|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 25, 2016 9:19:12 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. why would atmospheric water vapor be declining??A more interesting point to make is that as the atmospheric water vapor declines the enthalpy of the atmosphere also declines and the same or lower amount of heat will raise the temperature of the lower enthalpy air. 'Global warming' meaning global rise in temperature, could be completely caused by a global reduction in humidity. This is the point I have been making. If you need to measure the heat content of the atmosphere then you must know its enthalpy and the units that you measure the heat content in are kilojoules per kilogram. Joule: the SI unit of work or energy, equal to the work done by a force of one newton when its point of application moves one meter in the direction of action of the force, equivalent to one 3600th of a watt-hour. The 'green house effect' is not about trapping temperature it is about storing more energy. So measure the energy content.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 25, 2016 13:46:49 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 Nautonnier, does sunlight cool the oceans?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 25, 2016 14:08:57 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. Missouriboy, do you believe IR photons striking the oceans have an overall cooling effect?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 25, 2016 14:56:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 25, 2016 15:26:27 GMT
Excellent discussion!
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 25, 2016 16:00:53 GMT
Yes that is the overall effect of IR photons striking a water surface Nautonnier, does sunlight cool the oceans? Sunlight 'Total Solar Irradiance' is a whole spectrum of frequencies The higher frequency light can penetrate several hundred meters into the water; consequently sunlight warms water.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 25, 2016 17:27:15 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 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. Missouriboy, do you believe IR photons striking the oceans have an overall cooling effect? I am not a physicist but nautonnier's arguments make perfect sense to me. However, from years of looking a digital imagery in many band widths, I can definitively state that long-wave IR radiation does not penetrate water to any depth. This from one of the responses in Acidohm's excellent post. www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibrational_spectrum.html
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 25, 2016 18:08:07 GMT
penetration implies absorption, the options are reflection and absorption.
clearly the depth of the penetration is critical.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 25, 2016 18:44:58 GMT
penetration implies absorption, the options are reflection and absorption. clearly the depth of the penetration is critical. Yep!!
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 25, 2016 19:05:49 GMT
penetration implies absorption, the options are reflection and absorption. clearly the depth of the penetration is critical. absolutely true. An IR photon is absorbed by the first water molecule it hits - in liquid that will be within microns of the surface. If that adds enough energy the molecule escapes and become a free water molecule in the air taking all its energy with it.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 25, 2016 19:09:30 GMT
penetration implies absorption, the options are reflection and absorption. clearly the depth of the penetration is critical. There is reflection even within the water column. For example, blue light penetrates water to great depth, but shallow sand bottoms will reflect a portion of that radiation back to the surface (and beyond?). You can clearly see underwater structures in clear tropical water columns in the blue band of imagery. This is reflected light. The same is true of green and red bands ... only in progressively shallower waters. Beyond a certain depth we assume that most of the particular light spectrum is absorbed.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 25, 2016 20:13:15 GMT
In fact, I am having trouble finding how the sun exactly can heat the ocean? Apparently UV is poorly absorbed by water despite the fact it has enough energy to destroy dna in our skin cells.... Be grateful for an explanation??! Perhaps microwaves..... wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/14/the-solar-radio-microwave-flux/Although apparently even this only penetrates a few cm and this is smaller in salt water. ...
|
|
anse
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 62
|
Post by anse on Sept 25, 2016 20:57:20 GMT
|
|
anse
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 62
|
Post by anse on Sept 25, 2016 21:04:19 GMT
Not sure if I have seen anyone here refering to the below link. Anyway, here it is: thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wwww-ths-rr-091716.pdfPart of the abstract: "These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-thingsequal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series analyzed."
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 25, 2016 21:15:23 GMT
|
|