The Big 5 Natural Causes of Climate Change Part 3: How La Nina Warms the World

Jim Steele

Climate scientists agree any imbalance between the earth’s absorption and release of energy can cause climate change.

However, the question is how much of that imbalance is caused by ocean dynamics vs increasing CO2 concentrations. This video explains how La Ninas and El Ninos can drive the earth’s energy imbalance by storing heat in the ocean, and why this natural explanation of global warming is superior to blaming greenhouse gases.

Transcript Below.

The Big 5 Natural Causes of Climate Change  pt 3  How La Nina Warms the World 


Welcome everyone

Today in part 3 of the big 5 natural causes of climate change, I want to demonstrate how more frequent La Ninas have warmed the world

La Ninas promote clear skies over the eastern pacific increasing solar heating. As a result, the eastern Pacific absorbs over 100 watts per meter squared more solar energy than it releases back to space. A similar but smaller energy imbalance occurs in the eastern Atlantic during Atlantic Ninas

The blue regions release more energy back to space than their surfaces absorbed. That excess energy was initially absorbed and transported from the tropics. Climate scientists agree any imbalance between the earth’s absorption and release of energy can cause climate change.

However, the question is how much of that imbalance is caused by ocean dynamics vs increasing CO2 concentrations

In all peer-reviewed research the world’s energy budget is measured in terms of watts, the flow energy per second. For example, a burning candle emits 80 watts. But step just one meter away from that candle and you will not feel its heat. So, to express the effects of heat energy, heat is measured in the amount of watts reaching a square meter of surface area, or watts per meter squared.

On average, the earth’s atmosphere and surfaces absorb 240 watts per meter squared of solar energy.  

Claims of a climate crisis, are based on the belief that CO2 is causing the earth to retain just one more watt of solar energy than it releases back to space

But natural ocean dynamics also cause the earth to retain more absorbed solar energy than it releases back to space

The greatest amount of heat absorption happens when the pacific is in its neutral condition or a La Nina-like state which is simply a more extreme neutral state.

The trade winds blow warm waters across the Pacific and concentrate them in the western Pacific and Indian Ocean creating the warmest body of water on earth, the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool

That removal of water from the eastern Pacific allows cool sub-surface waters to upwell there. The cooler temperatures generate fewer clouds which increases the absorption of solar energy by 15 watts per meter squared

Furthermore, the resulting east to west temperature difference amplifies the trade winds causing positive feedback that favors maintaining La Nina like conditions.

Strong trade winds cause more heated water to be stored deeper in the western pacific where the heat is inhibited from ventilating back to space.

Climate scientists are fully aware that this dynamic increases ocean warming, but only bring it to the public’s attention when they blame the ocean for creating a hiatus in the rise of global average temperatures that contradicts simplistically based predictions of warming driven by rising CO2.

James Hansen is considered the godfather of the climate crisis. Initially he studied the climate on Venus, which is lifeless and devoid of water. So naturally his analyses and models of climate change are typically focused on greenhouse gases that affected Venus.

To his credit, Hansen admits this bias in his 2005 paper stating “our climate model is driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols”

But Hansen also realized that regards the earth’s climate, “one may find other combinations that yield warming comparable to that of the past century”

An increasing understanding of the effects of El Ninos and La Ninas is providing such an alternative combination of effects and a comparable alternative explanation for the warming that Hansen and his acolytes blame on CO2.

Hansen didn’t carefully examine those ENSO effects because as he stated his “coarse-resolution ocean models had been unable to simulate climate variations associated with El Nino–Southern Oscillation processes”

Now the improving understanding of El Nino & La Nina effects will likely cause the CO2 driven climate crisis claims to fall like a house of cards

Climate scientists have calculated the earth’s energy budget, but it is plagued with large uncertainties. However, when trying to convince the public that their science is settled, illustrations such as this one posted by NASA, hide all those uncertainties.

Fortunately, the budget calculations by Stephens 2012 exhibited more integrity and highlighted those uncertainties.

Nasa’s yellow arrows show incoming absorbed and outgoing reflected solar radiation Nasa’s red arrows show the outgoing infrared and the back radiation from greenhouse gases that recycle the infrared and delay the rate of the earth’s cooling

Nonetheless, eventually nearly all the infrared energy escapes back to space. Except an estimated mere 0.6 watts per meter squared, but with an uncertainty of + or – 0.4 watts

Regards how much energy the ocean stores and releases. The uncertainty is huge. The uncertainty of the cooling effects by evaporation alone, or latent heat, is + or – 10 watts, overwhelming the estimate of a CO2 driven energy imbalance.

During the Little Ice Age, the oceans cooled for about 400 years. The Pacific was mostly in a persistent El Nino-like state, a condition that reduces how much heat is stored at depth relative to a La Nina like state. Solar minimums reduced the trade winds which the El Nino like state further weakened.

One result of an El Nino-like ocean is the reduction of upwelling that brings nutrients to the sunlit layers. Thus, during the little ice age the pacific exhibited low biological productivity.

Then in the early 1800s as solar irradiance rose the ocean entered a more La Nina like state, increasing upwelling and ocean productivity.

A switch to a more persistent La Nina-like state amplifies the trade winds and raises sea levels in the western Pacific. Accordingly, between 1993 and 2010 satellites observed western pacific sea levels rising many times higher than the global average.

The stronger winds of an La Nina-like state drive more warm water into the western Pacific, increasing the size and the depth of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. The warm pool’s growing heat is then transported around the world.

Oceans can warm just by reducing the overall cooling rate even if there is no increase in absorbed heat.

During La Ninas, more heat is stored at depths, typically up to 200 meters, and those depths inhibit ventilation of that heat.

But the estimated 3 Watts/m2 of infrared heat from the back-radiation of greenhouse gases, never penetrates more than a couple of microns below the surface.

For reference, a human hair is about 70 microns thick. And 1000 microns equal just one millimeter

In contrast hundreds of watts from sunlight energy can penetrate 10 million times deeper. Depending on how clear the water is, the shorter wavelengths of sunlight can penetrate to 100-meter depths.

In general, a steady cooling of the ocean is controlled by a one-millimeter-thick layer at the surface. In addition, storms like hurricanes will episodically pull heat from the deeper layers.

Depending on depth of sunlight penetration, a layer up to 100 meters thick warms the ocean each day.

But that absorbed heat can only radiate away via the surface gateway that is less than 100 microns thick, termed the electromagnetic skin layer

In addition, heat can leave the ocean via contact with the air or via evaporation, which only happens from the 100-micron thick layer termed, the thermal skin layer

Because this upper layer is always losing heat, it is cooler than the diurnal warm layer below and is sometimes called the cool skin layer. This cooler skin surface ensures the flow of heat is almost always from the warmer ocean layers back into the atmosphere.

As a result, the micron thick layer that absorbs greenhouse infrared is always ventilating any absorbed heat back to the atmosphere, in contrast to the deeper and warmer solar heated layer.

So, it seems virtually certain that any change in ocean warming must be driven by solar changes, and not from any changing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

During an El Nino event hot water in the western warm pool sloshes eastward across the pacific. Heated waters that had been stored at depths in the west is brought closer to the surface in the east. Where strong evaporation ventilates a portion of that heat and cools the ocean.

As that warm pool-heat then warms the eastern Pacific, it also reduces the trade winds, and sometimes, even reverses the trade winds’ direction creating feedback that prolongs an El Nino-like state.

Largely governed by the winds, the amount of transported hot water varies from year to year. In the 1600s, Peruvian fisherman named that warm water arrival “El Nino”, referring to baby Jesus, because the flow of warm water arrived each year around Christmas time.

Because El Ninos and La Ninas affect the winds and the jet streams and thus extreme weather patterns as detailed in part 2 of this series, to improve weather forecasting scientists measure changes in temperature within the Nino 3.4 area for statistical purposes.

When temperatures rise 0.5 degrees Celsius above average for about 5 months, an El Nino is declared. When temperatures drop 0.5 degrees Celsius below average a La Nina event is declared. The greater the departure from average the stronger the events effects.

Scientists also classify El Ninos according to the varying distance across the pacific that the heated water travels

Graphs of the globally averaged air temperatures are very sensitive to the heat released by El Ninos.

El Ninos are clearly seen as temperature spikes.

To naive journalists and the general public such warm spikes appear to confirm the coming global warming crisis. But such graphs obscure real climate dynamics As Kevin Trenberth, a chief architect of global warming theory admits, El Ninos are not just temporarily ventilating ocean heat, but cooling the earth’s entire climate. 

On the other hand, the cooler temperatures in the graph are associated with neutral conditions and La Ninas due to the upwelling of cold subsurface waters. Paradoxically that’s when the ocean is warming.

Clearly because natural El Ninos and La Ninas have such critical effects on climate change, we would expect much more of the earth’s warming to be attributed to ENSO dynamics.

But the reason CO2 gets the blame instead is quite clear. After more than a decade since James Hansen admitted the inability of climate models to reproduce El Nino La Nina ocean dynamics, climate models still do not accurately simulate them. As published by climate scientists Michael Mayer, Trenberth, and others in 2016

“All climate models greatly underestimate changes in Pacific Ocean heat content”

“And climate models underestimate the redistribution of heated waters between varying depths and between the eastern and western ocean.

“So, it is highly likely that climate models also underestimate La Nina’s contributions to the steady increase of heat in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool as well as underestimating the century rise in the average global temperature since the little ice age termination when the pacific entered a more La Nina like state.

Although an El Nino event lasts for about a year, its redistribution of heated water has much longer lasting effects associated with the pacific decadal oscillation

The heated water that sloshed to the eastern pacific doesn’t completely cool, causing the eastern tropical pacific to remain abnormally warm for 20 to 30 years. The reduced trade winds and other circulation changes reduce transport of warm waters to the northern pacific making it abnormally cool. This pattern of ocean surface temperatures is labeled the positive phase of the pacific decadal oscillation and strongly alters weather patterns, especially for western north America

As an El Nino’s residual warm waters continue to cool or get transported back to the western pacific, the trade winds gradually increase, and the resulting upwelling cools the eastern pacific further. Circulation changes now pump more warm water into the northern pacific. The resulting reversed temperature pattern is called the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and it amplifies the wavy jet stream over western North America increasing the probability of drought and heat waves.

The net increase in warm pool and global temperatures can be explained by an El Nino/La Nina Amplification effect

During an El Nino, heated warm pool water moves eastward primarily along the North Equatorial Counter Current.

As El Nino gives way to more neutral and La Nina conditions, much of El Nino’s residual warm water then re-circulates back to the warm pool via the north equatorial current and is reheated. This reheated water is slightly warmer than the heated cold-upwelled waters that largely fill the warm pool.

Some of that reheated water also circulates northward to warm the northern pacific.

An independent climate researcher and author, Bob Tisdale, was the first to recognize the higher temperature effects resulting from a La Nina-like state reheating residual warm waters from an El Nino event.

The re-circulation and re-heating of residual warm El Nino waters results in a gradual stepwise warming of ocean temperatures after each El Nino event.

The accumulating heat in the warm pool, then feeds the Ocean Conveyor Belt that transports that heat into the Indian Ocean, then the Atlantic and up into the Arctic as illustrated by the red loop.

Higher sea levels in the western Pacific during La Ninas help push warm pool waters into the Indian Ocean. A portion of those waters are further heated in the Indian Ocean, which then get transported around southern Africa into the Atlantic – a dynamic referred to as the Agulhas leakage.

Recent studies have detailed the pathway of Agulhas Leakage water into the Arctic

First across the southern Atlantic, then across northern brazil’s coast and into the Caribbean, then up the east coast of North America and into the Arctic – linking La Nina warming to Arctic sea ice fluctuations

Oscillations in the Agulhas Leakage correlate with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which correlates with lost arctic sea ice, as detailed in part one of this series. That lost ice allowed more stored Arctic heat to ventilate and increase the global temperature much like the ventilation of deep warm pool waters also raises global temperatures.

As Hansen unintentionally predicted in 2006: “other combinations” such as discussed here, the transport of solar heated waters heated by more frequent La Nina events, can yield alternative causes that explain a comparable warming.

Up next: part 4 of the big 5 natural causes of climate change: landscape changes

Until then embrace renowned scientist Thomas Huxley’s advice: “skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin”

https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2022/05/how-la-nina-warms-world-pt3-big-5.html

Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.

4.8 27 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
254 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 13, 2022 10:11 am

It is crucial to know the optical properties of water. Its spectral hemispheric emissivity is only 0.91 over the LW range.

comment image

And this has direct implications, as with the “earth energy budget” shown above. With an emissivity of 0.91 Earth will emit just 355W/m2 at 288K, not some 390…

https://greenhousedefect.com/what-is-the-surface-emissivity-of-earth

JCM
Reply to  E. Schaffer
May 13, 2022 4:02 pm

Earth will emit just 355W/m2 at 288K, not some 390

You are right. In atmospheric flow diagrams LW up – LW down must equal surface IR window. This, from whatever perspective one might define surface flux.

Reply to  JCM
May 13, 2022 4:30 pm

Not necessarilly. However, the way more pressing problem here is, next to the one I named, that two opposing “fluxes” are no flux at all. Probably way too obvious for “climate scientists” to understand 😉

JCM
Reply to  E. Schaffer
May 13, 2022 4:39 pm

Not necessarilly.

Interesting. tell me more! One other interesting observation, from a surface flux perspective, is that the terrestrial surface is not a plane. The surface area is significantly larger than observed from satellite, by surface undulation. A smaller proportion makes it to atmosphere than by a 2d plane.

Reply to  JCM
May 13, 2022 5:10 pm

Well it is pretty simple. The boundary layer between surface and atmosphere is as good as any other. You can define any boundary layer and in basically every case the same condition will be true. There will always go about as much radiation from one side to the other, as vice versa. Imagine a layer 1 meter underneath the soil, or a layer going right through your body, or a layer high up in the atmosphere, pick whatever you want. It is just one side radiating into the other.

Alternatively imagine a long winding lake. Then introduce a vertical “boundary layer” right through the middle of it. Both sides would then excert the same amount of water pressure onto the other side. Yet, these are not two rivers, but only one lake. Just like water pressure does not indicate a flow, radiative pressure so to say, does not indicate an energy flow.

PS. for climate scientists this insight must look like alien technology 😉

JCM
Reply to  E. Schaffer
May 13, 2022 5:27 pm

If you’re saying there is not net IR flow within the atmosphere in an upward or downward direction, this I am in agreement with. Is that a correct interpretation?

Reply to  JCM
May 13, 2022 5:59 pm

Simpler: no “net flow” means no flow.

JCM
Reply to  E. Schaffer
May 13, 2022 6:16 pm

Fascinating. Do you agree there is a concept of IR window, or not? How do you reconcile potential losses from upward emitted energy? Is it all intercepted regardless of atmospheric concentration? If so, is this related to concepts of Kirchoff’s law in your view? Thanks.

Reply to  JCM
May 13, 2022 7:07 pm

Sure there is an IR window. It poses no problems. With regard to the this window the atmosphere does neither absorb, nor emit radiation. Let us say the surface emits 355W/m2 and the window has a size of 45W/m2. Then 310W/m2 “flow” from the surface into the atmosphere, and about the same 310W/m2 (a bit less likely) from the atmosphere onto the surface.

Again, these 310W/m2 are just radiation pressure, not two seperate energy flows with a “net zero”. With the atmospheric window however, we have a flow.

Note: they like to exaggerate “back radiation” a little bit to fit the bloated surface emissons.

JCM
Reply to  E. Schaffer
May 13, 2022 6:36 pm

I should add that, in my view, energy is delivered to a certain height by non-radiative means. Therefore, there can be a delivery of energy to a height that might not otherwise be possible by a raw radiative flow. This, where total energy budget at any height might not be equal to a pure radiative equilibrium concept.

ResourceGuy
May 13, 2022 10:53 am

Excellent!!

and thanks for the Huxley quote.

Robert of Texas
May 13, 2022 11:05 am

Just past Figure 1, “Regards how much energy the ocean stores and releases.”

Should read “Regardless of how…”

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
May 13, 2022 11:16 am

This article is primarily concerned with and discusses ocean circulation and heat transport. But it makes no mention of the important role salinity changes play as surface evaporation, precipitation, and sea ice formation and melt all greatly influence those circulation dynamics due to density changes. One cannot decouple ocean temperature from associated salinity in the oceans to understand ocean circulation patterns in 3 dimensions. Doing so leads to negative learning. This makes understanding the dynamics an order of magnitude more difficult than simply looking at SST and ocean temperature patterns to understand what is going on.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 13, 2022 11:53 am

Joel,

Indeed salinity is an important factor. A major reason all heated water doesnt always just sit on the surface, but can also be stored at depths such as during La Ninas, is due to the greater density of water from increased salinity as a result of evaporation. Salinity density is the reason that in the Arctic Ocean, hundreds of meters thick of warm Atlantic water sits below a colder fresher Arctic surface layer, as discussed in part one of this series. Its that stored heat in saltier water that is ventilating from the Arctic and biasing global temperatures.

However, I can not cover every aspect of the complex dynamics of climate change in a single video that I want to keep to no longer than 15 minutes, so as not to discourage the general public from watching. Even 15 minutes can be too long for many. Too much detail loses most non-science people, and I offer quite a bit of detail that I know is overwhelming to many. So I dont go down all the rabbit holes that you might feel are important for every topic, and choose instead to only provide the important basics in each of these videos.

Rick C
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 13, 2022 2:27 pm

Jim: Thanks, you do an excellent job. I played your first one on my tablet without using earphones while my science challenged wife was reading in the chair next to me. When it ended, she looked up and said “that was very clear and I learned a lot.” She’s now watching your new ones as they come out.

Reply to  Rick C
May 13, 2022 2:45 pm

Thanks Rick, that is great feedback

Sweet Old Bob
May 13, 2022 11:18 am

“In addition, heat can leave the ocean via contact with the air or via evaporation, which only happens from the 100-micron thick layer termed, the thermal skin layer ”

Except when the wind blows hard enough to cause sea spray ?

😉

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
May 13, 2022 11:58 am

Bob,

I agree that ocean spray will increase the loss of heat and there are many studies discussing how much wind changes the rate of cooling. But that fact doesnt alter my argument that the upper micron layer that absorbs greenhouse back radiation is the first layer to lose its heat, and it takes more wind and hurricanes (as I mentioned) to release deeper solar heated water.

Duane
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 13, 2022 1:02 pm

Not to mention that liquid water has a much higher density (mass per unit volume) and specific heat capacity (degrees temperature change per unit of energy change per unit mass) than gaseous air. In other words, liquid water changes temperature at a far slower rate than does air for a given exchange of energy. Liquid water is a massive energy sponge – it accepts energy readily with relatively little temperature change, and gives up energy readily with relatively little temperature change. It’s a gigantic “climate damper”.

Robert of Texas
May 13, 2022 11:19 am

As a result, the micron thick layer that absorbs greenhouse infrared is always ventilating any absorbed heat back to the atmosphere, in contrast to the deeper and warmer solar heated layer.”

I am having trouble with this micro thin layer of water – it may exist in a perfectly calm ocean but what about one that has waves? Sea spray? Ocean water near the surface of a wave is moving in a circular pattern so some amount of mixing must be occurring.

Interesting article. Thanks.

andy
Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 13, 2022 5:31 pm

Google ”thermal skin layer” rather than electromagnetic skin layer

dk_
May 13, 2022 11:21 am

These videos and articles by Jim Steele are excellent, and deserve wide distribution.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  dk_
May 13, 2022 12:37 pm

Ditto those sentiments! If climate were as simple as the simple-minded politicians would have us
believe, climate would’ve been reduced to several equations, which BTW, would be on the test! 😮

May 13, 2022 11:23 am

A useful reopening of the debate about the contribution of ocean cycles to climate variation.
As Bob Tisdale said long ago the El Niño state involves a discharge of ocean energy to the atmosphere and La Niña involves a recharge of ocean energy which Jim agrees with.
However, the discharge phase warms the air whilst the recharge allows the air to cool so we see atmospheric warming during El Ninos and atmospheric cooling during La Ninas.
My impression is that the Mediaeval Warm Period occurred during a period of El Niño dominance and the Little Ice Age a period of La Niña dominance which Jim does not agree with so I would appreciate some clarification on that point.
Another contributor here has taken Jim’s position on that point previously and I seem to recall someone having showed that it was flawed.
For my part I take the view that solar variations first alter global jet stream tracks which alters global cloudiness which changes the proportion of incoming solar energy able to enter the oceans which then alters the balance between El Niño and La Niña events.
Depending on which ENSO state is dominant then that leads to either a cooling or a warming world.
It is conceivable that La Niña dominance when the sun is more active allows a stronger recharge process which later boosts the power of El Niño discharges for a warming world so the issue as to which is dominant at any given time is not critical to my proposed sequence of solar induced effects but the precise relationship does need to be determined.
One way or another I think that it is the effect of solar variations on ENSO that warms or cools our world and moves the permanent climate zones around a bit to produce what we perceive as climate change.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 13, 2022 12:33 pm

Stephen,

The purpose of this video is primarily concerned with why are we seeing Indo-Pacific Warm pool increase and the oceans warm. Indeed there is considerable debate regards the state of the Pacific during the MWP and LIA. Because of the paradoxical dynamic that when the oceans (and thus earth system) are warming during “La Nina-like” conditions, air temperatures are cooling. That paradox is just one reason average air temperature is such a misleading measure of the earth’s energy imbalance. So for this discussion best to stay focused on ocean warming and cooling and put air temperatures aside for now.

I define a “La Nina-like” state which increases ocean warmth as one with a larger east-west temperature gradient than during an “El Nino-like” state. That larger temperature gradient enhances the trade winds and upwelling in the eastern Pacific.

The proxy evidence from Peruvian coastal upwelling that I presented is quite robust and suggests El Nino-like conditions during the LIA. Others have suggested similar cocnlusions based on coral proxies.

From Cobb (2003) El Nino/Southern Oscillation and tropical Pacific climate during the last
millennium

“The Palmyra coral data, in combination with a handful of ENSO-sensitive proxy records, do
suggest that the Pacific’s zonal SST gradient may have been larger during the MWP and smaller during the LIA. Higher mean d18O values in the tenth- and twelfth-century Palmyra corals hint at relatively cool and/or dry mean climate conditions in the central tropical Pacific, states that are both consistent with La Nina-like conditions.”

I do believe the coral proxies do need to be evaluated carefully because a changing ITCZ can shift locations of the equatorial currents which could creating conflicting evidence unless put in a broader context

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 13, 2022 1:04 pm

Another dynamic to consider are Asian monsoons.

La Nina-like conditions that enlarge the warm pool correlate with stronger monsoons.

From Shekhar (2022) Asian summer monsoon variability, global teleconnections, and dynamics during the last 1,000 years

“the Asian monsoon shows a weaker trend during the LIA and relatively stronger during the MCA. “

Reply to  Jim Steele
May 13, 2022 2:30 pm

Yes, it is tricky to sort out the causes from the effects. All the components of the system are mobile so that conditions in one location could suggest one thing and conditions at the same time in another location could suggest the opposite.
Your primary conclusion regarding the solar influence being the one that matters does seem to be correct.
All the established permanent climate zones move around at their peripheries as part of the negative system response to any radiative imbalances. Such moving around alters the global convective overturning circulation to keep the system stable and the oceans apply their own effects as you say.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 13, 2022 2:25 pm

Bob Tisdale took much unwarranted flack early on from the CliSciFi set trying to defend the CO2 control knob narrative.

Javier
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 13, 2022 4:20 pm

My impression is that the Mediaeval Warm Period occurred during a period of El Niño dominance and the Little Ice Age a period of La Niña dominance which Jim does not agree with so I would appreciate some clarification on that point.

Stephen, both interpretations are correct. El Niño is part of the mechanisms how the planet cools. No Niños during the Holocene Climatic Optimum despite lots of sun and warm temperatures because the planet wasn’t cooling. At the beginning of the LIA the planet cooled accompanied by an increse in Los Niños, but once the cold period was settled, Los Niños greatly decreased in number and strength.

At Moy et al. 2002:
Moy, C.M., Seltzer, G.O., Rodbell, D.T. and Anderson, D.M., 2002. Variability of El Niño/Southern Oscillation activity at millennial timescales during the Holocene epochNature420(6912), pp.162-165.

They make the comment that there is a relationship between ENSO activity and Bond events, so I plotted the data to check it:
comment image

ENSO activity looks as a negative print of bond events. The cooling is preceded/accompanied by increased El Niño activity. When the world is warming, like now, El Niño activity is low. We now get a strong Niño every 20 years and weak Niños every 3-5 years.

If we see a strong increase in Niño activity, grab for the coat no matter what the alarmists say!!!

Burl Henry
Reply to  Javier
May 14, 2022 5:50 am

Javier:

“Now we get a strong Nino every 20 years and weak Ninos every 3-5 years”

Nonsense!

Your understanding of El Ninos and La Ninas is completely wrong!

All natural El Ninos are preceded by a La Nina, whose cooling is caused by the injection of volcanic SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere by Plinian volcanic eruptions (VEI4 or larger). La Ninas provide ONLY cooling, not warming.

El Ninos form after the volcanic SO2 pollution of an eruption settles out of the atmosphere, cleansing the atmosphere and increasing the intensity of the sun’s rays striking the Earth’s surface.

As such, natural La Ninas and El Ninos are created by random volcanic eruptions, and not at intervals , as you maintain.

Javier
Reply to  Burl Henry
May 14, 2022 6:06 am

I never get in the way of people’s beliefs. Who am I to deprive anybody of his faith through science? You still have to explain why no Niños during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, but I am sure you’ll do it.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Javier
May 14, 2022 8:46 am

Javier:

Since only volcanic activity causes Ninas, the answer is that there were very few volcanic eruptions during that period (as is shown by ice core data, which shows that the climate was stable).

The same is true of the MWP, where there were only 31 VEI4 or higher eruptions in 300 years.

..

Reply to  Burl Henry
May 14, 2022 9:30 am

Burl, I dont think there is much support for your hypothesis, especially not enough tp dismiss Javier’s claim is nonsense.

Most researchers attribute ENSO to natural variability, with many mentioning solar influences. And as Javier notes, during the Holocene warm optimum, El Nino events were virtually non-existent as illustrated in the graph. Yet there were many volcanic eruptions during that time. To get up to speed read Koutavas (2012) El Niño–Southern Oscillation extrema in the Holocene and Last Glacial Maximum

holocene el nino koutavas.jpg
Burl Henry
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 14, 2022 7:57 pm

Jim Steele:

You have a serious misunderstanding as to the cause of La Ninas and El Ninos.

The title of your article “How La Nina Warms the World” is complete nonsense.

La Ninas DO NOT cause any warming, only cooling! They occur whenever there is a VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption that spews reflective (dimming) SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere, cooling Earth’s surface.

Natural El Ninos occur when the dimming SO2 aerosols eventually settle out of the atmosphere, cleansing it and increasing surface insolation enough to form an El Nino..

(Man-made El Ninos can also occur when there is a decrease in industrial SO2 aerosol emissions, as during a business recession).

See: “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”

http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climatic-change/

Your characterization of LIA oceanic temperatures as being warm is also wrong. The seas were COLD, because of an extensive period of volcanic eruptions and their SO2 aerosols.

See: “The Definitive Cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures”

https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.2.0170

As you say, there were many volcanic eruptions during the Holocene, but in a warm climate, a volcanic eruption rarely cools the climate enough to cause a La Nina.

For example, Pinatubo (VEI6) occurred during an El Nino and did not form a La Nina

And if the eruptions are separated by 4 to 5 years or more, they have little climatic effect.

Ireneusz Palmowski
May 13, 2022 11:33 am

It is true that during the La Niña period, heat is stored in the western Pacific. But during the winter season in southern hemisphere current can be seen pulling warm water toward Antarctica, where it must return heat to space as a result of the lowering of the troposphere, which merges with the stratospheric polar vortex.comment imagecomment image
For El Niño to occur, warmer subsurface water must be transferred to the eastern Pacific. Therefore, the east wind along the equator must be strong over an extended period (a strong enough La Niña). The current La Niña does not meet these conditions.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
May 13, 2022 11:36 am

When La Niña lasts during the winter in the Southern Hemisphere, the global sea surface temperature must fall.comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
May 13, 2022 11:48 am

Moreover, a stronger La Niña is correlated with the zonal circulation, so summer in the Northern Hemisphere will be cooler.comment image

Last edited 12 days ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Matt Kiro
May 13, 2022 12:01 pm

This is a very informative post about ocean heat circulation.

One thing bothers me:

Climate scientists agree any imbalance between the earth’s absorption and release of energy can cause climate change.

Im still trying to find where the climate is changing. Im sure someone more skilled than I can correlate all the information and data, Jim Steele posted here, to drought and wet conditions in various parts of the world. This would show the El Ninos and La Ninas control those conditions and they are just natural variations. All this data I think should show that a 30 yr window as a reference for the climate of a certain area is too short and we should extend it to 60 years.

If we go by the PDO +/- graph posted in the article , can we now expect a cooling of the earth similar to the 60s , 70s ?? It would appear likely.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Matt Kiro
May 13, 2022 2:39 pm

CliSciFi practitioners play word games with “climate change:” They use the mild warming and slight rainfall increases we’ve had in order to claim climate change has been proven. They imply (even claim it at times) that such a reference to the fact of climate change proves increasingly frequent and extreme adverse weather events are occurring. Its just another example of our Leftist governments’ continuing lies.

RickWill
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 13, 2022 7:20 pm

Climate Change was a synonym for Global Warming but is now a synonym for Burning Fossil Fuel.

What every living person will eventually realise is that there is climate change that is not synonymous with burning fossil fuel.

The current cycle of glaciation began 500 years ago. Little evidence yet but this millennium humans living on the land abutting the North Atlantic will again experience gradual accumulation of ice on land.

Duane
May 13, 2022 12:54 pm

In addition to all the complexities associated with oceanic currents, heat transfer, the properties of liquid water (specific heat capacity, latent heat of vaporization, vapor pressures) and the effects of clouds, there is also the internal heat generated by the mass of the earth itself because of radioactive decay. This heat obviously travels to the surface, either by direct heat conduction through the crust to the atmosphere and the oceans, or by convection via plate tectonics and volcanic activity.

The internal heat within the earth itself is not trivial.

It’s estimated that the total heat energy released by internal radioactive decay is 44 trillion watts. The entire surface of the earth, whether submerged or not, is approximately 510 million square kilometers, or 510 trillion square meters.

Assuming that eventually, in equilibrium, all that internal heat energy is eventually conducted to the surface of the planet, as it must, means that in terms of energy released per square meter of the earth’s surface is 0.0863 watts per meter. That may not sound like much, but it is more than 10% of Mann’s claimed excess energy absorption due to effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I point this out not as an “Ah Ha!” culprit to point the finger at for global warming, such as it is. I point this out to show that, just as author Jim Steele’s discussion of oceanic effect on climate shows, that Mann’s computer models are hopelessly simplistic and ignorant of even rather basic things like the oceans, clouds, biologic impacts, tectonics and vulcanism, variations in insolarity, variations in the earth’s distance from the sun and wobbles on the earth’s axis, the effects of geochemistry and biochemistry (i.e., carbon sequestration in the biosphere and crust) .. and probably a thousand other things nobody has ever thought of … all of which make significant contributions to what our climate is doing and will do in the future.

However, the great thing about our mature planetary and astronomical systems is, despite all the gazillions of things can can cause the climate to warm or cool, or get drier or wetter, is that it is all operating according to a very stable equilibrium right now. We are in betwixt the last glaciation and the next glaciation to come. It isn’t heating that will do us in, climatically speaking; it is cooling and that next glaciation that will surely wreak massive havoc on our biosphere and our species.

RickWill
Reply to  Duane
May 13, 2022 7:26 pm

The fundamental process that ensures Earth’s stable state is the process of deep convection. This limits ocean surface temperature to 30C and guarantees that the liquid water does not just boil off and the hydrogen released due to high energy radiation in the stratosphere. There would be no water vapour, no liquid water but ice would likely persist at the poles.

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
May 13, 2022 12:56 pm

Unfortunately I find other problems with this post too but here is the one that negates the title:

In the modern era, it was predominately El Niño periods that drove overall net SST warming:

comment image

La Niña, due to the reduction of solar energy through the solar minimum, is a solar ‘step-down’.

When SST warms out of a La Niña within the first few years of a solar cycle starting, it is in fact warming due to the increase in solar cycle energy, the solar ‘step-up’. When this happens, many skeptics claim that it is the La Niña causing this warming, no, this is wrong.

The ‘recharge’ this time again will occur from the increase in the solar cycle, the solar ‘step-up’.

comment image

Look at what has happened recently, the colder La Niña tropics with fewer clouds still haven’t warmed up, nor has SST overall, so the recharge mechanism based on albedo doesn’t work.

Reply to  Bob Weber
May 13, 2022 1:17 pm

Bob, You got it ALL backwards and very wrong!

Of course El Ninos warm the sea surface temperatures. As I stated, during an EL Nino, heat that was stored at depth was brought to the surface.

And of course “La Niña tropics with fewer clouds still haven’t warmed ” That’s because of the upwelling cool subsurface waters, NOT a failure of less cloud albedo to allow more solar heating.

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 13, 2022 2:19 pm

You’re fooling yourself with your rinky-dink explanation. The data I present are simply facts that contradict you, you can’t change it. You are wrong about the warm pool, the Niño4 region leads it significantly. You are the one who has things backwards.

comment image

Reply to  Bob Weber
May 13, 2022 2:44 pm

LOL Bob, you need to do better than claim that your “rinky-dink” self is the only holder of facts.

Your “rinky-dink” graph tells us nothing about ocean dynamics,

Are you seriously arguing that EL Ninos that reduce and often reverse the trade winds that drive warn waters into the warm pool and that El Ninos also happen when there is an observed increase in the eastward flow of warm pool water in the Equatorial Counter Current draining the warm pool , that El Ninos cause the Warm pool get warmer and bigger????? Wow!

You are making Griff look smart by comparison

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 13, 2022 3:15 pm

Your cut and paste presentations look good but miss key facts.

I didn’t make those facts up that I brought out Jim, it’s just that no one else had before now that I know of.

Perhaps you should do yourself a favor and get used to working with cross-correlations. If you think NOAA has it wrong take it up with them. Until proven otherwise I think the result stands. Maybe they are wrong, but your method of arguing with me would never convince me of that or anything.

Speaking of Griff, aren’t you showing me that you are at least as belligerent as he is to other unfamiliar ideas? Griff actually is curious and asks questions. You on the other hand have acted out towards me when challenged and can’t be bothered to frame your communication, your responses with me more constructively.

If you think I’m wrong, convince NOAA that their plot is wrong first; in the mean time I’m just the messenger of their data plot.

Last edited 12 days ago by coolclimateinfo
Reply to  Bob Weber
May 13, 2022 3:37 pm

ROTFLMAO  Mr “rinky-dink” 

You totally duck my question, and instead you schill for NASA’s pseudo climate claims. Your “rinky-dink” mind total confuses the expansion of warm surface waters during EL Nino vs El Nino’s discharge of the warm pool’s total volume.

Thee problem is Bob, you don’t understand the underlying mechanisms of the graphs you cut and paste, so you totally butcher the explanation.

Try to keep up!

Last edited 11 days ago by Jim Steele
Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 13, 2022 3:57 pm

You claim to know what I know or don’t know, who are you, God?

Apparently you have no idea how bad you look right now Jim. You sound so very desperate with your rhetoric.

Please take my suggestion and go to NOAA’ssite and work with the cross-correlations. If you can overturn their plot result, let us know.

https://psl.noaa.gov/data/climateindices/

Reply to  Jim Steele
May 13, 2022 4:16 pm

What I know Bob is an ignorant troll when I see one. You avoid dealing with the facts and everything you say contradicts well established ENSO science, but telling me to argue with NOAA. LOL

So here is what NOAA says about the evolution of ENSO and I bold their text to help your “rinky-dink” mind to focus on their facts.

As El Niño episodes progress to the mature phase, the depth of the thermocline gradually decreases in the central and western equatorial Pacific and increases in the eastern equatorial Pacific, in response to weaker-than-average low-level easterly winds. As a result, subsurface temperatures become cooler than normal in the western equatorial Pacific, and warmer than normal across the eastern equatorial Pacific. In the latter stages of El Niño episodes, both the depth of the thermocline and subsurface temperatures become less than normal throughout most of the equatorial Pacific as the heat in the upper ocean is gradually depleted. Thus, the warmer than normal temperatures become increasingly confined to a shallow layer near the ocean surface in the eastern equatorial Pacific, setting the stage for a transition to either a neutral state or to a La Niña episode. This transition process is critically dependent on the evolution of the low-level atmospheric winds. For example, if the easterly winds strengthen sufficiently, they can produce upwelling over the eastern equatorial Pacific, bringing the cold ocean waters to the surface. If the drop in sea surface temperatures is sufficiently large, it can lead to the onset of La Niña conditions.

Conversely, in the early stages of La Niña episodes the thermocline is generally shallower than normal across the equatorial Pacific. The thermocline gradually deepens in the western Pacific during the mature phase of La Niña episodes, and in the central Pacific during the latter stages of the episode. As a result, the subsurface temperatures become warmer than normal in these regions, while the ocean surface temperatures remain colder than normal. This decrease in the overall volume of abnormally cold ocean waters indicates an increase in the upper ocean heat content, and results in conditions more favorable for a transition to either a neutral state or to an El Niño episode. Once again the critical factors in the transition are the low-level winds and the subsurface temperature structure.

You got it ALL WRONG Mr “rinky-dink”, no matter what self righteous blather you push here!

Last edited 11 days ago by Jim Steele
Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 13, 2022 5:17 pm

Thanks for going to the trouble Jim, but I knew about the sub-surface flows and watched it happen in 2014-16 after solar max TSI warmed up the entire basin, according to my sun-climate threshold. I explained this many times using sub-surface plots in blog post comments here back in 2015-16 and beyond.

I note your quotation from NOAA makes no specific mention of the Warm Pool leading Nino4 so what use was it to post that other than to distract from the issue I brought forth.

You should note I made no mention whatsoever about anything but the image produced by NOAA’s site, so what I think you are now doing is simply serially abusing me, especially calling me a troll, trying to run me off. You are acting very thin-skinned and you are extrapolating everything you think you know I know out from just my few postings of that one single NOAA plot.

That said, if you truly are right about the Warm Pool leading Nino4 then I think it is entirely logical and possible that the NOAA plot would have to therefore be mislabelled, and whose fault would that be, mine or NOAA’s? Do you want to find out?

I really think you would benefit from working with their tools. Maybe you could be the one who convinces everyone their analysis plot is wrong.

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
Reply to  Bob Weber
May 13, 2022 6:46 pm

Lastly, my points about the solar-induced tropical step-changes are reinforced here with plots from my 2018 AGU poster, which shows the dependence of equatorial OHC on TSI. Note in panel (c) my expectation of a colder tropics for 2020-2024, which we have experienced as low TSI cooling was right on schedule with the La Nina, over soon as solar activity rises.

comment image

In 2018 I traveled to Washington, DC for my only in-person AGU meeting to present this info along with my theory & predictions, which have all worked out so far, so just maybe I know a little something about how the climate actually works.

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
Reply to  Bob Weber
May 13, 2022 6:47 pm

correction: “Note in panel (d), not (c)…

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 14, 2022 5:41 am

No one should think Jim’s abusive diatribe successfully refuted me either. His copy and paste of NOAA’s prose was not a refutation.

The funniest yet saddest thing about all these downvotes is not one of you will or can refute the essential point I made that makes Jim Steele’s article about the La Nina making the world warmer wrong; El Nino does it. It’s also ironic that Jim Steele actually still thinks his is right after he actually didn’t refute me.

comment image

So what in sam hell makes any of you think you won the argument with me?

Ocean temperatures cooled while land temperatures increased due to the La Nina, both successfully predicted by me in 2018, by doing science, using math, not by copy/pasting from articles.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Bob Weber
May 14, 2022 11:14 pm

I think TSI is one indicator of solar activity, but to trigger a La Niña, you need energy to strengthen the Humboldt Current so that it pulls cold water from Antarctica to the Nino 4 region. The strength of the easterly wind along the equator determines the depth of the thermocline in the western Pacific. So you are both right – what is needed is an increase in solar activity and a steady, strong easterly wind. This additional energy is provided by solar wind energy hitting the atmosphere at high latitudes. 
Of course, there is a stationary low over the eastern Pacific that pushes the heated surface waters westward. But for this high to last, the cold water of the Humboldt Current is needed.comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
May 14, 2022 11:25 pm

If we look at changes in Pacific surface temperature off the west coast of the U.S., we see that the cold California Current plays a similar role in the northeast Pacific as the Humboldt Current does in the south.comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
May 14, 2022 11:28 pm

Sorry, there is obviously a stationary high over the Southeast Pacific, not a low.

Matt G
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 15, 2022 1:17 pm

Jim is correct, Bob is not convincing.

The Hadley cell influences ENSO especially El Nino, that is ultimately related to solar activity.

“In the Hadley cell, air rises up into the atmosphere at or near the equator, flows toward the poles above the surface of the Earth, returns to the Earth’s surface in the subtropics, and flows back towards the equator. This flow of air occurs because the Sun heats air at the Earth’s surface near the equator.”

This weakens and strengthens the trade winds across the Tropics into 3 different phases. These are known as El Nino, La Nina and La Nada.

Solar activity increasing causes stronger trade winds and solar activity decreasing causes weaker trade winds.

During La Nina the trade winds are generally strong and lead to upwelling ocean water cooling the surface. Clear conditions increasingly result leading to increased sunshine warming the ocean waters. This increased in energy is not seen near the surface because of upwelling. The overall result leads to an energy gain in the system.

During El Nino the trade winds are generally weak and lead to little or no ocean upwelling. The sun warms the ocean surface strongly where no clouds form and this pools in duration with the same conditions. No upwelling prevents energy moved away from the surface below. This in turn leads to energy loss at the surface, warming the atmosphere as it circulates around the planet towards the poles.

Effect of El Niño on the response ratio of Hadley circulation to different SST meridional structures.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-019-04756-7

There is little evidence that volcanoes cause the ENSO phases and at best may only have an affect on them but still very doubtful. There is no trend with SAOT below 0.02 and the direction of ENSO.

The only time in recent decades stratospheric aerosol optical thickness were close to 0.1 and above were around 1983 and 1992 where there was an El Nino. This was likely coincidence because other El Ninos have occurred before and after with stratospheric aerosol optical thickness below 0.02.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Matt G
May 15, 2022 11:18 pm

I agree, but it’s not enough. A strong easterly wind and the force that drives it is needed for La Niña to form. This circulation begins at high latitudes and is related to the strength of the jet stream.comment image

Matt G
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
May 18, 2022 11:42 am

I forgot to include the Walker Circulation and this is indeed an important part of the mechanism.

Increased solar activity generally speeds up the walker circulation and of course this circulation slow downs with generally low solar activity. It is a significant reason why previous cool periods or ice ages were found to have dominant El Ninos with low solar activity.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Matt G
May 16, 2022 6:49 pm

Matt G.

You say that there is little evidence that volcanoes cause the ENSO phases.

On the contrary, essentially ALL ENSO phases are the result of volcanic activity.

ALL VEI4 or larger volcanic eruptions trigger a La Nina because of dimming SO2 aerosols injected into the stratosphere, and El Ninos occur after the SO2 aerosol pollution settles out of the atmosphere, cleansing the air.

(there are also some man-made El Ninos caused by decreased levels of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution)..

Matt G
Reply to  Burl Henry
May 18, 2022 11:30 am

There is NO TREND/pattern between SO2 aerosols decreasing or increasing into the stratosphere with ENSO.

Why was there for example an El NIno around 2009/2010 when S02 levels in the straosphere were at there lowest levels?

Why was there an El Nino in 1997/1998 when SO2 levels in the stratosphere were close to there lowest levels?

The cause is the mechansm already described in the previous reply. Only the 2 biggest eruptions since the 1980’s had a correlated El Nino. In theory reducing the suns surface penetration can reduce the trade winds and help form El Nino’s.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Bob Weber
May 13, 2022 1:19 pm

Better look again at what he is saying, not the basic warm phase cool phase effects.

JCM
May 13, 2022 1:08 pm

calculations by Stephens 2012 exhibited more integrity and highlighted those uncertainties.

These surface energy budgets are absolutely critical, and totally misunderstood and dismissed by radiation physicists.

What is not understood is that sensible heat flux from the surface and latent heat flux are not equal heat dissipaters, despite their units in W m-2.

Sensible heat flux tends to recirculate in the boundary layer, returning most of this turbulent flux to the surface at night.

Latent heat flux tends to condense and release heat to the free atmosphere aloft, returning relatively less turbulent flux back to the surface at night.

Therefore, what’s most important is the ratio of sensible heat to latent heat in surface budgets, in addition to their combined value.

An increasing proportion of sensible heat in total turbulent flux will appear as more heat returned to the surface, and less heat released aloft. This has the same observational properties of greenhouse enhancement. Surface warming, and cooling aloft.

An increasing proportion of sensible heat flux results in more heat returned to the surface at night. At night, total turbulent flux is net downwards in direction. Any remaining latent heat that was unable to condense aloft returns as condensation of dew or frost at the surface.

Periods of overall increasing sensible heat flux vs latent heat flux will appear as global warming. There are many factors that impact this ratio, not least cloud nucleation (hygroscopic salts and biota), terrestrial moisture availability (ecosystems, soil health), and oceanic surface properties (currents, winds, location of upwelling, etc).

All of these processes operate at scales below current generation CMIP model computations. I do not think they would argue this. However, I do not think those trained in astrophysics, remote sensing, or optical radiative physics can appreciate or visualize these interactions. They think they are secondary in importance, somehow. But this cannot be true under the laws of energy conservation. Viewing the system solely from radiation balances, as they do, is quite dull and boring in comparison to the rich array of processes happening all around us.

Thanks

RickWill
Reply to  JCM
May 13, 2022 7:43 pm

Did you observe where the high net surface heat loss regions are in the HUANG plot – adjacent to land masses. This is the result of latent and sensible heat transfer from the oceans to the land. In effect, solar radiation collected in the oceans and transferred by non-radiative transfer processes to be eventually released over land.

Globally, oceans are always a net absorber of ToA EMR while land is always a net dissipator of ToA EMR. Latent heat is the primary heat transfer mechanism – about 50,000Gt of water gets picked up from the oceans and drops out on land every year.

JCM
Reply to  RickWill
May 13, 2022 8:01 pm

 Latent heat is the primary heat transfer mechanism

Yes, exactly. Well done! This, within the atmosphere to a greater height.

bdgwx
May 13, 2022 2:03 pm

Jim Steele said: “So, it seems virtually certain that any change in ocean warming must be driven by solar changes, and not from any changing concentrations of greenhouse gases.”

That is not the conclusion of Wong & Minnett 2018. Note that the figure used in the article to illustrate the microsphysics of the skin layer originally came from both Wong & Minnett 2018 and Gentemann & Minnett 2008 with the former building on the later and extending it to show how incident longwave radiation from GHGs works to increase oceanic heat content even at considerable depths.

Last edited 12 days ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 13, 2022 2:22 pm

bdgwx,

I read that paper you refer to and they did “offer an explanation” as to how absorbed infrared in the upper micron could reduce the temperature gradient and thus the flow of heat from the warmer sun driven diurnal layer through thee TSL (thermal skin layer) thus help retain heat in the ocean. But that was mere speculation. And they did not address the fact that retaining heat would INCREASE electromagnetic radiative (ESL) cooling. That made me wonder how much the editors wanted to make sure their research didnt contradict the CO2 warming narrative, as it seems very, very odd that their possible explanation assume the TSL will warm despite the ESL cooling the layer faster via radiation than thermal conduction.

And consider last paragraph concluded, “Attempts to relate directly the curvature of vertical temperature gradient in the TSL and EM skin layer, as developed by Wong and Minnett (2016a, 2016b), to changes in the incident IR radiation did not produce a convincing dependence, at least on the time scales of our measurements. Revealing such a relationship will require more sensitive instruments than are currently available.”

Its good you are checking up on my references, but come back bddgwx when you have something more definitive to offer.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 13, 2022 5:01 pm

Jim Steele said: “But that was mere speculation.”

I think there may some confusion here. I cited the Wong & Minnett 2018 publication because it is based on the work from which the figure you included in your article originates. The authors are not dropping the epiphany that IR radiation warms water to significant depths; that was long ago established and can be seen even with the most rudimentary home experiment. Side note…you can see the experiment Dr. Spencer did showing the effect with the actual IR radiation coming from the sky here. Anyway, the authors are describing how the ocean warms to significant depth at the microphysical level using the TSL and EM skin layer model depicted in that figure. In other words the same microphysics you describe in the article are the same microphysics that explain how IR radiation warms the ocean at significant depths. There was never a question or challenge to the fact that IR radiation warms water. All you need is the 1st law of thermodynamics and the knowledge that IR radiation is absorbed by water to know that it will warm. That is not speculation. The question is how exactly does that happen given our understanding of the TSL and EM skin microphysics.

Jim Steele said: “And consider last paragraph concluded”

I’m not understanding your concern regarding the quote from the publication. It’s just saying the authors could find no dependence on IR radiation to the curvature of the vertical temperature gradient in the TSL and EM skin layer given the limitations of the measurements they performed with the M-AERI instrument. Not observing a dependence of this nature does not invalidate the conclusion that IR radiation provides the deep warming action indirectly by supplying the necessary energy for skin heat shed as opposed to that energy penetrating from below through the skin layer allowing it to accumulate below the skin layer.

Jim Steele said: “Its good you are checking up on my references, but come back bddgwx when you have something more definitive to offer.”

I’m not the one that offered this skin layer model. That was you. I’m just pointing out the authors of that model say it provides the microphysical explanation for deep ocean warming via IR radiation. The model does not say that deep ocean warming must be driven by solar changes.

Last edited 11 days ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 13, 2022 9:02 pm

There is no confusion on my part, but there is a considerable misinterpretation on your part.

Wong and Minnet very clearly stated “the incident IR radiation does not directly heat the upper few meters of the ocean. This paper investigates the physical mechanism between the absorption of IR radiation and its effect on
heat transfer at the air-sea boundary.”

and “the hypothesis we are investigating is to test whether internal adjustment of the TSL in response to changing infrared radiation at the sea surface can provide a mechanism for the retention of heat in the
water beneath.”

to prove their hypothesis they correctly state “we need to ensure that the incoming radiative flux, LWin@zenith is decoupled with the immediate changes in the outgoing turbulent and radiative fluxes, LH, SH and LWout.”

But you totally dishonestly say, “The authors are not dropping the epiphany that IR radiation warms water to significant depths; that was long ago established and can be seen even with the most rudimentary home experiment. “

You bdgwzx, are just making up schist.

And you are totally disingenuous to say “I’m not the one that offered this skin layer model. That was you” Of course it was me who presented the skin layer model, what are you babbling about??? I am saying I can tell YOU didnt critically read their paper.

You dishonestly misrepresent what I stated. I never said their model claims “warming must be driven by solar changes”. I gave my interpretation of their evidence saying, “it seems virtually certain that any change in ocean warming must be driven by solar changes, and not from any changing concentrations of greenhouse gases.”

It seems that is true for many reasons. Here is one of their arguments that is very dubious, and contradicted their own model in an attempt to claim incoming LW is “decoupled” from all the outgoing heat dynamics.

They wrote, “With respect to LWout, a simple analysis shows that the absorption of increased LWin does not increase the SSTskin temperature such that LWout compensates the release of heat back into the atmosphere.”

So how did they demonstrate that claim??

They go on, “For example, assuming an initial SSTskin of 300 K which corresponds to LWout of 459 W m22 from Stefan Boltzmann’s law, if the LWin increases by 20 W m22 and assuming all this energy is to be released back into the atmosphere through LWout, this implies that SSTskin would increase by 3 K,”

so they conclude because that increased heat “is not observed” then LWout therefore does not respond immediately to increase in the incident IR radiation.” But that is not a verifiable or logical claim. That lack of an observed increased temperature suggests that LWout is responding immediately and offsetting warming from LWin.

And look at Figure 8. They report LW out is always greater than LW in.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 14, 2022 5:44 am

Jim Steele said: “There is no confusion on my part, but there is a considerable misinterpretation on your part.”

If you think ocean warming must be driven by solar changes and not from changes in GHG concentrations then you are mistaken. That is not consistent with the microphysical model and conclusions presented in these publications.

Here is the conclusion from the authors in their own words.

The additional energy from the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is reduced. The additional energy absorbed within the TSL supports more of the surface heat loss. Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.

and

Our findings provide an explanation of the mechanism for retaining upper ocean heat content as the incident IR radiation increases. The absorption of increased longwave has been deduced to compress vertically the curvature of the TSL, with a higher gradient forming close to the interface and a lower gradient at subskin depths. The smaller vertical gradient at subskin depths impedes the transfer of heat from the mixed layer into the TSL. Because the heat sink at the interface does not change measurably on the scales of our individual measurements, this means that less heat from the mixed layer contributes to the loss of heat at the interface. This analysis was based on the immediate changes of the TSL to the heat fluxes due to the instantaneous response of the TSL. Greater downwelling infrared forcing would alter the upper ocean heat budget by adjusting the TSL such that more heat beneath the TSL, resulting from the absorption of solar radiation, is retained. This thus provides an explanation for the indirect heating of the ocean by increasing levels of incident infrared radiation and the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.

Notice that the authors are unequivocally saying that oceanic heat content increases indirectly by the absorption of DWIR. And they tell us how that occurs at the microphysical level using their skin layer model. Don’t hear what the authors nor I are saying. We are not saying that solar changes are irrelevant. In fact solar radiation in general is an important part of the process since it provides the input energy into the bulk. It’s just that bulk warming is not driven by and only by solar changes. It is also driven by DWIR from GHGs.

Last edited 11 days ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 14, 2022 7:09 am

bdgwx “If you think ocean warming must be driven by solar changes and not from changes in GHG concentrations then you are mistaken”

But it is consistent with the microphysical model, bdgwx simply doesnt understand its complexities

Wong & Minnett’s speculation that IR warms the shallow 100 micron depth thermal layer in which LWin only temporarily warms the upper 2 microns. And they certainly did not “ensure that the incoming radiative flux, LWin@zenith is decoupled with the immediate changes in the outgoing turbulent and radiative fluxes, LH, SH and LWout.”

Their estimates of LW out are always greater than LWin, despite the uncertainty they do not measure LWout but calculate it based on surface temperature. bdgwx doesnt understand that the surface temperature is cooler because of LWout, so that simply calculating LWout based on surface temperature will ALWAYS underestimate LWout.

Yet for bdgwx to support his argument he has dishonestly claimed what no scientists state “that IR radiation warms water to significant depths; that was long ago established” Unless a fwe microns are a significant depth, that’s a such a slimy little lie.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 14, 2022 8:08 am

Jim Steele said: “But it is consistent with the microphysical model”

No it isn’t. Wong & Minnett 2018 contradict your statement in clear and concise language. Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.” and This thus provides an explanation for the indirect heating of the ocean by increasing levels of incident infrared radiation and the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.”

Jim Steele said: “Their estimates of LW out are always greater than LWin”

Yeah. As expected. But notice that LWout does not increase when LWin increases. Look at figure 8 and do a trivial 1LOT energy budget of the skin layer and the bulk. Notice that in the presence of increased LWin in the skin layer reduces the Eout of the bulk. And per the 1LOT ΔE = Ein – Eout which means that if you reduce Eout while keeping Ein the same then ΔE > 0. In other words the bulk retains energy and warms. This warming occurred because LWin increased.

Jim Steele said: “Yet for bdgwx to support his argument he has dishonestly claimed what no scientists state “that IR radiation warms water to significant depths; that was long ago established””

I standby what I said. IR radiation warms water to significant depths. Your everyday experiences should be enough to convince you of this. It is why countless IR lamps are used to keep water based substances warmer than they would be otherwise. But if your everyday experiences are not convincing enough then do the experiment yourself. Fill a pan of water and shine an IR lamp on it. Observe that the water cools when the IR lamp is off and warms when the IR lamp is on. Dr. Spencer even demonstrated this with the downwelling IR from the sky using a rudimentary experiment he documented here.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 14, 2022 10:01 am

LOL bdgwx! You confuse Wong and Minnet’s hypothesis seeking to attribute added LW from CO2 to stored heat, with the well established Thermal and Electromagnetic Skin Layer models.

And as much as I greatly respect Roy Spencer, his home experiment did not prove IR caused the heating difference. He admitted he wanted to redo it and better control for other variables. That’s another debate for another time. I should have asked him about this, when I had lunch with him last summer. But perhaps you could contact him for a more complete understanding.

Finally, you looked at what Ive been referring to when you say “ But notice that LWout does not increase when LWin increases.” but sigh, you ignore any critical examination. I’ll repeat it one more time, hoping you might understand the flaws. Since I cant speak more slowly for you, I’ll number each step.

1.Wong and Minnet claim that because LWout did not increase when LWin increased, that the temperature gradient of the thermal skin layer was altered

2.Their LWout is based solely on their calculation of the skin temperature, which means the skin temperature didnt change.

3. Illogically, they then state that means the skin layer temperature did NOT warm enough in order for it to emit more LWout and balance LWin.

4.Furthermore, if LWout immediately balanced LWin, then there would be no change in temperature and thus their calculation would find any increasee in LWout. BAD Science!

5.I know how much you want to cling to the CO2 warming myth, but if you want the truth, you need to think much more critically, instead of blindly accepting what ever confirms your wrong beliefs.

And, why do you say their estimates of LW out are always greater than LWin are “as expected”. Your statement is just a rhetorical ploy to dismiss the importance of that evidence and move on.

That evidence is showing more LW radiation is leaving the surface than LW is entering. The most logical conclusion is that it is evidence of the skin layer’s cooling effect, enabling solar heated waters to radiate energy away as well.

You can standby what you said.” IR radiation warms water to significant depths” But that makes you look like a liar or stupid.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 14, 2022 11:52 am

Jim Steele said: “1.Wong and Minnet claim that because LWout did not increase when LWin increased, that the temperature gradient of the thermal skin layer was altered”

Correct. Specifically the gradient at the bottom of the TSL decreased thus bottlenecking the conductive heat transfer from the bulk to the skin.

Jim Steele said: “2.Their LWout is based solely on their calculation of the skin temperature, which means the skin temperature didnt change.”

Correct.

Jim Steele said: “3. Illogically, they then state that means the skin layer temperature did NOT warm enough in order for it to emit more LWout and balance LWin.”

Correct. But it is not illogical. It is consistent with the 1st law of thermodynamics (1LOT) when the energy flux from the bulk decreases by the same amount that LWin increases. An alternate configuration that is consistent with the 1LOT would be if either SH (sensible heat) or LH (latent heat) or a combination of both increases by the same amount as LWin. However, the authors says that neither SH nor LH do not immediately change when LWin increases.

Jim Steele said: “4.Furthermore, if LWout immediately balanced LWin, then there would be no change in temperature and thus their calculation would find any increasee in LWout. BAD Science!”

Incorrect. Under a ceteris paribus configuration if LWout increased to balance LWin then the skin would cool. It has to because the 1LOT says ΔE < 0 and because water (like all substances) has a finite specific heat capacity. Remember, all of the other heat fluxes including solar, SH (sensible), LH (latent), and conduction from the bulk to the skin are assumed constant here. But even when the conduction from the bulk to the skin is reduced as in figure 8 a scenario where LWout = LWin would still result in ΔE < 0 and cooling. That’s not “BAD Science!”. That’s the 1LOT!

Jim Steele said: “5.I know how much you want to cling to the CO2 warming myth, but if you want the truth, you need to think much more critically, instead of blindly accepting what ever confirms your wrong beliefs.”

I do not blindly accept the 1LOT or the fact that water absorbs infrared energy. The 1LOT has survived falsification attempts for at least 170 years. In addition experiments and even everyday experience has shown time and time again that water so greedily takes infrared energy that it does so within the first millimeter and it warms as a result consistent with the 1LOT.

Jim Steele said: “And, why do you say their estimates of LW out are always greater than LWin are “as expected”.”

Because the ocean surface is at a higher temperature than the effective temperature of the atmosphere both in clear sky with sblaw(410) = 291 K and cloudy sky with sblaw(450) = 298 K vs the ocean skin layer with sblaw(470) = 301 K. Remember, the effective temperature of the atmosphere is related to effective emission height. Clear sky emits from a deeper and thus colder layer than a cloudy sky. This is a completely expected configuration. It would be really odd and unusual if the bulk atmosphere were warmer than the surface of the ocean.

Jim Steele said: “You can standby what you said.” IR radiation warms water to significant depths” But that makes you look like a liar or stupid.”

Am I liar or stupid because I accept the 1LOT or because I accept that water absorbs infrared radiation?

Reply to  bdgwx
May 14, 2022 12:07 pm

LOL bdgwx SAYS “if LWout increased to balance LWin then the skin would cool.”

Looks like your trying to prove the stupid identity, but maybe just crazy, based on my belief in the the first law of thermodynamics (1LOT)

bdgwx, When you argue that the Laws of Thermodynamics say if there no net change in internal energy, such as when infrared heating balances cooling then the ocean must cool, well that’s just plain nuts!

Last edited 11 days ago by Jim Steele
bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 14, 2022 1:33 pm

Jim Steele said: “Looks like your trying to prove the stupid identity, but maybe just crazy, based on my belief in the the first law of thermodynamics (1LOT)”

Doh…I did not type what I meant there. That had to be confusing especially since LWout > LWin. That should have read as if LWout decreases to balance LWin or LWin increases balances to LWout then the skin would warm (ΔE > 0) and cool (ΔE < 0) respectively. Sorry about that.

Jim Steele said: “bdgwx, When you argue that the Laws of Thermodynamics say if there no net change in internal energy, such as when infrared heating balances cooling then the ocean must cool, well that’s just plain nuts!”

The laws of thermodynamics say that ΔE = Ein – Eout and that when ΔE = 0 then the body is in steady-state with ΔT = 0 and when ΔE > 0 then ΔT > 0 and when ΔE < 0 then ΔT < 0.

I am not saying ΔE = 0 (no net change in internal energy) leads to ΔT < 0 (cooling). It doesn’t.

What I’m saying is that if LWin = LWout then ΔE != 0 in a ceterius paribus configuration. The reason is because Ein and Eout have components other than LWin and LWout including SH (sensible heat), LH (latent heat), incoming shortwave (solar), and net conductive from bulk to skin that necessarily forces an imbalance (ΔE != 0) on the skin if LWin = LWout. In other words if LWin immediately balances with LWout then the skin must exhibit a change in temperature since SH + LH + conduction is nonzero. Note, however, that LWin does not balance with LWout in either clear or cloudy sky configuration and the skin does not change temperature.

Look at figure 8. Notice that SH + LH = 7 W/m2 and the net conductive flux from the bulk to the skin is 67 W/m2 in clear sky and 27 W/m2 in cloudy sky. Note that in both scenarios the skin is in energy balance (ΔE = 0) but the bulk is forced to warm in cloudy sky since its Fout changed from 67 W/m2 to 27 W/m2.

The microphysical explanation of why water (as modeled as bulk and skin bodies) warms when LWin increases is because of a reduction of the conductive flux from the bulk to the skin which warms the bulk first via a reduction in its Eout.

The macrophysical explanation of why water (as modeled as a single body) warms when LWin increases is because its Ein increases since LWin is a component of Ein and Eout only increases when the temperature increases since that is the only thing that increases LWout (SH + LH held constant).

Last edited 11 days ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 14, 2022 2:46 pm

I lose trust for you when you keep skirting the main issue with a lengthy word salad of theoretical physics.

LWout , SH and LH or all CALCULATED based on the skin surface temperature, (SSTskin), that their data reports as ranging from 295 to 305 K. That temperature range also contradicts their claim that a 3K increase in SSTskin needed to increase LWout was not observed.

Yet they calculate all those outgoing energies were unchanging, even though that depends on the SSTskin temperature that ranged over 10K as not changing.

It is far more than just likely that they did not measure a change in SSTskin, by averaging out the real dynamics, or because incoming LWin that fluctuated with cloud cover, was balanced by outgoing LWout , SH and LH, and that outgoing energy could not be detected because those energies absolutely required a detectable increase in SSTskin that their cooling effects prevented.

Until they actually measure the changes in outgoing LWout , SH and LH, their claims are purely speculative and completely driven by their desire to offer an explanation for how LWin can arm the whole ocean when it only penetrates a depth one 30th the width of a human hair! As is your desire to uncritically accept their bad science.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 14, 2022 7:25 pm

Jim Steele said: “LWout , SH and LH or all CALCULATED based on the skin surface temperature, (SSTskin), that their data reports as ranging from 295 to 305 K. That temperature range also contradicts their claim that a 3K increase in SSTskin needed to increase LWout was not observed.”

295 – 305 K is the range of SST observed from May 28th to July 14th and as the M-AERI instrument traversed two different legs over a lengthy journey as discussed in section 4.1. The 3 K increase discussed in section 5.1 is the expected SST rise IF the increase in LWin was immediately returned back to the atmosphere via an increase in LWout. That rise was not observed therefore LWout did not increase and the energy was not returned back to the atmosphere.

Jim Steele said: “Yet they calculate all those outgoing energies were unchanging, even though that depends on the SSTskin temperature that ranged over 10K as not changing.”

Again the 10 K range is for the SST over the entire mission. The 3 K figure is the short term expectation for a LWout increase at a single location. It is completely different context with completely different temporal and spatial scales.

Jim Steele said: “It is far more than just likely that they did not measure a change in SSTskin, by averaging out the real dynamics, or because incoming LWin that fluctuated with cloud cover, was balanced by outgoing LWout , SH and LH, and that outgoing energy could not be detected because those energies absolutely required a detectable increase in SSTskin that their cooling effects prevented.”

Why is it likely?

Jim Steele said: “Until they actually measure the changes in outgoing LWout , SH and LH, their claims are purely speculative “

Why does LWout have to be measured directly? What concern do you have with the Stefan-Boltzman law for LWout? What concern do you have with the Kara et al. 2005 method for SH and LH?

Jim Steele said: ” how LWin can arm the whole ocean when it only penetrates a depth one 30th the width of a human hair!”

A lot of substances fully absorb infrared energy within the first few millimeters and they also warm from it. There is nothing unusual going on here. Just to name a few…the human body, plants, soil, wood, fiberglass, etc. I bet you can you add several to the list off the top of your head. Anyway, like I said, your everyday experiences should be more than adequate to convince you of this.

Jim Steele said: “As is your desire to uncritically accept their bad science.”

I don’t see any bad science with the microphysical model of water. Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying I’m not critical of this microphysical model. I just don’t see anything egregiously wrong with it or Wong & Minnett 2018’s application of it that makes me think “bad science”. If you think it’s bad science then you know my next question is going to be…why did you use their figure in your article?

Last edited 10 days ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 14, 2022 8:11 pm

You are so dishonestly slimy bdgwx. YOu ask “why did you use their figure in your article?” But as I told you already “You confuse Wong and Minnet’s hypothesis seeking to attribute added LW from CO2 to stored heat, with the well established Thermal and Electromagnetic Skin Layer models.”

it is you who is desperate to maintain the myth that CO2 warms the ocean depths. So you twist everything so “you don’t have to see any bad science” and so you keep trying to misrepresent my arguments and the 1LOT and the model.

Last edited 10 days ago by Jim Steele
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 14, 2022 1:39 pm

Well that’s fascinating. In less than an hour all of the sudden bdgwx gets 6 up votes and I get 6 down votes. Looks like his whole group got summoned to support bdgwx’s overturning of 1LOT.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 14, 2022 2:31 pm

I’m not overturning the 1LOT. I’m using it. I am accepting the fact that if a substance absorbs more energy (ΔEin > 0) and does not shed more (ΔEout = 0) then that necessarily means ΔE = Ein – Eout > 0 and thus the substance must warm (or change phase). Anyone who thinks otherwise is rejecting the 1LOT.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 14, 2022 2:51 pm

Your problem is the paper reports no change LWout and based on no change in skin temperature. So NO ΔEin > 0.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 14, 2022 3:23 pm

I think you just nailed the whole issue in one short sentence.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 14, 2022 5:49 pm

Jim Steele said: “Your problem is the paper reports no change LWout and based on no change in skin temperature. So NO ΔEin > 0.”

That’s for the skin layer only. For the bulk ΔEin = 0 and ΔEout < 0 due to a decrease in the conductive flux. Therefore ΔE > 0 for the bulk and so it warms.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 14, 2022 7:47 pm

EXACTLY! The skin layer is not warming. That’s the layer partially absorbs LWin in the upper 2 microns. And if its not warming its not changing th gradient. The rest is warmed by the sun!

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 14, 2022 8:09 pm

Jim Steele said: “The rest is warmed by the sun!”

No. The bulk is imparted energy from the Sun. It is an important ingredient required for ΔE > 0 in the bulk but it is not the cause of ΔE > 0 because ΔSWin = 0. In a ceteris paribus configuration (only LWin changes) the reason and the only reason why ΔE > 0 is because ΔLWin > 0. If LWin had not changed then ΔE = 0.

Remember that “warming” is the scenario in which ΔE > 0 and ultimately ΔT > 0. So the cause of the “warming” is the same as the cause of the transition from ΔE = 0 to ΔE > 0. That is none other than the change in LWin!

Don’t hear what is not being said. It is not being said that SWin is irrelevant. It is relevant. In fact, SWin must be > 0 for ΔE > 0 since it is the primary component of Ein. The best intuitive analogy is that of the heating of your home. In a steady-state Ein = Eout where Ein is primary the input from your furnace and Eout is the loss through the walls/windows/doors. The moment you add insulation there is change in temperature ΔT > 0 because ΔEout < 0 forcing ΔE > 0. The act of adding insulation is the sole cause of your home warming in this case because that is what changed. The input provided by your furnace is important and essential, but it isn’t what caused that specific rise in T to occur.

Last edited 10 days ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 6:48 am

LOL You keep offering a word salad of obvious physics that are misapplied to hide the real problem . My article states the energy balance is determined by energy in and energy out and then you try lecture me repeating the very same thing, trying to create facade your science is solid and different, while always skirting the issue.

All that you and the Wong and MInnett paper are doing is to repeat a narrative that is not supported by the physics but is a bad attempt to argue CO2 insulates the world and causes a warming crisis, and overthrow the physics via narrative that LWin penetrating only to a single micron depth is warming the ocean at depths. And you even lied about it being well established the IR warms the earth to great depths.

At least Wong and Minnett were honest stating “It is, however, not clear how the greenhouse effect directly affects the
ocean’s heat uptake in the upper 700 m of the ocean. This is because the penetration depth of IR radiation in water is within submillimeter scales (Figure 1) thereby implying that the incident longwave radiation does not directly heat the layers beyond the top submillimeter of the ocean surface.”

Wong and Minnett are simply offering a hypothesis that will dismiss that contradiction with the CO2 driven warming theory, and you are desperate to protect that as well.

Wong and Minnet claimed that because LWout did not increase when LWin increased, that was evidence that the skin temperature did not immediately react to the incoming LWin and therefore it warmed the skin layer at deeper layer.

The alternative explanation is the TSL responded immediately, so of course there was no observable temperature change because LW out is calculated by temperature NOT observed.

For you and Wong and Minnett to fail to even acknowledge that is a real alternative, to instead create a narrative the defies physics by arguing LWin heats water at depths that it can penetrate is BAD science.

And you bdgwx are pushing bad science

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 15, 2022 8:16 am

If temperature goes up then heat transport changes. LWout goes up, convection moves the heat, evaporation moves the heat, etc.

That’s the problem with most radiative balance setups – i.e. back radiation is somehow permanently stored in the earth thus raising its temperature permanently as well. Things just don’t work that way.

JCM
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 15, 2022 9:15 am

Energy transfer in and out of the surface is dominated by the process of diffusion. net radiation = surface energy budget = total turbulent flux = the sum of LE (+/- evapotranspiration/condensation), sensible heat flux, photosynthesis, respiration, advection, and storage change. I see some confusion and mixing of radiative energy concepts with energy flows. The only radiative input to the surface is the shortwave component of net radiation.

Last edited 10 days ago by JCM
bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
May 15, 2022 12:01 pm

JCM said: “The only radiative input to the surface is the shortwave component of net radiation.”

Patently False. E=hf regardless of whether f is 600 THz or 2 THz.

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 12:28 pm

Net. I’m not doing this with you again bdgwx. You are like a brick wall.

JCM
Reply to  JCM
May 15, 2022 1:11 pm

For the record.

at any height L↑ – L↓= IR window

L↑ – IR window = L↓
L↑ – IR window – L↓ = 0

L↓−L↑ = (-)IR window

L↑>L↓

At the surface:

Net Radiation = S↓−S↑ + L↓−L↑
Net Radiation = S↓(1-a) – IR window
Net Radiation = LE + H + M + Ad + G

Surface energy budget:

LE + H + M + Ad + G = S↓(1-a) – IR window

Here we see, there are limited degrees of freedom. Most of which, are non radiative and depend on the partitioning of net heat fluxes.

L = latent heat of vaporization
E = net evapotranspiration
H = sensible heat flux
M = net metabolism (photosynth – respiration)
Ad = net advection
G = net storage change
S↓ = solar input
a = albedo
IR window = IR window

As widely discussed by myself on this page, the integrated IR window as viewed from the surface is a function of LE/H (vertical heat transport efficiency). A complex matter. Elsewhere, there is a lot to unpack.

Some may not agree, and many do not understand the implications. I’m ok with that.

Last edited 10 days ago by JCM
bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
May 15, 2022 2:00 pm

JCM said: “Some may not agree, and many do not understand the implications. I’m ok with that.”

It looks like a pretty comprehensive budget to me. It can be rewritten as:

0 = S↓(1-a) – IR window – LE – H – M – Ad – G

0 = S↓(1-a) + L↓ – L↑ – LE – H – M – Ad – G

Which means when L↓ increases a positive energy imbalance develops at the surface. Any one or combination thereof L↑, LE, H, M, Ad, and G can increase to rebalance.

Last edited 10 days ago by bdgwx
JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 2:05 pm

Very good. albedo can change too.

JCM
Reply to  JCM
May 15, 2022 2:31 pm

And don’t forget that L↓ is not a free variable. It is constrained by the relationship L↑ – L↓= IR window. Viewing a perturbation by L↓ first and foremost is not the right way to approach the problem.

Last edited 10 days ago by JCM
bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
May 15, 2022 1:46 pm

JCM said: “Net. I’m not doing this with you again bdgwx. You are like a brick wall.”

Ah…NET. I missed that. I completely agree with you then. LWout > LWin which means the net LW effect is outward from the ocean. You are absolutely correct about that. That miss of the word net is entirely on me. I’ll own it.

Last edited 10 days ago by bdgwx
JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 1:59 pm

Sounds good. I’ll add that to honor the intent of the Law of Energy Conservation is to consider the full energy partitioning, particularly for the lower atmospheric boundary conditions. Limiting the analysis to radiative flux at the surface is not honoring the implications of energy conservation, nor does it adequately describe the physical mechanisms at work. The pure radiative perspective misses the whole other side of the equation (a wonderfully rich and dynamic set of variables).

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 15, 2022 11:54 am

Jim Steele said: “And you even lied about it being well established the IR warms the earth to great depths.”

I said it was well established that infrared energy warms water to significant depths. Nothing more. I stand by that statement. And you can call me liar and stupid all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that if a body absorbs more energy than it sheds regardless of whether that extra input is infrared energy or the body is water it will warm nonetheless.

Jim Steele said: “The alternative explanation is the TSL responded immediately, so of course there was no observable temperature change because LW out is calculated by temperature NOT observed.”

It was calculated from the temperature using the SB law. Do you have a concern with the SB law?

Jim Steele said: “For you and Wong and Minnett to fail to even acknowledge that is a real alternative, to instead create a narrative the defies physics by arguing LWin heats water at depths that it can penetrate is BAD science.”

I’m not saying that there isn’t alternative to the microphysical model. In fact, I specifically stated there is an alternative model…the macrophysical single body model. Both are consistent with the laws of physics. What is not consistent with the laws of physics is the hypothesis that water does not warm when it absorbs infrared radiation because it it antithetical to the 1LOT.

When bodies retain energy (ΔE > 0) they warm. That is an established fact. Period. Rejecting this fact is what is BAD science.

When LWin increases then Ein increases and ΔE > 0. Therefore the water warms. Period. Rejecting this fact is what is BAD science.

And I’ll repeat my question above. If you reject the microphysical model then why did you talk about it and include the figure from Wong & Minnett 2018 in your article?

Last edited 10 days ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 12:46 pm

You truly are a slimy dishonest troll, always trying to misdirect!

For example you say “It was calculated from the temperature using the SB law. Do you have a concern with the SB law?”

But SB was never in question. It is the alternative explanations for the LACK of warming that expose the weakness of your narratives that has always been in question.

But perhaps its stupidity also when you reply, there is an “alternative to the microphysical model” That too was never called into question. The alternative explanation for no observable SSTskin is that LWin was rapidly balanced by LWout. You ignore that valid explanation and put up a facade with a smokescreen repeating was everyone knows about an imbalance causing warming.

And then you show what a hateful liar and troll you really are once again by saying “If you reject the microphysical model”

But I never did and I have repeatedly told you that. And my article states support for the model saying : because the upper micron of the skin layer where LWin is absorbed is constantly and rapidily cooling, offsetting any LWin with LW out. The physics is clear that absorbed IR is quickly emitted within a microsecond.

What I have said here in the comments in response to your dishonest trolling is I challenge Wong & Minnett narrative and their interpretation of thee evidence, a narrative you are blindly obsessed with and keep pushing with more and more lies.

Your narratives that because there was no SSTskin temperature change, despite increased LWin, must mean the skin layer is warming elsewhere where LWin doesnt penetrate. That’s something only idiots with a blind belief would accept never mind push ad nauseum.

Last edited 10 days ago by Jim Steele
bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 15, 2022 1:34 pm

Jim Steele said: “But SB was never in question.”

If not the SB law then what is your concern with the calculation of LWout?

Jim Steele said: “The alternative explanation for no observable SSTskin is that LWin was rapidly balanced by LWout.”

How do propose LWin was rapidly balanced by LWout?

Jim Steele said: “But I never did and I have repeatedly told you that.”

If you accept the microphysical model of Minnett then what logic are using to reject its consequences?

Jim Steele said: “I challenge Wong & Minnett narrative and their interpretation of thee evidence”

The microphysical model and figure used in your article comes that publication and those from which it is built upon.

Jim Steele said: “Your narratives that because there was no SSTskin temperature change, despite increased LWin, must mean the skin layer is warming elsewhere where LWin doesnt penetrate.”

First…it’s not my narrative. It comes Wong & Minnett 2018.

Second…the narrative says that increased LWin adjusts the skin layer profile such that the gradient at the bottom is reduced thus reducing the conductive transfer from the bulk with the increased LWin providing the offsetting amount of energy lost from the bulk transfer to sustain LWout as-is. The bulk thus warms.

Jim Steele said: “That’s something only idiots with a blind belief would accept never mind push ad nauseum.”

I’m not pushing it. Wong & Minnett 2018 is. And I’ll remind you that the microphysical model and figure you used and advocated for came from Minnett.

And I’ve said repeatedly that I’m fine with alternative models as long as they consistent with the 1LOT which says in no uncertain terms that water must warm as a consequence to absorbing energy of any kind even if that energy is delivered via infrared photons.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 1:39 pm

Damn! This dishonest troll doesn;t quit with his distortions and misdirections, no matter how many times his lies are exposed.

But that’s what trolls do.

Us honest scientists post with our real names.

Stupid trolls pushing pseudo-science hide behind pseudonyms!

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 15, 2022 2:31 pm

My name is Brian Gideon. But you can call me anything you want though whether it is troll, idiot, stupid, or something else. I don’t care. You can even do so knowing that I will never disrespect you in kind with an ad-hominem. None of that matters though because the laws of thermodynamics say that substances (water included) warm when they absorb more energy (infrared included) than they shed.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 2:40 pm

You disrespect me with all your lies and distortions but now you not name calling is morally superior? LOL

when you lie the gloves come off and and I call you what you are. The Laws of Nature state what goes around comes around.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 2:43 pm

Brien Gideon the skateboarder or Brian Gideon who tried to poison Central City?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 3:24 pm

Second…the narrative says that increased LWin adjusts the skin layer profile such that the gradient at the bottom is reduced thus reducing the conductive transfer from the bulk with the increased LWin providing the offsetting amount of energy lost from the bulk transfer to sustain LWout as-is. The bulk thus warms.”

Exactly what kind of word salad is this?

“LWin adjusts the skin layer profile such that the gradient at the bottom is reduced”

  1. The gradient at the bottom of what? Of the ocean? Or of the skin layer?
  2. thus reducing the conductive transfer from the bulk” to where exactly? This is really nothing more than the meme “the heat is hiding in the deep ocean”. Are you trying to say the deep ocean can move toward equilibrium with the surface? What happens to the new LWin that happens every microsecond of the day? Does it not heat the surface?

1LOT which says in no uncertain terms that water must warm as a consequence to absorbing energy of any kind even if that energy is delivered via infrared photons.”

IR heats the water by warming the surface and then transiting via conduction into deeper water. IR doesn’t heat the deep ocean directly. Just as a gas flame on a stove doesn’t heat the surface of the water in the pot – the surface of the water in the pot is heated by conduction from warmer water at the bottom of the pot.



bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 15, 2022 4:15 pm

TG said: “Exactly what kind of word salad is this?”

Read the publication containing the figure JS included in his article.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 5:18 pm

bdgwx, fyi I used the graph from Wong and Minnett ONLY because it gave a very simple and clear illustration of the thermal skin layer and diurnal warm layer that have long been established.. The thermal skin layer has been discussed by many researchers for 60+ years. It is NOT a creation of Wong and Minnett. But you keep talking as if it was, revealing your ignorance.

Because Wong and Minnett’s hypothesis that more IR can warm the ocean was so bogus, unprovable and indeed a word salad used to explain contradictory evidence, I never referenced their paper at all.

My guess is you found the graph I used on google, and then found their paper. You then decided to use their bogus conclusions to combat my analysis and support your CO2 climate crisis beliefs.

It is you who has been totally fixated on that one paper’s claim, making their bogus narrative your narrative. Their introduction made it very clear that thee authors’ sole purpose was to generate a pro-CO2 global warming explanation to counter the physics that LWin only penetrates a micron and can only directly warm that extremely thin layer.

A word of advice. Take a break and read more than text book basics. Clearly right now you are way over your head on these topics as evidence by the song and dances and twisted logic you contort yourself into, to hide the fact your understanding is gravely lacking. The more you talk the worse you look.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 16, 2022 6:02 am

There is also the issue of just how much LWin that thin layer of H2O can absorb. If it can’t absorb all of the LWdown from the atmosphere then what happens to the rest? Is it reflected back toward space? What effect does the angle of incidence play? What does that do to the radiative balance? What does it do to the atmosphere (i.e. H2O and CO2)?

Since that LW stuff is an electromagnetic wave that actually carries the energy and it decreases by the square law as it travels I’m not even sure what that does to the energy impinging on the surface of the water. Is the depth of the atmosphere enough that this must be considered or is it justified to just assume the differential from the top and bottom is equal?

To me it just seems that most climate science papers today focus more on statistical analysis of incomplete data than actually trying to explain the physics of all the interactions in the biosphere. Have you seen any papers on how subsoil temps interact with atmospheric temps and what the physics of the interaction are? We live on the ground, not in the air. You would think that research on soil temps would be *very* important for climate scientists. Yet the only papers I’ve seen on soil temps are from agricultural scientists and are related to plant impacts and not climate impacts.

Freeman Dyson said long ago that climate studies need to be holistic in order to be useful and meaningful yet all we seem to see from the climate scientists are a move *away* from holistic studies.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 16, 2022 6:25 am

Jim Steele said: “My guess is you found the graph I used on google, and then found their paper.”

I have had the paper in my archive for years. Anytime some claims infrared energy cannot warm water I explain to them both the macrophysical explanation (1LOT and heat capacity) and a proposed microphysical (air, TSL, and bulk interactions) explanation for how it happens. I also remind them that their everyday experiences should be enough to convince them this is true. Anyway, I immediately recognized the figure and knew it came from Wong & Minnett 2018 because I refer to that publication frequently.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 5:44 am

I was speaking of *YOUR* word salad. Of course you can’t explain it. You can’t even answer the points I made!

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 16, 2022 6:20 am

TG said: “I was speaking of *YOUR* word salad. Of course you can’t explain it. You can’t even answer the points I made!”

I standby what I said. But it it helps I can say it mathematically too.

ΔLWin@tsl > 0, ΔT@tsl = 0 and ΔE@tsl = 0, ΔLWout@tsl = 0 and ΔCout@bulk < 0.

Last edited 9 days ago by bdgwx
Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 3:53 pm

In other words you *still* can’t explain what is going on!

Your first equality is incorrect.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 16, 2022 6:06 pm

TG said: “Your first equality is incorrect.”

You don’t think 450 – 410 > 0?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 6:22 pm

“ΔLWin@tsl > 0”

IR doesn’t penetrate. You keep failing on that point.

What penetrates is conduction. And that is a complex function. Get a thermo textbook and lookup heat conduction through a medium.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 16, 2022 7:26 pm

TG said: “IR doesn’t penetrate. You keep failing on that point.”

First…ΔLWin@tsl > 0 is not a statement of penetration. It is a statement of an increase in longwave radiation at the TSL.

Second…IR does penetrate; just not very deeply. [Bertie & Lan 1996]

Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 12:56 pm

bdgwx repeats the lie, “I said it was well established that infrared energy warms water to significant depths”

But it is not well established at all. And precisely because it is NOT well established is why Wong and Minnett are pushing thee hypothesis to support the narratives of CO2 warming the ocean to significant depths.

Perhaps instead of repeating your lies ad nauseum, the honest course of action would be to present the research (not more subjectivee narratives) that supports you assertion that not even Wong and Minnett agree with, stating “It is, however, not clear how the greenhouse effect directly affects the ocean’s heat uptake in the upper 700 m of the ocean”

Only stupid trolls believe that “not clear” means thee same as “well established”

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 15, 2022 1:42 pm

Jim Steele said: “But it is not well established at all.”

Yes it is.

Jim Steele said: “Only stupid trolls believe that “not clear” means thee same as “well established””

I want to be perfectly clear here. The fact that infrared radiation warms water is well established.

What is not clear is how this warming plays at a microphysical level using the TSL, EM, and viscous layer model. Wong & Minnett 2018 address these details and provide evidence supporting their explanation that the warming occurs due to reduced conductive transfer from the bulk caused by a weakening gradient at the bottom of the TSL.

I don’t know how to make that any more clear.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 1:53 pm

bdgwx says “I want to be perfectly clear here.”

ROTFLMAO

And still only the troll’s narrative and no published research to support him because bdgwx is always trying to muddy the waters.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 15, 2022 3:07 pm

The published literature I’m using is any thermodynamics text documenting the 1st law of thermodynamics ΔU = Q – W first discovered by Rudolf Clausius and the specific heat relationship Q = mcΔT first discovered by Joseph Black. Sir William Herschel first discovered “radiant heat” or thermal radiation specifically in the infrared part of the EM spectrum that causes common items (including water) to warm. And anything that emits thermal radiation as a means of cooling can also warm by absorbing it. No experiment I know of has shown that water does not respond to infrared radiation by warming. And since this experiment occurs in countless environments every day with radiant heaters many of the applications involving water or water based substances it is not incorrect to say it is “well established”. If anything that is an understatement.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 3:40 pm

There you go again troll!

I ask for research supporting your claim, claims you make ad nauseum, that Infrared is “warming the ocean to significant depths”

You present NONE!.

Instead you provide an irrelevant song and dance that IR can warming surfaces. DUH We all know that, but that is not the issue. It is the warming of the ocean’s depths that has been the issue but you continue to distort and misdirect that issue.

The best you can come up with is “No experiment I know of has shown that water does not respond to infrared radiation by warming.” LOL

Well, using your logic Brian, there are no studies I know of that have shown you are not a lying despicable troll. So that must be good scientific proof that you are eh?

Brian Gideon I hope your employers don’t depend on your scientific understanding of ocean dynamics, because all they would get fro you is bullsh*t!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 15, 2022 4:55 pm

Instead you provide an irrelevant song and dance that IR can warming surfaces. DUH We all know that, but that is not the issue. It is the warming of the ocean’s depths that has been the issue but you continue to distort and misdirect that issue.”

You nailed it!

ΔU = Q – W”

The issue is properly defining and measuring Q and W! bdgwx is not completing that assignment before trying to make conclusions.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 15, 2022 8:01 pm

Jim Steele said: “You present NONE!.”

I presented you with the equations for the 1LOT and heat capacity. Notice that neither of them have any constraints on Q related to the type of heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation), the frequency of radiation, or the depth of the system. Notice that regardless of heat transfer type Q and W are conserved quantities and regardless of depth the system will warm if Q is positive.

Jim Steele said: “Instead you provide an irrelevant song and dance that IR can warming surfaces.”

Yes it warms the surface. This is often called the mixed layer. The mixed layer depth (MLD) extends from 10-300’ish meters depending on location, time of year, and MLD criteria used. Note that Wong & Minnett 2018 define the bulk as anything below the viscous layer, but also speak of the mixed layer as well.

Jim Steele said: “but that is not the issue. It is the warming of the ocean’s depths that has been the issue but you continue to distort and misdirect that issue.”

Well technically my challenge was with your statement that “So, it seems virtually certain that any change in ocean warming must be driven by solar changes, and not from any changing concentrations of greenhouse gases.” in the context of the microphysical model employed by Wong & Minnett 2018. I’m extending my challenge to any statements antithetical to warming below the skin and significantly into the bulk.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 8:25 pm

ROTFLMAO bdgwx , such a transparent stupid troll. Copy and paste from his text book pretending he understands only to show he is a complete phony.

Text book says, ” regardless of heat transfer type Q and W are conserved quantities and regardless of depth the system will warm if Q is positive.” LWin doesnt reach the mixed layer. Stupid forgets if Q doesn’t reach any depth other than the first micron, only the first micron will warm, then immediately emit that energy.

Only the deep penetrating and absorbed solar energy, that cant emit energy back out of the ocean until brought back to that upper micron, can warm the ocean radiatively.

Keep up your facade bdgwx. You are hilarious!

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 16, 2022 6:15 am

Jim Steele said: “Only the deep penetrating and absorbed solar energy, that cant emit energy back out of the ocean until brought back to that upper micron, can warm the ocean radiatively.”

Hold on here. Solar energy can definitely warm water, but so can infrared or any absorbed wavelength. Remember, blackbodies emit radiation proportional to the their temperature and in accordance with Planck’s Law. Water is a close approximation to a blackbody. If it warms from LW↓ above the surface then each layer will emit more LW↑ and LW↓. Even though LW (in either direction) gets absorbed within 1 millimeter the LW gets pushed down indirectly deeper and deeper because water molecules emit in all directions. There is nothing magical about water that causes it to only emit LW upward.

What Wong & Minnett 2018 are saying is that the extra LW↓ from above the TSL does not warm the TSL. Therefore there is no extra LW↑ or LW↓ being emitted from the TSL. In other words the TSL does not reemit a portion of the extra energy down into the bulk. What actually happens at the microphysical level is that the energy budget readjusts such that the conduction transfer C↑ reduces. But the bulk itself very likely warms via the percolation of energy in all forms conduction, convection, and radiation.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 7:50 am

the LW gets pushed down indirectly deeper and deeper because water molecules emit in all directions. “

Nit pick. Conduction plays a huge role here. If an LW excited molecule collides with a different molecule before it can radiate the energy doing the exciting then the heat gets dispersed via conduction instead of radiation.

Which is greater, radiation or conduction? And by how much?

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 16, 2022 9:04 am

TG said: “Which is greater, radiation or conduction? And by how much?”

Within the mixed layer…convection first. conduction second. radiation third. I don’t know by how much off the top of my head, but I suspect there are orders of magnitude differences here.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 2:49 pm

Convection requires *motion* of a heated parcel from point A to point B, Why is this motion more prevalent than collision with surrounding molecules?

I think you have your list incorrect. Conduction of heat via collision is far more prevalent than convection. Remember, cold water is more dense than warm water (not by much but enough to cause stratification). So any internal convection would be opposite of what you claim. Deeper water would cool from internal convection. The major way deeper water warms is by conduction from water closer to the surface.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 16, 2022 6:49 pm

TG said: “Convection requires *motion* of a heated parcel from point A to point B, Why is this motion more prevalent than collision with surrounding molecules?”

The mixed layer is constantly being agitated by wind and waves. It’s called the mixed layer for a reason.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 8:34 am

DAMN BDGWX YOUR IDIOTIC TROLLING KNOWS NO BOUNDS

This fools states “Solar energy can definitely warm water, but so can infrared or any absorbed wavelength.”

And then bloviates about Planck’s Law pretneding he knows science then goes full stupid saying “LW gets pushed down indirectly deeper and deeper because water molecules emit in all directions.”

Again give us a link to peer review to support your bogus narrative.

Trolls never listen to all the science. Just the snippets to support their paranoia.

LW is absorbed in the first micron. The upward direct LW can escape to the atmosphere, any downward emissions are quickly absorbed. Thus the upper micron layer of water is always emitting net LW out of the ocean and cooling, NOT warming “deeper and deeper” this fool tries keeps pushing

The opposite happens for the energy that warms the deep layers. Solar energy absorbed in the diurnal warm layer cant cool unless brought to the surface, the only place where LW can escape. Thus deep penetrating wavelengths causes net warming!

bdgwx should take the advice of Robert Downey Jr playing Kirk Lazarus in Tropic Thunder who warned “You went full retard man, never go full retard”

Last edited 9 days ago by Jim Steele
Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 8:35 pm

And indeed Brian you “presented [me] with the equations for the 1LOT and heat capacity.” That’s when it was clear you were a bullshitter.

You said “if LWout increased to balance LWin then the skin would cool. It has to because the 1LOT says ΔE < 0 and because water (like all substances) has a finite specific heat capacity.”

Such an idiotic statement, as if heat capacity has anything to do with the energy exchange. Just more word salads to stupidly claim when energy exchange balances the surface will cool because heat capacity.

Keep talking. You will prove to everyone you are stupid troll who should be ignored

Last edited 9 days ago by Jim Steele
bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 16, 2022 6:01 am

Jim Steele said: “You said “if LWout increased to balance LWin then the skin would cool. It has to because the 1LOT says ΔE < 0 and because water (like all substances) has a finite specific heat capacity.””

It is an idiot statement. See the correction here. If I could edit the original post I would have fixed it there. Anyway, that should have read as if LWout decreases to balance LWin or LWin increases balances to LWout then the skin would warm (ΔE > 0) and cool (ΔE < 0) respectively.

Jim Steele said: “Such an idiotic statement, as if heat capacity has anything to do with the energy exchange.”

That’s not why it was idiotic statement. It was idiotic statement because LWout > LWin.

Heat capacity has a lot to do with with energy exchange. Remember, the 2LOT says that heat flows from hot to cold when a system is left to evolve by its own means. Heat capacity directly relates energy to temperature. The bigger the differential between hot and cold the more energy is transferred via conduction and/or radiation.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 6:19 am

LOL Of course Mr stupid troll heat capacity CAN affect the flow of energy. As your text book told you, different substances with different heat capacities will reach different temperatures despite the same change in energy. That will be the basis of part 4 in this series.

But we are talking about energy flows between ocean layers with the same heat capacity. So this is just another example of you throwing out a word salad of physics to pretend to be knowledgeable, only to reveal you dont at all understand that it is irrelevant to the argument you have created.

As my mother warned, “Don’t bite your nose off to save face.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 16, 2022 8:12 am

It is relevant because heat Q and temperature T are related. If a body absorbs heat Q its temperature T will increase. It doesn’t matter how specifically that heat Q is absorbed the temperature T will increase nonetheless. And the 1LOT says that if a body absorbs more heat than it sheds then its heat content increases meaning Q is positive in the specific heat equation thus meaning T is positive.

I want to remind you that radiant heat (infrared radiation) heats most substances in our everyday lives even though most of those substances absorb the radiation within the first few millimeters. That’s why it is often called radiant heat or thermal radiation. It is really effective at heating things.

I also want to remind you that just because a substance has a high attenuation coefficient (shallow penetration) does not mean that the substance does not continue to warm internally from radiation because the absorbed radiation on the surface still gets remitted in all directions including down further into the substance.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 8:47 am

AND I want to remind you that you dont know what you are talking about. Quoting generalities from a text book is a fool’s game.

Any LW heat absorbed at the surface micron layer only travels downward via conduction which is a very slow process relative to the light speed emission from the surface that cool that upper micron. That’s why for 60 years at least scientists have reported the upper microns as the “COOL SKIN LAYER”!

Again, take the advice of Robert Downey Jr playing Kirk Lazarus in Tropic Thunder who warned “You went full retard man, never go full retard”

Last edited 9 days ago by Jim Steele
bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 16, 2022 9:29 am

Jim Steele said: “Any LW heat absorbed at the surface micron layer only travels downward via conduction which is a very slow process relative to the light speed emission from the surface that cool that upper micron.”

No it doesn’t. Look at your diagram. The thermal profile warms as you go down. That means heat cannot flow via conduction downward (2LOT). However, heat can get retained in the bulk by a reduction in upward conduction from the bulk into the skin due to a reduction in the temperature gradient at the bottom of the skin.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 9:51 am

Well duh says the stupid troll claiming conduction cant happen downward in the ocean but LW down does arguing “The thermal profile warms as you go down.”

That’s because of solar heating deep penetration. The closer to the surface the more cooling is possible, the deeper the less cooling.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 16, 2022 10:52 am

Jim Steele said: “Well duh says the stupid troll claiming conduction cant happen downward in the ocean but LW down does arguing “The thermal profile warms as you go down.””

Neither I nor Wong & Minnett 2018 never said the bulk warms from LWin traveling downward from the skin. What Wong & Minnett 2018 say is that the bulk warms by the retaining more energy caused by a reduction of conductive transfer from the bulk to the skin due to the reduction of the temperature gradient in the bottom of the TSL caused by the increased LWin.

Jim Steele said: “That’s because of solar heating deep penetration.”

As I keep saying solar radiation penetrates deeply. But because solar radiation is not changing (ΔSWin = 0) in a ceteris paribus scenario (ΔLWin > 0) it does not warm the ocean. The cause of the warming is the increased DWIR. The microphysical mechanism by which the bulk warms is as above…according to Wong & Minnett 2018.

Jim Steele said: “The whole point being conduction is so slow the heat generated in the upper micron via LWin doesn’t travel downward to any significant distance.”

It doesn’t travel down at all according to Wong & Minnett 2018. It is retained in the bulk via reduced upward conduction caused by increased LWin. Note the distinction. ΔLWin > 0 causes the bulk to warm, but not because LWin travels down through the skin.

Last edited 9 days ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 11:41 am

First you lying troll, you just got through saying

LW gets pushed down indirectly deeper and deeper because water molecules emit in all directions.”

Second you refuse to consider anything but Wong and Minnetts single bad science publication as if it is the gospel truth no matter how many holes get punched in it, solely because it fits your blind religious belief in a CO2 climate crisis. You are so blinded you keep creating false physics to justify your idiocy and trolling.

Finally your false narrative that you keep shamelessly pushing ad nauseum is

“the bulk warms by the retaining more energy caused by a reduction of conductive transfer from the bulk to the skin due to the reduction of the temperature gradient in the bottom of the TSL caused by the increased LWin.”

More proof you only believe in magic not science. LWin never reaches the lower TSL. But you fully embrace W&M’s suggestion, no matter how stupid it reveals you to be, that the conductive gradient somehow was reduced based only the observation that the TSL’s SSTskin temperature never warmed (thus wouldnt affect the gradient), but therefore as if by magic, it must have warmed the lower TSL where LWin never penetrates.

And to justify that nonsense and defend BAD science that you close your eyes to, you totally fabricate “LW gets pushed down indirectly deeper and deeper because water molecules emit in all directions” despite know scientific evidence to support your idiocy.

How much is the troll factory paying you to dish out such ludicrous misinformation!!???!!

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 16, 2022 12:52 pm

Jim Steele said: “First you lying troll, you just got through saying
“ LW gets pushed down indirectly deeper and deeper because water molecules emit in all directions.””

And I I stand by what I said here. It just doesn’t happen in the TSL according to Wong & Minnett 2018. That does not mean it is not happening in the mixed layer. And keep in mind that water has a very high attenuation coefficient for infrared radiation so the push is shunted within millimeters. That doesn’t mean that infrared radiation is not emitted in all directions including down. When convective mixing occurs (the dominant transport mechanism in the mixed layer) those water molecules will immediately equilibrate with neighboring molecules via conduction and radiation. Remember, the TSL is unique because of the interface with the air so the microphysics there is different than in the mixed layer.

Jim Steele said: “Second you refuse to consider anything but Wong and Minnetts single bad science publication as if it is the gospel truth no matter how many holes get punched in it, solely because it fits your blind religious belief in a CO2 climate crisis. You are so blinded you keep creating false physics to justify your idiocy and trolling.”

Nonsense. I’ve already said that I don’t accept the Wong & Minnett explanation blindly. I’m completely open to a different microphysical explanation either with the same 3 layer skin model or an entirely different model as long as it is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. Remember, the whole point of my original comment was to point out that the microphysical model used in that figure does not claim that ocean warming cannot occur from a change in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Jim Steele said: “Finally your false narrative that you keep shamelessly pushing ad nauseum is
“the bulk warms by the retaining more energy caused by a reduction of conductive transfer from the bulk to the skin due to the reduction of the temperature gradient in the bottom of the TSL caused by the increased LWin.””

It is not my narrative. It comes from Wong & Minnett 2018.

Jim Steele said: “More proof you only believe in magic not science. LWin never reaches the lower TSL.”

I’ve never said otherwise. And I agree that in their model LWin does not reach the lower TSL. This is clear in figure 5. More on this below.

Jim Steele said: “But you fully embrace W&M’s suggestion, no matter how stupid it reveals you to be, that the conductive gradient somehow was reduced based only the observation that the TSL’s SSTskin temperature never warmed (thus wouldnt affect the gradient), but therefore as if by magic, it must have warmed the lower TSL where LWin never penetrates.”

First…I don’t fully embrace it. I just don’t see anything egregiously wrong with it. And the explanation is consistent with their observations.

Anyway, notice the difference between SSTskin and SST1mm in figure 6 and then jump down to figure 13 and observe what happens between low and high LWin. Notice that SSTskin does not change but SST1mm increases. Just because SSTskin does not change does not mean that the gradient didn’t change.

Jim Steele said: “And to justify that nonsense and defend BAD science that you close your eyes to, you totally fabricate “LW gets pushed down indirectly deeper and deeper because water molecules emit in all directions” despite know scientific evidence to support your idiocy.”

Again…I stand by what I said. The context here is of the bulk. When heat convects or conducts downward there is a differential in temperature between the parcel and its surroundings. That means the IR push from the surroundings is less than the IR push from the parcel thus heat flows via infrared radiation from the parcel to the surroundings regardless of depth. And the push is in all directions including downward. But again…because of water’s high attenuation coefficient for IR this push is shunted very quickly just like it is in the TSL. My point is that it happens. Don’t overlook it.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 1:57 pm

Of course you stand by what you said earlier. You are an ignorant troll who knows no better and in complete denial of the science that contradicts your misinformation

The troll says, “Just because SSTskin does not change does not mean that the gradient didn’t change.”

No one argued that it cant. What YOU continue to ignore and obfuscate is that LW was not warming upper micron where it is absorbed in the W&M study, and it isnt warming the lower thermal skin layer where it is unable to reach.

Any change in the thermal conductive gradient, if and when it happens, is done by other dynamics!

And there you go again, with you word salads of nonsense, sprinkled with scientific terms to create a facade, saying “that means the IR push from the surroundings is less than the IR push from the parcel thus heat flows via infrared radiation from the parcel to the surroundings regardless of depth.”

I warned you to take take the advice of Robert Downey Jr playing Kirk Lazarus in Tropic Thunder who warned “You went full retard man, never go full retard” But you keep doing it.

I cant remember when I last laughed this hard at a poster trying to act like he knows the science.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 16, 2022 2:25 pm

Jim Steele said: “And there you go again, with you word salads of nonsense, sprinkled with scientific terms to create a facade, saying “that means the IR push from the surroundings is less than the IR push from the parcel thus heat flows via infrared radiation from the parcel to the surroundings regardless of depth.”

Let me see it makes more sense with a concrete example.

Consider a spherical blackbody parcel at 300 K. It emits sblaw(300 K) = 459 W/m2.

Consider the surrounding at 290 K. It emits at sblaw(290 K) = 401 W/m2.

The energy transfer from the parcel to the surrounding is 58 W/m2 at the interface between the parcel and its surroundings. It doesn’t matter what depth the parcel is at.

Jim Steele said: “Any change in the thermal conductive gradient, if and when it happens, is done by other dynamics!”

I’m open to other explanations as long as they don’t violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 2:48 pm

LOL bdewx claims he is the upholder of the laws of thermodynamics LOL

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 16, 2022 3:30 pm

The laws of thermodynamics *must* be considered in the context of physical reality. bdgwx doesn’t seem to know enough about physical reality to be a good judge of how to apply the thermodynamic laws. He is a mathematician, not a physical scientist.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 16, 2022 5:51 pm

Jim Steele said: “LOL bdewx claims he is the upholder of the laws of thermodynamics LOL”

Guilty as charged. I will uphold and advocate for the laws of thermodynamics with fervor and without shame?

Last edited 8 days ago by bdgwx
Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 3:28 pm

The energy transfer from the parcel to the surrounding is 58 W/m2 at the interface between the parcel and its surroundings. It doesn’t matter what depth the parcel is at.”

Of course the depth of the parcel matters! The depth defines the density of the water and therefore the collision path length which is known as conduction!

Planck’s Law gives the spectral intensity per unit of surface area, not per unit volume.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 16, 2022 5:48 pm

TG said: “Of course the depth of the parcel matters!”

Where in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and/or Planck’s Law do you see depth as a variable or any constraint that they only apply to water for that matter?

Last edited 8 days ago by bdgwx
Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 6:13 pm

Where in SB or planck do you see radiation per volume? Why didn’t you answer my question?

Depth is part of volume, not surface!

Collision path length is a function of density, ie volume, not of SB’s or Planck’s equations.

You just keep proving you know little about physics, including thermodynamics. You are a parrot repeating jargon hoping it actually means something.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 16, 2022 7:11 pm

TG said: “Where in SB or planck do you see radiation per volume?”

Nowhere. That’s my point.

TG said: “Why didn’t you answer my question?”

You didn’t ask a question. You just stated erroneously that depth matters regarding the radiant exitance of a blackbody parcel of water.

TG said: “Depth is part of volume, not surface!”

I don’t disagree. But that is irrelevant. Based on the talk of density and collision path length, which have nothing to do with radiant exitance of a blackbody, it sounds like you are trying to deflect and divert gain. Stay on topic. If you want to challenge 459 – 401 = 58 W/m2 then challenge that. Don’t waste your time challenging something I never said because I’m certainly not going to waste my time defending your strawmen.

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 3:52 pm

Once you’re stuck in radiation land it’s really hard to get out. But you can do it bdgwx. Things are much more interesting within the Earth system. Things are not just passively radiating like in outer space.

Last edited 8 days ago by JCM
Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 2:42 pm

Again…I stand by what I said. The context here is of the bulk. When heat convects or conducts downward there is a differential in temperature between the parcel and its surroundings. That means the IR push from the surroundings is less than the IR push from the parcel thus heat flows via infrared radiation from the parcel to the surroundings regardless of depth.”

Just how often does a H2O molecule get to radiate in the ocean? What is the ration of collision vs radiation of a molecule in a body of water? What is the mean time to collision vs mean time to radiate?

Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 10:10 am

And this is why you are such an annoying stupid troll. You dishonestly pick snippets to push your myths.

II said “Any LW heat absorbed at the surface micron layer only travels downward via conduction which is a very slow process relative to the light speed emission from the surface that cool that upper micron. That’s why for 60 years at least scientists have reported the upper microns as the “COOL SKIN LAYER””

The whole point being conduction is so slow the heat generated in the upper micron via LWin doesn’t travel downward to any significant distance.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 16, 2022 7:25 pm

Jim Steele (and bdgwx)

You are BOTH wrong.

Read my May 14 7:57 post to Jim Steele (which he never responded to)

CO2 has no climatic effect, and La Ninas do not cause warming.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 2:30 pm

No it doesn’t. Look at your diagram. The thermal profile warms as you go down. That means heat cannot flow via conduction downward (2LOT).”

Huh? If you heat the surface of the water in a bathtub, say using a soldering iron, are you saying the water next to the bottom of the bathtub won’t warm via conduction?

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 16, 2022 5:32 pm

TG said: “Huh? If you heat the surface of the water in a bathtub, say using a soldering iron, are you saying the water next to the bottom of the bathtub won’t warm via conduction?”

No. Wong & Minnett 2018 are not saying that.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 5:36 pm

But it is what you said!

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 16, 2022 6:44 pm

TG said: “But it is what you said!”

I think you have me confused with someone else. I never said water cannot warm via conduction. In fact, in more than one comment in this subthread I said water warms via all 3 mechanisms (conduction, convection, and radiation).

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 8:31 pm

There is no surface budget which includes a net IR input. It’s no coincidence the delta Q term is specifically placed between LE and H terms. It is because the ocean surface is dominated by turbulent fluxes of energy related to H and LE, including tremendous movement of mass and momentum for oceans. The textbooks do this as to not confuse it with another flux. This diffusion is often called conduction, but in my view conduction does not do the process justice. There is no net flow of LW at the surface boundary to and from anywhere within the system, only LW lost to window. The red arrows do not enter the surface. They simply represent the ambient temperature at the surface interface, a byproduct of the system.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3395-x/figures/1

comment image

JCM
Reply to  JCM
May 17, 2022 8:19 am

It would appear the serial downvoter has become quite confused. There is no virtue in entrenching oneself in false beliefs, no matter how passionate one feels. Good luck.

bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
May 17, 2022 2:30 pm

JCM said: “There is no surface budget which includes a net IR input.”

But there are surface budgets that include IR separated out into individual in and out components. In fact there are several of them. Trenberth et al. 2009 and Wild et al. 2013 are well known examples.

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
May 17, 2022 4:26 pm

This must be a joke. Your circle of self-affirming articles led by the very people who have mangled the science will lead you only to where you seek to go. You and I have talked about this, and at least one of these articles in the past. Yet, another loop, leading back to the same arguments, with no advancement. And so, it is an unproductive discussion.

bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
May 17, 2022 5:52 pm

No. It is not a joke. Energy budgets exist that itemize the individual ingress and egress flows. The graphic you posted does so with Rl. Notice Rl↓ is the net input from longwave emissions.

Last edited 7 days ago by bdgwx
JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
May 17, 2022 6:58 pm

Energy budgets exist that itemize the individual ingress and egress flows. 

It’s neat how it went right back to the beginning. Like there was no yesterday, to again start from scratch with no memory. To save myself the trouble, you can just keep reading down and completing the infinite loop yourself. Enjoy

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/13/the-big-5-natural-causes-of-climate-change-pt-3-how-la-nina-warms-the-world/#comment-3517212

Last edited 7 days ago by JCM
bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
May 17, 2022 7:42 pm

I’m sorry. I don’t know what you are trying to say here. I’m just going off what you typed which was “There is no surface budget which includes a net IR input.” I’m trying to point that there are many budgets available that include the IR input component including the one you posted which includes Rl↓ which is both IR (longwave) and into the surface layer making it an input. It can also rightfully be described as net since it is itself the sum of itemized emitters at various frequencies within the band. So I don’t know why the budget you posted would not qualify as a surface budget which includes a net IR input. If you want to provide additional details of what you mean I’m happy to listen.

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
May 18, 2022 8:22 am

 I don’t know what you are trying to say here.

It’s important to understand that the viewpoint I am offering is that, from a climatology perspective, the surface is in radiation equilibrium with the atmosphere right above it. Agree, or disagree, but running in circles is not productive.

This scientific opinion is that what makes the surface warm or less warm is the rate of turbulent flux. Within the system, at the lower boundary condition, the sensible and latent heat factors maintain the radiation equilibrium i.e. the temperature. These vary based on the temperature gradient between atmosphere and surface. It is sometimes forgotten that the surface process are occurring in an environment of great mass.

Conceptually, however, at very short timescales or across different geographies (such as a perfectly dry desert) there can be periods where there is not a radiative equilibrium. As soon as water is introduced, however, the ability to reach radiation equilibrium is very easily achieved by evaporative process. For example, in a perfectly dry desert, completely closing the IR transmittance might increase the temperature 5C under sun, but introduce a bit of water and it cools 20C.

A hypothetical LW radiation perturbation is immediately compensated by turbulent flux. Entropy takes care of the partitioning. In reality, however, the radiation equilibrium extends up through the atmosphere, so an ‘added’ LW radiation forcing imbalance at the surface is only hypothetical. This is not in dispute, despite media claims of a settled science. The most likely forcing, in my view, is a change in the rate of convective heat transfer up through the atmosphere.

This is my viewpoint. It is important to recognize that you are attempting to justify the consensus viewpoint as argued by radiation physicists who, because of their IR sensors, have not adequately understand these concepts. Pointing IR sensors at everything, whether by satellite or a handheld device, gives one an incomplete picture. You are measuring a temperature. But you are not describing why or how that temperature was achieved, or the flux mechanisms. I believe carrying around a handheld IR sensor is damaging to understanding.

If my viewpoint was in line with my reading from the optical radiation literature, I would have no motivation to be here.

My training in boundary layer process has led me to be of the opinion that there has been an error in conceptualization. Recognize that neither Trenberth nor those operating equipment to specifically observe surface fluxes have been able to close the surface budget. There is 5-10 watts m-2 uncertainty. This is not in dispute, so there is much still to discover. This fact is glazed over. The uncertainties pertain to total turbulent flux, which cannot be directly observed.

If one wishes to observe a LW radiation forcing, one is most likely to be able to observe it in a location which was a perfectly dry desert before and perfectly dry desert now, as it would have a reduced ability to achieve radiation equilibrium. However, there is still the problem of accounting for advection. In reality, a LW radiation forcing is unlikely to be observable. On oceans of course, the vast majority of energy flux is by latent heat.

If there is a manmade climate change, which I believe is certainly possible, it has been by a disruption to total turbulent flux, or ‘convection’. A change to sensible and latent heat ratio by some disturbance to the land surface in the order of a watt or two. And so, the radiation equilibrium is in a higher state at the surface as measured by IR sensors. This is certainly possible.

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
May 15, 2022 8:36 pm

Notice that neither of them have any constraints on Q related to the type of heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation), the frequency of radiation, or the depth of the system. 

It is noteworthy that net radiation always opposes turbulent flux. I illustrated this earlier. They are on opposite sides of the equation. During the day, net radiation is downwards and net turbulent flux is upwards.

During the night, net radiation is upwards, and net turbulent flux is downwards. So, it is not reasonable to think of these factors “conduction, convection, and radiation” in an additive sense or complementary. Your terms conduction and convection always oppose the direction of net radiation.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 15, 2022 3:34 pm

bdgwx simply can’t understand that water below the surface heats from conduction via the surface warming. It’s almost like he believes infrared is the transport beam on the starship Enterprise and it can beam heat anywhere in the ocean, including the deep ocean without first warming the surface!

Perhaps he should go stand in the ocean at 6am off San Diego. The surface of the ocean warms first (from SWin from the sun) as the sun heats it and it is only later that the water below the surface warms as the surface heat conducts itself downward. That heated surface generates LWout almost instantaneously as surface warms. LWin is radiated, i.e. the “back radiation”, almost instantaneously from LWout. It’s not delayed and it doesn’t penetrate into the deeper water to heat it instantaneously.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 15, 2022 7:27 pm

TG said: “bdgwx simply can’t understand that water below the surface heats from conduction via the surface warming.”

I accept that water below the surface heats from conduction.

TG said: “It’s almost like he believes infrared is the transport beam on the starship Enterprise and it can beam heat anywhere in the ocean, including the deep ocean without first warming the surface!”

I don’t accept that infrared radiation is like the transport beam on the starship Enterprise nor do I think it can beam heat directly to the deep ocean.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 7:51 am

 nor do I think it can beam heat directly to the deep ocean.”

Then your claims about LW impacts on the ocean are certainly questionable at best, and more likely wrong.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 16, 2022 9:17 am

TG said: “Then your claims about LW impacts on the ocean are certainly questionable at best, and more likely wrong.”

No it’s not. The only place I’ve seen this myth that infrared energy cannot warm water is only in climate debates from contrarians.

You can easily prove that infrared energy warms water to significant depths by doing a simple experiment. Suspend a radiant heater above a tub of water. Observer that the water warms when the heater is on and cools when the heater is off. There are likely several food service establishments near you doing the experiment daily with heat lamps that you could observe if you don’t want to do it in your own home.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 9:57 am

The stupid troll finally admits his bias and why he persists with this argument no matter how much of his arguments are scientifically refuted saying, “The only place I’ve seen this myth that infrared energy cannot warm water is only in climate debates from contrarians.”

bdgwx is like Monty Python’s Black Knight, totally limbless, he still thinks he can win.

Brian, how much does the troll factory pay you to spam this site ad nauseum with your myths.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 3:03 pm

IR only warms the very top. Conduction warms the rest.

The only contrarian here seems to be you with your claim that IR can warms water below the surface.

Your heater only warms the surface water. That’s why there is a gradient from the top to the bottom caused by conduction. If IR warmed the bottom you wouldn’t see a gradient – all the water would warm at the same rate!

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 16, 2022 5:44 pm

TG said: “IR only warms the very top. Conduction warms the rest.”

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that if I apply say 1000 W/m2 to water via infrared only the surface will warm, but if I apply 1000 W/m2 to water via a contact method the whole vessel will warm? How does the water below the surface know what method was used to apply the energy to the surface?

Last edited 8 days ago by bdgwx
Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 6:03 pm

Your claim that IR can penetrate deeper than the surface is wrong. Your claim that water below the surface radiates IR according to SB is wrong. You need to redo your physics assertions.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 16, 2022 6:39 pm

TG said: “Your claim that IR can penetrate deeper than the surface is wrong.”

I never said that.

TG said: “Your claim that water below the surface radiates IR according to SB is wrong.”

I did say that. And I meant it. It’s also happens to be very easy to test. Put a rubberband around the trigger of an IR gun so that it stays on. Put the IR gun in an IR transparent container. Suspend the container in the middle of a tub of water. Observe that the IR gun registers the temperature of the water.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 7:57 pm

I thought I was finished with replying to bdgwx stupid trolling, and ignore him, but his experiment if such full blown bat-shite stupid, I cant resist. The troll factory is wasting their money on such a mentally challenged fool that has been so easily exposed.

  1. I’ll guarantee this stupid troll never performed this experiment himself. He’s pretending to be scientific again
  2. No oceanographer ever uses infra-red for below surface temperatures, they use thermister based thermometers,
  3. bdgwx’s proposed experiment shows this troll’s total lack of critical thinking. An infrared detector inside an air filled container, would only detect infrared from the container’s walls, not from the water outside. If I was that stupid I would use a pseudonym too.
bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 16, 2022 8:45 pm

Jim Steele said: “1. I’ll guarantee this stupid troll never performed this experiment himself”

Bold. But dead wrong.

Jim Steele said: “2. No oceanographer ever uses infra-red for below surface temperatures, they use thermister based thermometers”

Strawman. I never said an oceanographer would use a radiometer or thermopile below the surface. I also never challenged the use of thermister based thermometers either.

Jim Steele said: “3. An infrared detector inside an air filled container, would only detect infrared from the container’s walls, not from the water outside.”

Not if you follow the instructions about using an IR transparent container.

Remember above when I said you were dead wrong about me not performing the experiment? Yeah…I performed the experiment.

Here is what I did. I filled a large bowl with hot water at 50 C measured with a standard K type thermocouple. I then took my trusty Fluke 62 out and did a few control measurements. It read 50 C when pointed at the water, 20 C pointed at various room items, and 3 C when pointed into the refrigerator. I then put the Fluke 62 into a ZipLock bag and repeated the control measurements. Again, I got 50, 20, and 3 C measurements (within 1 or 2 C anyway) verifying that the ZipLock bag is indeed IR transparent at least in the 8-14 um band. I then dunked the Fluke 62 into the middle of the bowl. You guessed it. It read 50 C. No matter how deep or shallow I put it or which direction it was oriented it always read 50 C. I removed the ZipLock bag and Fluke 62 and it immediately went back to reading 20 C.

BTW…I love that Fluke 62. I use it all the time. I’ll occasionally even point it upward at the sky and read the bulk atmospheric temperature via DWIR. The differential between clear patches and cloudy patches is always interesting to see.

Last edited 8 days ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 10:28 pm

Well I underestimated you and so must give you credit for the effort of trying the experiment, even if the interpretation is wrong.

The reason LW doesn’t penetrate past a micron of water, going deeper and deeper as you wrongly claimed, is that it gets absorbed almost immediately by the water.

At an ocean-atmosphere interface LW radiating upwards escapes into the air because it can pass through air allowing an infrared detector to intercept the escaping IR. But LW radiating downward does not transmit. That is why LW only warms the upper micron of the ocean

Your experiment did not prove LW can penetrate downwards deeper and deeper. All you did was create a new interface where LW can transmit which your gun detected.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 17, 2022 5:43 am

Jim Steele said: “The reason LW doesn’t penetrate past a micron of water, going deeper and deeper as you wrongly claimed, is that it gets absorbed almost immediately by the water.”

I never claimed LW penetrates deeper and deeper.

Jim Steele said: “Your experiment did not prove LW can penetrate downwards deeper and deeper.”

The experiment is not testing the penetration depth of LW. It is testing the hypothesis that water emits LW even at significant depths. Tim Gorman does not think water parcels below the surface comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Last edited 8 days ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 16, 2022 10:35 pm

You obfuscate thee point again saying “Strawman. I never said an oceanographer would use a radiometer or thermopile below the surface. I also never challenged the use of thermister based thermometers either.”

I never accused you of saying any of that. You are just find of making up your own strawmen,

The point was, WHY DO OCEANOGRAPHERS ONLY use IR detectors for surface temperatures, but other thermometers below. If heat was being transmitted via IR then an IR detector should observe it

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 17, 2022 5:51 am

I don’t know that oceanographers only use IR detectors for surface temperatures either. Let me be clear. I’m not making any statements about instrumentation that oceanographers use or don’t use. I’m making a statement that water even at significant depths exchanges heat via convection, conduction, AND radiation including and especially infrared radiation. My experiment is meant as an easy in-home approach to convince Tim Gorman that it is not just the surface that emits infrared radiation.

BTW…I highly suspect oceanographers have used radiometers and spectrometers below the surface probably for a variety reasons most of which I suspect have little to do with what we are discussing here.

Reply to  bdgwx
May 17, 2022 6:44 am

BDGWX SAYS “ I’m making a statement that water even at significant depths exchanges heat via convection, conduction, AND radiation including and especially infrared radiation.”

Not true. The 3 ways heats is transferred was never an issue. It is those generalities that you bring up as straw dog. What you did was pick a fight regards to what depth LW heats the ocean. You violated 1LOT. You claimed LW penetrates deeper and deeper to support your blind belief. You dishonestly claimed that was a well established fact. You evoked irrelevant dynamics to support a bogus claim if a single researcher that although LWin increased, but didnt warm the skin surface that it must have warmed deeper than normal to alter the thermal gradient.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 17, 2022 8:18 am

Jim Steele said: “Not true.”

It is absolutely true. Convection, conduction, and radiation don’t stop just because water is deep.

Jim Steele said: “The 3 ways heats is transferred was never an issue.”

It was an issue for Tim Gorman. Of course, a lot of things have been an issue for him in this subthread including challenging that the SB law applies to water below the surface, the fact that 450 – 410 > 0, the fact that ΔLWin > 0 does not mean LW radiation penetrates deeply, etc.

Jim Steele said: “You violated 1LOT”

No I haven’t. I statement that heat gets exchanged via conduction, convection, and radiation and that all 3 participate in the exchange of heat within water does not in any way violate the 1LOT.

Jim Steele said: “You claimed LW penetrates deeper and deeper to support your blind belief.”

I have never claimed that LW penetrates deeply into water. In fact, I’m the one that frequently is trying to convince the WUWT audience that water so greedily absorbs LW radiation that it does so within the first millimeter. I’m also the one that mentioned figure 1 from Wong & Minnett 2018 referencing Bertie & Lan 1996 clearly showing that wavenumbers from 500 to 3000 cm-1 getting absorbed within a 1/10 of a millimeter.

What I claimed and which I stand by is that LW radiation warms water even to significant depths; not because the LW radiation penetrates deeply, but because of the other heat exchanges going on including convection, conduction, and yes even the retransmission of radiation.

Jim Steele said: “You dishonestly claimed that was a well established fact.”

It is a well established fact that infrared radiation warms water. Prove it for yourself. Emit infrared radiation (above and beyond the background emissions) toward a tub of water and observe that it warms.

Jim Steele said: “You evoked irrelevant dynamics to support a bogus claim if a single researcher that although LWin increased, but didnt warm the skin surface that it must have warmed deeper than normal to alter the thermal gradient.”

First…I’ll remind you again that I’m not the one that evoked this microphysical model. That was you. I’m just pointing out that the model is not consistent with the statement “So, it seems virtually certain that any change in ocean warming must be driven by solar changes, and not from any changing concentrations of greenhouse gases.”

Second…the dynamics within the TSL are relevant in explaining what happens to the extra energy imparted by an increase in LWin.

Third…I never said LW penetrates any deep than what is documented in figure 1 from Bertie & Lan 1996.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 17, 2022 1:41 pm

It was an issue for Tim Gorman. Of course, a lot of things have been an issue for him in this subthread including challenging that the SB law applies to water below the surface, the fact that 450 – 410 > 0, the fact that ΔLWin > 0 does not mean LW radiation penetrates deeply, etc.”

As I said the post just prior, you have *NOT* proved that S-B applies to water below the surface. Both S-B and Planck equations speak to the radiation from a surface, not radiation from a volume. A steel sphere of 1lb at temperature T1 will radiate the same as a steel sphere of 10lb at temperature T1. The intensity of the radiation is based on a unit area of the sphere, not the mass of the sphere.

You are trying to fool everyone into thinking you know what you are talking about when it comes to physics and especially radiative physics. And you refuse to answer questions that reveal that you really know nothing.

Think about it rationally for once. If a H2O molecule 2000ft deep in the ocean *radiates* IR then it would also absorb IR, meaning IR impinging on the surface of the ocean would penetrate clear to the bottom of the ocean. Yet I can find NO ONE that believes this to be true – except for YOU!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 17, 2022 1:46 pm

It is a well established fact that infrared radiation warms water. Prove it for yourself. Emit infrared radiation (above and beyond the background emissions) toward a tub of water and observe that it warms.”

And once again you refuse to specify the process by which the bottom of the tub of water warms – in a feeble attempt to convince everyone that the IR penetrates clear to the bottom of the water.

It doesn’t do so. The surface of the water warms and then the heat is dispersed throughout the tub via conduction.

Put a sheet of insulating glass halfway down the tub, i.e. water-glass-water. Then see if your heat lamp warms the bottom segment of water equal to the conduction of heat through the glass or if it warms at the same rate as the surface of the water in the tub.

Which do you suppose will happen?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 17, 2022 2:42 pm

What I claimed and which I stand by is that LW radiation warms water even to significant depths; not because the LW radiation penetrates deeply, but because of the other heat exchanges going on including convection, conduction, and yes even the retransmission of radiation.”

Radiation does *NOT* warm the depths. Conduction does! You are obfuscating hoping we will buy your new excuse.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 17, 2022 5:45 pm

TG said: “Radiation does *NOT* warm the depths. Conduction does! You are obfuscating hoping we will buy your new excuse.”

Let me make sure I have your claim correct. You are claiming that when water absorbs energy sourced externally it will ONLY warm if that energy is delivered via conduction. If it is delivered via radiation the energy just disappears without causing any temperature response whatsoever to the water. Is that what you are claiming here?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 17, 2022 10:17 pm

You are claiming that when water absorbs energy sourced externally it will ONLY warm if that energy is delivered via conduction. If it is delivered via radiation the energy just disappears without causing any temperature response whatsoever to the water. Is that what you are claiming here?”

After all this you have to put words in my mouth? And the wrong words at that?

  1. You admit that IR doesn’t penetrate very far into water. It only warms the surface.
  2. You admit that conduction is a major internal heat transfer mechanism in water as opposed to internal radiation.
  3. If conduction is a (perhaps *the*) major internal heat transfer mechanism as opposed to radiation then S-B incorrectly calculates the amount of radiation from a parcel of water internal to the body of water.

So how do you get from that a disappearance of energy?

You are making up words to put in my mouth that have nothing to do with what I’ve actually said. Jim Steele is right about you.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 18, 2022 6:04 am

TG said: “After all this you have to put words in my mouth? And the wrong words at that?”

I’m just asking questions to figure out what you are getting at. So you agree then that when water absorbs energy even if that energy is delivered via infrared radiation that the water will warm?

TG said: “1. You admit that IR doesn’t penetrate very far into water. It only warms the surface.”

There is no “admitting” necessary here. I accepted this long ago and have been trying to convince the WUWT audience from the very beginning.

TG said: “2. You admit that conduction is a major internal heat transfer mechanism in water as opposed to internal radiation.”

There is no “admitting” necessary here. I accepted this long ago. Don’t hear what I didn’t say though. I didn’t say that radiation is not still happening.

TG said: “3. If conduction is a (perhaps *the*) major internal heat transfer mechanism as opposed to radiation then S-B incorrectly calculates the amount of radiation from a parcel of water internal to the body of water.”

Patently False. You put a radiometer, spectrometer, or thermopile under water and it WILL record a radiant flux. Even the most rudimentary experiment is enough to convince anyone that this is true. Don’t take my word for it. Repeat the experiment I did.

Also, don’t conflate the transmission of heat with the transmission of radiation. The transmission of heat only occurs when there is a temperature differential. But the transmission of radiation occurs all of the time. It’s just that when a parcel of water is at the same temperature as its surroundings the parcel will emit as much as it absorbs and thus there is no exchange of heat. But you will still be able to detect to the radiation with an instrument designed for the purpose.

TG said: “So how do you get from that a disappearance of energy?”

Because as best as I can tell that’s what Jim Steele thinks. He does not think the action of water absorbing infrared energy is enough to to warm it. He does not think that absorbed heat in the skin can be conducted, convected, or reemitted downward below the skin.

TG said: “You are making up words to put in my mouth that have nothing to do with what I’ve actually said.”

I’m asking you questions so that I can get more clarity on your position. And I have good reason to ask them because you immediately came in this subthread with a bunch of “nuh-uh” and strawman comments as if you were immediately in defense of Jim Steele’s positions which are that 1) The energy delivered to water via infrared radiation cannot warm water and 2) Water below the surface does not even emit radiation. Both of which are absurd and both of which can be falsified with the even the most rudimentary in-home experiments.

Last edited 7 days ago by bdgwx
Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 18, 2022 8:06 am

There is no “admitting” necessary here. I accepted this long ago and have been trying to convince the WUWT audience from the very beginning.”

Malarky! That is *NOT* what you told Steele. You claimed that IR radiation warms the deep ocean. When the problems with this assertion was pointed out to you then you changed your claim to try and make us think it was your position from the beginning.

“There is no “admitting” necessary here. I accepted this long ago. Don’t hear what I didn’t say though. I didn’t say that radiation is not still happening.”

See my comment above. You only came to this realization after it was pointed out to you that your claims were wrong.

“Patently False. You put a radiometer, spectrometer, or thermopile under water and it WILL record a radiant flux. Even the most rudimentary experiment is enough to convince anyone that this is true. Don’t take my word for it. Repeat the experiment I did.”

S-B does *NOT* include a conduction factor or convection factor. Why do you refuse to admit this? You are ultimately going to wind up claiming it was your idea that S-B doesn’t correctly calculate radiation intensity when conduction exists in a material. So why not admit it now? Look up the term “thermal equilibrium” in relation to a black body.

It’s just that when a parcel of water is at the same temperature as its surroundings the parcel will emit as much as it absorbs and thus there is no exchange of heat. But you will still be able to detect to the radiation with an instrument designed for the purpose.”

You are *still* dissembling! The parcel will *NOT* emit as much radiation as it absorbs if heat transfer via conduction is at play! S-B simply will not correctly calculate the radiation intensity correctly. If the particle is not in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding material S-B will give a wrong answer.

You say: “It’s just that when a parcel of water is at the same temperature as its surroundings the parcel will emit as much as it absorbs and thus there is no exchange of heat.”

Is a parcel of water below the surface in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding water?

You *still* haven’t investigated relaxation time for H2O versus mean time to collision, have you? Look up Kirchoff’s Law while you are at it!

Because as best as I can tell that’s what Jim Steele thinks. He does not think the action of water absorbing infrared energy is enough to to warm it.”

Wrong. He says IR only warms the surface of the water. You just said you accept that conduction is a major source of heat transfer from the surface water to deeper water. That’s what Steele was trying to explain to you and which you now say was *your* idea.

Steele is right. You are nothing but a troll with little, if any, knowledge of actual physical science.

I’m asking you questions so that I can get more clarity on your position.”

My position has been *very* clear from the beginning. You just keep making up things you can argue with. That’s called the Red Herring argumentative fallacy.

” immediately in defense of Jim Steele’s positions which are that 1) The energy delivered to water via infrared radiation cannot warm water”

This is you just making things up again. A Red Herring.

“Water below the surface does not even emit radiation. Both of which are absurd and both of which can be falsified with the even the most rudimentary in-home experiments.”

This is you making things up again. If you can’t answer the question of relaxation time vs time to collision then how can you claim radiation calculated by S-B is correct when the equation doesn’t have factor for conduction? You don’t actually know if it emits or not! If all the heat transfer is by conduction then emitted radiation will be zero.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 18, 2022 9:31 am

TG said: “Malarky! That is *NOT* what you told Steele. You claimed that IR radiation warms the deep ocean.”

I said increased IR radiation warms the ocean to significant depths and I stand by that statement. That is not a statement that IR radiation penetrates anymore than first millimeter of the surface or that it directly warms to significant depth. It is a statement that increased IR radiation causes the ocean to warm to significant depth in the same way that it causes any substance to warm. There are certainly complex microphysical effects in play including the transmission of that energy and the solar energy via convection, conduction, and radiant reemission but the addition of that IR energy will cause the ocean to warm. And I made that clear in my head post with the citation to Wong & Minnett 2018 who provided the explanation. It’s not my fault that you didn’t read the head post and the publication cited.

As has been said over and over again the mechanism from the Wong & Minnett 2018 publication which JS mispresented by which IR radiation warms the ocean is as follows. The energy delivered by IR radiation is absorbed quickly and within the first millimeter and entirely in the thermal skin layer. The temperature at the top of the skin does not change, but the temperature at the bottom of the skin does. Specifically the temperature gradient at the bottom gets reduced. This reduces the conductive flux from the bulk into the thermal skin layer because the rate of conduction is dependent on the temperature differential. More solar radiation, which does penetrate deeply, is thus retained because less energy is transferring from the bulk to the skin. Conduction is the mechanism most at play in explain the warming of the bulk as a result of IR radiation being absorbed in the TSL.

If you still think my statement that more infrared radiation delivered to the ocean is the same as a statement that infrared radiation penetrates deeply and directly warms below the TSL then you either didn’t read the publication or don’t understand what it says. If you don’t understand what they are saying then ask questions. Just don’t keep misrepresenting what is being said.

TG said: “See my comment above. You only came to this realization after it was pointed out to you that your claims were wrong.”

That is nonsense. You butted into a conversation without understanding the context and started making statements that were wrong because of it. You’re the one that said that 450-410 > 0 is incorrect. You’re the one that said ΔLWin@tsl > 0 means that LW penetrates deeply. You’re the one that implied the SB law cannot be used for water below the surface. These are all statements that are beyond ridiculous because you didn’t understand the context. And now you want to lecture me?

TG said: “S-B does *NOT* include a conduction factor or convection factor. Why do you refuse to admit this? You are ultimately going to wind up claiming it was your idea that S-B doesn’t correctly calculate radiation intensity when conduction exists in a material. So why not admit it now? Look up the term “thermal equilibrium” in relation to a black body.”

Everybody knows that the SB law does not contain any variables related to conduction or convection. It’s not meant to tell you anything about those mechanisms of heat transmission. I have never challenged that. But we aren’t talking about conduction and convection here. We are talking about radiation and the fact that water emits it regards of where it is.

And I’ll repeat the SB law relates temperature to radiant exitance. If a substance has a temperature then it has a radiant exitance. That is universal. It applies everywhere. And it is the reason why my Fluke 62 recorded 587 W/m2 even when fully submerged in 50 C water. Water radiates. Period. Even below the surface and despite JS’s challenge it continues to radiate. That is not debatable. You and JS can challenge that all you want and you’ll always be wrong.

TG said: “You are *still* dissembling! The parcel will *NOT* emit as much radiation as it absorbs if heat transfer via conduction is at play!”

When conduction is in play! And that is exactly what I tried to communicate to JS above. If that parcel is at a warmer temperature then its surroundings for whatever reason (maybe heat conducted to it) it will radiate more than it’s surroundings. It thus radiates more than it absorbs. You then challenged that saying the SB law does not apply to water below the surface. And don’t heat what I never said. I never said that the net flow of radiation from parcel to surroundings is the only mechanism by which the surroundings warm. I never even said it was the most effective. My only point is that water is always emitting radiation.

TG said: “Wrong. He says IR only warms the surface of the water.”

He said and I quote “So, it seems virtually certain that any change in ocean warming must be driven by solar changes, and not from any changing concentrations of greenhouse gases.”

TG said: “You just said you accept that conduction is a major source of heat transfer from the surface water to deeper water. That’s what Steele was trying to explain to you and which you now say was *your* idea.”

That is not what JS is saying at all. He’s saying that increased infrared radiation delivered to the ocean cannot cause the ocean to warm even indirectly via the conduction, convection, and/or radiant emission of that energy downward into the bulk or by reducing the conductive flux from the bulk into the skin. He does not think that infrared radiation in anyway shape or form can cause the ocean to warm even by indirect means. In fact, as best I can tell he thinks more infrared radiation actually facilitates cooling of the ocean.

TG said: “This is you making things up again. If you can’t answer the question of relaxation time vs time to collision then how can you claim radiation calculated by S-B is correct when the equation doesn’t have factor for conduction?”

I don’t know what the relaxation time is off the top of my head. And I haven’t bothered looking it up here because it is completely irrelevant to any of my or JS points. I know the SB law is correct without knowing relaxation time because relaxation time is not a variable in the equation and because nobody has been able to falsify the SB law.

If you want to tell me the relaxation time of H2O then go ahead. What is the relaxation time of H2O?

bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 18, 2022 11:45 am

BTW…anyone who is interested in the efficacy of conduction vs radiation in water need only use the thermal conductivity equation and radiative transfer equation. You don’t need go head deep into the quantum realm figuring out timing of molecular collisions vs photon emission. Anyway, water’s thermal conductivity is 0.6 W.m-1.K-1 at 20 C. That means the conductive flux through a 1 millimeter interface at ΔT = 1 is 0.6 W.m-1.K-1 * (1 K / 0.001 m) = 6000 W/m2. Water’s emissivity is 0.98. That means the radiative flux is 0.98 * 5.67e-8 W.m-2.K-4 * ((293 K)^4 – (292 K)^4) = 6 W/m2. In other words conduction within water is 1000x more efficient than radiation in moving heat through the bulk.

And for a 1 millimeter layer it requires 4000 j/m2 to raise 1 K. That means it only takes 4000 j/m2 / 6000 W/m2 = 667 milliseconds to equilibrate the interface via conduction. But it takes 4000 j/m2 / 6 W/m2 = 11.1 minutes via radiation. This is why conduction is so much more effective inside water. And of course it would be an oversight not to mention convection. Speeds are quite variable here but even with a snails pace of 0.01 m/s a +1 K parcel of water can move 1 millimeter in 100 milliseconds. This is why I said above that for the mixed layer the ranking of heat transport goes in order of efficacy as convection, conduction, and radiation.

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
May 18, 2022 12:38 pm

This is why I said above that for the mixed layer the ranking of heat transport goes in order of efficacy as convection, conduction, and radiation.

No.

Entropy production must be maximized and temperature must be minimized.

Within the Earth system there is a great deal of capacity in turbulent flux. This must be exhausted within physical constraints of the Earth system process before a new surface radiation equilibrium (temperature) is observed.

These physical constraints never cease to operate. Minor perturbations to LW do not exceed this constraint, and so any flux Q is via latent and sensible heat processes. Higher intensity SW does exceed this constraint, and so SW radiation does contribute to flux into the surface.

As previously discussed, and dismissed by you, turbulent flux always opposes net radiation. During the day, SW solar warms by easily exceeding upward turbulent flux capacity.

Generally speaking, a perturbation to LW flux will never exceed turbulent flux capacity and so radiation equilibrium temperature remains unperturbed.

Last edited 7 days ago by JCM
Tim Gorman
Reply to  JCM
May 20, 2022 4:46 am

Do I have this right? Turbulent flux removes heat from the ocean surface faster than the LW flux can add heat so there is no net heat accumulation from the LW radiation. That makes sense to me at least. Turbulent flux is faster than molecular diffusion as well so conduction is not a factor either. Is turbulent flux considered to be a form of convection?

JCM
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 20, 2022 5:44 am

Essentially yes – but I wouldn’t say it’s as much about speed, than the requirement for maximum entropy production in fluid heat dissipation problems.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002RG000113

In a fluid system, it must maximize ‘movement’ or turbulent dissipation before temperature can change. This is how entropy applies. Fresh air is brought in by movement of fluids to maximize sensible and latent heat flux in turbulent eddies.

Turbulent flux is a general term that includes all diabatic process, which includes conduction. Diabatic process is sometimes labelled convection which includes all process of conduction/diffusion/evaporation/condensation.

Downstrokes of convective cells in atmosphere, at whatever scale, systematically contain less energy than upstrokes due to radiative losses at higher altitudes (IR Window broadening with height).

In fluid system energy budgets, the Sensible heat flux H is proportional to temperature difference, with constrains related to density, heat capacity, and aerodynamic resistance between surface and atmosphere.

https://denning.atmos.colostate.edu/ats761/Lectures/04.SurfaceEnergyBudget.pdf

Whether the atmosphere is warmer or colder the LW up and LW down terms will vary proportionally, as it is radiating in all directions, if you will. LW ↓−LW ↑. Any changes to atmospheric temperature nets to zero change in magnitude of radiative flux in one ‘direction’ or another ‘direction’.

If at a certain temperature the LW terms = 400. 400↓ – 400↑ is inputted into surface energy budgets. Radiation equilibrium is not a flow, merely a state. An increase in temperature might bring LW to 420. Plug in 420↓ – 420↑ into a surface energy budget equation. It is of little consequence for driving surface energy budgets. It should be thought of as the result. Consider that the LW terms can and do vary at small time and spatial scales, and across geographies. This is why they are included in surface energy budgets. But from an oceanic climate perspective the LW flux terms net to zero within the atmosphere.

Last edited 5 days ago by JCM
Tim Gorman
Reply to  JCM
May 23, 2022 4:59 am

Thanks for your reply. I’m still studying your first link, haven’t even started on the second! Lots to think about and understand.

I *do* have to wonder with this complexity if the computer models try to handle this or if they just guess at a fixed parameter value.

JCM
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 23, 2022 8:48 am

 just guess at a fixed parameter value

bingo. Model tuning and compensating errors.

However, there is no credible framework with a net downward LW component.

The only degrees of freedom for long-term climate states are solar input and turbulent dissipation.

Energy must be conserved, entropy must be maximized.

Entropy of the system defined as heat supplied divided by its temperature.

“a nonlinear feedback mechanism in the turbulent fluid system will adjust the transport process so as to generate the available energy (i.e., maximum possible work) at a possible maximum rate, and hence the maximum entropy production.”

The first article partitions out all the components, which includes only IR window losses for LW. The balance is achieved by solar input and turbulent dissipation.

The second article glazes over LW down in surface budgets saying “it’s complicated”. That is true. But it is less complicated for long-term climate states.

Maximum entropy production is expressed in global circulation patterns, zonal and meridional flows, as the system works out the best solutions to turbulent dissipation. These process are unlikely to be computable.

Let me know your thoughts.

Last edited 2 days ago by JCM
Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 19, 2022 3:51 pm

You finally got it! That’s why heat is transported to the water below the surface by conduction, not radiation. Conduction works better in solids and liquids because the molecules are in close contact, as opposed to radiation between molecules that are not close together, e.g. gases like water vapor.

I don’t believe water in liquid form stores thermal energy as rotational energy only as vibrational energy. And since the molecules in liquid water are in *very* close contact that vibrational energy is easily transmitted to the next molecule, i.e. the path length for collision is essentially zero. Meaning if the relaxation time for radiating is anything at all, conduction will occur before the molecule can radiate.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 19, 2022 2:43 pm

I said increased IR radiation warms the ocean to significant depths and I stand by that statement. That is not a statement that IR radiation penetrates anymore than first millimeter of the surface or that it directly warms to significant depth.”

IR radiation does *NOT* warm the ocean to significant depth! CONDUCTION DOES. You *still* can’t admit that you are wrong about IR radiation.

The energy delivered by IR radiation is absorbed quickly and within the first millimeter and entirely in the thermal skin layer. The temperature at the top of the skin does not change,”

How does water warm without its temperature changing? Steele asked you that and you still refuse to answer!

You’re the one that said that 450-410 > 0 is incorrect. “

That is *NOT* what I said. That is what *YOU* said I said. You put words in my mouth. That is a despicable tactic.

“You’re the one that implied the SB law cannot be used for water below the surface. “

And that is true. S-B only works for an object in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. When conduction is occurring to or from an object it is *not* in equilibrium with its surroundings and S-B gives a wrong answer for radiation.

 But we aren’t talking about conduction and convection here. We are talking about radiation and the fact that water emits it regards of where it is.”

Of course we are talking about conduction and convection. Those occur within an object that is not in thermal equilibrium. The issue is how much radiation does a parcel of water emit when the object is not in thermal equilibrium and conduction and convection are the major heat transport modes. S-B doesn’t apply in this situation!

” If that parcel is at a warmer temperature then its surroundings for whatever reason (maybe heat conducted to it) it will radiate more than it’s surroundings.”

How do you know that? You STILL haven’t spoken about relaxation time and time to next collision. If the relaxation time is longer than the mean path length (i.e. the time to the next collision) then how can the molecule radiate?

If a parcel of water is at a warmer temp than its surroundings then it is *NOT* in thermal equilibrium, a requirement for the S-B equation to work!

“You then challenged that saying the SB law does not apply to water below the surface”

If it can’t correctly calculate the radiation intensity because the object is not in thermal equilibrium then S-B *can’t* apply!

“My only point is that water is always emitting radiation.”

You keep claiming that but you have no effective proof. S-B obviously doesn’t work with an object not in thermal equilibrium. And the difference between relaxation time and the mean path length is certainly a determining factor as to whether radiation occurs or not.

AMF YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES BECAUSE THEY UNDERCUT YOUR ARGUMENT.

I don’t know what the relaxation time is off the top of my head.”

Then *how* do you know radiation occurs? It sounds like you are just spouting religious dogma.

“And I haven’t bothered looking it up here because it is completely irrelevant to any of my or JS points.”

It’s TOTALLY relevant because it is what determines if radiation happens or not. You are now indulging in the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal. You just claim a valid assertion is irrelevant and just dismiss it instead of actually refuting it.

” I know the SB law is correct without knowing relaxation time because relaxation time is not a variable in the equation and because nobody has been able to falsify the SB law.”

Sorry, relaxation time in an object in thermal equilibrium is irrelevant because there is no conduction or convection. THEN S-G works!

You got caught making incorrect claims and now you want someone to do your work for you. Do it yourself!



bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 20, 2022 6:16 am

TG said: “IR radiation does *NOT* warm the ocean to significant depth!”

Yes. It does. Do the experiment. Deliver energy to a tub of water via infrared radiation and observe that the whole tub warms. Turn the radiant heater off and observer the whole tub cools. It’s not just the skin that warms.

TG said: “How does water warm without its temperature changing?”

It’s temperature does change.

TG said: “Steele asked you that and you still refuse to answer!”

I’ve given JS the microphysical explanation from the publication he took that figure multiple times.

TG said: “That is *NOT* what I said. That is what *YOU* said I said. You put words in my mouth. That is a despicable tactic.”

I said ΔLWin@tsl > 0 and you said that was incorrect. ΔLWin@tsl = 450 – 410 = 40 W/m2. You then said “ΔLWin@tsl > 0 IR doesn’t penetrate. You keep failing on that point.”

TG said: “S-B only works for an object in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.”

Say what?

TG said: “When conduction is occurring to or from an object it is *not* in equilibrium with its surroundings and S-B gives a wrong answer for radiation.”

Say what?

TG said: “How do you know that?”

SB law.

TG said: “You keep claiming that but you have no effective proof.”

Yes I do. SB law. You can also prove it for yourself with even a rudimentary experiment with a thermopile based instrument.

TG said: “You STILL haven’t spoken about relaxation time and time to next collision. If the relaxation time is longer than the mean path length (i.e. the time to the next collision) then how can the molecule radiate?”

All molecules radiate regardless of the number of collisions. Just because the time to collision is smaller than the time to emission does not mean that emissions don’t happen.

TG said: “If a parcel of water is at a warmer temp than its surroundings then it is *NOT* in thermal equilibrium, a requirement for the S-B equation to work!”

That is not a requirement.

TG said: “Then *how* do you know radiation occurs?”

Radiation is always happening. Always. Everything is continuously emitting photons. Everything.

TG said: “It’s TOTALLY relevant because it is what determines if radiation happens or not.”

That is not what determines if radiation happens. The one and only thing that determines whether radiation happens is temperature. If it is non-zero the body will radiate. Period.

TG said: “You got caught making incorrect claims and now you want someone to do your work for you.”

I stand by what I said. If you still think bodies do not emit radiation in some scenarios then you are still wrong. If you still think the SB law only applies to bodies in equilibrium then you are still wrong. If you still think a body of water will not warm when delivered energy via infrared radiation then you are still wrong.

Last edited 5 days ago by bdgwx
bigoilbob
Reply to  bdgwx
May 20, 2022 5:28 am

Jim Steele said: “Not true.”
It is absolutely true. 

Wonderfully evocative.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 17, 2022 2:40 pm

You nailed it. Get ready for the dance trying to obfuscate the issue.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 17, 2022 1:18 pm

There are two things an excited molecule can do. 1.it can emit radiation and 2. it can pass the energy on via a collision.

Molecules do not instantaneously emit absorbed energy. It the time to emission (called the relaxation time) is greater than the time to collision then you will never see any radiation, only conduction via collisions.

Since you refuse to answer my questions concerning H2O relaxation time and time-to-collision, I can only assume you are are only interested in pushing an article of faith. Neither have you answered my assertion that S-B and Planck equations are based on surface area, not volume. So I can only assume you are only interested in pushing an article of faith.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 17, 2022 5:39 pm

TG said: “And once again you refuse to specify the process by which the bottom of the tub of water warms – in a feeble attempt to convince everyone that the IR penetrates clear to the bottom of the water.”

First…nobody in this subthread is saying IR penetrates down to the bottom.

Second…a mechanism for how the ocean bulk warms has already been presented.

TG said: “It doesn’t do so. The surface of the water warms and then the heat is dispersed throughout the tub via conduction.”

I’m not challenging that conduction plays an important for dispersing heat especially in the tub where mixing is not dominant. Note that mixing is dominant in the upper 100’ish meters of the ocean due to agitation by wind and waves.

TG said: “Put a sheet of insulating glass halfway down the tub, i.e. water-glass-water. Then see if your heat lamp warms the bottom segment of water equal to the conduction of heat through the glass or if it warms at the same rate as the surface of the water in the tub.”

No need to do the experiment. Everybody already knows i