I have a question about CO2

[Spud1k]

PS (something I forgot to put in my earlier post) you also seem to be labouring under the misconception that any IR radiation absorbed by water is converted into latent heat with 100% efficiency. Do you need me to tell you how absurd this is?

 

[mhaze]

PS (something I forgot to put in my earlier post) you also seem to be labouring under the misconception that any IR radiation absorbed by water is converted into latent heat with 100% efficiency. Do you need me to tell you how absurd this is?

Ah, ask your opponent to prove the negative.

The multiple gauntlets ran by the IR heats ocean theory makes it a fantastic claim, and the burden of proof lies with you.

So let's hear you support the claim of Cuddles (apparently in hiding):

"How can IR not heat the ocean?".

 

[Spud1k]

PS (something I forgot to put in my earlier post) you also seem to be labouring under the misconception that any IR radiation absorbed by water is converted into latent heat with 100% efficiency. Do you need me to tell you how absurd this is?

Ah, ask your opponent to prove the negative.

A simple 'yes' would have sufficed. Evaporation rates vary with temperature. You'll only evaporate more water if the temperature of the water increases first. Hence you can't simply bounce 100% of the heat back out through latent heat transfer. Heat will mix and diffuse downwards as well, remember.

So let's hear you support the claim of Cuddles (apparently in hiding):

"How can IR not heat the ocean?".

Liquid water is an efficient absorber of IR (as you pointed out). The energy from the photons is converted to vibrational, rotational and translational energy in the water molecules. This, in kinetic theory, is commonly known as 'heat'.

As I said before, I fail to see what your problem is.

 

[Ocelot]

So let's hear you support the claim of Cuddles (apparently in hiding):

"How can IR not heat the ocean?".

OK

Solar energy hits the oceans, is absorbed, warms the oceans,

Ta da!

Cuddles quesiton is now irrelevant as you're no longer claiming that IR doesn't warm the oceans. You've changed your story. Now you're acknowleding the effect that IR has. However you've proposed a secondary effect that you're suggesting introduces a cooling of the oceans that exactly compensates for the warming.

I find it a bizarre but interesting argument and would like to hear more. First thing's first have I understood that much correctly.

Can you please confirm?

 

[Tubbythin]

Ah, ask your opponent to prove the negative.

Er nope. You have two options:

1) Show us evidence that IR photons are 100% efficient at evaporating water (good luck with that one). Note, this is in absolutely no way proving a negative.
2) Admit that IR heats oceans.

 

[mhaze]

OK ... Ta da!
Cuddles quesiton is now irrelevant as you're no longer claiming that IR doesn't warm the oceans. You've changed your story. ..... Can you please confirm?

No, Ocelot. I've merely summarized the argument.

Does not mean I agree with it. In fact the logical inconsistencies are implicit in my summary of the argument - if I were my argument, there would not be such inconsistencies - in other words, it would make sense.

Now my summary of the argument of "IR can warm the ocean" is done so that anyone can correct it if they wish, in case I have something wrong. In case I misunderstand that issue.

Reading into what Spud1k has said, it appears he's already conceded that IR does not heat up the ocean, but convection does. If I understand his argument, it is that IR is absorbed by the first several mm and then transported to the remainder of the ocean. So he thinks that 2 mm warms 3 kilometers...

Hmmm....

Now we've got...

1. VR ---> ocean
2. ---> IR emission from ocean
3. ---> tropospheric hotspot absorbs IR
4. ---> IR re emission from tropospheric hotspot
5. ---> 1/2 of re emission goes downward
6. ---> small part makes it to surface, most is taken up by water vapor, clouds, microdroplets etc
7. ---> IR making it to surface is absorbed top 2 mm and heats it up
8. ---> Hot 2 mm section warms 3,790,000 millimeters (3.79 km average depth) of ocean depth.

Please correct this if I've made any error in item 1-8 in understanding "Enhanced greenhouse theory" and "Radiative imbalance".

Yep, that certainly qualifies as a fantastic claim. Especially as we're marching down the energy levels of photons in that sequence, spreading the spectrum, and losing radiant spectra with every progressive layer of air the energy goes through, and since heat can only move from hotter to colder regions.

One might as well claim that you can burn yourself looking into a mirror, or that a thermos bottle can get hotter than the coffee that was put into it.

Let's go for a 0.1C temperature increase of the oceans. Explaining how this mechanism can produce a 0.1C ocean temperature increase should work for proving this truly fantastic claim.

YO!!!! Cuddles!!! You out there?

Come on down and get to explainify your claiminations.

 

[Tubbythin]

Reading into what Spud1k has said, it appears he's already conceded that IR does not heat up the ocean, but convection does.

Yes. And the Sun doesn't warm the Earth, photons do. And I don't drive my car. I just sit in the drivers seat and press the pedals from time to time and change gears. Its the wheels that take the car where I want it to go.

 

[Ocelot]

No, Ocelot. I've merely summarized the argument.

Does not mean I agree with it. In fact the logical inconsistencies are implicit in my summary of the argument - if I were my argument, there would not be such inconsistencies - in other words, it would make sense.

So the post I quoted was what? Your summary of someone else's argument that IR doens't have a net effect of heating water? Your representation of how you think we think IR does heat water?

Right let me see. This Is your answer to my question (Which I paraphrased from Cuddles) how can IR not heat water.

Well, I take it your answer regarding "how can IR heat the water?" is along the lines of "how can it not?" At least that's what I can pull out of the monologue that seems of merit, so if I missed something, let me know, and since you are having a rare moment of civility, I'll answer your non answer:

IR can only get a very short distance into water (Beer's law), unlike other frequencies. IR, then, must heat up just the very first couple of millimeters of water, that which it penetrates into. This layer then has something occur called e-v-a-p-or-a-t-i-o-n.

Evaporation would seem to be the major mechanism for the removal of heat sunk into that skin-thick surface layer by IR.

So if the post I quoted wasn't your answer to the question then surely the above must be your answer to the question. You said it was didn't you? Here too it seems to me that you're acknowledging that the effect IR has on water is to heat it.

YO!!!! Cuddles!!! You out there?

Come on down and get to explainify your claiminations.

It's the weekend. Cuddles is at home having a life away from these forums. It's only you and me who are posting at this time. Lets not read more into that than we have to eh?

I was the one that paraphrased Cuddles response so I was the one who asked that question. Rather than ask my question again. I want to try to clear up some confusion. One minute you seem to be acknowleding Beers law which describes the absorbsion of Infrared by materials. (and by conservation of energy that heat must go somewhere. The next you're asking how Infrared gets absorbed. So much for making sense. This is either a spectacularly stupid to extraordinarily deep but irrelevent question. Whats important to me is that heat IS transmitted by Infrared radiation and when anything (which includes water) absorbs Infrared radiation it gains heat.

So the question I would first like you to answer is.

Does IR warm water?

The reason I ask is because i've got three pints of water, a bath thermometer, a roll of cling film and a roll of aluminium foil in my fridge so that I can find out for sure. However if it turns out that we don't disagree on this we can move on to whatever it is that you are trying to say.

 

[mhaze]

So the post I quoted was what? ....Your representation of how you think we think IR does heat water?
.....Does IR warm water?The reason I ask is because i've got three pints of water, a bath thermometer, a roll of cling film and a roll of aluminium foil in my fridge so that I can find out for sure. However if it turns out that we don't disagree on this we can move on to whatever it is that you are trying to say.

The question posed was "Does IR warm the oceans?". I laid out the steps that must be followed for this to happen as should be the case in the standard "Enhanced Greenhouse Theory".

If we should worry about the greenhouse effect, then we need to know that it can warm the oceans, since they are the heat resorvoir of the planet. If the greenhouse effect cannot warm the oceans but might only affect the atmosphere or the atmosphere and the land masses, this is a very, very different thing. (For this discussion I am ignoring the empirical fact that we don't see much of an "Enhanced Greenhouse Effect" in the mid and upper troposphere, and thus we know empirically that the oceans cannot be warmed by something that isn't there)

Beer's law shows why IR can't penetrate more than a couple millimeters into water. IR is the low end of energy --- quite unenergetic photons.

The question is very simple.

Having a thermal effect on the top two millimeters does not begin to show that IR warms the 3,790,000 millimeters of average ocean depth. This would be like saying you could take some 2000 grit sandpaper and cut down a 24" tree by sanding your way through it. (FYI 2000 grit is like a fine polish that generates a mirror finish).

It sure looks like a "fantastic claim", doesn't it?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Because no one seemed to have a clue, I brought Beer's law into the discussion and explained how it could have an effect on the top (more or less) two millimeters.

The basic question is very simple. Don't let people's circular logic and ducking and dodging on this forum get in the way. Sometimes people try to make something confusing when it really isn't.

Funny, that, isn't it?

I ask again, does the GHG effect exist or not? A simple yes or no will suffice for now.

 

[gdnp]

The question posed was "Does IR warm the oceans?". I laid out the steps that must be followed for this to happen as should be the case in the standard "Enhanced Greenhouse Theory".

Last time I checked there was a considerable difference between surface ocean temperatures between summer and winter. Deep ocean temperatures don't change that much. That's why people around here go to the shore in the summer, but not the winter. This site has some data for the ocean off Canada.

Energy absorbed in top few mm does not need to heat to the bottom. One would expect surface temperatures to have a more profound effect on weather, since that is where the evaporation occurs and where the water can exchange heat with the atmosphere.

 

[mhaze]

Last time I checked there was a considerable difference between surface ocean temperatures between summer and winter. Deep ocean temperatures don't change that much. That's why people around here go to the shore in the summer, but not the winter. This site has some data for the ocean off Canada.

Energy absorbed in top few mm does not need to heat to the bottom. One would expect surface temperatures to have a more profound effect on weather, since that is where the evaporation occurs and where the water can exchange heat with the atmosphere.

I agree with all you have said. Visible light can easily warm the oceans - it penetrates well, and as it gets darker - say at 40' - it is dark in proportion to energy absorbed above your depth . That warmth is what generates the IR of which we are discussing here.

IR from the water warmed by visible light, a part of which is emitted upward (Fact) and then we have the issue I have posed.

Accepting that IR re emitted from the (weak, if existant) tropospheric hot spot does not negate AGW. It would just indicate that this purported mechanism for warming based strongly on re radiation of IR by CO2 cannot strongly affect ocean heat content.

But that has consequences. Care to take a guess at them?

 

[mhaze]

A simple 'yes' would have sufficed. Evaporation rates vary with temperature. You'll only evaporate more water if the temperature of the water increases first. Hence you can't simply bounce 100% of the heat back out through latent heat transfer. Heat will mix and diffuse downwards as well, remember.



Liquid water is an efficient absorber of IR (as you pointed out). The energy from the photons is converted to vibrational, rotational and translational energy in the water molecules. This, in kinetic theory, is commonly known as 'heat'.

As I said before, I fail to see what your problem is.

I don't have a problem. The surface layer has already absorbed the incoming IR from the clear sky, and it has passed through to lower layers of water visible light. All evaporation can be considered as occurring in the immediate surface to air boundary. Some tiny fraction of IR is hypothesized to be emitted from this surface layer (it can't come from a lower layer) travel up in the air a couple miles, heat that up, more IR photons are generated, they come back down and heat this surface 2 millimeter layer up to a yet higher temperature. Sort of like a thermos bottle getting coffee hotter than the coffee put in it?

I've said this can't warm the oceans; you seem to think by a combination of convection and conduction, it can. Why not simplify your argument and just try "the air warms the ocean?" Then you get credit for the generated evaporative layer and all the IR absorbed immediately above the surface having a possible effect, which are biggie bonus credits.

That might work better than this bouncing back and forth losing orders of magnitude of energy each time but trying to assign high energy at the tail end of the process.

As to whether the air warms the oceans, that's another story.

 

[Spud1k]

Reading into what Spud1k has said, it appears he's already conceded that IR does not heat up the ocean, but convection does.

Then you're either not reading my comments right or having trouble with definitions.

 

[Spud1k]

I don't have a problem. The surface layer has already absorbed the incoming IR from the clear sky, and it has passed through to lower layers of water visible light. All evaporation can be considered as occurring in the immediate surface to air boundary. Some tiny fraction of IR is hypothesized to be emitted from this surface layer (it can't come from a lower layer) travel up in the air a couple miles, heat that up, more IR photons are generated, they come back down and heat this surface 2 millimeter layer up to a yet higher temperature. Sort of like a thermos bottle getting coffee hotter than the coffee put in it?

I would sit here picking holes in your logic some more but I've got to pop the question... where on earth did you find someone trying to claim that this was some vitally important process in the earth's climate? You seem to have it in your head that this is the only way in which CO2 can warm the oceans in the marine system. It also amuses me that you're arguing the toss about opaque water vapour layers and 'microdroplets' (we call them particles in the trade) and you're missing the most obvious flaw in the argument, which is that atmospheric CO2 does not reflect anything like half of the IR back down again (as I said in a previous comment). You're basically trying to strawman global warming theory but you're making a pretty poor job of it.

I've said this can't warm the oceans

You keep insisting on using the word 'can't', which is an absolute and you are wrong thanks to some pretty fundamental science. No ifs, no buts, your use of the word 'can't' was wrong, which you yourself have conceded in your whole 2mm argument. I also contend that you were out of line for attacking people for trying to correct you.

I know using absolutes where they are not appropriate is a favourite tool of the AGW denier, but don't expect to be able to act like that in a real scientific forum.

you seem to think by a combination of convection and conduction, it can. Why not simplify your argument and just try "the air warms the ocean?"

The air does warm the ocean, but that's a different process. There are many ways and means of putting heat into the ocean. The trick is to budget for them all rather than making sweeping generalisations, which is what your crowd specialise in.

Then you get credit for the generated evaporative layer and all the IR absorbed immediately above the surface having a possible effect, which are biggie bonus credits.

Water vapour doesn't absorb at all IR frequencies, so therefore the idea of it blocking out all IR is stupid. If that were the case, you'd feel no heat from the sun on a humid day.

That might work better than this bouncing back and forth losing orders of magnitude of energy each time but trying to assign high energy at the tail end of the process.

Hey, who is talking numbers here? I know for a fact you aren't. If you want to start arguing about something being a small or a big effect (as opposed to being no or the only effect) then that's what you'll have to start doing I'm afraid.

As to whether the air warms the oceans, that's another story.

Well, yes indeed it is. I can't wait to hear what badly-reasoned oversimplifications you have to say about that one.

 

[Pipirr]

I would sit here picking holes in your logic some more but I've got to pop the question... where on earth did you find someone trying to claim that this was some vitally important process in the earth's climate? You seem to have it in your head that this is the only way in which CO2 can warm the oceans in the marine system. It also amuses me that you're arguing the toss about opaque water vapour layers and 'microdroplets' (we call them particles in the trade) and you're missing the most obvious flaw in the argument, which is that atmospheric CO2 does not reflect anything like half of the IR back down again (as I said in a previous comment). You're basically trying to strawman global warming theory but you're making a pretty poor job of it.

I don't know where this latest piece of idiocy is from, but it comes across as similar to this one: Alan Siddons on Radiative Equilibrium. That might give you an idea of the standard of denialist sources.

I wish these people would just crack open a textbook, but I know they won't. I suppose there's no point reading textbooks, if Spencer's next paper is about to make them all obsolete.

 

[mhaze]

I don't know where this latest piece of idiocy is from, but it comes across as similar to this one: Alan Siddons on Radiative Equilibrium. That might give you an idea of the standard of denialist sources.

I wish these people would just crack open a textbook, but I know they won't. I suppose there's no point reading textbooks, if Spencer's next paper is about to make them all obsolete.

A very typical long, rambling blog with various contributers.

Do you have a point?

 

[Spud1k]

I don't know where this latest piece of idiocy is from, but it comes across as similar to this one: Alan Siddons on Radiative Equilibrium. That might give you an idea of the standard of denialist sources.

Ouch! That one's a keeper. That is some of the worst science writing I have ever read. If I ever get a teaching post, I'm going to have to present that to students and get them to count the scientific fallacies. Thanks.

 

[mhaze]

I would sit here picking holes in your logic some more but I've got to pop the question... where on earth did you find someone trying to claim that this was some vitally important process in the earth's climate? ....Well, yes indeed it is. I can't wait to hear what badly-reasoned oversimplifications you have to say about that one.

Quote David Rodale:
Oh, and where's the experimental evidence that re-emitting LW IR from rising CO2 levels can warm the oceans?
​

Quote TubbyIn
You think it reflects it 100%? I think if that's the case its YOU who needs to back up your claims, nobody else.

That is where this detour commenced. Is this an important process? Well, we are still trying to establish whether resident warmers can support the claim. I've seen nothing from you to support it, in fact you seem to agree that it cannot, that heat transfer other than radiative must dominate. So why not simply admit it? Am I creating a strawman? No, I'm just poking holes in Enhanced Greenhouse Theory just for fun.

Aa for Tubby's response above, the absorption/emission relations of water for the relevant spectra answer that, don't they? And if that makes sense, you likely know that my 2mm number for penetration depth of re emitted IR from greenhouse layer CO2 was way way generous.

'microdroplets' (we call them particles in the trade)
​

Get used to discussions with people who come from different fields of science and engineering. But why would a small sphere of water be preferably called a particle? That infers a constancy about its nature which is completely absent.

Water vapour doesn't absorb at all IR frequencies, so therefore the idea of it blocking out all IR is stupid.
​

I didn't say that, so if your recourse is misstating your opponent's position, good luck, otherwise, we agree (its basic physics of course).

#6 from Warmer greenhouse beliefs list was:

---> small part makes it to surface, most is taken up by water vapor, clouds, microdroplets etc
​

-----------------------------
Originally Posted by mhaze
I've said this can't warm the oceans

Origionally posted by Spud1k
You keep insisting on using the word 'can't', which is an absolute and you are wrong thanks to some pretty fundamental science. No ifs, no buts, your use of the word 'can't' was wrong, which you yourself have conceded in your whole 2mm argument.

Nope. Unless you want a concession ad grammerica minutae that the postulated effect within the 2mm layer can warm the remaining 3,779,998 millimeters in a trillion years? But is that even true?

Origionally posted by Spud1k
If you want to start arguing about something being a small or a big effect (as opposed to being no or the only effect) then that's what you'll have to start doing I'm afraid.

Go ahead, be my guest. If you can support your fantastic claim by an argument that it exists but would take trillions of years, I'll accept that. Maybe. (Actually, probably not, but you are welcome to try. Just use ocean heat content and scientific notation biggie numbers to support your claim). But it's your claim that you've taken up unwittingly from Cuddles, not mine.

"How can IR not warm the oceans?"

 

[Spud1k]

Quote David Rodale:
Oh, and where's the experimental evidence that re-emitting LW IR from rising CO2 levels can warm the oceans?
​

Quote TubbyIn
You think it reflects it 100%? I think if that's the case its YOU who needs to back up your claims, nobody else.

That is where this detour commenced. Is this an important process? Well, we are still trying to establish whether resident warmers can support the claim. I've seen nothing from you to support it, in fact you seem to agree that it cannot, that heat transfer other than radiative must dominate. So why not simply admit it? Am I creating a strawman? No, I'm just poking holes in Enhanced Greenhouse Theory just for fun.

Point is that none of us 'warmers' have claimed that it's an important process, so you're poking holes in climate science that don't exist, which is about as strawman as you get. David Rodale just tried to construct such an argument and (seemingly inadvertently) dropped a major physics blooper in the process. And you still don't seem to be able to grasp the major error in what he said, which is what I'm having fun having a prod at. That and some of the rubbish you've come out with trying to dig yourself out.

Get used to discussions with people who come from different fields of science and engineering. But why would a small sphere of water be preferably called a particle? That infers a constancy about its nature which is completely absent.

Hey, I just thought you might want to learn the terms we actually use in atmospheric science. We call them all 'particles' irrespective of phase but you could call them grapefruit for all I care.

#6 from Warmer greenhouse beliefs list was:

---> small part makes it to surface, most is taken up by water vapor, clouds, microdroplets etc
​

-----------------------------
Originally Posted by mhaze
I've said this can't warm the oceans

Origionally posted by Spud1k
You keep insisting on using the word 'can't', which is an absolute and you are wrong thanks to some pretty fundamental science. No ifs, no buts, your use of the word 'can't' was wrong, which you yourself have conceded in your whole 2mm argument.

Nope. Unless you want a concession ad grammerica minutae that the postulated effect within the 2mm layer can warm the remaining 3,779,998 millimeters in a trillion years? But is that even true?

What on earth are you wittering about? You admit the top 2mm is warmed by IR. The top 2mm is part of the ocean. Therefore, IR warms the ocean. It doesn't directly warm the whole thing, but since when did anyone claim that?

Go ahead, be my guest. If you can support your fantastic claim by an argument that it exists but would take trillions of years, I'll accept that. Maybe. (Actually, probably not, but you are welcome to try. Just use ocean heat content and scientific notation biggie numbers to support your claim). But it's your claim that you've taken up unwittingly from Cuddles, not mine.

Good grief. My 'fantastic claim' isn't and has never been that downwelling IR emitted from atmospheric CO2 is a major source of heat in the ocean. In all probability, it could be pretty tiny in the grand scheme of things (but I don't have the numbers to hand). However, that doesn't render incorrect the statement that IR radiation heats the ocean, so you owe Cuddles an apology.