|
Post by duwayne on Sept 24, 2016 16:40:27 GMT
Nautonnier, your additions to the description of your theory are noted. Is it accurate to say that a key component of your theory is that photons striking the oceans will have a cooling effect on the oceans? " Key component" may be overstating it, as convection and the speed of exit of a photon even if it bagatelles around the atmosphere a hundred times is still less than 100th of a second. However, infrared radiation onto a water surface will only excite the surface molecules causing them to evaporate taking with them the latent heat of evaporation. I would think that this is an extremely simple experiment to carry out. As with many others the reason it has not been carried out (or perhaps not published) is that the results would run counter to the narrative of 'boiling oceans'. After all if downwelling infrared from CO2 scattering doesn't warm the oceans what is left is the Sun; and we have been assured that the Sun is an unvarying constant (give or take a watt or two per square meter over a solar cycle.) Nautonnier, let me drop out the term "key component". Is it your theory that photons striking the oceans will have a cooling effect? A yes or no will be the easiest for me to understand.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 24, 2016 17:20:26 GMT
Andrew: "Other things being equal, the temp of the water won't increase or decrease the rate of evaporation." put a lid on the jar 1/2 filled with water. That creates an environment of all other items being equal except temperature. That jar is going to have water in it for eons. You defined the parameter in one of your earlier statements. In climate, the parameters are always changing and there are no lids. So you were just totally wasting my time and doing what you always do in these threads where you butt in and contribute nothing Andrew: You made a statement concerning evaporation that was wrong. That is no big deal to be wrong, or word something incorrectly. I corrected your staement.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 18:57:48 GMT
" Key component" may be overstating it, as convection and the speed of exit of a photon even if it bagatelles around the atmosphere a hundred times is still less than 100th of a second. However, infrared radiation onto a water surface will only excite the surface molecules causing them to evaporate taking with them the latent heat of evaporation. I would think that this is an extremely simple experiment to carry out. As with many others the reason it has not been carried out (or perhaps not published) is that the results would run counter to the narrative of 'boiling oceans'. After all if downwelling infrared from CO2 scattering doesn't warm the oceans what is left is the Sun; and we have been assured that the Sun is an unvarying constant (give or take a watt or two per square meter over a solar cycle.) Nautonnier, let me drop out the term "key component". Is it your theory that photons striking the oceans will have a cooling effect? A yes or no will be the easiest for me to understand. I don't think photons have a cooling effect. They have a warming effect. The only question is what are they warming, are they being sequestered as latent heat into the surface of the ocean or are they penetrating into the ocean. In the former case as they arrive at the transfer station (from one medium to the other) they are boarding the train headed back into the atmosphere instead of the train to below the surface. I doubt the question can be answered from a microphysics point of view as an absolute. Most likely both processes are occurring but we are only interested in the net effect. As Naut has pointed out understanding the "net effect" should be a priority of science before drawing conclusions about its effect. Seems simple enough of a request to understand.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 24, 2016 19:00:28 GMT
" Key component" may be overstating it, as convection and the speed of exit of a photon even if it bagatelles around the atmosphere a hundred times is still less than 100th of a second. However, infrared radiation onto a water surface will only excite the surface molecules causing them to evaporate taking with them the latent heat of evaporation. I would think that this is an extremely simple experiment to carry out. As with many others the reason it has not been carried out (or perhaps not published) is that the results would run counter to the narrative of 'boiling oceans'. After all if downwelling infrared from CO2 scattering doesn't warm the oceans what is left is the Sun; and we have been assured that the Sun is an unvarying constant (give or take a watt or two per square meter over a solar cycle.) Nautonnier, let me drop out the term "key component". Is it your theory that photons striking the oceans will have a cooling effect? A yes or no will be the easiest for me to understand. Yes that is the overall effect of IR photons striking a water surface
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 24, 2016 19:15:47 GMT
Nautonnier, let me drop out the term "key component". Is it your theory that photons striking the oceans will have a cooling effect? A yes or no will be the easiest for me to understand. Yes that is the overall effect of IR photons striking a water surface I suppose I needn't say it, but ... since the oceans constitute ~70% of the globes' surface and are considered to be one of the (if not the) biggest regulators of the World's climate ... that simple statement is a BIG deal in terms of what increasing CO2 might do to our climate. If CO2 cannot heat the oceans, then game largely over.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 24, 2016 20:39:02 GMT
Let's go another step. The oceans don't warm from the co2 bandwidth. Does the air above the oceans warm because of the evaporation induced by co2 bandwidth radiation?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 20:41:54 GMT
So you were just totally wasting my time and doing what you always do in these threads where you butt in and contribute nothing Andrew: You made a statement concerning evaporation that was wrong. That is no big deal to be wrong, or word something incorrectly. I corrected your staement. Here we f.ucking go again What statement was wrong?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 24, 2016 21:23:35 GMT
Let's go another step. The oceans don't warm from the co2 bandwidth. Does the air above the oceans warm because of the evaporation induced by co2 bandwidth radiation? Great question! I hope someone is going to tell me and diagram the mechanics. But it would seem, that since only a very small proportion of the globe's water is in the atmosphere, any CO2 warming from surface water evaporation would likely be transitory in comparison??? I am assuming (always dangerous) that energy residence time in the atmosphere is much shorter than in the oceans. And as that water vapor rises, it cools, condenses, and the newly released energy goes on its merry way to space. And while I'm at it ... if increasing CO2 results in higher surface water evaporation then why would atmospheric water vapor be declining?? Is it a travesty that they have not enlightened me since I apparently do need it? And if they don't know (no shame there), then I think I detect an important part of the science that is ... dare I say it ... not settled. But I'm an amateur and am likely missing something.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 21:24:43 GMT
Psychological "projection"? Nautonnier if you think heating can cause cooling you are in no position to dispense psychological advise to me. Criminy! Naut has described a process of differentiating the effects of different wavelengths of light noting that generally speaking that the heat transmitted by shortwave is not immediately available for evaporation but longwave is. I am also hearing him say (like Planck) that one should not make assumptions but one should subject those ideas to careful experimental scrutiny before coming to a conclusion. Sounds like good advice to me. It seems pretty normal such a viewpoint would be criticized by the scrunch-faced dogmatist group thinkers who are purveying an untested theory. Great explanation Naut! I can envisage those surface molecules leaping into the sky as they absorb that LW. Even SW is going to warm surface molecules more than the deeper ones and LW is totally incapable of reaching the deeper ones. Seems to me to pretty much put the kabosh on cold sky warming of the oceans thought experiments.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 21:27:14 GMT
Let's go another step. The oceans don't warm from the co2 bandwidth. Does the air above the oceans warm because of the evaporation induced by co2 bandwidth radiation? Great question! I hope someone is going to tell me and diagram the mechanics. But it would seem, that since only a very small proportion of the globe's water is in the atmosphere, any CO2 warming from surface water evaporation would likely be transitory in comparison??? I am assuming (always dangerous) that energy residence time in the atmosphere is much shorter than in the oceans. And while I'm at it ... if increasing CO2 results in higher surface water evaporation then why would atmospheric water vapor be declining?? Is it a travesty that they have not enlightened me since I apparently do need it? And if they don't know (no shame there), then I think I detect an important part of the science that is ... dare I say it ... not settled. Well keep in mind CO2 is a trace gas. If water vapor is declining it could be from vast overwhelming of any effects produced by CO2.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 24, 2016 21:36:30 GMT
Great question! I hope someone is going to tell me and diagram the mechanics. But it would seem, that since only a very small proportion of the globe's water is in the atmosphere, any CO2 warming from surface water evaporation would likely be transitory in comparison??? I am assuming (always dangerous) that energy residence time in the atmosphere is much shorter than in the oceans. And while I'm at it ... if increasing CO2 results in higher surface water evaporation then why would atmospheric water vapor be declining?? Is it a travesty that they have not enlightened me since I apparently do need it? And if they don't know (no shame there), then I think I detect an important part of the science that is ... dare I say it ... not settled. Well keep in mind CO2 is a trace gas. If water vapor is declining it could be from vast overwhelming of any effects produced by CO2. Good point. I was forgetting how rare the magic molecule really is.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 24, 2016 22:13:20 GMT
[ Snip ] But I'm an amateur and am likely missing something. Also likely you're not the only one missing something (or blinkered). < insert_picture_of_wise_man_here>
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 24, 2016 22:29:44 GMT
[ Snip ] But I'm an amateur and am likely missing something. Also likely you're not the only one missing something (or blinkered). < insert_picture_of_wise_man_here>
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 24, 2016 22:40:56 GMT
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 25, 2016 9:10:16 GMT
Let's go another step. The oceans don't warm from the co2 bandwidth. Does the air above the oceans warm because of the evaporation induced by co2 bandwidth radiation? It may do but do not confuse heat energy with temperature level which is kinetic energy of gas molecules in a volume at a constant pressure. If the water molecules have lower kinetic energy than the other molecules in the surface air then the effect will be to reduce the average kinetic energy of the air in that volume (lower the temperature). But the presence of more water molecules will raise the enthalpy of the volume of air and also raise its buoyancy. Watch a cold pond or lake on a misty morning literally steaming although the water is at or below the 'temperature' of the the air above it.
|
|