|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 19, 2009 11:28:44 GMT
How far does long wave radiation penetrate into the ocean compared to shortwave radiation from the sun glc? It only warms the very surface of the water, but this is enough to warm the lower ocean (by reducing heat loss through the surface) It only warms the very surface of the water, but this is enough to warm the lower ocean (by reducing heat loss through the surface 10-20 ppm atmospheric CO2 causes more warming than direct solar radiation? Really? Please provide the experimental data to confirm this. It's amazing how many people buy into perpetual motion. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 19, 2009 13:01:26 GMT
It only warms the very surface of the water, but this is enough to warm the lower ocean (by reducing heat loss through the surface) It only warms the very surface of the water, but this is enough to warm the lower ocean (by reducing heat loss through the surface 10-20 ppm atmospheric CO2 causes more warming than direct solar radiation? Really? I didn't say that. What I did say was that increased downward IR will warm the upper ocean (although I mistakenly said lower). As a thought experiment imagine the extreme case that 1,000,000wm-2 IR was directed at a pot of water. Are you saying that in such a case the pot of water wouldn't warm? My argument is that it would. |
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 20, 2009 19:31:49 GMT
It only warms the very surface of the water, but this is enough to warm the lower ocean (by reducing heat loss through the surface 10-20 ppm atmospheric CO2 causes more warming than direct solar radiation? Really? I didn't say that. What I did say was that increased downward IR will warm the upper ocean (although I mistakenly said lower). As a thought experiment imagine the extreme case that 1,000,000wm-2 IR was directed at a pot of water. Are you saying that in such a case the pot of water wouldn't warm? My argument is that it would. By heating up the pot which will warm the water, maybe. Now, if we can lever you out of your kitchen cupboard laboratory for a minute, we are waiting for you to come up with some real world observed facts and figures. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2009 19:39:21 GMT
I only have to convince that IR can warm a body of water. I hoped that I could do this in a short-cut way.
1,000,000 wm-2 infrared is an extreme example but I think it serves the purpose. Unless anyone wants to maintain that 1,000,000 watts per square meter of infrared will not warm a body of water there's no need to continue the discussion. Argument dead so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 20, 2009 19:44:48 GMT
I only have to convince that IR can warm a body of water. To do that I used an example which I think is impossible to dismiss. 1,000,000 wm-2 infrared is an extreme example but I think it serves the purpose. Unless anyone wants to maintain that 1,000,000 watts per square meter of infrared will not warm a body of water. Still waiting for real world observational results of the warming effect of back radiation of co2 onto the oceans. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2009 19:47:27 GMT
I only have to convince that IR can warm a body of water. To do that I used an example which I think is impossible to dismiss. 1,000,000 wm-2 infrared is an extreme example but I think it serves the purpose. Unless anyone wants to maintain that 1,000,000 watts per square meter of infrared will not warm a body of water. Still waiting for real world observational results of the warming effect of back radiation of co2 onto the oceans. Give this a shot: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/You could also I imagine in this case do an experiment with an infrared bulb and a pot of water. |
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 20, 2009 20:03:20 GMT
"The slope of the relationship is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1. Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2), but the objective of this exercise was to demonstrate a relationship." You and Gavin are having a laugh aren't you? 0.002K(W/m2)?? I can see why you need your 1,000,000 W IR thermoblaster. Mind you don't make a nasty scorch mark on your mum's kitchen table with that. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2009 20:39:31 GMT
"The slope of the relationship is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1. Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2), but the objective of this exercise was to demonstrate a relationship." You and Gavin are having a laugh aren't you? 0.002K(W/m2)?? I can see why you need your 1,000,000 W IR thermoblaster. Mind you don't make a nasty scorch mark on your mum's kitchen table with that. Clearly you don't understood what the 0.002K/W/m2 is a measurement of. |
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 20, 2009 21:20:50 GMT
"The slope of the relationship is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1. Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2), but the objective of this exercise was to demonstrate a relationship." You and Gavin are having a laugh aren't you? 0.002K(W/m2)?? I can see why you need your 1,000,000 W IR thermoblaster. Mind you don't make a nasty scorch mark on your mum's kitchen table with that. Clearly you don't understood what the 0.002K/W/m2 is a measurement of. Oh really? Carey Scortichini: Have the data in this Figure been published in a peer-reviewed journal? What is the correlation coefficient associated with the linear fit of the data? Gavin: This is unpublished data Colour me unsurprised. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2009 22:44:05 GMT
So what made you think it wasn't published before you read that?
|
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 21, 2009 10:04:59 GMT
So what made you think it wasn't published before you read that? So has it? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 21, 2009 11:11:28 GMT
So what made you think it wasn't published before you read that? So has it? Ah so now you are not so sure. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 21, 2009 13:00:42 GMT
How far does long wave radiation penetrate into the ocean compared to shortwave radiation from the sun glc? It only warms the very surface of the water, but this is enough to warm the lower ocean (by reducing heat loss through the surface) Note that the heat which is not lost from the lower ocean- got their magically in another way - probably through the pipeline it hides in. |
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 21, 2009 13:11:53 GMT
Ah so now you are not so sure. Let's get this straight. You bring up a dodgy experiment performed with thermometers which have to be calibrated to within a cats cock hair for the experiment to have any chance of success. One of them is then chucked over the side of a boat and dragged along in the ocean. Then when I query the results you think I should be the one to run around finding out whether this 'study' made it through peer review?? On your bike socold. The error bars on this 'experiment' must be so massive that I would have dificulty picking one up to thwack you upside the head with it in order to knock some sense into you. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 21, 2009 13:18:39 GMT
It only warms the very surface of the water, but this is enough to warm the lower ocean (by reducing heat loss through the surface) Note that the heat which is not lost from the lower ocean- got their magically in another way - probably through the pipeline it hides in. The ocean absorbs energy through sunlight which penetrates deeper than the skin-layer. But for the ocean to loose energy it has to go through the skin layer, so the temperature of the skin layer as affected by greenhouse gases makes a difference to that heat flow. |
|
