Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The preposterousness of the article is proven from the phrase, "The warming heats the land and the ocean. The ocean distributes some of the warming to the surface waters and some to the deeper waters, depending on the complex circulation of ocean waters. The shares of warming of the surface and deeper ocean vary over time, in fluctuations that can last a few years or a few decades."

 

Thus, in contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics, (heat rises) the missing heat is sinking to the bottom of the ocean, which is much colder. 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

The preposterousness of the article is proven from the phrase, "The warming heats the land and the ocean. The ocean distributes some of the warming to the surface waters and some to the deeper waters, depending on the complex circulation of ocean waters. The shares of warming of the surface and deeper ocean vary over time, in fluctuations that can last a few years or a few decades."

 

Thus, in contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics, (heat rises) the missing heat is sinking to the bottom of the ocean, which is much colder. 

Idiot, stick to bookkeeping. you certainly don't understand thermodynamics

For further discussion:

 

        Climate scientist Roger Pielke, Sr has noted that land surface temperature records (which comprise the vast majority of temperature records prior to the satellite era (1979-)) are unreliable due to land use changes and urban heat island effects, and that we should therefore look to ocean heat content changes as the most reliable metric for assessing global heating and cooling. The oceans cover 71% of the global surface area and hold at least 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere. Many have claimed that the 'missing heat' from 'anthropogenic global warming' has gone into the oceans, even though the heat seems to be 'missing' from the oceans as well. Recent data from the ARGO network of ~3200 floating robot sensors has shown that since full deployment of the system in ~2003, the ocean heat content has declined despite steadily rising 'greenhouse' CO2 levels:

From Loehle 2009: Cooling of the global ocean since 2003

How could this be? Here are the physical reasons why increasing concentrations of 'greenhouse gases' would not be expected to increase ocean heat content:

1. Infrared radiation from 'greenhouse gases' causes evaporative cooling of the oceans rather than heating

LWIR wavelength is ~8-14 microns

        CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' re-emit radiation to the Earth and space in the long-wave infrared (LWIR) portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. While ultraviolet and visible radiation from the Sun does penetrate the surface of the oceans to cause heating, the energy output of the Sun is relatively stable and obviously not linked to man. However, since the LWIR re-radiation from increasing 'greenhouse gases' is only capable of penetrating a minuscule few microns (millionths of a meter) past the surface and no further, it could therefore only cause evaporation (and thus cooling) of the surface 'skin' of the oceans. Stephen Wilde, LLB (Hons.), Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society explains this in detail, excerpted below:

"However the effect of downwelling infrared is always to use up all the infrared in increasing the temperature of the ocean surface molecules whilst leaving nothing in reserve to provide the extra energy required (the latent heat of evaporation) when the change of state occurs from water to vapour. That extra energy requirement is taken from the medium (water or air) in which it is most readily available. If the water is warmer then most will come from the water. If the air is warmer then most will come from the air. However over the Earth as a whole the water is nearly always warmer than the air (due to solar input) so inevitably the average global energy flow is from oceans to air via that latent heat of evaporation in the air and the energy needed is taken from the water. This leads to a thin (1mm deep) layer of cooler water over the oceans worldwide and below the evaporative region that is some 0.3C cooler than the ocean bulk below."

The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures.

2. Even if 'greenhouse gases' were capable of heating the oceans, the ocean heat capacity is so immense that there would be no significant change in ocean temperature
        The huge mass and heat capacity of the oceans regulates and stabilizes global temperatures to a far greater degree than any possible influence from mankind.
        The immense heat capacity of the oceans can be illustrated by assuming the oceans could be heated one-way by all solar energy absorbed by the Earth, and assuming no cooling due to convection, evaporation, or radiation. The oceans hold 1.3 billion cubic km of water. Assuming the density is 1 kg per liter, the mass of the oceans is 1.3 billion billion kg or 1.3 yotta grams. The total solar power absorbed by the Earth in one year is 89 peta Watts (PW):

        For a thought experiment, assume all 89 PW are taken up by the oceans and that the oceans don't release any of that heat. That would add 0.67 yotta calories to the 1.3 yotta grams, resulting in an increase in the ocean temperature of only 0.5C after an entire year.
        Now, let's also assume that the IPCC is correct that 'greenhouse gases' are causing 1.7 W/m2 'radiative forcing,' and that it is possible for this IR 'back-radiation' to penetrate and heat the ocean (even though we've already shown that is impossible above). The 1.7 W/m2 works out to 850 Tera watts (TW) [or .85 PW] when multiplied by the total Earth surface area of 500 tera square meters. Thus, the IPCC claims that 'greenhouse gases' are preventing .85 PW of energy from leaving the atmosphere to space. This .85 PW is less than the 89 PW from the Sun by a factor of 105 times. Plugging this into our thought experiment above shows that the change in ocean temperature from 'greenhouse forcing' would be 0.5C/105 or .005C in one year or only 0.5C after 105 years, assuming the oceans release none of this added heat!  In reality, of course, the oceans would release all or most of this added heat by convection, evaporation, or radiation, leaving at most only a few hundredths of a degree temperature change after 105 years. Thus, it is impossible for 'greenhouse forcing' to raise ocean heat content to any measurable degree, or cause melting of the icecaps from below, or increase sea levels from thermal expansion.

3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires heat to flow one-way from hot to cold.
        Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way from the ocean surface to the atmosphere, not the other way around.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot....ont-heat-oceans.html

 

The oceans do contribute to both global warming and cooling. Warm currents warm the temperate and polar regions as well as provide precipitation and cold currents cool the tropics. Nothing has changed for millions of years to change that fact.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

The preposterousness of the article is proven from the phrase, "The warming heats the land and the ocean. The ocean distributes some of the warming to the surface waters and some to the deeper waters, depending on the complex circulation of ocean waters. The shares of warming of the surface and deeper ocean vary over time, in fluctuations that can last a few years or a few decades."

 

Thus, in contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics, (heat rises) the missing heat is sinking to the bottom of the ocean, which is much colder. 

___

You conveniently ignore the effects of ocean currents.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

The preposterousness of the article is proven from the phrase, "The warming heats the land and the ocean. The ocean distributes some of the warming to the surface waters and some to the deeper waters, depending on the complex circulation of ocean waters. The shares of warming of the surface and deeper ocean vary over time, in fluctuations that can last a few years or a few decades."

 

Thus, in contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics, (heat rises) the missing heat is sinking to the bottom of the ocean, which is much colder. 

___

You conveniently ignore the effects of ocean currents.


___________________________________________________

You ignore the inconvenient truth that heat causes the currents to flow, not sit at the bottom of the ocean as stated in the article. Yes, the article stated some of the heat cause currents That's existed for millennia and was well mapped by Benjamin Franklin.

Originally Posted by Stanky:

Since water columns stratify by temperature with the warmest temperatures being at the surface,  any effect of global warming should be seen in the surface waters, not the deepest.

______________________________________________________

Exactly, the fact that the surface currents aren't running faster, or haven't changed significantly is more proof.

 

As no nation has done any significant actions against warming and China and India add at least one coal fired electrical plant a week, the idea that present actions have slowed any warming is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

Since water columns stratify by temperature with the warmest temperatures being at the surface,  any effect of global warming should be seen in the surface waters, not the deepest.

______________________________________________________

Exactly, the fact that the surface currents aren't running faster, or haven't changed significantly is more proof.

 

As no nation has done any significant actions against warming and China and India add at least one coal fired electrical plant a week, the idea that present actions have slowed any warming is ludicrous.

________________________________________________________________

 

Also note that the deep water currents are driven by global cooling:

 

At the earth's poles, when water freezes, the salt doesn't necessarily freeze with it, so a large volume of dense cold, salt water is left behind. When this dense water sinks to the ocean floor, more water moves in to replace it, creating a current. The new water also gets cold and sinks, continuing the cycle. Incredibly, this process drives a current of water around the globe.

http://science.howstuffworks.c...y/ocean-current3.htm

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

thanks to efforts on the part of 'warmists' your British Isles are not under water. dire you never seem to amaze me due to a  lack of order or predictability just a gradual decline into disorder of your thinking.


The only thing your ilk can take credit for is spewing hot air as you lie.  Your union brothers are suffering because of the global warming myth and you continue to support it.  Money/self preservation seems to be the driving force behind a union man's vote, therefore I must assume you are making money off this scam.

 

Originally Posted by Stanky:

Two German physicists probably know more about the laws of thermodynamics than anyone here and they have called the greenhouse effect science Scheiße.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxi...0707/0707.1161v2.pdf

Nawp, not hardly there Stanky:

In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings.
Read More: http://www.worldscientific.com...42/S021797921005555X

Old Squirrelly Dawg knows how to use a search engine/.  However, he eaves out the inconvenient truth.

 

<noscript></noscript>
"GERHARD GERLICH
  • Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina, Mendelssohnstraße 3, D-38106 Braunschweig, Federal Republic of, Germany
RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER
  • Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dipl.-Phys.
  • Postfach 602762, D-22377 Hamburg, Federal Republic of, Germany
Received: 12 March 2010

It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our "Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are "trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process" and that we are "systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth's surface and atmosphere". Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a "Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind", (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e., physically non-existing influence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth."




Read More: http://www.worldscientific.com...42/S0217979210055573
 
<noscript></noscript>
Cited by (1):
. (2014) Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2. International Journal of Modern Physics B 28:13. . Online publication date: 20-May-2014.



They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Debunking Halpern et al. is easy even for me. They claim that a colder system warms a warmer system. It might have been decades since I sat in a Physics class, but even I can point out the error of the the above statement.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×