Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TR: It's a bunch of neoconservatives masquerading as liberals, and drawing liberals in and trashing them.

Topic: Longwave oceanic heating (Read 1310 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #50

I can agree that temps rebounded naturally from the LIA.  However, at some point within the last century, the influence of anthro CO2 has become pretty clear.

Not to me it hasn't.  I don't see anything to even remotely challenge the null that what we observe is natural.  I also don't see any compelling theoretical framework for why this trace compound should drive the entire climate.  I see a fundamental axiom that there is strong positive water vapour feedback into CO2 climate sensitivity first proposed by Arrhenius but that looks absurd given what I know of the instability of positive feedback systems and how relatively stable the climate has remained in the past under carbon dioxide concentrations an order of magnitude greater than today.  When someone provides evidence - not models - to support any of this then I'm all ears.

Quote
I also agree that it would be hard to scale the anthro on that chart, but where is the chart that shows the anthro C02?  However, it is Humlum himself in his quote directing our attention to the chart that excludes the modern spike of CO2.  It's almost as if he doesn't want us to see it! His charts show a temp spike but they don't show the CO2 spike.

I don't find it odd at all.  They were discussing paleo data so why would you expect them to zoom in on the modern era?  It isn't as though there is any shortage of people doing precisely that and splicing neon-bright coloured instrument records onto paleo proxy data with dramatic y-axis scales to frighten the kids.  Does everyone have to do that?  Can't people sometimes just have a look at the paleo data to see what was going on in the past?

Quote
I would hardly say temps have gone flat over the last twenty years.

The authors of hundreds of papers explaining why it went flat would disagree with you.  Iirc something over fifty different mechanisms were proposed in papers to account for it.  That's a lot of effort to account for something that wasn't there don't you think?  Well until Karl pops up to tell the world that he'd reanalysed the data, made the appropriate adjustments and everything is now just as predicted by the models.  Sure thing Karl.  That even stuck in the craw of most alarmists.
  • Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 11:29:04 AM by Cephus0

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #51
The flat looking trend of late is mostly from cooling during the Northern Hemisphere (boreal) winter

Except for that troubling North Atlantic cooling, which is a real big issue.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #52
I think humans have changed the world so much that we have actually influenced climate, with out any doubt on local and regional levels.  
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #53
It was relatively flat from 2002 to 2012. It sure as hell wasn't before or after that.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #54
I think humans have changed the world so much that we have actually influenced climate, with out any doubt on local and regional levels.  

Perhaps.  For better or worse.  Who knows?

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #55
As I said, decreasing the temp differential from ocean (net warmer than air) to air (net cooler than ocean) via AGW heating of the atmosphere will slow down the rate of heat loss from ocean to air.  This means more of the energy from SWR, which is received at a fairly constant rate, will accumulate in the ocean.  This is not complicated.  As you have pointed out, the ocean is going to take a fuck of a long time to play thermal catch up to the atmospheric heating, so the rate of exchange from ocean to air will be slowed for a fuck of a long time, so the ocean will be accumulating quite a bit SWR heat.

Heat a bucket of water to boiling and pour it into two pans.  Blow hair dryer 1 over the surface of pan 1 with the heat switched off.  Blow hair dryer 2 over the surface of pan 2 with the heat switched on.  Which pan returns to ambient temp first?  Since, according to this dumb theory that LW can't heat water because of the magic skin,  LW can't heat water, and since the hot dryer is blowing heat in LW, both pans should get to ambient temp at the same time, right? 

This is so frighteningly dumb I don't really even know where to start in correcting all of the basic physical misconceptions..  Did you do any physics at school at all?  Because if you did I'd sue the teacher if I were you.  I haven't time to deal with it properly right now - and I doubt it would make any difference if I did of course.  However I have the relevant data-loggers, thermocouples and heat guns in the lab and will run your experiment for you soonish.  Bugger when that happens eh?

There's no point keep railing at the physics and screeching about 'magic skins'.  It isn't magic, it's just elementary physics and because of it you cannot heat water from the top down - not even by longwave IR.  If you think you can then go ahead and heat your pan of ambient water with a hair dryer on the surface.  While you're about it you could try a pure radiation experiment requiring only a thermometer.  Fill a Styrofoam cup with ambient water, hold your IR emitting hand 30 cm above it and monitor the water temperature.  According to you, all of that brutal downwelling IR should heat the water.  Give it a try.  Then try and reheat your cold cup of coffee by blowing on it.  Have fun ;)
Yo Ceph, I think you've misread/misunderstood what SR was saying here.  Take another look.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #56
I think humans have changed the world so much that we have actually influenced climate, with out any doubt on local and regional levels.  

Perhaps.  For better or worse.  Who knows?
I tend to view the extreme UHI problem as mostly negative, except for winter nights, where it greatly reduces the possibility of black ice on the roadways,  And reduces heating costs. 
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #57
As for this matter of which is the more pronounced factor for climate, the ocean is obviously the major player for climate in some regions, but the wind (atmosphere) has a very profound influence on the ocean.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #58
I've experienced several times (Florida) where the rare atmospheric circulation causes a cold water upwelling.  It blows all the warm surface water offshore, for over a week, causing the very cold water that is always below to upwell near shore, changing the normally warm coastal waters into fucking freezing ass winter level cold water. In the summer.  Then when the normal onshore wind finally starts again, it really makes the air cold, causing a long lasting change of climate (near the coast) which lasts until the sunshine warms the surface waters again.  It is a small example of both how influential wind is, and how the ocean very much dominates the atmosphere.  Even when the atmosphere was the original cause of the change.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #59
As I said, decreasing the temp differential from ocean (net warmer than air) to air (net cooler than ocean) via AGW heating of the atmosphere will slow down the rate of heat loss from ocean to air.  This means more of the energy from SWR, which is received at a fairly constant rate, will accumulate in the ocean.  This is not complicated.  As you have pointed out, the ocean is going to take a fuck of a long time to play thermal catch up to the atmospheric heating, so the rate of exchange from ocean to air will be slowed for a fuck of a long time, so the ocean will be accumulating quite a bit SWR heat.

Heat a bucket of water to boiling and pour it into two pans.  Blow hair dryer 1 over the surface of pan 1 with the heat switched off.  Blow hair dryer 2 over the surface of pan 2 with the heat switched on.  Which pan returns to ambient temp first?  Since, according to this dumb theory that LW can't heat water because of the magic skin,  LW can't heat water, and since the hot dryer is blowing heat in LW, both pans should get to ambient temp at the same time, right? 

This is so frighteningly dumb I don't really even know where to start in correcting all of the basic physical misconceptions..  Did you do any physics at school at all?  Because if you did I'd sue the teacher if I were you.  I haven't time to deal with it properly right now - and I doubt it would make any difference if I did of course.  However I have the relevant data-loggers, thermocouples and heat guns in the lab and will run your experiment for you soonish.  Bugger when that happens eh?

There's no point keep railing at the physics and screeching about 'magic skins'.  It isn't magic, it's just elementary physics and because of it you cannot heat water from the top down - not even by longwave IR.  If you think you can then go ahead and heat your pan of ambient water with a hair dryer on the surface.  While you're about it you could try a pure radiation experiment requiring only a thermometer.  Fill a Styrofoam cup with ambient water, hold your IR emitting hand 30 cm above it and monitor the water temperature.  According to you, all of that brutal downwelling IR should heat the water.  Give it a try.  Then try and reheat your cold cup of coffee by blowing on it.  Have fun ;)
Yo Ceph, I think you've misread/misunderstood what SR was saying here.  Take another look.

Which part do you mean?  I'm guessing it's the

As I said, decreasing the temp differential from ocean (net warmer than air) to air (net cooler than ocean) via AGW heating of the atmosphere will slow down the rate of heat loss from ocean to air.  This means more of the energy from SWR, which is received at a fairly constant rate, will accumulate in the ocean.
bit?

Will you tarry awhile in this nonlinear Gordian climate knot? :)

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #60
I've experienced several times (Florida) where the rare atmospheric circulation causes a cold water upwelling.  It blows all the warm surface water offshore, for over a week, causing the very cold water that is always below to upwell near shore, changing the normally warm coastal waters into fucking freezing ass winter level cold water. In the summer.  Then when the normal onshore wind finally starts again, it really makes the air cold, causing a long lasting change of climate (near the coast) which lasts until the sunshine warms the surface waters again.  It is a small example of both how influential wind is, and how the ocean very much dominates the atmosphere.  Even when the atmosphere was the original cause of the change.

Upwelling is the normal condition along California.  Growing up in the Bay Area, I just assumed that ocean water was cold as fuck everywhere in a temperate zone.  Swimming on the coast of S. Carolina and Florida was a real eye-opener.

The mechanism causing upwelling is pretty cool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_spiral

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #61
I like this treatment of the subject.  It doesn't directly address the magic skin but it does lay out the modes of thermal exchange in a straightforward way.  http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html

This is partly what I intend to say about retarding the ocean to atmosphere heat loss -
Quote
Net Back Radiation: The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation). This radiation is at much longer wavelengths than that of the solar radiation (greater than 10 micros, in the infrared range), because the ocean surface is far cooler that the sun's surface. The infrared radiation emitted from the ocean is quickly absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases residing in the lower atmosphere. Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter.

My thought is that more GHG returns more upwelling IR back to the surface, thus reducing the rate of IR loss to the atmosphere.

I conflate the thought with this section -

Quote
Conduction: When air is contact with the ocean is at a different temperature than that the sea surface; heat transfer by conduction takes place. On average the ocean is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere so on average ocean heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere by conduction. The heated air is more buoyant than the air above it, so it convects the ocean heat upward into the atmosphere. If the ocean were colder than the atmosphere (which of course happens) the air in contact with the ocean cools, becoming denser and hence more stable, more stratified. As such the conduction process does a poor job of carrying the atmosphere heat into the cool ocean. This occurs over the subtropical upwelling regions of the ocean. The transfer of heat between ocean and atmosphere by conduction is more efficient when the ocean is warmer than the air it is in contact with. On global average the oceanic heat loss by conduction is only 24 watts per square meter.

My thought here is that downwelling IR heats the lower atmosphere and constricts the thermal window for ocean to atmosphere heat loss.  For example, less heat will be lost on a cloudy night than a clear night.  Stipulated, the process of atmospheric warming, where condiitions allow, or reduction in rate of of cooling of the sea is inefficient, but it isn't null, either. 

I didn't bother to disambiguate the two processes.  I guess to summarize my position on the magic skin, it's almost irrelevant, net thermal transfer in and out is going to happen anyway, and downwelling IR can still influence the rate.  If the atmosphere is warming, the ocean will follow, eventually. 


  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #62
As for this matter of which is the more pronounced factor for climate, the ocean is obviously the major player for climate in some regions, but the wind (atmosphere) has a very profound influence on the ocean.
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/ocean/text.html

I like this description -

Water Transport of Heat

Quote
Water is about 1,000 times as dense as air, and, since the amount of thermal energy transported by a moving fluid is proportional to its density, a volume of water can transport about a thousand times as much heat as an equivalent volume of air. The rate at which heat is transported, called the heat flux, is measured in Joules of energy per unit area per unit time, so the rate at which heat is transported is also proportional to the speed of movement (wind speed in air or current speed in the ocean). Since wind speed is typically on the order of 10 meters per second and ocean drift currents on the order of centimeters per second, the air speed is about a thousand times larger than ocean speed. Therefore, air moves a thousand times faster than water but carries only about 1/1000 as much heat per unit volume, which suggests that water is approximately of equal importance to air in moving heat over the planet.

  • Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 08:19:00 PM by SR-71

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #63
Yo Ceph, I think you've misread/misunderstood what SR was saying here.  Take another look.
Which part do you mean?  I'm guessing it's the
As I said, decreasing the temp differential from ocean (net warmer than air) to air (net cooler than ocean) via AGW heating of the atmosphere will slow down the rate of heat loss from ocean to air.  This means more of the energy from SWR, which is received at a fairly constant rate, will accumulate in the ocean.
bit?
Yeah.

Scenario 1:  We have a bunch of processes by which the ocean gains and loses heat, and a bunch of processes by which the atmosphere also gains and loses heat, with the result that the ocean happens to be warmer than the atmosphere.  So the fact that the ocean and the atmosphere are in contact brings about one of the ocean-cooling processes and one of the atmosphere-heating processes.

Scenario 2:  Exactly the same as scenario 1, except for one little thing.  One of the external processes heating the atmosphere is increased, relative to scenario 1.  (By "external" I mean something other than being heated by the ocean.)  All the other external processes are the same.

SR appears to suggests that the ocean in scenario 2 will be warmer than it is in scenario 1.  And that's obviously correct.  So when you respond with
Quote from: Cephus0
This is so frighteningly dumb I don't really even know where to start in correcting all of the basic physical misconceptions..  Did you do any physics at school at all?  Because if you did I'd sue the teacher if I were you.
I have to conclude that you read something quite different from what I read.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #64
I just heated a ceramic bowl of 2 cups of water from 58' f to 77' f with an infrared lightbulb at as close to one foot overhead as i could make the lamp stayon a swing arm lamp in 5 minutes timed.

Eta bowl diameter is 6 3/8" and depth is ~2 3/4"

Sorry the wooden ruler I'm using doesn't have mm and I used a cup measure
  • Last Edit: February 06, 2018, 12:07:16 PM by Testy Calibrate
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #65
Yo Ceph, I think you've misread/misunderstood what SR was saying here.  Take another look.
Which part do you mean?  I'm guessing it's the
As I said, decreasing the temp differential from ocean (net warmer than air) to air (net cooler than ocean) via AGW heating of the atmosphere will slow down the rate of heat loss from ocean to air.  This means more of the energy from SWR, which is received at a fairly constant rate, will accumulate in the ocean.
bit?
Yeah.

Scenario 1:  We have a bunch of processes by which the ocean gains and loses heat, and a bunch of processes by which the atmosphere also gains and loses heat, with the result that the ocean happens to be warmer than the atmosphere.  So the fact that the ocean and the atmosphere are in contact brings about one of the ocean-cooling processes and one of the atmosphere-heating processes.

Well I understand where you're generally going with this but the fact there exists an ocean/atmosphere interface allows more than one heat exchange mechanism rather than simply radiation in the event of no matter interface.

Quote
Scenario 2:  Exactly the same as scenario 1, except for one little thing.  One of the external processes heating the atmosphere is increased, relative to scenario 1.  (By "external" I mean something other than being heated by the ocean.)  All the other external processes are the same.

SR appears to suggests that the ocean in scenario 2 will be warmer than it is in scenario 1.  And that's obviously correct.

No, that is not correct, obviously or obscurely.  The multi-phase planet along with its myriad and meagerly-understood forcings forms a coupled nonlinear dynamical system.  In systems of that nature we do not get to assert that this change in parameter a) here will result in that change in parameter b) there.  If some parameter is changed then "All the other external processes are the same" is not a statement which can be made about the system.

This is not complicated.

Except it is.

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #66
I just heated a ceramic bowl of 2 cups of water from 58' f to 77' f with an infrared lightbulb at as close to one foot overhead as i could make the lamp stayon a swing arm lamp in 5 minutes timed.

Eta bowl diameter is 6 3/8" and depth is ~2 3/4"

Sorry the wooden ruler I'm using doesn't have mm and I used a cup measure

Infrared lamps put out a great deal more than longwave IR.  They operate primarily at shortwave IR and optical frequencies with longwave forming only a very small part of the total power output - said without looking at a spectral analysis.  I'm guessing yours employs a very hot incandescent filament which has has peak spectral output at frequencies way higher than longwave IR and consequently the radiation from it will penetrate much deeper into the water.  Cool experiment though.
  • Last Edit: February 06, 2018, 12:58:11 PM by Cephus0

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #67
This should not be a mystery.  Take an indoor swimming pool 30 feet deep and heat the air above it (no visible light, forced air hearing) and measure what happens.  If the pool is 55 F it would eliminate a lot of factors, since that is the temperature of the ground at 30 feet.  See how much 100 degree air alters the pool, and how much energy it takes the heating unit to raise the pool by a degree.

Since nobody is actually going to do this, think about what will happen to the air in this experiment.  For fun run the heat for 12 hours, then shut it off (to do the day/night thing).  Keep a running log of the pool temp for a month.

Do not dehumidify that air.

This would be an experiment to see how much infrared and actual contact with air changes water.  For extra fun, consider in your mind if the water at the bottom of the pool will change at all.  Make sure the air is not blowing across the water.

Do you already know the answer?

Then to be scientific, start with the pool at 100F and keep the air at 55F, see what happens. (not dehumidifying the air will be a real problem)

If you have ever actually had a pool, the second experiment will be no mystery.

  • Last Edit: February 06, 2018, 01:11:44 PM by F X
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #68
I just heated a ceramic bowl of 2 cups of water from 58' f to 77' f with an infrared lightbulb at as close to one foot overhead as i could make the lamp stayon a swing arm lamp in 5 minutes timed.

Eta bowl diameter is 6 3/8" and depth is ~2 3/4"

Sorry the wooden ruler I'm using doesn't have mm and I used a cup measure

Infrared lamps put out a great deal more than longwave IR.  They operate primarily at shortwave IR and optical frequencies with longwave forming only a very small part of the total power output - said without looking at a spectral analysis.  I'm guessing yours employs a very hot incandescent filament which has has peak spectral output at frequencies way higher than longwave IR and consequently the radiation from it will penetrate much deeper into the water.  Cool experiment though.
that's why I put it a foot up. I could try it at about 18 inches but the lamp is only so big. the bulb is heavy and makes it hard to adjust the swingarm too.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #69
This should not be a mystery.  Take an indoor swimming pool 30 feet deep and heat the air above it (no visible light, forced air hearing) and measure what happens.  If the pool is 55 F it would eliminate a lot of factors, since that is the temperature of the ground at 30 feet.  See how much 100 degree air alters the pool, and how much energy it takes the heating unit to raise the pool by a degree.

Since nobody is actually going to do this, think about what will happen to the air in this experiment.  For fun run the heat for 12 hours, then shut it off (to do the day/night thing).  Keep a running log of the pool temp for a month.

Do not dehumidify that air.

This would be an experiment to see how much infrared and actual contact with air changes water.  For extra fun, consider in your mind if the water at the bottom of the pool will change at all.  Make sure the air is not blowing across the water.

Do you already know the answer?

Then to be scientific, start with the pool at 100F and keep the air at 55F, see what happens. (not dehumidifying the air will be a real problem)

If you have ever actually had a pool, the second experiment will be no mystery.


density stratification for the win. Run the pool pump and it will change the outcome I bet.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #70

I could try it at about 18 inches but the lamp is only so big. the bulb is heavy and makes it hard to adjust the swingarm too.
Put a black plastic plate between the bulb and the water, let it heat up to provide IR only, then check the data.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #71
density stratification for the win. Run the pool pump and it will change the outcome I bet.
Not for the second experiment.

The pool will reach 55F in less time than you can imagine.  Assuming you have the ability to keep the air at 55F, which is going to mean a lot of power.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #72
For the mildly interested, deep water cools very fast from contact with air, but takes a very long time to heat up, from just contact with air.  This is due to the nature of water.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #73

I could try it at about 18 inches but the lamp is only so big. the bulb is heavy and makes it hard to adjust the swingarm too.
Put a black plastic plate between the bulb and the water, let it heat up to provide IR only, then check the data.
I can do this. It is actually black plexiglass so it might let a little light through but not very much. I can't see the red of the bulb through it but i'm in a lit room so that might not be a perfect measure.

Actually, I have a clothes iron I might be able to put right above the water without touching the bowl. 
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Reply #74
Actually, I have a clothes iron I might be able to put right above the water without touching the bowl. 
I'm running an experiment right now.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭