Quote from: F X on February 08, 2018, 01:27:39 PMCovering water at night reduces infrared heat loss. To the global alarmists, this means the atmosphere must be heating the uncovered water, because it cooled faster.Just a quick drive-by, the main effect to reduce heat loss by covering at night is the stopping of evaporation, a major heat loss.Carry on.
Covering water at night reduces infrared heat loss. To the global alarmists, this means the atmosphere must be heating the uncovered water, because it cooled faster.
If you want to make it as a proviso of one of your scenarios that all other mechanisms are held constant while you twiddle that particular dial then I agree with the predictions within the scope of that scenario. I don't however take the scenario as being real in a physical sense without supporting evidence.
read it again
Quote from: F X on February 04, 2018, 04:36:39 AMLiquid water is very good at stopping IR, but water vapor is even better. In fact, the water vapor above the ocean absorbs far more IR than the ocean does. Vapor or liquid absorption case, what happens to the LW energy when it gets "stopped"?
Liquid water is very good at stopping IR, but water vapor is even better. In fact, the water vapor above the ocean absorbs far more IR than the ocean does.
Observations of ocean temperatures have revealed that the ocean heat content has been increasing significantly over recent decades (Willis et al, 2004; Levitus et al, 2005; Lyman et al, 2006). This is something that has been predicted by climate models (and confirmed notably by Hansen et al, 2005), and has therefore been described as a 'smoking gun' for human-caused greenhouse gases.However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here - how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but also helps to control the ocean-atmosphere heat flux. (The 'skin layer' is the very thin - up to 1 mm - layer at the top of ocean that is in direct contact with the atmosphere). Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures.
Quote from: MikeB on February 08, 2018, 05:06:15 PMQuote from: F X on February 08, 2018, 01:27:39 PMCovering water at night reduces infrared heat loss. To the global alarmists, this means the atmosphere must be heating the uncovered water, because it cooled faster.Just a quick drive-by, the main effect to reduce heat loss by covering at night is the stopping of evaporation, a major heat loss.Carry on.Utter nonsense. Plastic covers would prevent all evaporation loss, and totally kill the covered plant. Because it isn't evaporation causing the loss of heat. And anything that would trap moisture on the plant would lead to extreme frost damage.
Quote from: Cephus0 on February 07, 2018, 01:42:57 PMIf you want to make it as a proviso of one of your scenarios that all other mechanisms are held constant while you twiddle that particular dial then I agree with the predictions within the scope of that scenario. I don't however take the scenario as being real in a physical sense without supporting evidence.OK, if we're shifting away from "no, that is not correct" to "yes it is correct, but it is irrelevant", then I guess we've made some progress.
More importantly, if we're shifting away from (1) the claim that adding heat to the air cannot possibly cause the oceans to warm up as long as the air is still cooler than the ocean (which appeared to be your position in the first page of this thread),
Here is the equation for temperature increaseQ = M.Cv. ΔTWhere Q is the heat in JoulesM is the mass in KgCv is the specific heat at constant volume in Joules/Kg KelvinΔT is the temperature change in KelvinsWithout a Q there is no ΔT. You cannot increase the temperature of something by insulating it. I don't care if you slow down the rate of heat loss but you cannot heat it. Propose a mechanism for Q.
to (2) the claim that neither SR nor I have provided adequate proof that adding heat to the air will cause the oceans to warm up, then we've made a lot of progress.
There is much evidence that the ocean is heating as a result of an increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere from human activities. GHGs absorb infrared radiation and re-emit infrared radiation back to the ocean's surface which is subsequently absorbed. However, the incoming infrared radiation is absorbed within the top micrometers of the ocean's surface which is where the thermal skin layer exists. Thus the incident infrared radiation does not directly heat the upper few meters of the ocean. We are therefore motivated to investigate the physical mechanism between the absorption of infrared radiation and its effect on heat transfer at the air-sea boundary. The hypothesis is that since heat lost through the air-sea interface is controlled by the thermal skin layer, which is directly influenced by the absorption and emission of infrared radiation, the heat flow through the thermal skin layer adjusts to maintain the surface heat loss, assuming the surface heat loss does not vary, and thus modulates the upper ocean heat content.
Quote from: Cephus0read it againI'll concede that you do have a point regarding the link between the two sentences in SR's post. But I'm still not seeing grounds for a physics lawsuit.
It wasn't this statement from the post I was referring to in terms of physics malpractice. That was your assumption.
Just to help me out here, perhaps you can explain how the warming of the air due to GHG could substantially reduce the amount of SWR received by the ocean (enough to counter the obvious conclusion and render it invalid).
Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.
ABSTRACT: Satellite measurements and numerical forecast model reanalysis data are used to compute an updated estimateof the cloud radiative effect on the global multi-annual mean radiative energy budget of the atmosphere and surface. Thecloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation dominates over the long wave heating effect,resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of −21 Wm−2. The short wave radiative effect of cloud is primarilymanifest as a reduction in the solar radiation absorbed at the surface of −53 Wm−2. Clouds impact long wave radiationby heating the moist tropical atmosphere (up to around 40 Wm−2 for global annual means) while enhancing the radiativecooling of the atmosphere over other regions, in particular higher latitudes and sub-tropical marine stratocumulus regimes.While clouds act to cool the climate system during the daytime, the cloud greenhouse effect heats the climate systemat night. The influence of cloud radiative effect on determining cloud feedbacks and changes in the water cycle arediscussed.
In fact carbon dioxide levels in the modern day are at a dangerously low minimum level
I heated water from the top down with LW IR. Materials - Jug of water at ambient tempHeating shoe designed to heat shrink covering materialsBench viseMultimeter with thermocouple temp sensorTwo digital thermometersDisposable water bottle with the top cut off, ~ 250 mL capacityClockFilled water bottle to the top with water from the jugClamped heating iron in vise about 2" above bottle filled with ambient temp waterTurned on iron, adjusted heat setting until slight warmth could be felt at the level of the surface of the waterMeasured and recorded air temp and water temp periodicallyResults - (temps are F)Time Water Air21:40 71.0 7521:55 79.7 7422:10 86.9 7422:25 89.5 74endThe water was heated from the top down, with markedly decreasing temp from top to bottom. -1/4" 89.5-1/2" 85.0-2" 76.3-4" 72.9 Conclusion: It is certainly possible to heat water with downwelling longwave IR. There is no property of the surface of the water that precludes it.
Quote from: SR-71 on February 07, 2018, 07:48:14 PMConclusion: It is certainly possible to heat water with downwelling longwave IR. There is no property of the surface of the water that precludes it. There is no face palm big enough ...
Conclusion: It is certainly possible to heat water with downwelling longwave IR. There is no property of the surface of the water that precludes it.
With all this extra CO2 around the oceans should be frozen over by now, all that runaway magic skin freezing. Think about when CO2 was really high, the oceans must have froze all the way down.
Cephus thinks the atmosphere can't warm the ocean because clouds.
The oceans are mostly warmer than the air and for very obvious reasons. I'm guessing that you would accept that the majority of planetary surface heating arrives via. shortwave radiation from the sun? It is trivially true that most of the incident shortwave passes straight through the atmosphere with some scattering but little overall attenuation. Which is why on a clear summer day it will fry your retinas and roast the flesh from your bones at the planet surface. It is also trivially true that most of that radiation incident on the oceans is completely absorbed over the approximately hundred meters of penetration depth.The atmosphere is then heated by ULR as a secondary effect but note that this atmospheric heating is overwhelmingly caused by water vapour which is three orders of magnitude higher percentage atmospheric composition than CO2 and particularly so over the oceans which account for 70% of the planetary surface. Moreover water vapour is a significantly more IR active gas than is carbon dioxide. In fact there exists a boundary layer at the ocean surface which is saturated with water vapour and it is the gradient to higher unsaturated levels which drives evaporation.How then are you proposing to heat the massive high heat capacity warm ocean with ephemeral low heat capacity colder wet air? Wouldn't it make more sense to think that in fact the ocean by and large controls the temperature of the atmosphere rather than the other way around? Once you break free of the carbon dioxide religion all manner of things become accessible to rational thought.
clouds provide a negative feedback and actively cool the planet.
FYI, good summary here of why it's not looking great for the idea that clouds will mitigate warming...http://e360.yale.edu/features/investigating-the-enigma-of-clouds-and-climate-changeTLDR: Low, tropical clouds have a net cooling effect. High clouds closer to the poles have a net warming effect. Clouds currently appear to be moving generally higher and towards the poles, likely because of warming, thus creating a positive feedback that further increases warming.
If you look up on a clear, summer day, and you see kind of wispy, cirrus clouds, those obviously are not very good at blocking sunlight; they let that sunlight stream through. But they're very good at trapping the heat from the planet's surface.
Contrails are considered high-level clouds.They appear as long and narrow, but thick, lines of clouds, often with two or more side-by-side bands (the number of bands is determined by the number of engines (exhaust contrails) or wings (wing tip contrails) a plane has). Most are short-lived clouds, lasting only several minutes before evaporating. However, depending on weather conditions, it's possible for them to last hours or even days. Those that do last tend to spread into a thin layer of cirrus, known as contrail cirrus.
Approximately 10-20% of all jet flights occur in air masses with a humidity level sufficient to cause contrails. In 1992, contrails were estimated to cover about 0.1% of the Earth's surface on an annually averaged basis, with larger regional values. According to the IPCC's most likely scenario, coverage is expected to grow to 0.5% by 2050. Contrails are short-lived and have an overall warming effect that is similar to thin, high clouds. Warming effects of contrails are different during the day than at night. During the day, contrails trap infrared radiation (a warming effect) and reflect solar radiation (a cooling effect). At night, only infrared radiation is trapped and re-emitted downward. The warming effect of contrails is therefore stronger at night. It is important to note that because contrails are short-lived, formed in areas of high air traffic density, and can affect existing cirrus clouds, they may cause local or regional climate responses.
Alarmists hand wave this away, but physics tells us it causes warming.