Today's Reading Assignement for Climate Science Elightenment

Threegoofs said:

Yes, all those trained scientists who literally study this for a living forgot about how water works. [emoji849]

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

The radiant energy of greenhouse gasses are absorbed in the first few microns of the sea water. Annual global precipitation is in the neighborhood of 100 cm annually. Approximately 80% of this comes from the oceans. The oceans are about 72% of the earth surface. This means the average global evaporation rate of the oceans are about 2.2 microns per minute, and greenhouse gas IR is almost fully absorbed within this depth. There is almost no warming of the oceans by greenhouse gasses because there is effectively an insignificant time for conductive energy exchange. The optical depth of water at greenhouse gas spectral emittance, and sea water is insignificantly different, and is 1, at about a 5 microns depth. Around 70% of the energy is bound back up in the water evaporated in that minute of time. The next minute is evaporating another 2.2 microns of water, the the heat never gets to effectively conduct to the surface areas even a centimeter deeper. That first 1/2 micron of water effectively absorbs around 30% of the greenhouse gas flux, and with the high spectral emissivity of water at 15 micron energy, is effectively radiated back up, like any good blackbody does.

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

If you don't have the science literature to back up your amateur ideas, just make up something 'sciency sounding' or repeat something you once read on a pseudoscience blog and assert it as if it is factual eh? No matter how un-physical it is.

I posted this paper for you once before. I guess you just ignored it.

The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation - Elizabeth W. Wong and Peter J. Minnett
-2018 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351

Ocean warming trends are observed and coincide with the increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities. At the ocean surface, most of the incoming infrared (IR) radiation is absorbed within the top micrometers of the ocean's surface where the thermal skin layer (TSL) exists. Thus, the incident IR radiation does not directly heat the upper few meters of the ocean. This paper investigates the physical mechanism between the absorption of IR radiation and its effect on heat transfer at the air‐sea boundary. The hypothesis is that given the heat lost through the air‐sea interface is controlled by the TSL, the TSL adjusts in response to variations in incident IR radiation to maintain the surface heat loss. This modulates the flow of heat from below and hence controls upper ocean heat content. This hypothesis is tested using the increase in incoming longwave radiation from clouds and analyzing vertical temperature profiles in the TSL retrieved from sea‐surface emission spectra. The additional energy from the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is reduced. The additional energy absorbed within the TSL supports more of the surface heat loss. Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.​

From the conclusions:

Greater downwelling infrared forcing would alter the upper ocean heat budget by adjusting the TSL such that more heat beneath the TSL, resulting from the absorption of solar radiation, is retained. This thus provides an explanation for the indirect heating of the ocean by increasing levels of incident infrared radiation and the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.​

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

You are repeating a silly pseudoscience claim that was floating around climate truther blogs like The Hockeyschtick and Steve Goddard a few years ago. These blogs are run by people who even deny the physics of the greenhouse effect. Those people you say you like to chastise? Even AGW ‘sceptic’ Willis E posted a blog article on WUWT where he wrote “Once again, the crazy idea that downwelling longwave radiation (DLR, also called infra-red or IR, or “greenhouse radiation”) can’t heat the ocean has raised its ugly head on one of my threads. Look, folks, there’s lot’s of good, valid scientific objections against the AGW claims, but the idea that DLR can’t heat the ocean is nonsense. It only hurts the general skeptical arguments when people believe and espouse impossible things …”.
Radiating the Ocean | Watts Up With That?

Yes, downward longwave radiation (DLR) only penetrates a few microns of the “skin” which is the very thin layer of water at the top of the ocean.
But what happens to all that energy? No, it’s not just lost by evaporation (latent heat) like you claim. That makes no sense at all unless you want to deny the laws of physics.

Basically, downward longwave radiation (DLR) impedes heat loss from the ocean, causing the ocean to retain more heat than it is losing, so the oceans heat up- Which is what is happening. Without DLW increasing, the ocean would be losing the same amount (as LW radiation plus evaporation etc) as it is gaining (from SW radiation) and wouldn’t be heating up.

A brief explanation how this works is:
Shortwave (SW) radiation from the sun heats the oceans to some depth below the “skin” (up to tens of metres and more).

Ocean surfaces emit longwave radiation (LR) upwards (plus latent heat/evaporation). Greenhouse gases absorb and emit this LR in all directions, including downwards (Downward longwave radiation or DLR), and heat the top of the thin “skin” of the oceans (yes DLR only penetrates a few microns)

Heat flows across the ocean "skin" depending on the gradient of heat across the height of the skin (air side to ocean side). The ocean side of the skin is generally warmer than the air side of the skin so heat flows from the ocean to the air. The difference in heat between the top of the skin and the ocean underneath is less than it would otherwise have been without DLR. Therefore, the heat flux (the difference in temperature between the ocean side and the air side) is less than it would have been. So less heat flows across the “skin” therefore more heat stays in the ocean. Over time, this means the oceans are getting warmer than they would have just from warming by SW radiation from the sun on its own. The oceans are also warming the air as the oceans heat up.



I thought you claimed you 'read the literature' and 'have been studying all this for years'? This is basic textbook stuff. Couldn't you find something better from the 'literature' than a graphic with no source link from someone's unpublished master's thesis in 1981?

Here’s a couple of papers that explain in far more detail. They aren't paywalled:

Donlon, Craig, N. Rayner, I. Robinson, D. J. S. Poulter, K. S. Casey, J. Vazquez-Cuervo, E. Armstrong et al. "The global ocean data assimilation experiment high-resolution sea surface temperature pilot project." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 88, no. 8 (2007): 1197-1213. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-8-1197

Donlon, C. J., P. J. Minnett, C. Gentemann, T. J. Nightingale, I. J. Barton, B. Ward, and M. J. Murray. "Toward improved validation of satellite sea surface skin temperature measurements for climate research." Journal of Climate 15, no. 4 (2002): 353-369.

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

As already explained on another thread:
Land Use Changes and Global Warming

Ocean surfaces emit longwave radiation (LR) upwards (plus latent heat/evaporation). Greenhouse gases absorb and emit this LR in all directions, including downwards (Downward longwave radiation or DLR), and heat the top of the thin “skin” of the oceans (yes DLR only penetrates a few microns)

-Heat flows across the ocean "skin" depending on the gradient of heat across the height of the skin (air side to ocean side).
-The ocean side of the skin is generally warmer than the air side of the skin so heat flows from the ocean to the air.
-The difference in heat between the top of the skin and the ocean underneath is less than it would otherwise have been without DLR.
-Therefore, the heat flux (the difference in temperature between the ocean side and the air side) is less than it would have been.
-So less heat flows across the “skin” therefore more heat stays in the ocean.
-Over time, this means the oceans are getting warmer than they would have just from warming by SW radiation from the sun on its own.
-The oceans are also warming the air as the oceans heat up.

Here’s a couple of papers that explain in far more detail about the 'skin' layer. They aren't paywalled:

Donlon, Craig, N. Rayner, I. Robinson, D. J. S. Poulter, K. S. Casey, J. Vazquez-Cuervo, E. Armstrong et al. "The global ocean data assimilation experiment high-resolution sea surface temperature pilot project." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 88, no. 8 (2007): 1197-1213. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-8-1197

Donlon, C. J., P. J. Minnett, C. Gentemann, T. J. Nightingale, I. J. Barton, B. Ward, and M. J. Murray. "Toward improved validation of satellite sea surface skin temperature measurements for climate research." Journal of Climate 15, no. 4 (2002): 353-369.

You can find more on the thermodynamics and processes involved in ocean/atmosphere heat exchange in any basic textbook on the topic.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

Quaestio has posted some good links for once.

Bravo!

Thing is, I was speaking specifically of the primary spectra band causes by the change in greenhouse gas content. The articles presented include all downward longwave. My point is that changing CO2 levels have an insignificant effect on the oceans.

I will read those articles in detail tomorrow. I am out of time for now. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Though seldom wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

In a post someplace, maybe you all remember I pointed out there is albedo and emissivity. Then there is also spectral albedo and spectral emissivity as well.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

As I have been reading various papers, I thought I would share one, and from time to time, share another that I think anyone wanting to debate such topics should read and understand.

This one is titled The MWIR and LWIR Spectral Signatures of Water and Associated Materials

I have discussed in the past, how the oceans are far different than land in the way it reacts to the solar spectrum, and the spectrum of greenhouse gasses. If you are of a scientific mind and can understand such material, I suggest reading this paper. It covers some great information related to the climate sciences.

Click to expand...

Surface Detail said:

You may have read the paper, but you clearly didn't understand its contents.

The point of paper is that objects need only to be coated with a very thin film of water in order to exhibit absorption characteristics similar to that of water; i.e. wet things look like water. This implies that tropical or moderate latitude vegetated environments absorb radiation in a similar way to oceans, thus contradicting your claims about oceans and land reacting in different ways to the solar spectrum :lamo

Click to expand...

Surface Detail said:

You may have read the paper, but you clearly didn't understand its contents.

The point of paper is that objects need only to be coated with a very thin film of water in order to exhibit absorption characteristics similar to that of water; i.e. wet things look like water. This implies that tropical or moderate latitude vegetated environments absorb radiation in a similar way to oceans, thus contradicting your claims about oceans and land reacting in different ways to the solar spectrum :lamo

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

I see you are too inclined to only see what others say. I see the science involved, and how it apples to other applications.

I'm sorry you can't think for yourself, but it is obvious by the way you repeat blog contents.

Click to expand...

Surface Detail said:

What the heck are you talking about? Those are my own comments on the paper you linked to.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

Yes, but you only understood what the paper said. You clearly didn't understand the sciences the paper addressed.

Do you think that thinking for yourself is repeating a conclusion someone else made?

Click to expand...

Surface Detail said:

Which is clearly more than you did, given that it directly contradicts the point you were trying to make!

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

You already made yourself to look like a fool to intelligent people, are you going to continue?

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

Just choked on my lunch reading this.

If only we all understood ‘sciences’ as well as you!

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

No, I read that part about the moisture on leaves, and having to be dried for a proper measurement.

You already made yourself to look like a fool to intelligent people, are you going to continue?

In the OP, I said "It covers some great information related to the climate sciences." Notice I said "related to." I didn't say it said anything about the climate sciences, I indicated the science used was appropriate for the climate sciences. In post 22, I said "I never claimed it stated any such thing. --- This is a know property of water that is neglected in the AGW agenda. "

Notice that after my explanation in post 33, Quaestio was smart enough to either see I was correct, or smart enough to see he wasn't capable of debating me at that science level.

So...

Do you have anything tangible to discuss? can you elaborate on how I am wrong, rather than your totally ignorant assertion that the paper isn't a climate paper?

Click to expand...

Surface Detail said:

How about replying to my posts rather than the voices in your head? I have not asserted that the paper isn't a climate paper, and I have already explained how the paper contradicts your claim.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

No, you said it contradicted my claim. Your explanation is incorrect. Does solar penetrate plants and other opaque matter like it does the oceans?

Are you really that ignorant to the difference? It takes something like 100 meters for the optical depth of the ocean to equal 1. It only takes 5 microns for the optical depth to equal 1 at the 15 micron wavelength of CO2 emissions. The comparison applies for longwave only. Not the solar spectrum.

You have your D-K effect engaged in high gear, saying "thus contradicting your claims about oceans and land reacting in different ways to the solar spectrum."

Are you ignoring their experiment deals with the spectrum between 7.5 to 14.5 microns? Not the solar bandwidth?

Earlier, in the post 33, before yours, I elaborated on the 15 micron spectrum of CO2.

Click to expand...

Surface Detail said:

I'm the one with the Physics PhD; you're the one with no scientific qualifications at all. That tells us all we need to know about whom the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to here. You are talking complete gibberish. There is, for example, no such thing as a "15 micron spectrum". Yes, a spectrum may have an absorption band at 15 microns, but it is nonsense to talk about a "15 micron spectrum". Almost everything you write is pseudoscientific blather devoid of meaning. I do wonder what is going on in your head!

Click to expand...

Surface Detail said:

I'm the one with the Physics PhD; you're the one with no scientific qualifications at all. That tells us all we need to know about whom the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to here. You are talking complete gibberish. There is, for example, no such thing as a "15 micron spectrum". Yes, a spectrum may have an absorption band at 15 microns, but it is nonsense to talk about a "15 micron spectrum". Almost everything you write is pseudoscientific blather devoid of meaning. I do wonder what is going on in your head!

Click to expand...

Surface Detail said:

You may have read the paper, but you clearly didn't understand its contents.

The point of paper is that objects need only to be coated with a very thin film of water in order to exhibit absorption characteristics similar to that of water; i.e. wet things look like water. This implies that tropical or moderate latitude vegetated environments absorb radiation in a similar way to oceans, thus contradicting your claims about oceans and land reacting in different ways to the solar spectrum :lamo

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

Oh FFS, not this ignorant pseudoscience claim yet again.

LOP, your homework assignment for yourself should be to read some science textbooks so you might glean some basic understanding instead of pretending to be an "expert" and telling everyone else they are ignorant.

Once again here are some previous posts ....

Click to expand...

humbolt said:

Civility. Look it up. While your at it look up unfounded arrogance, too. I doubt you'll learn anything at all, but one can hope a pleasant accident might occur.

Click to expand...