View Article & Comments

Hi Infrared

Your more then welcome to set up your own thread in the forum, i'm sorry I may have left a reply open from IKRNDU, I will amend.

Whoops, for a moment I thought my sauna illustration was wrong but that's because I've never used one, not because I don't understand enough about weather and climate. Thanks nickbat.

Anyway, as regards my ideas generally I'd rather wait and see what the Earth does because that will say more than any words I could use.

If it goes against me then c'est la vie. At least I'd have been no more wrong that all those professionals. However I think I'll be right in broad terms even if I've got some elements wrong.

Comment edited by Stephen Wilde on Saturday August 09, 2008 at 2:40 PM BST

The link from eadler2 about the ocean skin layer is interesting and I can see the effort going into the issue but as I read the article the conclusions are far from definitive.

The article supports my view that it is a mere theory in the process of investigation and not an established quantifiable phenomenon. Meanwhile the real world goes it's own way.

For those who are curious about the sea surface skin layer, here is a more detailed description of the its interaction with the ocean and dynamics.

Hi Eadler2 the link is far to big for this page, I have reduced the link, it still directs to the same page....


Eadler2 link to GSFC.NASA

Comment edited by Co2sceptic on Saturday August 09, 2008 at 7:41 PM BST

MORE INSIGHT INTO RADIATION SKIN EFFECT.

IR is electromagnetic radiation. The reason that IR does not penetrate into a dense material like a solid or liquid is that it is going to excite the vibrations of atoms in the solid because of interaction with the charge clouds of electrons and nucleii losing energy. So the radiation is extinguished in less than 1 mm. By the same token radiation from the bulk of condensed matter will not be able to exit directly, and end up exciting adjacent atoms.
So the thin skin about 0.5 mm deep is responsible for emitting and absorbing IR radiation. This is the case no matter how much mixing there is by waves. The only thing that differs as a result of the mixing is the temperature profile of the water at the surface as a result of the mixing due to waves, and this profile is soon re-established after the mixing is completed and the skin
emits radiation and the surface cools by evaporation.

Stephen,

The link from eadler2 about the ocean skin layer is interesting and I can see the effort going into the issue but as I read the article the conclusions are far from definitive.

The article supports my view that it is a mere theory in the process of investigation and not an established quantifiable phenomenon. Meanwhile the real world goes it's own way.

Quoting from the article:

Over the surface of the ocean, there frequently exists a very thin layer called the surface skin layer in remote sensing sciences (Schluessel et al., 1990) (Figure 2). The existence of the surface skin layer can be demonstrated both in theory (Hinzpeter, 1967, 1968) and in observations (Ewing and McAlister, 1960; Saunders, 1967; Clauss et al., 1970; Schluessel et al., 1990) by the need to regulate the long wave radiation and the sensible and latent turbulent heat fluxes across the sea surface.

Though it may be new to us laymen, the literature on this dates from the 1960's and '70's. This is evidence that the surface skin layer is a well understood and thoroughly worked out phenomenon. It is not like particle physics, cosmology or string theory.

eadler2:

I am pleased you have refrained from the usual invective. It actually prompted me to read some of your posts. Looking into IR absorption by the oceans, I would tend to agree with Stephen that there is still much theoretical science associated with this.

For example:

"Thermal infrared in the Earth’s atmosphere is around 10 to 20 microns where the absorption coefficient (A) is about 1000 cm-1. For the transmission in liquid water (T), we have

T = exp(-A*L)

where L is the depth of penetration. For the case where 1/e or 27% of the incident photons remain unabsorbed and with A=1000 cm-1, then L= 1/1000 cm = 0.01 mm. 98% of the incident photons will be absorbed within 3 times this distance.

So one can see from the figure, than practically no infrared photons penetrate beyond 0.03 mm. A more precise estimate of A is 5000 cm-1 at 15 microns where carbon dioxide is emitting radiation, so 0.006 mm is a more accurate number for the depth of penetration of 98% of the photons arising from carbon dioxide forcing. For the sake of argument, we will say that all the 15 micron thermal radiation at 15 microns arising from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed in the upper 15 microns of the ocean, based upon electromagnetic theory. Since the liquid water is such an effective absorber, it is a very effective emitter as well. The water will not heat up, it will just redirect the energy back up to the atmosphere much like a mirror, but not exactly a mirror, and this is an important point.

For A = 5000 cm-1 at 15 microns, the implied water emissivity is 0.9998 implying that, of the incident radiation, only 0.02% of it will ultimately be absorbed in the water. The emitted radiation will closely follow a blackbody emission curve whereas the incident flux from carbon dioxide is confined to a band centered at 15 microns. The implication of this is that much of the radiation emitted will escape directly to space through the IR windows, so it could be viewed as a negative feedback. About 40% of the energy will escape this way. Alternatively, this mechanism implies that climate will be less sensitive to greenhouse gas warming than it would be to an equal solar radiation forcing. In addition, there are many moist areas over land and clouds are also moist, so this negative feedback or reduction in climate sensitivity is also operable nearly everywhere."

See [url]http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=87[/url]

Whilst I would not wish to attempt to confirm or refute the above on this forum, it nevertheless clearly shows that the science is not settled, which I rather suspected all along. Stephen's article should therefore, to my mind, be treated as a welcome and useful contribution to the on-going debate.

This just in:

Ice at the North Pole melted at an unprecedented rate last week, with leading scientists warning that the Arctic could be ice-free in summer by 2013.

Robin McKie, science editor
The Observer,
Sunday August 10 2008

www.guardian.co.uk

...maybe should lead as an article under News on this site, eh?

Gadzux, also THIS!

* Barbara McMahon in Sydney
* The Observer,
* Sunday August 10 2008
www.guardian.co.uk


Australia's epic drought is tightening its grip as a deepening ecological crisis unfolds in the south of the country. After seven years of the Big Dry, water levels in lakes at the mouth of the mighty Murray river have fallen by up to 50cm below sea level and environmental damage is spreading on a massive scale, according to conservationists.

Infrared

If you look at our news blogs section, the Guardian has many stories about "Man Made" disasters, needless to say if you want to suffer from "Man Made" anxiety, read the Guardian!

This is their most recent story in the news blog section.

Climate change catastrophe by degrees

There is NO science behind this stuff, it just sells papers. The North Pole story has been doing the rounds for some time.

Take a look at this from The Herald Sun by Andrew Bolt

Evidence doesn't bare out alarmist claims of global warming

Please start your link in the forum, this area is for the article, I will remove this in 24 hours, start up a thread called "Recent Guardian Stories" or something like that and we can all join in and give you reasons why they print this rubbish.

There is NO science behind this stuff, it just sells papers. The North Pole story has been doing the rounds for some time. Applies to the headline article on this thread, too. No?

The Arctic ice melt rate has been less than last year for almost all the season.
For a short while it accelerated due to weather conditions and that is what the report refers to.
That acceleration has now stopped and the ice melt is now very unlikely to match that of last year.

My scenario states that increased solar activity first affects the Pacific and then circulates around the oceans over time. The Arctic is the last place to experience the warming. So, if the Arctic warming has now peaked and the Pacific has gone into cooling mode then we would now expect Arctic ice to increase rather than decrease year by year.

This assertion by me and previous assertions under AGW theory are readily testable over the next few seasons.

All eyes should now turn to the rate of re freeze this autumn. Last year's autumn re freeze was at a record rate and extent.

As regards the Australian drought that is a phenomenon of La Nina i.e. of cooling not warming. During the warming period from 1976 to 1998 the area concerned received higher rainfall and the water demand grew without appropriate infrastructure development. By relying on an expectation that cooling/drier conditions would not return they have been caught out.

Comment edited by Stephen Wilde on Sunday August 10, 2008 at 12:27 PM BST

The Arctic ice melt rate has been less than last year for almost all the season. For a short while it accelerated due to weather conditions - SNIP - That acceleration has now stopped and the ice melt is now very unlikely to match that of last year.

Gee Stephen, how do you know THIS? Do you have a data channel only you are privy to? Could you be so kind as to share with us your references so we can look them up and follow the bouncing ball for ourselves??? Or - deep breath - do you lay it on us to Take Your Word For It? This DOES seem to be a declaration of fact, however, and ought to be fairly straightforward to support.

My scenario states that - SNIP - we would now expect Arctic ice to increase rather than decrease year by year.

Speculation, I'm afraid. Why is arctic ice actually DE-creasing, then?

This cat-and-mouse does get tiresome for its negativity: always the whack-a-mole game of 'yes-no-it's-not. So I have three questions for the sceptics, which relate to three matters I consider to be important, CO2-climate; pollution-resource depletion; poverty-population.

I say three questions but I will frame it in one, and ask that there be three replies.

What three policy formulas would you support, at levels of political and national-international planning and policy, to improve the earth and the lives of humanity?

1.______________

2.______________

3.______________

To encourage discussion I have posted a NEW 'hockey stick' graph over at the 'Failed Hockey Stick forum discussion. No, it's not a graph of any physical quantity versus time, but it sure looks a lot like some that are. Any thoughts?

eadler2:

I am pleased you have refrained from the usual invective. It actually prompted me to read some of your posts. Looking into IR absorption by the oceans, I would tend to agree with Stephen that there is still much theoretical science associated with this.

For example:

"Thermal infrared in the Earth’s atmosphere is around 10 to 20 microns where the absorption coefficient (A) is about 1000 cm-1. For the transmission in liquid water (T), we have

T = exp(-A*L)

where L is the depth of penetration. For the case where 1/e or 27% of the incident photons remain unabsorbed and with A=1000 cm-1, then L= 1/1000 cm = 0.01 mm. 98% of the incident photons will be absorbed within 3 times this distance.

So one can see from the figure, than practically no infrared photons penetrate beyond 0.03 mm. A more precise estimate of A is 5000 cm-1 at 15 microns where carbon dioxide is emitting radiation, so 0.006 mm is a more accurate number for the depth of penetration of 98% of the photons arising from carbon dioxide forcing. For the sake of argument, we will say that all the 15 micron thermal radiation at 15 microns arising from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed in the upper 15 microns of the ocean, based upon electromagnetic theory. Since the liquid water is such an effective absorber, it is a very effective emitter as well. The water will not heat up, it will just redirect the energy back up to the atmosphere much like a mirror, but not exactly a mirror, and this is an important point.

For A = 5000 cm-1 at 15 microns, the implied water emissivity is 0.9998 implying that, of the incident radiation, only 0.02% of it will ultimately be absorbed in the water. The emitted radiation will closely follow a blackbody emission curve whereas the incident flux from carbon dioxide is confined to a band centered at 15 microns. The implication of this is that much of the radiation emitted will escape directly to space through the IR windows, so it could be viewed as a negative feedback. About 40% of the energy will escape this way. Alternatively, this mechanism implies that climate will be less sensitive to greenhouse gas warming than it would be to an equal solar radiation forcing. In addition, there are many moist areas over land and clouds are also moist, so this negative feedback or reduction in climate sensitivity is also operable nearly everywhere."

See [url]http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=87[/url]

Whilst I would not wish to attempt to confirm or refute the above on this forum, it nevertheless clearly shows that the science is not settled, which I rather suspected all along. Stephen's article should therefore, to my mind, be treated as a welcome and useful contribution to the on-going debate.

nickbat,
I understand that you don't want to get involved in a detailed discussion of what Dr Hoyt says. I could do that, but I won't.

The real science is published in the peer reviewed literature and at scientific conferences, has established the role of the skin layer in IR absorption and emission.

Dr Hoyt, like Fred Singer is a retired scientist. He has not published his argument in a peer reviewed journal, but on a GW denier web site. The appearance of an article of this type on such a web site without having some reference in the peer reviewed literature to back it up should make a person like yourself, who claims to be a skeptic, skeptical.

You should notice that despite all the song and dance, he admits that the surface skin does absorb the IR radiation and re-emits black body radiation. That is precisely the greenhouse effect.
Only the difference between the amount emitted and the amount absorbed must be ultimately supplied by the bulk of the ocean below, as must the heat lost by evaporation. The 2 mechanisms operating in fluids that do that are conduction and convection. The temperature profiles driving the heat flow from the bulk were shown on the web site I linked. A difference in temperature between 2 points in a liquid or solid implies that heat conduction is taking place. It is not obvious to me that those temperature profiles could not be maintained by heat conduction.
The amount of heat transported to the surface can be determined from the heat conduction of water and the temperature gradient. The alternative would be that the surface would get colder and ultimately freeze, as I pointed out.

I would like to point out an error in his statement that 40% of the thermal radiation from the earths surface escapes into space.
The number is known to be 15 to 30% depending on the surface temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

This article is an example of the nonsense that is put up on these GW denier web sites. They only get away with it because most people are not well enough educated to see through it and it takes time to wade through it an figure out what is wrong. You should not fill your head up with such stuff.

A particularly outrageous example is the article on the Co2sceptic NewsBlog page, by the Algerian Physicist, who claims the greenhouse effect would violate the second law of thermo dynamics. It is untrue and also ridiculous on its face.The greenhouse theory in various forms is 140 years old. Peer review is not a perfect screen for correctness but hundreds of papers that violate the second law of thermodynamics would never have made it into the peer reviewed literature.

Comment edited by eadler2 on Sunday August 10, 2008 at 5:17 PM BST

Infrared:

See my reply on The Missing Hockey Stick forum thread.

I think we should continue in a single forum location rather than here.

Suffice it to say here that I do not make up anything other than theories which attempt to refelect reality.