|
Post by steve on Jul 18, 2011 13:23:41 GMT
magellan,
Fair enough. But the full quote is:
and was mainly intended to rebut suggestions that AGW people ignore water vapour.
Lets take it as read for this thread that we both understand that AGW people do not ignore water vapour, but that AGW people and Spencer/Lindzen have different views about the water vapour/cloud response.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 18, 2011 16:38:51 GMT
magellan, Fair enough. But the full quote is: and was mainly intended to rebut suggestions that AGW people ignore water vapour. Lets take it as read for this thread that we both understand that AGW people do not ignore water vapour, but that AGW people and Spencer/Lindzen have different views about the water vapour/cloud response. With due respect steve, there can not be "different views", there can only be right or wrong on this subject. Dessler refuted absolutely nothing concerning Spencer's findings, and presented nothing new in his recent paper. The data just does not agree with AGW "physics". What I find uninteresting in this OP is the attempt to constrain the atmosphere to that of a box in a lab whereby one can determine how much the atmosphere will warm or cool by adding or subtracting a few ppm of any particular gas. Saying feedbacks and such do not apply is silly because it is that which in the real world is part of how the atmosphere cools! It is not "basic physics". If it were, there could be no disagreement amongst the various climate models and scientists making their predictions. So, this isn't like discussing gravity or the speed of light. It is a highly complex system that by its very nature cannot be constrained to a box of chemistry experiments. Until someone can explain in detail, with mathematical precision, how adding a few ppm CO2 can warm the ocean deep more than SWR itself, it is a fairy tale. Only by assuming CO2 mitigates cloud cover can this be true, and that is exactly what AGW scientists assume.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 18, 2011 17:06:06 GMT
magellan,
Of course there can be different views. My view is right. Yours is wrong. They are both "views".
Really what you are saying is that you don't understand the diagram, so you don't see why it is important.
I don't understand your last point. The deep ocean is around 275K. It's probably been around 275K for millenia. Why do you think short wave radiation is warming it at all?
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Jul 18, 2011 17:12:54 GMT
Until someone can explain in detail, with mathematical precision, how adding a few ppm CO2 can warm the ocean deep more than SWR itself, it is a fairy tale. Only by assuming CO2 mitigates cloud cover can this be true, and that is exactly what AGW scientists assume. Until someone can prove mathematically that something with 1000 times less mass can heat an object to a noticeable extent then AGW is bunk. 15' of ocean water has the same mass as the entire atmosphere. Since we all know that the ocean is deeper than this... heck a lot of ponds too the atmosphere can't heat it at all. Simply doesn't have the mass. All the mental masturbation with charts and the like don't mean anything. You can't heat a pool with a match. Unless the air doesn't mix and ocean water doesn't mix. Do you believe that Steve?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 18, 2011 17:40:44 GMT
Stan
On the moon or Mars there is no or little atmosphere. So little or no mass to absorb the heat and reradiate it back.
Like on the other thread you have to think about how things affect the *cooling* of the ocean. Space *really is* -270C. That's why the moon gets down to -120C overnight.
The atmosphere, and in particular the greenhouse gases such as water vapour and CO2, absorb radiation emitted by the ocean, and radiates radiation that reduces the rate at which the ocean would otherwise cool.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Jul 18, 2011 17:56:55 GMT
Stan On the moon or Mars there is no or little atmosphere. So little or no mass to absorb the heat and reradiate it back. Like on the other thread you have to think about how things affect the *cooling* of the ocean. Space *really is* -270C. That's why the moon gets down to -120C overnight. The atmosphere, and in particular the greenhouse gases such as water vapour and CO2, absorb radiation emitted by the ocean, and radiates radiation that reduces the rate at which the ocean would otherwise cool. Insulation causes heating? Sorry Bud. No matter how much insulation factors you add the atmosphere isn't dense enough to retain much of the heat of the ocean. The atmosphere can as you say slow the progression of heat from the ocean to the night sky. Because it isn't dense enough to transfer heat well. Of course that will be counterproductive for the retained heating model you profess. Because as the heating at the surface rises more insulation is required for the same "retention". The law of diminishing returns.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 18, 2011 20:07:11 GMT
Sorry mate, this is exactly what I *didn't* say.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Jul 18, 2011 21:34:10 GMT
Sorry mate, this is exactly what I *didn't* say. What promotes ocean heating via AGW that isn't in direct conflict with thermodynamics? It can't "warm" from above ... Hot to cold. Not enough mass in the air. It can't "warm" from below because we know the ocean gets colder with depth. It can't warm at the water/air interface.... evaporation. Where exactly is the ocean gaining the added heat? I will repost my earlier post, because I don't want to get side tracked. Until someone can prove mathematically that something with 1000 times less mass can heat an object to a noticeable extent then AGW is bunk. 15' of ocean water has the same mass as the entire atmosphere. Since we all know that the ocean is deeper than this... heck a lot of ponds too the atmosphere can't heat it at all. Simply doesn't have the mass. All the mental masturbation with charts and the like don't mean anything. You can't heat a pool with a match. Unless the air doesn't mix and ocean water doesn't mix. Do you believe that Steve?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2011 10:00:48 GMT
The Sun heats the ocean. Only the Sun. Ask astromet if you don't believe me . The atmosphere affects the rate the ocean can cool. The Sun will be there before and after CO2 is added. However, the extra CO2 changes how the atmosphere affects the rate the ocean can cool.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Jul 19, 2011 11:45:28 GMT
The Sun heats the ocean. Only the Sun. Ask astromet if you don't believe me . The atmosphere affects the rate the ocean can cool. The Sun will be there before and after CO2 is added. However, the extra CO2 changes how the atmosphere affects the rate the ocean can cool. That seems plausible. How do you suggest your statement doesn't violate thermodynamics tho? I submit the atmospheric temperature over a heating ocean has little to do with it's thermal profile. The water below the water heated by the sun is colder. It will sap many times the energy about 1 degree per 15 feet.. How deep is the ocean on average? From wiki... 12430 ft lets see how many atmospheres would be needed to raise the ocean temperature 1 degree if the atmosphere went up one degree. Oh, it's 828. Or the atmosphere would need to rise 828 degrees to make the temperature change of 1 degree. The relatively tiny atmosphere can.. add.. subtract... retain almost nothing. In fact it's such a small amount of potential why even bring it up? To raise the temperature of the top 15 feet of ocean 1 degree. It would require the atmosphere in contact with the ocean to contain the heat energy equivalent to 1000 degrees. Remember water is 1000 times as dense as the energy anemic atmosphere. I haven't noticed that kind of heat. Using your math the ocean should be "coldest" at the surface. Or the temperature at depth should be at least the temperature that is suggested to be the "global" average. What's it? 50 some or around 10 for you?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2011 13:45:16 GMT
stan, Do you think it is plausible? Or do you think it violates thermodynamics? How many times do I have to say STOP THINKING ABOUT THE ATMOSPHERE WARMING THE OCEAN !!!
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Jul 19, 2011 13:55:21 GMT
stan, Do you think it is plausible? Or do you think it violates thermodynamics? How many times do I have to say STOP THINKING ABOUT THE ATMOSPHERE WARMING THE OCEAN !!! I think it may be a difference use of the term. My meaning was lost in translation. I stand up for the fact that we here in the US speak "proper" English! Seems = "it may appear" How can I ignore the largest heat sink? Your idea if it wasn't violating thermodynamics would necessitate the ocean temperature at depth being at least as hot as the surface. Otherwise the atmosphere can't affect insulation other than to "hold" the cold in. I don't believe that is what your suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2011 15:09:19 GMT
stan The ocean at depth will be determined by the temperature of the water that descends to depth. Warm water doesn't descend as it is less dense. Mixing of water at the surface with water at depth happens more in cold regions where the ocean is colder than it is at depth: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Jul 19, 2011 15:46:53 GMT
stan The ocean at depth will be determined by the temperature of the water that descends to depth. Warm water doesn't descend as it is less dense. Mixing of water at the surface with water at depth happens more in cold regions where the ocean is colder than it is at depth: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulationThat's all well and good. How is the water at depth colder in the first place? Are you suggesting there hasn't been enough time to "heat" the ocean? Are you suggesting water has good insulation properties? Surely you jest! More so than the atmosphere. We all know the ocean contains about 828 times as much heat as the atmosphere. Oh wait the average ocean temperature is lower than the average air temperature. So maybe it's not quite that. There must be some largely unknown source of continuous heat loss from the ocean. I wonder what it could be? I wonder if it could have to do with solar energy and phase change of a particular molecule contained in the ocean water. That lowers the affect of sun light heating. In fact raising the surface temperature of the water would enhance the affect. This special molecule when the conditions are right can while phase changing from a liquid to a gas cause the temperature to lower enough to cause the liquid to freeze. Notice I said "average" ocean temperature. Circulations only move the heat around... it doesn't affect the energy balance as a whole. Just like in the atmosphere. Like I said... The ocean can't be heated, warmed, or even insulated by the atmosphere. Thermodynamics make this clear.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2011 16:12:17 GMT
stan
The ocean is colder at the surface than it is at depth.
As I keep saying, the ocean is continuously cooling (evaporation, radiation etc.). The Sun stops it freezing (except at high latitudes). The cooling is moderated by the atmosphere.
|
|