|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 12, 2017 1:15:50 GMT
www.osapublishing.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-22-21-25093The light absorption coefficient of water is dependent on temperature and concentration of ions, i.e. the salinity in seawater. Accurate knowledge of the water absorption coefficient, a, and/or its temperature and salinity correction coefficients, ΨT and ΨS, respectively, is essential for a wide range of optical applications. Values are available from published data only at specific narrow wavelength ranges or at single wavelengths in the visible and infrared regions. ΨT and ΨS were therefore spectrophotometrically measured throughout the visible, near, and short wavelength infrared spectral region (400 to ~2700 nm). Additionally, they were derived from more precise measurements with a point-source integrating-cavity absorption meter (PSICAM) for 400 to 700 nm. When combined with earlier measurements from the literature in the range of 2600 – 14000 nm (wavenumber: 3800 – 700 cm−1), the coefficients are provided for 400 to 14000 nm (wavenumber: 25000 to 700 cm−1).
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 12, 2017 1:17:25 GMT
www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibrational_spectrum.htmlWater Absorption Spectrum Water absorbs a wide range of electromagnetic radiation with rotational transitions and intermolecular vibrations responsible for absorption in the microwave (~1 mm - 10 cm wavelength) and far-infrared (~10 µm - 1 mm), intramolecular vibrational transitions in the infrared (~1 µ- 10 µ) and electronic transitions occurring in the ultraviolet region (< 200 nm)
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 12, 2017 1:20:29 GMT
We have shared some on this topic, but lets get to the meat on the bone. CAN the CO2 active radiation bands warm water? ? Put up a couple of things to read. Let's examine this carefully. I still can't find the paper that was published showing a net cooling effect from IR CO2 spectrum radiation. I know I read it, special instruments were made just for said purpose of measuring the net effect. Was done near the equator in the Pacific. This disappearing act of some literature on the net is driving me nuts. I have encountered more 404's in the past week than in a long long time.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 12, 2017 6:53:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 12, 2017 9:10:59 GMT
At a glance the Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans link especially the comments on the thread is more informative. The overall message is that an infrared photon does not penetrate past the first water molecule it encounters where it contributes to the vibrational energy of the molecule leading to increased capability to escape the surface (evaporate) when it leaves the surface of the water the molecule takes more (latent) heat energy with it than it received from the infrared. These excited molecules of water are lighter than ambient air and will rise rapidly away from the surface (weight of hydrogen 1, Nitrogen 14, Oxygen 16. Therefore, N 2 is 28, O 2 is 32, H 2O is 18). This leads to the top millimeter of the ocean surface being cooled by downwelling infrared not warmed. Add wind action and you have the effect of a blown air hand dryer cooling the ocean. Therefore, as the Oceans are ~70% of the Earth's surface, downwelling infrared will cool the Earth surface not warm it. The remaining 30% of the Earth's surface is largely covered in vegetation which transpires water actively using any warmth to provide both evaporative cooling and to assist drawing nutrients up from the roots. So the proportion of the Earth's surface that can absorb infrared is small, until we start putting buildings on and roads through what would otherwise be vegetation covered land - causing Urban Heat Islands. Trenberth Diagram is (to be kind) incorrect, possibly intentionally so to be sold to the unthinking masses. Note that the infrared is carried past the bulk of CO 2 in the denser lower atmosphere by the hydrologic cycle where it is released as infrared again (pace Andrew) as latent heat of condensation as clouds form and latent heat of freezing when the clouds go above the freezing level. It is yet another falsification of the CO 2 caused Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. As an addition in the Tallbloke thread referenced by Ratty there is this diagram: And Roger asks the question of Mosher: "Now, tell me Mosh, just off the top of your head, and without me putting a co2 curve on the graph a la Willie Soon to give you something to get distracted about, what do you think has more influence on water vapour levels near the point of max radiation to space, the Sun, or co2 and other ‘forcings’? "The other point that Roger does not make is that if the humidity is dropping as shown the enthalpy of the atmosphere will decrease, leading to an increase in atmospheric temperature for the same heat content. So the changes in atmospheric heat content caused by a more active sun will be masked by the enthalpy increase. All interesting reading - thanks Ratty
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 12, 2017 10:55:48 GMT
[ Snipped logs ** ] All interesting reading - thanks Ratty You're welcome Naut. Sorry I couldn't find Sig's paper. The truth is out there ...... ** lots of good stuff (when I worked in IT systems support, I carried a folder with "LOGS" on the cover; in it, I filed anything I thought I might need someday. Hardly ever referred to it but it was my security blanket, now land fill. )
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 12, 2017 11:19:16 GMT
** lots of good stuff (when I worked in IT systems support, I carried a folder with "LOGS" on the cover; in it, I filed anything I thought I might need someday. Hardly ever referred to it but it was my security blanket, now land fill. ) I know that problem. I have a few shelf meters of systems programming documentation for several defunct manufacturers computer systems that I will have to dump sometime.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 12, 2017 11:26:53 GMT
** lots of good stuff (when I worked in IT systems support, I carried a folder with "LOGS" on the cover; in it, I filed anything I thought I might need someday. Hardly ever referred to it but it was my security blanket, now land fill. ) I know that problem. I have a few shelf meters of systems programming documentation for several defunct manufacturers computer systems that I will have to dump sometime. Don't do it! They might come in handy some day ...... as land fill.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 12, 2017 15:29:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 12, 2017 23:33:41 GMT
Sleeping with the enemy. Sig? Thought you were banned there ...... The comments are worth reading ...... I think.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 13, 2017 0:30:13 GMT
OK Nautonnier, gives us an explanation. From Response 10 below ... if Example 1 is what they are talking about ... they are claiming that a greenhouse effect heats the skin. I believe your explanation was that infrared heat would actually cool the surface. Yes? 10 Gar Lipow says: 5 Sep 2006 at 7:22 PM Ok -I think you finally hammered it into my simple mind. We have skin (first mm or less of ocean). We have bulk (next few meters of ocean). So: Example 1) The ocean is losing heat to atmosphere (skin colder than first few meters of ocean ). A greenhouse effect heats the skin. The temperature difference between the skin and the first few meters of the ocean is reduced. The ocean loses heat more slowly than before. Example 2) The ocean is gaining heat from the skin . The skin is warmer than the first few meters of ocean. A greenhouse effect heats the skin more. The temperature difference between the skin and first few meters of ocean is greater. The first few meters of the ocean warms faster.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 13, 2017 1:31:14 GMT
Ok. www.osapublishing.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-22-21-250931. Certain bands of infrared do warm water. 2. The CO2 bands do NOT warm water as the micron penetration evaporates faster than any heat can be recognized. Refer to the paper. The Real Climate link mentions the measurements. The results of the measurements prove what I said. Now that I found the guys name via the RC link I am going to find the paper (I hope) that I read in regards to enhanced heat loss.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 13, 2017 14:18:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 13, 2017 16:19:40 GMT
That's why I use the example of the hot air hand dryers when you put your hands under them and they are wet - your hands feel cold. As soon as your hands are dry - all water gone - your hands feel the heat of the blown air. The same applies to the ocean it will always be cooled by incident IR in the CO 2 and H 2O emission bands. Wind will also always cool it. This is awkward for the AGW hypothesis as it means the downwelling heat will cool the Earth's surface apart from those areas that are not plant or waters surface. Probably around 10% of the Earth may be warmed in this way. That is not what is shown in Trenberth's diagram Which in any case has some errors identified Absorbed by surface should read 10% absorbed by surface 90% of heat remains in the hydrologic cycle and is eventually radiated back to space on state change to liquid then ice.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 13, 2017 16:55:18 GMT
The reason a breeze cools is because of the change in specific humidity. Ok, one of the reasons.
There are so many variables in evaporation, skin temperature and temp gradient in water.
The claims made by AGW folks that water is warming because of increased CO2 radiation just don't stand up to actual scrutiny.
|
|