Because infrared heat waves penetrates less than a millimeter into the ocean’s surface, many skeptics argued it is impossible to blame rising CO2 for ocean warming. However, several prominent skeptic scientists, people who I have great respect for, also weighed in arguing it was silly and useless to argue infrared heat can’t warm the ocean.
Transcript
Welcome everyone.
About a decade ago there was a heated and unresolved debate on whether infrared back radiation from greenhouse gases is heating the oceans. Because infrared penetrates less than a millimeter into the ocean’s surface, many skeptics argued it is impossible to blame rising CO2 for ocean warming. However, several prominent skeptic scientists, people who I have great respect for, also weighed in arguing it was silly and useless to argue infrared heat can’t warm the ocean.
After analyzing the physics detailed in this video, I’m convinced it is solar energy that drives the observed ocean heating, and any infrared ocean heating is insignificant at best. If this analysis holds, it is another significant strike against the prevailing CO2 driven global warming theory
To ensure lay people are brought up to speed, here’s a quick summary of where consensus climate science stands today.
Climate scientists construct models of the earth’s energy budget. The amount of energy absorbed by the earth or emitted back to space each second, is measured in Watts and is standardized for an area measuring one square meter. For those unfamiliar with that measurement, simply understand that more Watts signify more energy.
The energy budget illustrated here was published by Stephens 2012. Others have slightly different numbers, but this illustration is one of the best because it is one of the few that lists the range of uncertainties in their measurements.
Because the sun’s surface is so hot it emits high energy shortwave radiation. On average the earth warms as short waves add 75 Watts to the atmospheric water vapor while the earth’s surfaces absorb about 160 Watts, totaling 240 Watts that are heating the earth’s daytime climate.
According to the Stefan-Boltzman law, and remember scientific laws are undisputed, when a surface is heated it causes that surface to respond immediately by releasing an equal amount of energy from that surface.
To maintain the earth’s temperature balance, the 240 Watts of energy from the sun should cause the earth to emit 240 Watts back to space or transfer some of that energy from the surface into the oceans or soils. However, because the earth is so much cooler than the sun, it only emits that energy as longwave infrared waves, which interact very differently with the earth than the sun’s shortwaves.
While some longwaves can escape back to space unimpeded and at the speed of light, other longwaves can be absorbed by greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor. Greenhouse gases then re-emit that absorbed energy, and redirect half back towards the earth’s surface. On average the earth’s surface also absorbs an estimated 345 Watts of re-cycled longwave energy which counteracts the rate of cooling and prevents the earth’s nighttime cooling from dropping to the point of global freezing.
However, that longwave energy is not trapped, as many media headlines suggest. Eventually nearly all the energy from the sun escapes back to space. However, the best modeled energy budgets suggest that a slightly less amount of energy radiates back to space relative to what had originally entered from the sun.
Putting aside some large uncertainties, there appears to be a radiative imbalance of 0.6 Watts less energy leaving the earth than is added by the sun. Some researchers estimate that imbalance may be as high as one Watt.
That imbalance does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law because that missing heat gets stored below the land surface or below the ocean surface, where the heat cannot radiate back to space in a timely manner.
There is no scientific disagreement that our oceans have been warming since the Little Ice Age ended around 1850 AD. What remains to be debated is, to what degree are oceans naturally warming due to storage of more shortwave energy from the sun, or due to storage of increased downward longwave energy emitted by rising carbon dioxide concentrations.
Some have argued, incorrectly, that the earth’s land surface heats and cools the same as the oceans.
However, in contrast to the ocean, the suns’ shortwave energy doesn’t penetrate soils much deeper than an inch. The combined heating from shortwave & longwave energy plus sensible heat transfer from warm air, increasingly heats soils at the surface reaching summertime highs. Then, primarily via conduction, surface heat slowly passes down the temperature gradient from the warm surface to cooler depths in accord with the second law of thermodynamics. Heat transfer via conduction is slow, so temperatures can remain 8ºC (15 º F) cooler just 10 inches (25 centimeters) below the surface.
During the winter, the colder surface reverses that temperature gradient, so that stored summer heat travels via conduction back to the surface. Again, because surface cooling happens quickly and conduction happens slowly, the deeper soil remains warmer than the surface soil.
Greenhouse longwave energy penetrates only a few microns into the ocean surface and even less into most soils, but the sun’s shortwave energy passes much more deeply into the ocean.
More energetic shortwaves like blue light can penetrate over 100 meters (that’s about 4000 inches) into clear ocean water, with only half its energy absorbed within the first 20 meters. In contrast 50% of less energetic red light is absorbed in just the first few meters. That’s why seaweeds in the deeper ocean cannot use red light to photosynthesize like land plants do.
Although both the heating of the land and ocean depends on surface heating, radiative and convective heating are much more important for heating the ocean. This causes important differences in the way our oceans heat and cool, thus analogies to land surface heating are misleading.
This standard, albeit overly simplistic ocean temperature profile, shows the upper layer of the ocean, often referred to as the epipelagic layer or sunlight layer, extends from the surface to 200 meters depth. Turbulence due to winds and currents mixes and homogenizes the temperature as illustrated here and globally averages 13°C or (55 °F).
Below that mixed surface layer is the thermocline layer, defined as a region of rapidly cooling temperatures, because mixing of warm surface heat into the layers below rapidly declines with depth. .
At a depth of about 1000 meters and below there is a more homogeneous temperature of just 4°C or 39°F However, the illustrated homogeneous upper sunlight layer obscures the most important dynamics of the oceans’ surface skin layer that are key to controlling ocean heating and cooling.
A 2018 paper by Wong & Minett analyzed ocean temperatures from data collected during 2 ocean cruises in warm tropical and subtropical waters of the north Atlantic. They reported important differences in heating and cooling patterns in the microns-thick surface skin layer and millimeter thick subsurface layers.
For perspective, the sharpened point of a pencil is about one millimeter wide. It takes one thousand microns to equal just one millimeter. The ocean’s surface gatekeeper is only a couple of microns thick.
Only 4.9 Watts per meter squared of solar energy was absorbed in the first 10 microns. .
In contrast, the subsurface was increasingly heated, so by 10 millimeters deep, 261 Watts of solar energy were absorbed.
Only at the surface can any ocean heat be released back to the atmosphere or space. So, this differential solar heating creates the required temperature gradient that allows the solar heated subsurface water to constantly move up towards the cooler surface.
Heating by longwave energy adds another complication that must be considered. Longwave energy only penetrates the first few microns of the skin layer. And that fact prompts some skeptics to argue CO2 back radiation cannot heat the ocean.
But on the other side of the debate, it is argued that because longwave heating can add 100 times more energy into the skin layer than solar heating, longwave heating can alter and even reverse the temperature gradient required for ocean cooling.
But if true, then how does the ocean ever lose heat.
Nonetheless, the alarmist narrative becomes that added infrared energy must alter the temperature gradient to some degree. Therefore, as more greenhouse gases add more longwave energy to the surface skin layer, it increasingly disrupts the temperature gradient enough to reduce the rate of subsurface cooling. So, rising CO2 is indirectly warming the ocean.
But measurements do not support such narratives.
Satellite measurements determined the oceans’ surface temperature by measuring the longwave radiation emitted from the skin layer. The sub-skin layer below was also measured but via emitted microwaves.
The results show the ocean’s skin layer is always cooler than subsurface layers below, despite the combined surface warming by shortwave and longwave heating plus rising heat from solar heated waters below
In the daytime, there is a deeper solar heated diurnal warm layer. At night, without solar heating, subsurface waters eventually cool and mix with the water below creating a more homogeneous upper layer temperature everywhere except in the cooler skin surface.
No matter the season, or time of day the skin layer is always cooler than the waters immediately below.
Although not intuitive, the constant cool skin surface phenomenon can be explained by the Stefan-Boltzman law. According to that law, when the skin surface layer is heated, by longwave or shortwave energy, the surface skin layer radiates an equal amount of energy back to the atmosphere immediately. Any longwave heating of the skin surface layer is so transitory there is no observable effect on the temperature gradient that’s required to cool the ocean’s solar heated sub-surface layers.
As Wong & Minett’s results illustrated, the micron thick skin layer absorbed 410 Watts of longwave and a negligible amount of shortwave, but simultaneously emitted 470 Watts out of the ocean, maintaining the observed cooler skin layer.
The 470 Watts of longwave-out vs 410 Watts of longwave-in does not violate the Stefan-Boltzman law because the skin surface heating is the combined result of warming from 67 Watts of solar heated water rising from below and the downward longwave radiation from above.
That combined heating also caused the skin surface to lose a total of 7 Watts more from sensible heat loss to the cooler air above via conduction, and more latent heat due to evaporation from the skin surface. Thus, on average the skin surface cooling balances skin surface heating, but the skin surface remains slightly cooler because it radiates heat away faster than subsurface heat can rise from below.
Still their data raises one concern. It is very unusual that their estimated heat loss via sensible and latent heat was a mere 7 Watts of cooling. That is 15 times less than globally averaged ocean cooling rates.
It is well established, that the energy needed to evaporate enough water that’s observed in the earth’s water cycle, oceans must experience over 80 Watts per meter squared of evaporative cooling.
Acknowledging the conundrum that those longwave energies do not penetrate deeper than a few microns and thus cannot warm the oceans directly, the stated intent of Wong & Minett’s analysis was to advance their hypothesis that more co2 longwave energy can still warm the ocean indirectly by reducing the temperature gradient and thus, reduce the rate of cooling of the ocean’s diurnal warm layer.
To support their claim, they argued the absorption of more longwave into the skin layer, did not result in the required increased surface temperature that would immediately increase emissions and balance the longwave energy surface budget.
To that end, they examined the increased longwave heating produced on cloudy days as an analog for the effects of increased longwave heating from rising carbon dioxide.
Their highlighted results illustrated here, show that despite an increase of 40 Watts of longwave heating from cloudy skies, there was no increased cooling via emitted longwave-out and no increased loss of sensible and latent heat so the cooling temperature gradient must have been disrupted. But that would violate the Stefan-Boltzman law, their narrative requires magical thinking.
In reality the Stefan-Boltzman law was never violated. It was simply a bad narrative. Although increased cloud cover did increase longwave heating, cloud cover simultaneously reduced the shortwave solar heating of the layers below the skin surface.
The reason 40 increased Watts of incoming longwave did not also increase outgoing longwave is due to the fact that clouds equally reduced the solar heating of subsurface waters. When long wave and shortwave heating are both considered, the balance between incoming and outgoing heat at the skin surface was maintained as predicted by the Stefan-Boltzman law.
Others have argued that warmth generated by longwave heating of the skin surface would be transported quickly downward by mixing with layers below.
However, downward mixing of the observed cooler skin layer would only cool the warmer subsurface layers. While any mixing that brings warmer subsurface water up to the surface, only enhances its cooling.
Only the mixing of deeper solar- heated subsurface waters with the cooler waters below, carries heat deeper into the ocean. The mixing of solar heated water into deeper layers, then makes solar heat less likely to resurface and cool.
Thus, it is the downward mixing of solar heated waters, not the transitory longwave heating of the skin surface layer that stores energy in the ocean and creates the estimated energy imbalance.
Taking a broader global view, analyses of heat flux into and out of the world’s oceans illustrates where the oceans are warming. Huang’s (2015) illustration of ocean heat flux contradicts claims that a thickening global blanket of CO2 is heating the world’s oceans.
Nearly half of the ocean surfaces, regions colored green, show no net heat flux into or out from the ocean.
The regions of greatest heat flux into the ocean are colored red.
There, the intense tropical heating is further amplified by the reduced cloudiness observed in the tropics, as published in Fasullo and Trenberth’s 2008 study.
Furthermore, the tropical trade winds cause greater upwelling of cold deep water in the eastern Atlantic and eastern Pacific.
Colder waters on the surface can reverse the typical heat flux so that heat flows from the warmer air above into those colder upwelled waters.
The obvious clue to the primary driver of ocean warming is that the regions of greatest solar flux into the ocean are the same regions created by pacific and Atlantic La Ninas. That solar heated water is transported westward and then poleward along ocean currents where the greatest amount heat is vented, (colored dark blue. The Holocene optimum, with temperatures warmer than today happened during perpetual La Nina conditions.
For details on how a solar heated ocean causes our current warming trend, please watch my earlier video: Global warming driven by pacific warm pool, La Nina & ITCZ: an alternative climate change theory or read its transcript.
To date there has been no provable mechanism illustrating how heating from CO2 can heat anything more than the ocean’s skin surface. In contrast the combined climate effects of solar heating, the ITCZ migrations and La Ninas are strongly supported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
So, I will ignore the click bait news media’s fear mongering that our oceans are “on the boil” due to rising CO2. There is simply no scientific proof to support such dishonest narratives.
And I will sleep well. There is no climate crisis.
Our democracy depends on a diverse array of good critical thinkers. So, please shun mindless group think.
Instead embrace renowned scientist, Thomas Huxley’s advice Skepticism is the highest of duties and blind faith the one unpardonable sin.
And if you appreciate the science clearly presented here, science rarely presented by mainstream media then please
“several prominent skeptic scientists, people who I have great respect for, also weighed in arguing it was silly and useless to argue infrared heat can’t warm the ocean.”
Yes, it is silly and useless. After all, human bodies are just as impervious to IR as the ocean. Yet IR can warm us quite satisfactorily.
The fact is that heat does not need to penetrate. Sunlight penetrates, and most of the heat cannot remain there. It returns to the surface and to the atmosphere, part by conduction/evaporative loss and part by IR emission. But both those fluxes are dependent on the surface temperature. And the temperature is so high that it would radiate far more heat than the sun is supplying. The flux balance is made up from downwelling thermal IR. Without that downflux, the surface would be much colder, as would the water underneath.
The real question is, what can make the ocean warmer than it currently is? An increase in down IR can do that, just through surface balance. The actual heat originally came from sunlight, but it is the extra IR which ensures that the surface has to rise to a higher temperature so that the incoming energy can escape.
Incidentally, IR could warm the ocean, as it warms us. The fact that the ocean can emit IR proves that, since the pathways are reversible. But it doesn’t happen, because the heat flux (after SW has entered) is upward, not down.
To simply say IR could warm the ocean as it warms us, is just magical thinking. The human circulatory system helps shuttle heat inward in a manner very different from what happens in the ocean. Your arguments are very scattered and hard to follow. When you say “The fact that the ocean can emit IR proves that” makes no sense. The issue is what is the mechanism/dynamic that carries heat deeper into the ocean, and you have not described that mechanism.
Jim
The circulatory system has much the same effect as turbulent flow in the ocean. But as I say, that is not needed anyway, because the net flux is upward (not counting SW).
“The fact that the ocean can emit IR proves that”
There re no diodes in normal thermal pathways. If heat can flow one way, it can equally flow the other if the temperature gradient is reversed. But as said, this is moot, because the heat flux is upward.
The argument about flux balance is really a version of the GHE principle. Let me put it algebraically. There is a fixed flux F_SW from sunlight. The fact that it went to depth and back doesn’t matter – it all has to come out in steady state. Then there is F_LW, the downwelling IR. This all adds to make the upflux F_U. They have to balance; heat can’t accumulate.
But F_U is the flux from the surface, and is an increasing function of T (S-B, Clausius, turbulent transfer, all increasing with T). So
F_SW+F_LW=F_U(T)
So with F_SW fixed, if F(LW increases, T must increase.
How? Because it it doesn’t, F_SW would diminish, to balance. That would make it less than sun coming in, for a while. That imbalance is the source of heat. IR doesn’t need to penetrate. But the warming is forced by the increase in F_LW. It can only stay out of balance for a while, until the sea reaches the new equilibrium T.
F_SW+F_LW=F_U(T)
If I can add fluxes can I cook steak with ice?
If your steak is not shedding the same amount of energy that it is receiving its temperature will increase. Is this a concept you disagree with?
But it does until the incoming flux is way higher than the cooking temperature of the meat. Meat radiates!
Ladies and gentlemen, we present the magician’s “fixed flux F_SW from sunlight” rabbit in a bowl of water!
This is the president of AIChE espousing her views on the subject:
——————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 06-30-2021 20:48
From: Kirsten Rosselot
Subject: UHI’s and Droughts
Plants are carbon neutral. All of the carbon dioxide they take up when they are living is released when they die and rot or get digested or burned, or when the animal that ate them dies and rots or gets digested or burned.
The thing that’s causing problems now is that over the last century and a half, we have burned through a large volume of carbon contained in plants and animals that died hundreds of millions of years ago, mostly during the Carboniferous and Permian Periods. For whatever reason — perhaps the fungi that can digest cellulose hadn’t evolved yet, perhaps the dead plants and animals were buried in anoxic bodies of water — the carbon taken up by these plants and animals wasn’t released when they died. Releasing it now at the volumes we’re releasing it is causing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to shoot up.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs heat leaving the earth and re-radiates it in all directions, including back to earth. Once you introduce it to the atmosphere, it takes a long time to remove.
——————————
-Kirsten
Kirsten Rosselot
Process Profiles
Calabasas, CA United States
Another chemical engineering genius opens his mouth:
——————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2021 20:52
From: John Braccili
Subject: UHI’s and Droughts
The very first post I did on climate change a few years back covered the only scientific facts that matter. The earth absorbs energy from the sun and radiates energy into outer space. Radiating energy into space is the ONLY way energy leaves the earth. The only other sources of energy on the planet are the human production of energy and geothermal. Both are too small to have an impact. Everything else being discussed here by the skeptics is IMMATERIAL. It just an internal transfer of energy in a closed thermodynamic system and has NO impact. Whether more or less water is evaporated by vegetation or the ocean has NO impact on the earth’s energy balance. The energy absorbed by every pound of water evaporated is recovered when the water condenses. The only impact plants have on the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
We don’t have to take a single measurement on the planet to determine if the planet is warming. The only thing that has to be done is to monitor the amount of energy the earth absorbs from the sun and the amount it radiates into space. This has already been done, but not to the degree of specificity necessary.
Economic arguments to try to justify the continued use of fossil fuels are ridiculous. Climate change is already costing lives and will continue to do so at an ever-increasing rate. To those who try to make those arguments, I guess the loss of life only matters when it’s theirs. The fossil fuel industry has been good for humankind, but it has run its course as all technologies do. It’s a problem now, and it is going to end one way or another. The only question is how much damage it will cause before we move on to something else.
——————————
John Braccili
Wallingford, PA
top
previous next
Holy Hanna…John is nutz
CB,
I’m a ChE, too. Perhaps you could pass the following on to Kirsten:
The thing that’s going to cause huge problems in the future is that we’re strip mining the Earth for rare earth minerals that were buried in the Earth billions of years ago. For whatever reason — perhaps because we’re gullible enough to let the Left use junk science to scare us into replacing our reliable fossil-fueled energy sources with unreliable wind and solar power, we’re mining these minerals as fast as Chinese slave laborers and African children are able. Of course, releasing the waste products from mining these minerals in places where no one gives a damn about the environment at the volumes we’re using is causing the concentration of toxins in the biosphere to shoot up.
An IR heat lamp warms the exposed outer layer of human skin and mostly you feel warmer because your metabolism can then generate enough heat to warm itself up instead of losing heat to the previously cold outer layer. Oceans are somewhat similar…shortwave sunlight penetrates a few meters and contains the most energy, but IR on the top mm can significantly alter the rate of heat transfer from the slightly deeper water.
Why does an IR heat lamp keep a pan of baked beans warm? Presumably they don’t have a metabolism.
Because it has a filament operating temperature in the region of 300°c
“IR on the top mm can significantly alter the rate of heat transfer from the slightly deeper water.”
No it cant! Any longwave heating of the first microns is immediately radiated away, or lost to evaporative cooling or conducted to the wind. All measurements show the same micron depth at which IR penetrates remains cooler than the subsurface waters. ‘
I’m greatly saddened how many people blindly claim “IR on the top mm can significantly alter the rate of heat transfer” without any evidence or mechanism as to how.
This isn’t based on blind faith. We literally see IR lamps keeping water based products like food warmer than they would be otherwise on a daily basis.
They have a filament operating temperate in the region of 300° plus.
Why does all the CO2 radiation not keep the food warm?
It should!
Whoever down rated that should come forward and tell us that CO2 does not radiate!
Why should the heat flux only be upward if heat moves by conduction from a high temperature to a lower temperature? Likewise, if a hot surface layer is radiating, barring an absorption of unity at the S-B IR wavelengths creating a “diode,” the IR radiation should also propagate downward.
The flux is upward because there is about 240 W/m2 of sunlight that penetrates to depth. That heat has to get out again, and that is the upward flux within the liquid, mostly by turbulent transport.
Who says the flux is upwards? Based on what measurements? Ocean cooling on bottom, ocean warming on surface?
Because of absorption of the sunlight, most of the heat is created in the upper layers. The bottom is polar water that is very cold. Conduction should transport heat from the upper layers to lower layers. Even turbulent transport should result in the ‘warm’ upper layers providing heat to the lower cold layers.
Except the ocean warms first not the other way around.
‘F_SW+F_LW=F_U(T)’
Nick,
Since F_LW includes some portion of SW absorbed by the atmosphere, your approach / nomenclature almost seems as if it’s intended to obfuscate the physics of the GHE.
More directly, the GHE (in w/m^2) is simply the difference between LW emitted from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere, LW_in, and LW emitted from the atmosphere to space, LW_out, or,
GHE = LW_in – LW_out, where
LW_in is f(T_s) and LW_out = SW_absorbed, which in is f(solar insolation, albedo).
Since you follow the IPCC literature more closely that most, can you kindly advise what their estimates are for changes in T_s and GHE, including all feedbacks, due to a doubling of CO2 at thermal equilibrium? Thank you.
“Since F_LW includes some portion of SW absorbed by the atmosphere, your approach / nomenclature almost seems as if it’s intended to obfuscate the physics of the GHE.”
I am not trying to elucidate the physics of the GHE. I am describing a flux balance at the surface. Since F_LW and F_SW are added in the formula, the distinction is not so important. At that surface, F_SW is just the flux coming in from below, which originated from sunlight that passed through the layer. F_LW is just all radiant flux (from above) that is absorbed by the surface.
Sorry, I’m not following your flows. I get that F_LW is just your designation for downwelling IR, but why is your F_SW, that is apparently SW that penetrated the ocean and is now headed back out into space, not considered part of the Earth’s albedo, and therefore of no import to GHE? Also, do you have any thoughts re. my request for IPCC’s estimates for changes in T_s and GHE for a CO2 doubling? Thanks and good morning.
F_SW is a diffusive flux derived which conveys through the water the heat that was brought by sunlight that penetrated. It might have been better to give the latter a separate symbol F_sun, being the actual electromagnetic flux. Then in steady state they must be equal, but if F_LW is raised, then surface T rises. The T gradient that sustained F_SW falls, and so must F_SW. F_sun is unchanged, and so heat accumulates in the water for a while. This is the mechanism by which raising F_LW warms the ocean.
As to how F_LW came to increase, well, that is a GHE matter, but external to the surface flux balance.
Ok, so your F_SW is the incoming SW radiation that is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and ocean and then emitted (steady state) as LW by the surface. So, if I go back to your initial equation,
‘F_SW+F_LW=F_U(T)’,
are we not missing ‘Thermals’ and ‘Evapo-transpiration’ flows on the RHS to make this balance?
‘As to how F_LW came to increase, well, that is a GHE matter, but external to the surface flux balance.’
Yes, that is somewhat external to what you and Jim are debating now. But I was hoping, given your knowledge in the field, that you had the IPCC’s best estimate for changes to T_s and GHE per CO2 doubling in hand. Anyways, enjoy the day.
“are we not missing “
No, F_U is the total upflux, including evap and advection. As I said, they are all increasing functions of T.
I made here the distinction between F_sun, which is the actual SW flux, and F_SW, which is the flow of the resulting heat arriving at the surface (yes, I know, not ideal notation). They are identical in steady state, but will differ if the water is warming.
‘No, F_U is the total upflux, including evap and advection.’
Got it. So now, having worked through the notation, I find myself knowing exactly what I knew ‘2 days ago’, which is that the Sun’s SW radiation, not downwelling LW radiation, is what warms the oceans.
That you and a few other commenters argue depth of heat penetration doesn’t matter tells me you do not know the physics at all. Indeed the earth’s warming temperatures are all about changes in the rate of cooling, and (along with local currents) it is depth that controls the rate of ocean cooling.
That is why I added a note regards W&M’s measure of just 7 W/m2 of total sensible and latent heat flux. However evaporation is affected by all the heat sources converging at the skin surface, while high humidity and low winds reduce evaporation, so such local effects could have driven their low calculation.
6.I also caution readers about using heat lamp studies t show warming. Shortwave infrared range from about .65 to 4 microns and have a much greater heating effect than greenhouse longwaves that are greater than 4 microns. CO2 absorbs mostly around 15 microns. Commercial IR heating lamps vary their emitted heat in the shortwave range to about 10 microns. I know of none that heat using 15 microns.
Jim,
“1. Heat absorbed at the surface skin layer can be emitted immediately via radiation, sensible cooling to the air, and evaporation.”
Emission from the skin layer, which I called F_U(T), is a function of skin T only. It does not depend on where the heat came from.
“2.Heat absorbed at depths does not emit IR, cant evaporate…”
Indeed. But it has to go back to the surface, else the water gets warmer, which can’t go on indefinitely. And it does, mainly by turbulent transport, which is very effective.
“3. Different energy wavelengths absolutely matter.”
The difference between SW and LW matters. But water is opaque to all thermal IR. Here is the Wiki plot, with the red being liquid water. Note the log scale
“4.” Mixing is not needed.
“5….evaporative cooling…”
It is just part of the temperature-dependent upflux.
“6. …lamp studies…”
As noted above, water absorbs IR rapidly even in near infrared, and certainly at all thermal frequencies. But the water still warms.
Nick says:
“Emission from the skin layer, which I called F_U(T), is a function of skin T only. It does not depend on where the heat came from.’
Why do you lecture with this.It is exactly what I said. You are starting to sound like Kamala Harris. It is why showed the Wong and Minett paper was so wrong.You speak as if I said something different but mimic what I said.
Again, just like I told you, solar heat cant cool unless brought to the surface. Are getting Alzheimers? It can be the only explanation for why you agree with me but act like you disagree.
“Why do you lecture with this. It is exactly what I said”
I was responding to
“1. Heat absorbed at the surface skin layer can be emitted immediately via radiation, sensible cooling to the air, and evaporation.”
which sounds as if you are saying that something special happens to heat from downwelling IR. It’s not so clear there, but then I read from you:
“Any longwave heating of the first microns is immediately radiated away, or lost to evaporative cooling or conducted to the wind. “
to say that LW can’t then alter the rate of heat transfer from deeper water, and that is definitely wrong, and I think the basic fallacy.
I’m sorry to be repetitive, but it comes back to the fact that those loss mechanisms are determined by temperature and not by history. The only way more LW could be radiated away is if it raises the temperature of the surface layer, and it does. Then the temperature gradient that was bringing F_SW (the flux up through the water) to the surface is reduced (just arithmetic). That must lower F_SW.
That creates a flux imbalance, since the actual SW from the sun keeps coming in at its earlier rate. That is what warms the sea to bring the fluxes back into balance by restoring the gradient. But it is the extra LW that caused it to balance at that higher temperature.
The attenuation coefficient for thermal IR is about 10,000 times larger than for Near-IR.
Well, that would be for very near IR. But at 2 micron, the coefficient is already down to a millimeter.
One micron is in the middle of the Near-IR, while 2 microns is defined as Short-Wave IR (SWIR). The coefficient for SWIR is 100X NIR.
Frequency and emmissivity matter.
The thermal effects of radiation are not about amount of radiation absorbed, as currently assumed, they are about the temperature of the emitting body and the difference in temperature between the emitting and the absorbing bodies. Heat is not additive so amount is not the crucial value, it’s the frequency, hence 5W of UV different effect than 5W if IR.
15um is too low to affect surface temperature of anything except that colder than -80C.
“15um is too low to affect surface temperature of anything except that colder than -80C.”
CO₂ lasers, mainly operating at about 10μm, are used for cutting and welding steel.
Terrible analogy.
No it’s a good reply that responds to the nonsense that 15𝜇m has some connection with -80ºC. That should be an automatic block on here.
It is not an analogy. It is an instance of low frequency IR which greatly raises the surface temperature.
You got downvoted for pointing out that IR lamp don’t work at 15 microns. The filament temperature is about 300°c
More the point is, that since the ocean does emit IR, the IR from the atmosphere is not a separate energy source for the ocean and can therefore not warm it.
If the ocean was to emit sun light, the sun could not warm it either.
Seems there is a gross misunderstanding on radiation warming.
Whoever down rated this, should tell us that there is more radiation coming from the atmosphere, than the oceans emit.
One clown here!
More clowns.
Knock yourselves out!
If you think staying away from the discussion gives you the better knowledge, you underestimate the power of listening and learning.
The radiation from the CO2 is not more powerful than the radiation that emanates from the surface. Therefore it cannot warm it. And it neither warms the extra item you place in the path of the radiation.
Guess why one has to use a lamp to prove the point, because that lamp is powered.
What powers the CO2?
“Yet IR can warm us quite satisfactorily” — that’s a sensory perception of comfort while the difference of scale, like a human the size of the ocean, would imply a sense of irrelevance. Also it’s the blood circulation and sweating which will keep the main body from significante changes in average core temperature. The analogy might not be making your point very well.
Comfort goes with heat flux – if you have net loss of heat, you’ll feel cold, and vice versa. The analogy has nothing to do with size – as Jim says, the IR penetrates less than a millimeter.
no, comfort is obviously a function of core temperature, we adjust our fluxes to maintain comfortable core temps
you’re confusing “feeling” (perception) with comfort
e.g. entering a cool, air-conditioned room after running around on a hot summer day feels “colder” but also more comfortable, and the reverse for coming into a warming station on a winter’s day at the sled hill
thus too, IR at the ocean’s surface only changes the evaporative cooling rate
at least on my stove, a pot of boiling water never reaches 300 degrees… raising the flame just boils the water away faster, the temperature never increases
“The real question is, what can make the ocean warmer than it currently is?”
What make average temperature of entire ocean which is 3.5 C, be warmer
is indeed the real question.
If the 3.5 C ocean gets warmer, then average ocean surface
temperature which about 17 C, can get warmer- but otherwise it can’t.
It is correctly said, more than 90% of all recent warming has warmed our cold 3.5 C
ocean {by about .05 C].
In recent times [last million years] our ocean is said to have been 4 C or warmer when Earth has had the highest global air temperature and sea level 4 to 9 meter higher than our sea level.
If our ocean could warm by .5 C this would cause more global water vapor and much higher global air temperature.
But we would be no where near a greenhouse global climate, rather we would still be
in an Ice Age.
And more people would die from the cold as they do, presently and has “always” been the case.
Or 15 C air is cold air.
Reduced cloud cover allows more sunlight and this heats the oceans. It has nothing to do with IR.
Also Cleaner Air (less particulates) than were there 50 – 75 years ago contributes to the sun’s effect on heating the ocean
Increased atmospheric humidity bounces more IR around than any trace gas could. Also impedes evaporative surface cooling.
The actual heat originally came from sunlight, but it is the extra IR which ensures that the surface has to rise to a higher temperature so that the incoming energy can escape.
_____________________________________
Bingo. The greenhouse effect impedes cooling, and the sun at ~5800K warms the surface to a point that incoming and outgoing radiation are equal.
This is a complicated way of saying the warmer top layer of the ocean impedes cooling of lower layers of the ocean.
When people say CO2 warms the planet, it would be more accurate to say CO2 impedes Earth’s ability to cool itself.
That is what Nick stated.
[Ctrl-F cool] does not find (cool) in Nick’s post.
It’s funny how you use an argument for “warming the ocean” that is the exact opposite of arguments used for the alleged Greenhouse effect.
What you’re saying in effect Is that all the solar insolation absorbed by the thermosphere percolates down and warms the surface.
I do wish people wouldn’t down vote without a comment.
However to add, when constructing a consistent physical theory you have to be consistent in your arguments used and not cherry pick for different situations.
The top down from the surface approach for ocean warming by alarmists using diffusion of heat and physical movement of heated water by currents, by whilst ignoring and dismissing visible and UV radiation bypassing the surface into the deeper layers of the ocean is exactly at odds with the approach used for the greenhouse effect which ignores incoming solar absorbed by the atmosphere, application of the gas law and the subsequent lapse rate pressure warming of the surface, and only considers radiation emitted by the surface in a narrow band of 15 micron longwave
It’s just sophistry on a grand scale, a classic pseudo science approach, similar to Lysenkoism and eugenics.
Every body of water stratifies according to temperature ranges.
Even the oceans are darn cold at depth.
Heat fails to migrate down. Especially down below any thermocline. Most waters have their first thermocline very near the surface. People swimming down a few feet quickly drop below the warmer surface.
Even for alleged scientists claiming they can accurately measure hundredths to thousandths of a degree Celsius.
They’re so confidant that they present their alleged findings as Zettajoules of ocean warming, without error bounds.
Idiots, all!
I’m disappointed at the stated precision and the implied accuracy of temperature measurements in many “scientific” papers.
No kidding…temp readings to .001…silly
As an experienced sea swimmer I can vouch for the stratification, but also it’s quite possible to swim from a cold to warm currents on the surface a good half a mile out, and it’s quite a difference, I used to swim half in, half out of these currents.
If you were actually interested in ocean warming with error bounds you would have found this in about 9 seconds.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/
But if you don’t like hidden zetajoules, here is surface: the part that affects the climate. No need to measure accuracy any smaller than about a tenth of a degree Celsius.
The trend is your friend.
I wonder how we found all the extra Zetas with all the few measurements we have. How was that in 1910? One temperature sensor for all the deep sea?
No answer will mean more than an actual comment.
This paper is build on bust. Or however you call this…
I frequently disagree with Nick on many issues but he is spot on with this response. It is not the depth of penetration or any other convoluted argument, it is simply surface energy balance for the cause of increased temperature in the case of absorbing gases. However, the effect is small and not a problem.
Which is exactly what the author states… Small and really immeasurable.
I think the reality is that the downward IR probably causes overall cooling of the ocean. Heating the surface layer will cause more evaporation.
It is an easy thing to test. Prepare two vessels of water with identical conditions except one is provided an extra flux of infrared radiation via an IR source. If both the mass and temperature of that second vessel is observed to have decreased then you’ll have provided supporting evidence for your hypothesis.
Pay attention…they are saying the temps stratify at various depths.
I’m responding to the statement: “I think the reality is that the downward IR probably causes overall cooling of the ocean. Heating the surface layer will cause more evaporation.”
I love the ‘heating causes cooling’ meme here, it pops up in Arctic discussions too: all that extra heat venting to space, cooling stuff down.
Agree, Nick is right on this one. Even a broken clock gives the correct time twice per day.
Nick Stokes: “it is the extra IR which ensures that the surface has to rise to a higher temperature so that the incoming energy can escape”
WR: my version: “It is the enormous quantity of IR that enables surface molecules to evaporate at present low ocean temperatures.”
In case of a total absence of IR, oceans would heat up because of strongly diminishing evaporative cooling: the upper level of water molecules misses most of the energizing IR energy. The heating up of the oceans by solar energy would have to continue until surface molecules reach the energetic level they need to escape: the present energetic level, now mainly delivered by IR.
If seen in this way, the presence of IR enables the deeper oceans (here: the oceans below the uppermost layers of surface molecules) not to rise in temperature. In case of extra downwelling IR, night evaporative cooling of the skin layer will be extra stimulated without heating up deep layers. After evaporation, a higher density of the upper layers of water molecules results (by the higher salinity and by cooling), and the downward transport of nightly cooled water will be enhanced.
IR enables nightly evaporative cooling to take place at a relatively low temperature level of the rest of the ocean. IR also enables the colder temperate and the polar oceans to continue relatively high evaporative cooling because the thin upper skin layer still receives a huge quantity of (IR) energy. IR might warm dry deserts, but IR is the main factor in the evaporative cooling of the oceans. Enhanced evaporative cooling by enhanced IR is even more important during the night and when oceans are colder.
Thought experiment: replace all downwelling IR with the same quantity of solar energy. A large part of the extra solar energy will instantly heat up the deeper oceans with a quantity of energy that only slowly will propagate upwards. This heating up of the deeper ocean will have to continue until the upper skin molecules will reach their present energetic level, the energy level they need to escape into the atmosphere. Replacement of IR by solar energy will result in solar warming of the ocean below the upper skin layer. However, in the reverse case when solar energy is diminished by the presence of more IR (when a higher greenhouse effect is warming the surface resulting in more tropical clouds that diminish surface solar uptake), in that case, cooling of the ocean will result.
Yesterday I posted this and the following comment. I notice some negative opinions: from +4 yesterday to -4 today. But what I am missing is replies to the comment(s) with arguments, and logic that would support the negativism.
Wim, The same sudden turn around from positive to negative reactions to my replies to Nick Stokes. Some +8 to -8 . Oddly I saw that it all happened within one hour. Seems like Nick Stokes has an “army of dedicated followers” hoping they can help Nick win his failing scientific arguments by making it a popularity contest.
Who would have ever guessed Stokes has an army of dedicated followers here?
Correct, almost like he has a bot army.
Well Jim, perhaps we should ask Nick whether he could have had something to do with that. I neither would expect something like this coming from him. We can have different visions but his questions most times are interesting and his remarks oblige us sometimes to formulate better. Shortly: he keeps us sharp. I suppose a group or organization or a technical person (for example: creating bots) that followa his critical comments and likes to ‘influence’ discussions, discussions that should be about the content.
Perhaps Nick could give some clarity about this.
“Perhaps Nick could give some clarity about this.”
I am allowed only one vote. I myself often accumulate downvotes, which I accept with equanimity, believing that in the end, good arguments will prevail.
Perhaps that is happening here.
Nick: “I myself often accumulate downvotes”
First Nick, thanks for your reply. Second, I noticed that people easily give a negative vote when they see others do, even when they don’t have an argument. Instead of a discussion about the content ‘opinions’ prevail or can prevail. I regret that like you.
It would be even worse when ‘a system’ produces downvotes or exclusions on whatever side of the discussion. On both sides, we should be clear about the necessity of an open discussion, on any platform.
I notice new comments quickly get around 10 to 15 upvotes for Nick and new replies especially ones wmthat counter his argument well can get down voted very quickly. After a day or so this reversed as non bots quickly spot the garage he has posted.
The instant upvotes at a dead giveaway.
Nick Stokes: “The real question is, what can make the ocean warmer than it currently is.”
WR: The answer is: ‘salinity’. For example, more high pressure over subtropical oceans (no rain, high solar uptake, high evaporation) will raise both salinity and temperature. When salinity is high enough, during the winter season more relatively warm water will go down and will warm the deeper subtropical and tropical oceans. For the higher latitudes, the same is the case: when salinity is higher (by poleward transport of more saline waters), warmer water will sink than before and find a place at the same depth where before colder but less saline waters were filling the deep. Warm replaces cold.
One of the things usually missing in these discussions is salinity. From what I could find, salinity amounts to about 3.5% of the oceans molecules. This is a far higher density than CO2 of the atmosphere. This amount of particulate matter should also play a role in the absorption and emission of heat in the ocean both with conduction and radiation. This is a complicated issue. Not all absorbed radiation is returned as emitted radiation as conduction (think diffusion) comes into play.
Nick says:”Yet IR can warm us quite satisfactorily.”
If we are saying this IR you speak of is coming from CO2 will you be so kind as to identify what is the frequency of the IR. What frequency of IR warms people?
What emissivity of CO2 would allow the fluxes you speak of?
The main thing is that water is opaque to the thermal IR range. Downwelling IR flux is easily measured, and the frequencies correspond to lower atmosphere temperature. A hot water radiator has only moderately higher frequencies.
Nobody has measured downwelling IR at night (with a room-temperature measuring device). There isn’t any energy in it to measure. All the energy (and heat) are upwelling, as heat naturally flows only from hot to cold. Of course during the daytime, there is downwelling IR coming from the hotter sun. So be careful to specify what conditions you are thinking of when you refer to “downwelling IR”, lest people get confused. (The Stephens graph that Jim posted is designed to confuse, not clarify.)
I frequently point my Fluke 62 up at the night sky. Storing it in the house I’m fairly certain it is at room temperature at least for the first few seconds of operation. I don’t know the details of the ESRL’s SURFRAD stations like operation temperatures, but they do measure DWIR at night.
The SURFRAD stations do not measure DWLWIR at night. At least, not in positive numbers. They measure a negative number (i.e. upwelling), and then they add a “fudge factor”, which is really the heart of this debate: the “fudge factor” is calculated by converting the ambient temperature to W/m2. Of course you can’t do that, but they do it anyway, presumably because they’re paid to. If your Fluke is giving you a positive number at night pointed upwards, it’s probably doing the same thing that SURFRAD does, although I don’t know the exact detail of its theory of operation (but I do know the theory for SURFRAD).
It is my understanding that SURFRAD has a sky facing radiometer. In fact, I believe they call it the Total Sky Imager.
Yes they do have. However, those radiometers measure negative “downwelling” radiation (i.e. actually upwelling, in accord with the 2nd law, from hot to cold) at night. Then they report much larger positive (downwelling) adjusted numbers in their published data sets. Very sneaky of them!
wrong, IR obviously cannot heat you over any arbitrary range of temperature — if it could, you’d collapse from heat stroke every time you stood next to a fire, or in a warm room
until you run out of water, at certain temperature ranges further increases in IR will only increase your evaporative loss
and the oceans never run out of water
it’s “tropical thunderstorms thermostat” all over again
and the same reason no place on Earth is too hot for life (but much of it is too cold)
much like the conceit that the GHG CO2 warming effect must be perturbative since 1850 and not a function of the entire reference temperature, or that we should cool a planet on the edge of an interglacial on which cold kills 20x more people than heat, the logical flaws are so obvious they can only be ignored or dismissed out of hand
We dont have a cold layer….
Jim,
In your lecture at 05:58 you show that the surface temperature on land in summer reaches 80F (26.66C) this temperature requires an incoming solar energy flux of 457.2 W/m2 to be achieved. This is in complete contrast to the climate model’s concept that solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth is 159-165 W/m2. In addition, of course the TOA value (pre-albedo) in Stephens (2012) is given as 340.2 W/m2 with a post albedo solar flux value of 240.2 W/m2
240 W/m2 equates to a S-B temperature of -18C (-0.4F)
The Earth only ever has a single lit hemisphere so we must double the daytime average flux to 480W/m2
480 W/m2 equates to a S-B temperature of 30.3C (86.5F)
Please Jim when will you realise that the Sun does not shine on to the surface of the Earth at night?
How weird Philip to say “when will you realise that the Sun does not shine on to the surface of the Earth at night?” Wow thanks so much for that info.
Of course the numbers supplied in energy budgets are just averages of incoming solar averaged over day and night, as well as between the poles and the equator. Of course those average numbers from Stephens budget are not useful for explaining the heating of specific situations, be it the Arctic, the Sahara or the summer soil temperatures in Kansas that were illustrated in the video.
Jim,
Averages are the problem. Your model of global sunshine distribution is false.
Here is a better model that shows the sun only shining during the day.
Jim, Most of the interesting dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are a consequence of the insolation differentials at the surface across time and space. Everyone knows this. Of course, the energy budget cartoons that are shown are based on averages and are not very interesting. I have 2 problems with the energy budget graph you show. 1) latent heat plays a much larger role than one is led to believe from viewing the graphic. I would net out the radiative flows, which would shrink the depiction in the graph to something smaller than latent heat. 2) given the published literature, it is no longer appropriate to assume geothermic heat plays no role at the surface.
I have a question about measuring radiative flows at the earth’s surface, which is a subject I know nothing about. Does there exist a spherical measuring device that captures instantaneous radiative flows of different wavelengths that impact the entire surface area of the measuring device?
Jim,
As a trained and skilled Environmental Scientist, you will of course be aware that the origin of the vacuum planet equation, with its divide by 4 averaging of incoming solar flux, comes from astronomy. You will also know that the purpose of this equation is to determine the average energy flux being radiated to space at the Top of the Atmosphere from a planetary body when viewed and measured from the outside by an astronomical telescope.
At no time and under no circumstances should the divide by 4 dilution of solar energy flux be used to determine the average temperature of the surface of a terrestrial planet beneath a semi-opaque atmosphere. By the inappropriate application of this equation to the surface of the Earth climate science completely removes from the energy budget analysis the full significance of the meteorological processes of energy acquisition, storage and fluid motion transport powered by the energy of sunlight over the surface of the lit hemisphere.
We know by measurement that the surface of the Moon at solar zenith achieves a temperature of around 380 Kelvin, and so indisputably the presence of the Earth’s atmosphere cools the surface as temperatures of this lunar magnitude are never observed on Earth at solar zenith.
Once the realisation is made that climate model, with its divide by 4 solar flux dilution starts with a false premise, that the power of the sun is too weak to heat the surface of the Earth above the freezing point of water, then all the subsequent modelling that involves radiative flux recycling is invalid. The real climate of the Earth involves processes at the lit surface of energy capture, storage, and mass motion energy transport by fluids (both atmospheric and oceanic). The so-called greenhouse effect is a meteorological phenomenon and not a phenomenon of radiative physics.
Save your arguments for another day. The issue here is “does IR heating of the first few microns of the ocean also heat the ocean to greater depths”.
I have always argued averaging obscures important dynamics. You are not telling me anything new. You just seem to insist on your own agenda being from and center.
I presented the study by W&M showing very specific changes in heat flux in the north Atlantic, which measured fluxes that differed greatly from the global average. That should have been a clue for you. I closed with a brief discussion of how in the tropics, where heating is more intense, that solar heat is amplified during La Ninas and that is primarily how solar heating warms the oceans. Based on your arguments here like “At no time and under no circumstances should the divide by 4 dilution of solar energy flux” gives the impression that you want to push your pet peeve and so get on your soap box to make irrelevant arguments that to not advance the discussion on whether IR can warm the ocean depths.
I get what you’re trying to say, but I think you’re missing the missing the forest by focusing only on the trees. It turns out Earth’s surface rectification effect is only about 6 W/m2 or 1 K [Trenberth et al. 2009]. In other words, plugging Earth’s average surface radiant exitance into the SB law only yields about 1 K of error versus doing the full integration of the SB law in the spatial domain. The simpler macroscale model here provides a good first order approximation and can be used to easily communicate more general ideas to non-experts. Sure the microscale model gives a better approximation, but it is also significantly more complex and harder to use when communicating with non-experts. The same can be said for the W/m2 figures uses in his argument. The point…criticism of Jim’s use of average fluxes is unnecessary pedantry in the context in which they are used.
bdgwx,
In science I chose accuracy. YMMV
I can’t argue with that.
It’s a good thing the earth is not a greenhouse.
Energy budget fluxes are averages over at least one orbital period. For example if you take the total amount of solar energy intercepting TOA in one orbital cycle and divide by the surface area of Earth and the number of seconds in a year you get about 340 W/m2. That 340 W/m2 figure is already taking into account that only 50% of Earth’s surface receives solar energy at any given moment.
bdgwx
Here is Jim’s response.
I was thinking this is just an incomplete understanding, but that’s morphed into plain old, garden variety willful blindness; because it refutes his pet narrative.
He should have joined the Anything BUT CO2 Coalition.
Loydo dont know why you would ever be surprised for being called a stupid dishonest slimeball troll.
“Please Jim when will you realise that the Sun does not shine on to the surface of the Earth at night?”
I’m not a scientist but I believe the sun shines on the surface of the earth 24 hrs a day. There is no night in space.
Ron,
I live on the surface of the rotating Earth.
Open ocean surface at 30C is in thermal equilibrium. This explains why:
Ocean Atmosphere Response to Solar EMR at Top of the Atmosphere – Watts Up With That?
The tiny proportion of ocean surface that exceeds 30.5C over an annual cycle is subject to more powerful convecting columns over adjacent land.
The energy balance is in the oceans is a fiunction of two powerful temperature limit processes. Both involve ice formation. One with sea ice the other with atmospheric ice.
What happens when the total area of 30C increases?
Everything else equal, Earth’s average surface temperature would increase. The opposite is true, of course, which is how we find ourselves currently living under ‘icehouse’ conditions. The good news is that this had absolutely nothing to do with CO2 doubling (or even tripling) over the past 65 million years, or so, and everything to do with the opening and closing of seaways due to continental drift. A good place to start is here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/15/cooling-the-hothouse/
PS – If you insist on worrying about something, the Earth’s continents are still moving, albeit slowly.
It requires at least 410W/m^2 ToA solar EMR over a month to get the ocean surface to 30C. The ocean area exceeding this level at any time is limited and it is not changing much as peak solar intensity is gradually shifting northward due to perihelion occurring ever later after the austral summer solstice.
I’m not asking about it “exceeding this level”. I’m asking what happens if that area increases in size?
The ocean area subject to 410W/m^2 is actually declining but the northern land masses are warming so less heat is being transferred from ocean to land and more ocean area will be at the 30C limit until the ice mountains begin to reform.
Himalayan glaciers expanding will likely be the first indicator of the current glaciation being in full swing.
“Thus, it is the downward mixing of solar heated waters, not the transitory longwave heating of the skin surface layer that stores energy in the ocean and creates the estimated energy imbalance.”
You’re still getting this all mixed up. See Nick’s explanation above.
I tried to explain it to you a few days back
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/21/the-european-heat-wave-and-global-warming/#comments
Here was your response:
“Only stupid dishonest slime ball trolls will show a graph of warming oceans down >2000 meters depth, despite the proven fact CO2 back radiation only penetrates a couple of microns into the ocean surface..”
Apart from completely misunderstanding the thermodynamics, the point is not about skin surface layers or mixing, let alone some vague ENSO hypthesis, the point is the “energy imbalance”. The surface layers are getting warmer and there is one glaringly obvious explanation for this imbalance: the additional CO2 adding additional back-radiation.
Here is your rabbit-hole.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/what-is-the-best-description-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
Realclimate 😉
It does look like a good description of the climate science greenhouse effect. I found another good description that fits.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
― Richard P. Feynman
You have an experiment in mind? What? like putting a bowl of water under an IR lamp and seeing if it gets warmer?
Is the IR from the atmosphere not good enough?
What is the lamp for? Extra energy?
Correction, this lamp is required, because the CO2 radiation is incapable to warm anything!
Did I trigger a reflex?
Looks like it!
We are living in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age. And last couple millions of this Ice Age has
been the coldest time of 33.9 million years of ice house global climate.
It would be nice if higher CO2 level would increase global temperatures, but it hasn’t
measurably warmed global air temperature.
Land area doesn’t control global air temperature. It’s the ocean surface which is 70% of
entire Earth surface which controls global temperature.
It’s simple, 70% of any surface would control global air temperature.
But the ocean surface also controlling global because it’s warmer on average than the land.
And the tropical ocean is heat engine of the world.
But merely having anything being 70% of surface makes it control global air temperature.
It’s odd that people living in colder regions on Earth, who die without clothing, homes, and other technology from the cold air temperature, are concerned about global warming.
What I think is interesting is how cold Venus would be at Earth distance from the Sun.
Venus doesn’t actually have greenhouse effect.
Sunlight isn’t transparent allowing sunlight to heat it’s rocky surface and become “trapped”- which roughly what a greenhouse effect is said to be. Venus also doesn’t absorb much sunlight.
And if Venus was at Earth distance, it would of course absorb even less sunlight.
It’s all very complicated, but I think Venus would colder than Earth at 1 AU distance from the
sun.
I do think Venus has runaway effect.
And I think Earth has never had runaway effect.
Or if Earth was put at same distance from Sun as Venus, Earth would not have runaway effect. Though sunlight would be much hotter and it could get higher average temperature than Earth has had in past. Or though warmer states are called greenhouse global climate
which are warmest climates Earth has had, and ice house global climates are coldest global climates and we at the coldest part of this icehouse global climate, because our ocean average temperature is 3.5 C {which is cold}.
The atmospheres of Venus and Mars both contain 90% carbon dioxide. Venus has a high albedo, Mars has a low albedo. Mars is just over twice as far from the sun, hence receives approximately 25% of the radiation that Venus does. The biggest difference is the atmospheric pressure Mars has a pressure of 0.006 atmospheres whilst Venus has a pressure of 90 atmospheres. If the Venusian atmosphere was the same composition as the terrestrial atmosphere but at 90 atmospheres the surface temperature would still be as high as it is currently due to adiabatic heating.
Adiabatic heating causes a gradient (lapse rate) in an atmosphere, not a temperature level. The average altitude where outgoing radiation from the atmosphere to space equals absorbed solar radiation (to the surface and into the atmosphere) determines a temperature at that level. Now the adiabatic heating (lapse rate) added down to the surface from that balance level determines the surface temperature. If there are no absorbing gases or clouds, the balance level would be the surface. With some absorption by gases or clouds, the level is above the surface, so the surface is warmer. If Venus’s atmosphere was the same as Earth’s the average balance level would be slightly lower, so not quite as hot, but still much higher than Earth.
The religion of global warming claims CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and religion claims what is special about CO2 is that if there is more CO2 in atmosphere this causes an increase in water vapor [and water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas]
And our recent increase in CO2 has not had this effect, the warming increasing CO2 can not be measured, but some have confidence it’s increased global air temperature by “at least” .02 C.
It might of increase global air temperature by .02 C but that is not really measurable
amount of change in a poorly measured global air temperature.
Or it’s said to be weak and it’s proven to be weak.
I am fairly confident that increased CO2 levels don’t cause cooling. Though there correlation of higher CO2 levels and cooling air temperature follows. And both Venus and Mars helps prove it doesn’t cause cooling.
As this article might point out, if CO2 warmed the top skin surface of the ocean, then
CO2 should cause evaporation of that top layer of water- and it doesn’t.
Venus is hot primarily because it turns so slowly, and secondarily because it doesn’t cool off during its long night.
Our moon turns slowly but has no atmosphere, and does cool during it’s long night. It’s temperature acts as expected. You are in error on Venus.
Venus has runaway effect because it’s rocky surface turns very slowly and it’s upper atmosphere rotates much faster at about once every 4 earth days.
Earth radiates somewhere around 240 watt per square meter on average,
Venus radiates somewhere about 160 watts per square meter on average.
At night Earth does radiate more than Venus does at night, but like Earth
it does cool at night.
Earth absorbs and radiate more energy than Venus, over the same amount
of time.
Earth absorbs more energy because it’s surface is mostly covered ocean.
Venus absorbs less energy because most of sunlight heats it’s clouds
If Venus had water clouds, the water clouds would absorb less sunlight, or
Venus acid clouds absorb a bit more.
Recently they discovered some shortwave IR does radiate from rocky surface directly into space- so, that wasn’t counted, and Venus could radiate a bit more than 160 watt.
No. Is is not the sun. Sun is weaker since 1995. It is earth.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/03/08/who-or-what-turned-up-the-heat/
The energy imbalance of 0.6-1 watts/sq meter has never been measured. It’s all based on assumptive numbers.
As I recollect, it was measured recently, obtaining a nominal value of 0.5 +/- 0.5 W/m^2
I wrote about this issue some time ago and came to the same conclusion as Jim but I identified the reason why back radiation cannot heat the oceans.
The process of evaporation involves a phase change from liquid to gas that takes up more energy than is required to provoke that phase change. Approximately 5 times as much energy.
Just look up the enthalpy of evaporation.
That means that all the long wave energy is used up with none left over to heat the ocean. Indeed it helps draw energy from the bulk ocean and is therefore a net cooling effect for the oceans.
That is why the ocean skin is always cooler than the ocean bulk below.
The situation is different for human skin because it takes too long for additional water to be perspired out onto the skin. We cannot sweat at the same speed as water can be re supplied to the ocean skin.
The theory about back radiation warming the bulk ocean is therefore wrong.
Full narrative here:
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/TheSettingAndMaintainingOfEarth.pdf
“That means that all the long wave energy is used up with none left over to heat the ocean. Indeed it helps draw energy from the bulk ocean and is therefore a net cooling effect for the oceans.”
That ought to set the alarmists off.
Quite so and I expect a flood of negative responses.
However the potential for net cooling is itself neutralised by changes in convection.
By active drainage, land clearing, and overall desertification of the terrestrial surface humanity has increased vapor pressure deficits by reducing moisture available at the surface.
The atmosphere over moisture rich systems contains an abundance of moist static energy. Humans have accumulated a lack of evaporation capacity by our modification of the land surface properties.
The planetary boundary layer is widest over dry bare landscapes, and narrowest over moist vegetated landscapes. Over moist vegetated landscapes there is a substantially higher proportion of moist static energy per unit of boundary layer height. This ratio drives substantial convection, cloud formation, and moisture convergence.
Humanity has played a role in modifying global circulation by our substantial influence on continental water cycles. This has obstructed the feedback parameter, commonly referred to as lambda. An overall widening of the planetary boundary layer reduces convective potential. A decrease in latent evaporation in the global energy balance for land areas from 45W/m² to 38W/m² (-18.4%) with corresponding convective disruption.
The result is warmer land surface temperature, a persistence of stationary blocking high pressure systems, disruption of the global wind field, disruption of cloud formation, and increased geopotential height. By teleconnections, the ocean is also impacted.
And what is happening as more land is cleared to mine the coal, iron, copper, aluminium,etc needed to build wind turbines and solar panels then clear more land to mount wind turbines and solar panels. What could possible go wrong with eliminating every tree on the planet.
Trees are actively being cancelled by the industrialists. They are merely useless decoy sticks for storing carbon that stalls real climate action. Get with the program. The ecosystem has no relation to climate. The ecosystem passively responds to fossil fuel carbon emission and has no bearing on regulating hydroclimates. /sarc.
This is what it has come to. Hydro cycle disruption is not in the models so it doesn’t exist.
There is a simple physics account of the cooling mechanism based on gravity, which is completely ignored by most commentators.
Simply put, warmer air/water is less dense than cooler air/water, is therefore more buoyant, and rises. The amount of buoyancy (rate of upward acceleration) is determined by the difference in densities and the strength of the gravitational field, and the direction of motion is determined by the direction of the gravitational field.
Remember Archimedes floating in his bath!
Thus, if a body of air/water in equilibrium relative to its surroundings absorbs extra heat, this causes it to experience buoyancy and to rise. The resulting upward specific heat transfer is amplified by the latent heat transfer associated with the evaporation and condensation of water vapour. At some point the rising air/water is able to release the extra heat as IR radiation to space. So that 240 W/m2 inward radiation balances with 240 W/m2 outward.
These fundamental negative feedbacks give rise to a gravitational thermostat that works to moderate radiative forcing at the surface.
Anyone who understand physics can sleep well.
Yes, and the rate of convective overturning in both oceans and atmosphere will settle at a point where energy in from space equals energy out to space.
A bit more CO2 will speed it up a bit so that equilibrium is maintained.
Instead of a higher surface temperature we just get an indiscernible adjustment within the permanent climate zones which is vastly overpowered by natural variability within both oceans and atmosphere.
Also should be noted that water has its highest density at about 4°c, curiously the same temperature given for the temperature on the sea bed.
For freshwater yes but not for seawater.
I don’t know if they balance exactly. There will be some diffusion of warmer to colder even with buoyancy. I would guess it would be small, but still there. In other words, a small gradient from warm to cold.
Years ago, when this was a topic discussed fairly often on several blogs. a number of experiments were described wherein a large container of water was put under a sizeable heat source that radiated only in the IR, no visible light. Some kind of shield was used to prevent air flow over the water but was open at the top to allow evaporation. Temperature sensors were placed in the water at various depths, including immediately below the skin.
Several different experimental setups were described. All but one reported no temperature increase. That one had a ‘one molecule thick’ layer of oil on top of the water to prevent evaporation.
Eventually there was a conflicting claim, I believe from the Skeptical Science group wherein they reported a very small temperature increase. They said this was only a proof of concept, not a measurement of how much heating can occur from IR.
In the best climate science tradition, they refused to provide any information on their experimental setup or provide any of their measurement data. This certainly increased my faith in their veracity but left some mysteries intact.
All that aside, while it would not be the ocean, it seems to me that it would not be difficult to test the hypothesis that IR can heat water at depth. Does anyone know of published experiments?
“In the best climate science tradition, they refused to provide any information on their experimental setup or provide any of their measurement data.”
They have something to hide: The Truth.
AndyHce: “Does anyone know of published experiments?”
WR: In case no published laboratory experiments are known: how can such an important subject remain out of experimental research? It must be relatively easy to test the different effects of shortwave and longwave radiation on internal heating and internal and surface cooling.
Yes, evaporation (together with convection) rules the Earth’s surface energy balance.
~340 W/m2 is 100%, solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere.
To clarify, in the second image, reflected (29%) is the total reflected by clouds, atmosphere and surface.
I have searched but have not fund any such publications. Dr Roy Spence, who I have grat respect for, blogged about a home experiment a decade ago where he concluded IR can heat waters at depth. I think that experiment needed more controls before that conclusions. I have asked him to come here and critique my arguments.
If anything the lack of penetration of IR ENHANCES its warming effect, as all the absorbed energy goes into a thin surface layer, which therefore gets hotter than if there were more penetration.
Which then suppresses the conductive flux from the bulk into the skin thus warming the bulk as well. See Wong and Minnett 2018 for details.
Which would ONLY be true if the skin surface didn’t radiates that heat away immediately as Stefan Boltzman Law dictates plus generate more evaporative cooling or increase the temperature gradient for heat to flow more readily from the surface to the air.
You are using unsupported magical thinking to think added IR is disrupting the conductive flux from the subsurface. The data does not support such claims!
“Which would ONLY be true if the skin surface didn’t radiates that heat away immediately as Stefan Boltzman Law dictates”
As I’ve pointed out to you before that is not true, it only radiates away proportionate to the fourth power of the surface temperature, it can’t happen immediately.
Try these two experiments to measure how much water temperature is increased by long wave radiation:
Experiment 1 – Take two thermometers. Wrap the bulb of one instrument with wet cloth and leave the other instrument exposed to the air. Place both instruments in the shade so that short wave solar energy is minimized and any gain in temperature would be caused predominantly by long wave energy heating the water. Note the temperature readings periodically for as long as the cloth remains wet.
Experiment 2 – Take a canvas bag and fill it with water. Place a thermometer so that the water temperature may conveniently be read. Hang the bag in the shade to minimize short wave solar radiation. Gently use a hair dryer to blow (long wave) heated air over the wet surface of the bag. Record the variation in the temperature reading of the water whilst the surface of the bag is still wet.
These experiments should settle beyond question the dispute as to whether long wave energy increase causes water temperature gain or not?
thermodynamics – How does a canvas water bag cool water? – Physics Stack Exchange
Both experiments you describe are contaminated by latent heat flux. An even easier experiment is to place two dishes of water on a countertop under the same environmental conditions but with an IR lamp suspended over only one of the dishes. The dish with the IR lamp will achieve a higher a temperature with the lamp on.
The IR lamp will heat the dish which will heat the water! Fail.
The lamp is shinning on the water; not the dish. Sure, the dish will warm too, but that is because the water is warming it via conduction.
How do you know the warming is due to IR and not conduction/convection from the lamp?
But Happer explains, that in the lower atmosphere, there is no re-radiation of infrared, as the many, many ‘normal’ molecules pull out the energy from the exited greenhousegas molecules by many collisions. The GHG molecules will have the same temperature as all other molecules there. Energy taken from the lower atmospere is by conduction.
I have had many talks with Dr Happer. In fact he recruited me to join the CO2 Coalition.
It is absolutely true that the 99% of non-greenhouse gases can extract energy from greenhouse gases before the energy is emitted. However those rates of collisions also imply that collisions with energized O2 or N2 can transfer energy to CO2. O2 and N2 are primarily energized by collisions and conduction with solar heated surfaces. The only way to release that energy is to transfer it to a greenhouse molecule. We know that must happen or else the atmosphere would never cool.
Energized O2 or N2 can indeed transfer energy to CO2, but that happens only high up in the atmosphere, whereafter the CO2 molecules radiate that energy as photons to space (the CO2 cooling effect) – Richar Lindzen describes that very precisely in his 2020 paper “An oversimplified picture…”
“O2 and N2 are primarily energized by collisions and conduction with solar heated surfaces – I do not agree. They are mostly heated by grenhouse gases. (primarily H20)
Why and how would O2 and N2 refuse to collide with CO2 at lower elevations or how would those interactions not transfer energy at lower elevations?
They do collide but the energy needed for one photon is spread out on thousands N2/O2 molecules with the same temperature as the GHG molecule
They transfer energy to unexcited CO2 molecules but not enough to populate the higher energy vibrational levels and therefore result in IR emission from the CO2 molecule.
I agree that infrared emitted by CO2 happens more as the denity of the atmosphere decreases, and primarily above the troposphere. However that doesnt mean energy transfer from O2 to CO2 only happen “high up”
And in what published paper have you ever read that O2 and N2 are NOT primarily energized by collisions and conduction with solar heated surfaces?
I cant edit the above but meant to write “infrared emitted by CO2 escapes to space more as the density of the atmosphere decreases,”
Actually, this is not true and one of the main reasons why the emission height is a constant. The loss of energy to space by CO2 molecules happens equally as the altitude increases. It is proportional to the changing density and not the concentration of CO2.
Since the emission height never changes, there can be no greenhouse warming.
Happer again – He compares Earth with and without grenhouse gases. Without, atmosphere during daytime warms up by conduction/collision, but looses all energy during nighttime, so actualy no warming of the atmosphere that way. But with greenhouse gases there will be warming that lasts.
Here comes a Happer quote – Sorry, I do not remember from which document.
“From Earth (2)’s surface the energy emission to space is exactly the same in W/m2 as received from the Sun as the emission from it is a function of the temperature – and as the atmosphere does not stop any IR-emission, the surface temperature must be what is dictatet by the beams from the Sun. – In daytime conduction cools the surface (and warms the atmosphere) in the nighttime the conduction warms the surface (and cools the atmosphere).
The atmosphere cannot store heat from one day to the next. If it could, the surface would be warmer and warmer an warmer and warmer….. The only way the atmospher can get rid of it’s enegy is by warming the surface as the direct road to space is closed. “
You are missing a key ingredient in understanding the physics. Once the air has warmed via conduction VIA contact with a solar heated surface, that air expands and rises. Any adiabatic cooling as it rises to lower pressure only reverses and warms adiabatically if the air sinks causing it to rise back to its previous equilibrium altitude. The only way for the air to sink back to the ground is if it has radiated its heat away. The ground cools faster than the air above because the ground radiates heat away across a full spectrum of longwaves, of which, some escape without being intercepted by greenhouse gases through the atmospheric windows. The air can only cool by passing heat to greenhouse gases that can radiate that heat away.
I see a discrepancy between yours (and Lindzen’s) view, and Happer’s.
Lindzen:
“The water vapor essentially blocks infrared radiation from leaving the surface, causing the surface and (via conduction) the air adjacent to the surface to heat.. ”
Happer (in my words): Infrared radiation leaves the surface causing H2O molecules near the surface to vibrate, but immediately by collisions, N2/O2 ‘steals’ the vibrational energy. In that way the air near the surface is heated.
The warmer air does not rise above the Level of Free Convection.
The dehumidified air does not sink below the LFC.
It is apparent you have no understanding of deep convection and how it differs from free convection, which only occurs over the entire atmospheric column when the surface is cooler than 15C; only a small fraction of the ocean surface.
It is apparent you didn’t understand the point I made. So let me try again with hopes you better understand.
Let’s start with a question. If a parcel of dry air is heated by contact with a warm surface, like asphalt, do you agree that heated air will gain buoyancy and rise?
Although it cools adiabatically as it rises, it will equally warm adiabatically if it descends.
So how does that parcel lose the energy it gained that made it rise, lose that energy to sink back to the ground?
It only rises to the LFC – no further until the column becomes unstable and cloudburst ensues.
The only radiation cooling directly to space that occurs over ocean warm pools is above the LFC.
Formation of an LFC is the reason why the air column above warm ocean water is not permanently saturated. The ability of the atmosphere to partition at the LFC is the only reason Earth is not a snowball.
It has nothing to do with the so-called “greenhouse effect”.
The only ocean surface that experiences a fully saturated column is surface below 15C, which does not have enough moisture to form an LFC despite being saturated.
A lot of words that do nothing to answer my question. I’m done with you
Jim Steele: “The ground cools faster than the air above because the ground radiates heat away across a full spectrum of longwaves, of which, some escape without being intercepted by greenhouse gases through the atmospheric windows.”
WR: I ever read that solids and liquids radiate full spectrum but never read before about the consequence: that the ground cools faster. Quite logic still. It must also be that reason that makes clouds good radiators to space: they consist of drops of liquid. And they radiate upward at elevations where most of the water vapor (the main greenhouse gas) already disappeared from the air.
And for completeness: air also sinks after losing water vapor. Convection in the air is caused by temperature and/or water vapor, and convection in the oceans is caused by temperature and/or salinity.
Let’s imagine it’s night time and the surface is radiating IR. Simultaneously energy is passing from the air to the surface via conduction. This allows the column of air to subside slightly. No greenhouse gases needed. The process continues until daylight starts heating the surface and the direction of conduction reverses.
Or the surface
Eric, how does heated air cool enough so it can sink to the surface? Hint: see my reply to Bjarne above
This would violate Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation. Gases in the same environment (pressure, temperature, etc.) absorb and emit radiation equally.
What percentage of infra red taken up by CO2 is re-radiated as opposed to being redistributed as kinetic energy by molecular collisions?
0.00000001 % according to this http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
Practically nothing.
Thanks for that link Bj.
Gases emit and absorb radiation equally due to Kirchhoff’s Law. While it is true that collisions happen much more often lower in the atmosphere, the opportunities for absorption occur at the same rate as the opportunities for emission.
But the mean time for radiation after excitation is the order of milliseconds whereas the collisions are occurring about 10 times per nanosecond (at surface atmospheric conditions).
A pretty dumb question.
In all these energy balance calculations the energy imbalance of 0.6-1 watts/sq metre is relatively small. Do the calculations take into account the energy stored each day by living things on Earth? For example photosynthesis 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2. The arrow requiring an energy input. But there are many other energy stores created by living things, many taking more energy to convert the energy stored by photosynthesis into other things like Calcium Carbonate CaCO3. I don’t think there are many exothermic reactions going on in living things.
Or is it included in the absorbed by surface category as miscellaneous?
It doesn’t take much physical activity for my body to generate quite a bit of heat.
Just one comment.
You discuss the ocean “skin layer warming” through radiation only. I cannot agree. The IR surface heat flux is not an ocean “warming flux”, but a “cooling flux”, with a value of 398 – 345 = 53 W/m² (according to the Stevens heat flux balance diagram). The IR back radiation cannot exist without the corresponding land / ocean cooling IR radiation which are emitted and absorbed in the same skin layer. In addition to the radiation cooling, we have the convective + evaporation cooling of 88 + 24 = 112 W/m² which takes place in the same upper skin layer than radiation. This means that the heat received through SW radiation in the bulk 100 m thick “epipelagic layer” is evacuated only through the upper layer. The surface does not heat the ocean, but the surface cools the ocean !
I understand that the sun emits more than just electromagnetic radiation. It also emits waves of material leading to the northern lights and perhaps other atmospheric phenomena of which I am unaware. Does such material flux deposit a notable amount of energy and hence heat in our atmosphere and of so are there variations in it which lead to variations in temperature?
Of course it’s the sun. But it’s especially the ultraviolet component that causes “Climate Change.” It generates ozone, which warms the stratosphere and also radiates infrared downward which alters the adiabatic temperature profile below. But it’s sneaky as well, because it penetrates the ocean to a depth of hundreds of feet so that unlike infrared which penetrates only slightly, it warms the upper hundreds of feet so that its effect is felt only gradually over time, decades of time, so it’s easy to misattribute “Climate Change” to that devil gas CO2 instead of a series of especially strong solar activity cycles.
“there appears to be a radiative imbalance of 0.6 Watts less energy leaving the earth than is added by the sun.
That imbalance does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law because that missing heat gets stored below the land surface or below the ocean surface, where the heat cannot radiate back to space in a timely manner.”
–
The Stefan Boltzmann law does not allow an imbalance to exist.
Full stop.
There can by definition be no radiation imbalance.
If positive and negative radiation balances can occur then there cannot be a Stefan Boltzmann law.
–
The confusion arises because the higher temperature suggest more energy is being retained in a hotter system.
Stored below the land surface or below the ocean surface is the comment here.
–
Ignoring the fact that energy cannot be stored.
–
If the land and ocean could store energy,
0.6 watts unspecified,
does it do it for a second a day or a year?
If it can do it for a urea then it could do it for 4 billion years.
If it stores it for 4 billion years, even if it is no longer ocean or land, just a by now plasma storage battery, it would be hundreds of times hotter than the sun.
–
It is not.
Hence it cannot be a storage for energy.
There is no mechanism as such for matter reacting to energy input to store the energy or Stefan Boltzmann could not exist.
–
This is Thermodynamics ,not chemistry or electronics which have their own seperate special rules for specific special circumstances.
“. Because infrared penetrates less than a millimeter into the ocean’s surface, many skeptics argued it is impossible to blame rising CO2 for ocean warming. However, several prominent skeptic scientists, people who I have great respect for, also weighed in arguing it was silly and useless to argue infrared heat can’t warm the ocean.”
–
Interesting argument.
First point it is not the depth that matters at all, it is the amount of infrared radiation penetrating the ocean surface.
If one had a red hot 1 metre square of iron I doubt that anyone here would like to stand 15 cms away from it for any length of time as their skin would become extremely burnt.
The same would hold true Foran infrared hot plate such as the top of a barbecue.
–
Having agreed that infrared in sufficient quantities can indeed heat water (and skin)the question is where does this now hot 1 mm of water go, or more to the point where does the energy go?
some goes back into the air and the hot metal plate keeping the air and plate hot as well as the continuing original heat source.
The rest heats up the surrounding water.
If enough air goes in then of course the whole ocean could be heated up in time.
–
The amount of IR energy to do so would be enormous and for an earth size and composition planet would require it to be in an orbit much closer to the sun.
This simple explanation does not consider the other EM energy that also causes heat.
“Because the sun’s surface is so hot it emits high energy shortwave radiation. On average the earth warms as short waves add 75 Watts to the atmospheric water vapor while the earth’s surfaces absorb about 160 Watts, totaling 240 Watts that are heating the earth’s daytime climate.”
–
the sun emits IR and SW radiation.
It emits far more IR photons than SW photons but the SW have much more energy.
–
Nonetheless the IR does reach the earth’s atmosphere and is absorbed at the top and contributes significantly to both the temperature of the atmosphere and indirectly to the temperature of the ocean.
This is not represented adequately or accurately in the easy to read version above.
Sorry.
The energy from the sun that reaches the earth over an 8 minute period is quite immense in one sense and quite small and trivial in another..
–
“The sun radiates uniformly in all directions, mainly visible light and infrared radiation, and we can calculate the total amount of energy radiated by measuring the quantity of solar energy/second reaching every square meter of Earth and then multiplying that by the total surface area of a sphere with radius equal to the radius of Earth orbit. We get the astonishingly huge amount of 400 trillion trillion watts. To put this into a crazy context, every second the sun produces the same energy as about a trillion 1 megaton bombs! In one second, our sun produces enough energy for almost 500,000 years of the current needs of our so-called civilization.”
–
Despite this on the earth the sun is a damp squib.
All that energy is only enough to heat the surface of the ocean and the insignificant mass of the atmosphere a tiny amount.Turn off the sun and after 8 minutes the planet would very rapidly freeze.
Not merely cool down on the dark side at night still warmed by the IR energy from the light side but really rapidly freeze.
No energy in to the system as a whole for a few minutes and the whole ocean would be frozen just like that.
While the ocean is rather cold at depth, it would still take a very long time to freeze should solar energy cease to arrive.
UV is strongly absorbed by water just as IR is. Whales and dolphins, despite having dark skin, are prone to getting sunburned if stranded above water.
While I agree with most of Jim Steele’s article, the idea that ocean warming is mainly attributed to La Nina as explained in the article misses the solar cycle influence, which raises or lowers eastern Pacific temperatures by ~1C in sync with solar minima and maxima.
The odds of the step changes recurring 9x in sync with solar min/max are 1.9(10^11):1
As to the influence of UV absorption, the other longer wavelengths have much more power:
The tropical changes and beyond are in response to solar activity above/below 95 SN.
Bob, I thought I knew everything. But here you come along and I’m a freshman again.
I’ve recently tried reinventing hot water by putting a black cauldron full of water in the summer sun. It stood there for hours, however its temperature couldn’t get any higher than pleasantly warm (i.e. around 37C), even though I had put a large and thick sheet of iron under and around the cauldron. The iron itself was really hot, however this didn’t help getting the water hotter.
Only after I covered the cauldron with nylon to cut the evaporation losses the temperature got higher.
A day includes daytime and nighttime
What happened at night when the sunlight disappeared?
What do you think happened? Anyway what I implied is that evaporation leads to significant energy loss and 1-2W/m2 are absolutely irrelevant to any temperature change to a body of water. At noon the insolation is some 1kW/m2, and even though I’ve added more by the help of the sheet iron, this didn’t help much in achieving a significant temperature change of the water.
Here they say that 115W/m2 are lost to evaporation at temp of just 20C:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/evaporation-water-surface-d_690.html
Apparently 36-38C was the equilibrium temperature in my case.
Exactly.
Because the phase change from liquid to vapour sucks up energy faster than any increase in input from the surrounding environment can occur.
Cutting the evaporation loss sufficiently will then reduce the take up of energy so that the temperature can rise.
The temperature of a body is dependent on its mass, specific heat capacity, and energy. That’s it. Specifically the relationship is ΔT = ΔE/m*c. If the internal energy E increases then T increases. Period. It doesn’t matter what form the delivered energy is in. This is so easy to demonstrate that even the most rudimentary in-home experiment should be enough to convince everyone including you that IR energy warms water. Don’t take my word for it. Do the experiment. Prove this for yourself.
Not if there is a phase change from liquid to gas which takes out more energy than is needed to provoke it as is the case at the ocean surface.
Do the experiment. Place two dishes of water on your countertop under identical environmental conditions except that one dish has IR lamps suspended above it. The dish with the IR lamps will be at a higher temperature. Turn the lamps off and observe cooling. Turn the lamps back on and observe warming. If IR somehow caused more latent egress flux than radiation ingress flux then the food service industry would not rely on IR lamps to keep food warm. This experiment is performed millions of times everyday…literally.
The IR warms the dishes which then conduct heat to the water.
If you conduct the experiment above a purely watery surface then no heating of the water will occur.
Keeping food warm is a separate issue since food is a solid.
No it doesn’t. Water so greedily takes up IR that it is entirely absorbed within the first micron and long before it can intercept the dish. Of course, if you are unconvinced of that you could use a vessel made out of an IR transparent or reflective material.
The few microns of surface water that IR can penetrate does heat the water considerably, and extensive evaporation occurs, carrying away the energy.
.
The experiments I mentioned above claimed to be unable to measure any temperature increase below those few microns. Even the Skeptical Science group (or RealClimateScience blog?) reported only a tiny temperature increase from their secret experiment.
And I totally get that. Without a 2nd influx of energy that penetrates deeply you’ll get a significant vertical temperature gradient in the water with the bottom not warming very much if any at all assuming it is sufficiently deep.
BTW…I think this is the realclimate.org article you may be speaking of. It is authored by the same guy who produced some of the graphics Jim Steele uses and who is the coauthor of the Wong & Minnett 2018 publication which provides supporting evidence for the microphysical hypothesis that the ocean bulk warms due to the reduced temperature gradient in the skin layer. Agitation in the mixed layer, salinity changes, etc. drive the heat further down.
Errata…when I said water completely absorbs IR in the first micron above I actually meant millimeter.
Indeed Minnet has been pushing the same hypothesis for 16 year concluding in that Realclimate article that it i”perfectly physically consistent to expect that increasing greenhouse gas driven warming will heat the oceans – as indeed is being observed.” But what was really observed?
In his W&M 2018 paper that this video debunks, he makes the same faulty arguments using increased IR from clouds to argue that CO2 emitted IR warming also disrupts the temperature gradient. But what Minnett fails to do each time, is correctly sum the heat sources forcing the skin surface IR emissions. Cloudy days indeed increase downward IR but DECREASE solar shortwave that heats the subsurface waters. It is the decreased solar that changes the temperature gradient and Minett consistently fails to address that dynamic in order push the CO2 forcing as the driver.
Where do you get an IR warmer that generates only 15 mm photons. Oh right, you don’t. But, it’s occurring every millisecond. You don’t need any IR warmer. So, what happens when you just leave the water out in the open? Oh yeah, it doesn’t warm.
I didn’t focus on just 15 um. The myth I’m addressing is the broader blanket statement that IR radiation does not warm water. Some on here expand the myth to say that IR radiation actually causes water to cool. We can move the experiment out in the open, but you’ll get the same result. Dr. Spencer actually did that version of the experiment. You can read the details here.
I greatly respect Roy, but there were many aspects of his home experiment that required more controls before it could be argued differences in IR surface heating, also heated more deeply. I asked him to comment here on this video’s arguments.
Not quite so. Take a look at the attenuation coefficient curves provided by Stokes. IR may be strongly attenuated, but some will pass a considerable distance before being below the limit of measurement.
confounding factors:
You need a large enough water surface and a small enough (area wise) IR source to avoid heating the container with IR. Heating the container will heat the water in the container.
Why would anyone want do the experiment any differently? The whole point is to direct the IR toward the water; not the container. That’s what I’ve done in the past. I don’t even know what the point of directing the IR toward the sides of the container or even having it clipping the small cross sectional area of the lip of the container from the top or have any other configuration in which the container is receiving a significant flux from the lamp would be anyway. Remember, we want to test to see if the water warms from IR. I think most everyone would already agree that the container can warm water via conduction if is itself being warmed.
To do your experiment properly, you should have two mirrors over the dishes with identical holes cut in them. The mirrors are to prevent any IR from reaching the dishes. Furthermore, there should be a IR filter over the IR lamp to exclude any but a narrow band of invisible IR radiation. Most heat lamps have considerable visible light.
It doesn’t have to use a heat lamp, it could be a heating element or coil at the right temperature, controlled with the applied voltage.
You say “It doesn’t matter what form the delivered energy is in.”
That is so wrong! Because different wavelengths penetrate to different depths, solar energy creates the required temperature gradients for cooling via conduction and convection. IR energy that only reaches the first microns and be emitted back to space immediately. Solar energy that penetrates several meters experiences much slower cooling rates because that heat depends on conduction and convection to rise to the surface, and only at the surface can it cool.
Yet when I and everyone else does the experiment we observe that the temperature of the water increases.
As I have warned, IR heat lamps emit shortwave IR, not the wavelengths relevant to climate. Your experiment is worthless.
It is a legitimate concern. That effect could be controlled in various ways with filters that pass only certain frequencies.
So stop pushing your failed at home experiments that have totally failed to enact the proper control conditions.
I’m just saying this could be addressed in various ways including the use of filter sheets should that be the roadblock in convincing you. It wasn’t a concern for me because of prior knowledge that shortwave penetration is well past the couple of inches of depth I tested with. I felt that was a reasonable assumption because of prior knowledge. And besides, don’t you think people would have started using lamps tuned for shorter wavelengths to keep vessels of water warmer than they would be otherwise as opposed to longer wavelength lamps long ago?
Regardless I do think it is a valid concern in principal. When I get time I’ll order filter sheets and repeat the experiment. It might be nice to have them anyway for the random experiments I do with my IR gun. Anyway, do you think it will change the result?
Heat lamps also emit considerable visible light. To be done properly, a high-quality narrow-passband filter should be used to eliminate the visible light.
And increased salinity leads to diving currents that carry the induced heat to very great depths where it circulates over many centuries.
I agree, but that increased salinity happens after evaporative cooling removes the any IR heated skin surface water
The Mediterranean Sea outflow show that its higher salinity water is carried to 1000 meter depths.
Before the Antarctic Circumpolar Current formed, the ocean bottom waters were primarily heated by heat from high salinity waters generated in the numerous shallow Mesozoic seas, and 10C warmer than today. Once the ACC formed blocking transport of warm water and allowed sea ice to form, ice formation generated cold saline waters from brine rejection that sank at began cooling those bottom waters. I’ve argued the the cooling of the earth since 35 million years ago has happened as cold bottom waters increasingly formed and subsequently upwelled to the surface, finally allowing a permanent ice cap to form in Greenland 30 million years later.
No, that isn’t it. In a complex system such as the ocean, besides the incoming radiant energy, there is a loss of energy both by a phase change induced by that incoming radiant energy, and the wind stripping out water molecules. Also, when the water vapor condenses and falls back as rain, the surface is cooled by the rain. I don’t think that you can do all that in your kitchen.
I’m addressing the general myth that water does not warm from energy delivered via infrared radiation. There are even some posts here claiming that it will cause water to cool.