.
If you have a heater at the top of an aquarium, does heat then rise or sink?
The oceans have a temperature gradient from top to bottom. If you raise the surface temps then a new gradient reestablishes itself from top to bottom. (thus heat can sink)…
I watched Al Gore’s embedded video. He does a good job of presenting his side (for children). At the end he wraps-up by misrepresenting skeptics.
This is by no means an easy subject though Al Gore would have you think otherwise. There are many variables and considerations that affect the earth’s climate. If you are interested in the subject and you listen to all parties, you soon learn that it’s a lot more complicated than just CO2.
Al’s best argument are the graphs of temperature and CO2 concentrations. As skeptics pointed out a long time ago, the graphs are never superimposed. To do so might provide hints of cause and effect. The best fit of the data has temperature change preceding C02 change by several hundred years. Causes precede effects. It seems that global warming causes the release of CO2 from the oceans. Basic science as warmists like to say.
Even at an ECS of 3°C, the co2 warming from glacial to interglacial is only 1/3 of the total. (anyway you slice it, it’s a meaningless argument)…
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS)
In ignorance, I will post a few questions (final paragraph). I’ll appreciate any constructive response.
Gore and others treat CO2 as a “greenhouse” gas. The entire greenhouse metaphor is imprecise. For example, greenhouse ceilings are solid and prevent convection, not so CO2. Still the basic idea is that sunlight enters the atmosphere, but is not re-radiated out to space due to CO2. From the article: ” CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18µ.” Yes CO2 only operates within a band.
Question how does that band (13 and 18µ) compare to the band of light received from the sun? What happens to the light within that band? Is it sent back to earth and re-radiated to space from a longer wave-length? Is it absorbed by land and sea as heat?
ChessExpert – I’ve assumed that the carbon cycle keeps the amounts of CO2 cycling in a delicate balance over the course of many centuries. The cycles in the orbit and the axis of rotation reinforce each other to cause planetary warming. This increases the available CO2 for further insulating of the planet. All things being equal there’s an acceleration in the warming. According to what little I’ve reviewed, this was repeated many times in the ice core data and CO2 was the only forcer which was consistently increasing at those times. But there’s so many other complicating factors.
So suddenly now you accept the results of climate models?
PS: Whoever did that MODTRAN calculation, it’s wrong in some way. (I can’t see the screen capture — it’s just a big black box for me, in two different browsers.)
Also, the ocean surface isn’t glassy smooth, so it’s not clear that warming the top skin layer by IR doesn’t get mixed into the ocean as a whole.
But as the lower atmosphere warms, that part just above the ocean surface is warmer, meaning the ocean cools less, meaning the ocean warms.
David writes
The skin layer that receives the DLWR isn’t warm. It’s colder than the ocean directly below it. If it’s mixed down its a cooling effect.
Tim,(and David Appell,Richard Verney). The surface temperature is always lower than that of the bulk water below.Thermal energy is always convected/conducted from the bulk to the surface to balance the heat loss from the surface to the atmosphere by radiation emission, convection and evaporation.An increase in DLWR absorbed close to the surface means that less energy needs to be transferred from the bulk.Nature controls this by increasing the surface temperature to value determined by the 1st Law energy balance at the interface.DLWR reduces the heat loss from the ocean,which some people interpret as heating the ocean–but this is surely a matter of semantics.
I am sorry that I cannot reply to your comments using your ideas/models of heat transfer processes. They have serious shortcomings and are inadequate. I use the heat transfer science found in standard textbooks , which I recommend you explore.
The point you raise is different.
Some people argue that DWLWIR actually heats the oceans, which is the point that I am addressing. Whether DWLWIR in some way slows the rate (or indeed the amount) of cooling of the oceans, thereby indirectly leading to a warmer ocean than would otherwise be the case, is a different matter.
Richard: Perhaps the confusion relates to what you view as “heating” the ocean.Absorbed DWLWIR adds thermal energy to he ocean.The resulting temperature profiles are governed by the laws of heat transfer.
Anthony Mills writes
Then you have no problems with dismissing David’s ideas that DLWR warms the ocean skin and that warmth can be mixed down (into the bulk). That idea is an incorrect one.
The ocean skin temperature is set by its requirement to radiate according to S-B (as per your condescending “I know it and you dont” description) AND the rate at which evaporation is occurring.
You missed that vital part in your own understanding. Maybe you need to reread your text.
Or maybe its because in the short space you didn’t put a full and complete explanation…
Tim: AND— I wrote “radiation emission, convection and evaporation” What did I miss??
Detail that matters, Anthony. Put another way, what exactly is your issue with my (and Richards) “ideas/models of heat transfer processes” ?
Because “sorry that I cannot reply to your comments”
and “found in standard textbooks”
is just trolling.
David
Look at the NASA Modis data (which is set out in the warmist Wikipedia):
(a) is the night time temperature profile, when the oceans receive only DWLWIR, and (b) is the day time temperature profile, when the oceans receive both DWLWIR and Solar irradiance. Compare the profile (not the absolute temperatures). One shows migration of heat to depth, the other does not.
It is clear that no DWLWIR makes its way past the top 15 MICRONS (the top MICRONS being the evaporative layer, and which layer is actually cooler because of evaporation).
You will note that in plot (a), the temperature is uniform between about 15 MICRONS and 5 metres confirming that no heat is finding its way/migrating to depth. If some of the DWLWIR was being mixed and migrating its way to depth the top 1 cm would be slightly warmer than the cm below, and so forth all the way down to 50 cm, 1 m, 2m, or 3m or whatever.
There is no way that energy/heat can suddenly get below 5 metres without leaving a trace of its path from the surface (or at any rate as from 15 MICRONS) to 5 metres.
If DWLWIR was being mixed and carried to depth we would see a broadly similar temperature profile as seen during the day, but of course not offset by as much warmth (temperature).
1.The modis “data” shown are simply rough sketches of profiles at two time instants of the 24 hour diurnal cycle.Fig. (a) is perhaps towards morning;Fig.(b) is about noon
2.In Fig.(a) the temperature should decrease slightly from ~5m to ~1mm,but is not seen because the Fig. was never intended to be an accurate graph of measured or calculated temperatures.
3.The temperature always decreases above ~1mm as required by thermodynamics to transfer heat to the interface to balance the losses to the atmosphere by emission,convection and evaporation.
4.The ocean is always losing heat to the atmosphere.An increase in DWLWIR means the less heat needs to be transferred from the bulk ocean by convection/conduction to satisfy the interface energy balance.This is a first order “greenhouse” gas effect of an increase in CO2.
6.Please, no one is claiming that DWLWIR is being is being “mixed” and ” migrating to depth” ,whatever these terms mean.
Anthony writes
But David Appell wrote
So if nobody is claiming ‘DWLWIR is being is being “mixed” and ” migrating to depth”’
Perhaps you could interpret David’s statement for us?
Please change “no one is” to “I am not” in my 5.33 pm reply.I used the term “no one” too loosely in the context of the discussion.
Global warming (alias “climate change”) was ended by the Montreal Protocol.
It is, by now, understood that rapidly and steadily rising atmospheric CO2 can not be responsible for the highly irregular global temperature record of the past 50 years, during which the only clearly identifiable episode of global warming took place within the 24-year interval from 1975 to 1998.
It is equally evident, from new research, that the forcing agent responsible for the sudden rise in temperature from 1975 to 1998 is monatomic chlorine, photodissociated from anthropogenic CFCs on polar stratospheric clouds, thinning the ozone layer and admitting increased irradiation of Earth’s surface by intense solar ultraviolet-B radiation that would otherwise be engaged in the destruction of ozone.
This is still happening, despite the Montreal Protocol, and will continue to cause elevated temperatures throughout most of the present century because the ozone destruction reaction with chlorine is catalytic and because both CFCs and chlorine have long residence times in the atmosphere. Further global warming, however, will not occur.
Should this interest you further, I would be happy to send you references to research into this important matter.
David Bennett Laing
Polymath, Dartmouth ’62, Harvard ’72
This article (from Andy?) tells us that “LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate or warm the oceans.”
LWIR absorbed mostly by the top 10 um of the ocean. It is absorbed, not reflected. Therefore it heats the top 10 um of the ocean.
The ocean also emits LWIR, usually more than it absorbs. Exactly same top 10 um of the ocean that absorb LWIR emit more LWIR than it absorbs. And evaporation occurs from an even thinner layer of water molecules at the surface. So the top 10 um of the ocean is colder than the bulk ocean just below the surface. (On the average evaporation costs 80 W/m2, OLR 390 W/m2, simple heat 20 W/m2, and DLR returns only 333 W/m2.)
So the top layer of the ocean is colder – and denser – than the bulk ocean below. The dense surface water sinks (especially at night) and is replaced by water from below that has been warmed by SWR (which mostly penetrates past the top 10 um).
It is nonsense to say that LWIR doesn’t “penetrate or warm” the ocean. LWIR doesn’t need to penetrate more than the top 10 um of the ocean to add energy to the ocean. If one wants to be picky about the thermodynamic term “heat”, it refers to the net flux of energy, which is always from hot to cold. The ocean is generally warmer than the atmosphere so heat flux is from the ocean to the atmosphere. But the energy in downward LWIR (averaging 333 W/m2) is absorbed by the ocean. If not, the surface of the ocean would quickly freeze from the absence of that 333 W/m2 of energy.
The author deceptively continues: “The problem is, as we have pointed out countless times, CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18µ.”
What is meant by “thermalization”? Thermalization means that when CO2 is excited by absorbing a photon of LWIR, that excited state is “relaxed” by collisions much faster than a photon of LWIR is emitted. The radiative energy in the photon becomes part of the kinetic energy of moving gas molecules, which is proportional to their temperature. On the average, the excited vibrational state of CO2 exists for about 1 second while about 10^9 collisions occur every second – though not all collisions will relax an excited state.
However, the author is wrong to say the only thing CO2 does is absorb IR – which is thermalized. Collisions also produce vibrationally excited CO2 molecules, and these excited molecules emit LWIR. The fraction of excited CO2 molecules capable of emitting a photon depends on the temperature (in the troposphere and stratosphere) and not on the amount of radiation.
The truth is that CO2 both absorbs and emits radiation. Double the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and you will double the number of photons absorbed AND emitted – and cancel to a first approximation. However, LWIR traveling downward before it is absorbed is emitted from altitudes where it is colder, while LWIR traveling upward when absorbed was emitted from where it was warmer. So doubling CO2 leads to a very small decrease in LWIR escaping to space – about 3.6 W/m2 out of 240 W/m2 (1.5%).