Breakup occurred at the expected time for a warming area!
2010/04/30
Latest Arctic Sea Ice plot
So far this years sea-ice is as predicted. If you plot the linear curve fit for each day of the year from AMSRE 2002-present you get this plot.
2010/04/23
Volcanic Dust?
Volcanic Dust????
UK south west. most dust fell within a period of about 3 days!
Note the new layer on the window
Many cars exhibit this fine buff coloured dust. In sunlight there are reflective bits visible.
Is it volcanic origin?
any way of telling?
If volcanic then the dust is not all above 16000ft. Planes fly through many layers on take off.
Engines suck a lot more air that a windscreen! turbine blades are cooled by through flow air. Turbine blades reach temperatures where glassification can occur.
cooling channels closed by glassified dust will lead to overheat and EVENTUAL failure (see the NASA experience http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/volcanicash/03_NASADC8AshDamage.pdf )
From the document:
SUMMARY
In the early morning hours of February 28, 2000, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) DC-8 Airborne Sciences research airplane inadvertently flew through a diffuse plume of volcanic ash from the Mt. Hekla volcano. There were no indications to the flight crew, but sensitive onboard instruments detected the 35-hr-old ash plume. Upon landing there was no visible damage to the airplane or engine first-stage fan blades; later borescope inspection of the engines revealed clogged
turbine cooling air passages. The engines were removed and overhauled at a cost of $3.2 million. Satellite data analysis of the volcanic ash plume trajectory indicated the ash plume had been transported further north than predicted by atmospheric effects. Analysis of the ash particles collected in cabin air heat exchanger filters showed strong evidence of volcanic ash, most of which may have been ice-coated (and
therefore less damaging to the airplane) at the time of the encounter. Engine operating temperatures at the time of the encounter were sufficiently high to cause melting and fusing of ash on and inside high-pressure turbine blade cooling passages. There was no evidence of engine damage in the engine trending results, but some of the turbine blades had been operating partially uncooled and may have had a
remaining lifetime of as little as 100 hr. There are currently no fully reliable methods available to flight crews to detect the presence of a diffuse, yet potentially damaging volcanic ash cloud.
So:
it's invisible to normal instrumentation
Not seen in normal inspection
Not instantaneously disasterous but severely limit the engines life
If ice covered will not abrade windscreens
There have been few eruptions in european crowded airspace. This may be the first example?
Planes cannot detect dust with radar (it is tuned for water molecules)
Planes cannot therefore steer around a cloud. They would have to use the info from the met models. These have been claimed to be inaccurate!
The met office predicts the path and height.
The met office does not say it is unsafe to fly.
The met office does not fly planes to test the dust cloud.
Who wants 400 deaths on their conscience
UK south west. most dust fell within a period of about 3 days!
Note the new layer on the window
Many cars exhibit this fine buff coloured dust. In sunlight there are reflective bits visible.
Is it volcanic origin?
any way of telling?
If volcanic then the dust is not all above 16000ft. Planes fly through many layers on take off.
Engines suck a lot more air that a windscreen! turbine blades are cooled by through flow air. Turbine blades reach temperatures where glassification can occur.
cooling channels closed by glassified dust will lead to overheat and EVENTUAL failure (see the NASA experience http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/volcanicash/03_NASADC8AshDamage.pdf )
From the document:
SUMMARY
In the early morning hours of February 28, 2000, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) DC-8 Airborne Sciences research airplane inadvertently flew through a diffuse plume of volcanic ash from the Mt. Hekla volcano. There were no indications to the flight crew, but sensitive onboard instruments detected the 35-hr-old ash plume. Upon landing there was no visible damage to the airplane or engine first-stage fan blades; later borescope inspection of the engines revealed clogged
turbine cooling air passages. The engines were removed and overhauled at a cost of $3.2 million. Satellite data analysis of the volcanic ash plume trajectory indicated the ash plume had been transported further north than predicted by atmospheric effects. Analysis of the ash particles collected in cabin air heat exchanger filters showed strong evidence of volcanic ash, most of which may have been ice-coated (and
therefore less damaging to the airplane) at the time of the encounter. Engine operating temperatures at the time of the encounter were sufficiently high to cause melting and fusing of ash on and inside high-pressure turbine blade cooling passages. There was no evidence of engine damage in the engine trending results, but some of the turbine blades had been operating partially uncooled and may have had a
remaining lifetime of as little as 100 hr. There are currently no fully reliable methods available to flight crews to detect the presence of a diffuse, yet potentially damaging volcanic ash cloud.
So:
it's invisible to normal instrumentation
Not seen in normal inspection
Not instantaneously disasterous but severely limit the engines life
If ice covered will not abrade windscreens
There have been few eruptions in european crowded airspace. This may be the first example?
Planes cannot detect dust with radar (it is tuned for water molecules)
Planes cannot therefore steer around a cloud. They would have to use the info from the met models. These have been claimed to be inaccurate!
The met office predicts the path and height.
The met office does not say it is unsafe to fly.
The met office does not fly planes to test the dust cloud.
Who wants 400 deaths on their conscience
2010/04/16
Unprecedented Data Word Purge At CRU ClimateAudit
From an exchange on CA
Wow good going McIntyre The whole blog sanitized of fraud claims.
Just searched and found none - I though perhaps I had misjudged/misread this blog
all the palinizations removed!
but then...
Google - fraud site:http://climateaudit.org/ gets 464 hits
didnt check them all but most surprising link to no text found or sometimes inconsequential use of the word.
However google cache tells a different story. Don't know when you sanitised but it was not quick enough to miss google caching! I expect the wayback machine would reveal this.
Steve: As I told you, I don’t make such allegations myself and blog policies ask commenters not to as well. I moderate after the fact and ask readers such as yourself to advise me if I’ve missed comments that breach blog polices.
thefordprefect
Posted Apr 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM | Permalink | ReplyThis is Google’s cache of http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/14/the-boulton-hockey-stick/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 7 Apr 2010 20:54:42 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
9 references to fraud on 7th April
0 ref to fraud on 16 April
page posting date 14 February 2010
For 2 months the post refered to fraud. It was used in response to your inline posts. I suppose you could have missed it!
----------------
Even better:
This is Google's cache of http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 13 Apr 2010 01:40:29 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime
3 frauds on 13 April 0 frauds on 16th April
page post date 22nd Nov 2009
-------------------
Does he actually now think Fraud is not relevant when talking about climate change?
Updated 2010-04-16
Wow good going McIntyre The whole blog sanitized of fraud claims.
Just searched and found none - I though perhaps I had misjudged/misread this blog
all the palinizations removed!
but then...
Google - fraud site:http://climateaudit.org/ gets 464 hits
didnt check them all but most surprising link to no text found or sometimes inconsequential use of the word.
However google cache tells a different story. Don't know when you sanitised but it was not quick enough to miss google caching! I expect the wayback machine would reveal this.
Steve: As I told you, I don’t make such allegations myself and blog policies ask commenters not to as well. I moderate after the fact and ask readers such as yourself to advise me if I’ve missed comments that breach blog polices.
thefordprefect
Posted Apr 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM | Permalink | ReplyThis is Google’s cache of http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/14/the-boulton-hockey-stick/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 7 Apr 2010 20:54:42 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
9 references to fraud on 7th April
0 ref to fraud on 16 April
page posting date 14 February 2010
For 2 months the post refered to fraud. It was used in response to your inline posts. I suppose you could have missed it!
----------------
Even better:
This is Google's cache of http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 13 Apr 2010 01:40:29 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime
3 frauds on 13 April 0 frauds on 16th April
page post date 22nd Nov 2009
-------------------
Does he actually now think Fraud is not relevant when talking about climate change?
Updated 2010-04-16
2010/04/15
Monkton
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14856887
But, in their emails to Bickmore over the past few weeks, Monckton and Ferguson accuse the scientist at LDS Church-owned BYU of personal attacks, and both threaten him.
Ferguson ends a Thursday e-mail by hinting there might be repercussions through their shared faith.
"I trust you are gentleman and Christian enough to not bear such false witness," Ferguson concludes. "If not, I will seek both professional and ecclesiastical redress for 'conduct unbecoming'."
In an exchange a week earlier, Monckton said that Bickmore's "unjustifiable and gratuitous remarks about my habitual mendacity are to be drawn to the attention of the President of the University... to be investigated as a disciplinary matter." Monckton also said he had spoken with "some of the University's leading supporters" about Bickmore's role in the university's decision not to host Monckton's climate-change speech.
"This, too, I understand, is to be referred to the University as a disciplinary matter, since the University prides itself on allowing academic freedom," Monckton wrote.
Bickmore said Friday he is not aware of any investigation or disciplinary action. And university spokesman Michael Smart said none was in the works.
...
Meanwhile, the information office at the British House of Lords responded to Bickmore's inquiry about a question that had been dogging him: Why does Monckton, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, describe himself as a member of the House of Lords? He'd made the claim to members of the U.S. Congress and also in an April 1 e-mail to Bickmore, where Monckton asserted: "I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise."
The official response on Thursday said: "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."
Debunked
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2010/0409/20100409_103701_Monckton_Mystery_Solved.pdf
But, in their emails to Bickmore over the past few weeks, Monckton and Ferguson accuse the scientist at LDS Church-owned BYU of personal attacks, and both threaten him.
Ferguson ends a Thursday e-mail by hinting there might be repercussions through their shared faith.
"I trust you are gentleman and Christian enough to not bear such false witness," Ferguson concludes. "If not, I will seek both professional and ecclesiastical redress for 'conduct unbecoming'."
In an exchange a week earlier, Monckton said that Bickmore's "unjustifiable and gratuitous remarks about my habitual mendacity are to be drawn to the attention of the President of the University... to be investigated as a disciplinary matter." Monckton also said he had spoken with "some of the University's leading supporters" about Bickmore's role in the university's decision not to host Monckton's climate-change speech.
"This, too, I understand, is to be referred to the University as a disciplinary matter, since the University prides itself on allowing academic freedom," Monckton wrote.
Bickmore said Friday he is not aware of any investigation or disciplinary action. And university spokesman Michael Smart said none was in the works.
...
Meanwhile, the information office at the British House of Lords responded to Bickmore's inquiry about a question that had been dogging him: Why does Monckton, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, describe himself as a member of the House of Lords? He'd made the claim to members of the U.S. Congress and also in an April 1 e-mail to Bickmore, where Monckton asserted: "I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise."
The official response on Thursday said: "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."
Debunked
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2010/0409/20100409_103701_Monckton_Mystery_Solved.pdf
2010/04/14
Prediction(!!!) of future temperature using "cycles" + trend
This is an update of an earlier post and is just a "fun" thing
Get HADCRUT3V global temp record
Average over 6 months to remove some of the "noise"
Create a series of narrow band filters on the resultant temperature plot.
Tune each filter manually to isolate peaks in the output.
These SHOULD show peaks wherever there is a signal of, say, Scarfetta's 60 years.
Take the output of each narrow band filter and generate a cosine wave that is as near as possible the same amplitude and phase as the filtered signal.
Do this a number of times isolating each frequency.
Add together the generated cosines. Multiply the result by a factor (approx 3 in the plot below). If there is a suitable long period - low frequency - signal isolated the resultant should match the original signal. IT DID NOT so a trend was added.
y = 2.44231E-07x^3 - 1.36387E-03x^2 + 2.53884E+00x - 1.57576E+03 (not good as it deviates before 1850.
This is what I got :
Note
No 60 year signal
No massive TSI signal (there is some!)
The significant signals are all around 2 to 6 years
The plot shows prediction for the next few years!!!!
Get HADCRUT from CRU website
Get Excel from microsoft
Get bandpass filter from
http://www.web-reg.de/index.html
in general set the bandwidth to months/150 (e.g. period start 21.19 end 21.29 months ie. months/200 in this case)
Get HADCRUT3V global temp record
Average over 6 months to remove some of the "noise"
Create a series of narrow band filters on the resultant temperature plot.
Tune each filter manually to isolate peaks in the output.
These SHOULD show peaks wherever there is a signal of, say, Scarfetta's 60 years.
Take the output of each narrow band filter and generate a cosine wave that is as near as possible the same amplitude and phase as the filtered signal.
Do this a number of times isolating each frequency.
Add together the generated cosines. Multiply the result by a factor (approx 3 in the plot below). If there is a suitable long period - low frequency - signal isolated the resultant should match the original signal. IT DID NOT so a trend was added.
y = 2.44231E-07x^3 - 1.36387E-03x^2 + 2.53884E+00x - 1.57576E+03 (not good as it deviates before 1850.
This is what I got :
Note
No 60 year signal
No massive TSI signal (there is some!)
The significant signals are all around 2 to 6 years
The plot shows prediction for the next few years!!!!
Get HADCRUT from CRU website
Get Excel from microsoft
Get bandpass filter from
http://www.web-reg.de/index.html
in general set the bandwidth to months/150 (e.g. period start 21.19 end 21.29 months ie. months/200 in this case)
2010/04/07
SW LW radiation in oceans
Harry Lu (20:11:48) :
” George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
Bob you are so charitable. LWIR warms the top few cm. I figure that atmospheric (tropospheric anyway) LWIR can hardly be significant below about 3-4 microns…; so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. How much of that energy remains following the prompt evaporation from that hot skin.”
Have you not forgotten conduction? It operates in all directions!
So we have the top few cm heated by sw and lw and a few 10s meters down heated by UV
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Global_Vegetation_Monitoring/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22217_EN.pdf
So the surface cm is absorbing a percentage of the SW (as does each cm of the deeper water except the percentage is of a progressively smaller maximum) plus all the LW re-radiated from GHGs.
The surface is also receiving LW from the layer under the surface and radiating LW down to this lower layer. Because the surface is hotter this will average out to an energy transfer downwards.
So the hotter the surface the less the lower water energy will be radiated (lost) into the atmosphere. Less loss with the same SW TSI heating the lower layers will mean a hotter temperature.
Of course the surface is loosing heat via conduction in all directions radiation in all direction, and forced air convection upwards (sideways!)
However, The surface layer heating must effect the lower layer cooling in my books.
According to your diagram of energy buget:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/trenberth_mine_latest_big1.jpg
Only 169 w/m^2 of SW radiation gets absorbed (198w/m^2 hits the ground)
The back radiation from GHGs is 321 w/m^2 absorbed by the ground.
If 321W/m^2 is absorbed in the top layer and 169w/m^2 is absorbed in 10s meters the the top layer will be much warmer than the lower layers.
So is it not true that this top layer must control the temperature of the lower layers?
“”" Harry Lu (20:11:48) :
” George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
Bob you are so charitable. LWIR warms the top few cm. I figure that atmospheric (tropospheric anyway) LWIR can hardly be significant below about 3-4 microns…; so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. How much of that energy remains following the prompt evaporation from that hot skin.”
Have you not forgotten conduction? It operates in all directions! “”"
Haven’t forgotten a thing Larry; you obviously didn’t read my post very closely; or alternatively I didn’t write it very well.
My post dealt with one very simple 8th grade high school science concept.
# 1 the incidence of solar spectrum radiation (UV to IR) on the deep ocean surface; at approximately 1000 W/m^2 max (sun directly overhead no clouds).
#2 the incidence of LWIR thermal radiation from the atmosphere (or from cloud reflections) in the range of perhaps 6-100 micorns on that same ocean surface at 324 W/m^2 according to Trenberth.
That is ALL that my post was about; those two electromagnetic radiation sorces of energy; both of which are treated by “climatologists” as “forcings”; so many Watts per square metre. As if somehow they are the same thing and produce the same results given their relative surface irradiances.
Of course they are NOT the same thing because of the things I clealy stated in my original post.
Nothing in my post suggested that there were NO OTHER physical processes of any kind going on as well; so my post contained nothing about quantum chromodynamics, or starlight, or backside thermal radiation from the moon, or anything else.
If you wish to contribute something about conduction (why didn’t you include convection) to the discussion; please do so; but don’t go thinking that I didn’t include that in my post because I forgot about it.
Obviously you didn’t understand the nature of the difference between solar spectrum radiation and its water absorption curve, and LWIR thermal radiation and its very differnet water absorption curve. That alone is what my post was about; not a complete treatise on global thermal physics.
Harry Lu (13:14:53)
Mr E. Smith, why so angry!?
your comment said:
” so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. ”
I simply suggested that this would also propagate downwards by conduction and would not remain at 10um – and I don’t thinc convection works upside down at temps above 0C approx.?
I then suggested that if there was a hot water layer (even very thin) it would enable the underlying thermal structure heated by SW radiation to heat more since the energy loss is effectively stopped. energy radiated down into layer 10um below 10um surface hot layer is greater than the energy transported from the lower lay to the upper. i.e. there is a net flow downwards.
The fact is the sw radiation looses energy to the water at reducing amounts from the surface down. Each molecular layer absorbs some (say A%*169) energy and the rest passes through to the next layer (169-A%*169). This layer absorbs A% of what it receives (169-A%*169)*A% etc The surface layer therefore absobes most LW and a bigger quantity of the SW than subsequent “layers”. As you say it will be much hotter than layers below without any mixing or conduction.
This must stop the lower layers losing heat??
If you can convince me otherwise I am willing to listen.
Harry Lu (15:01:02)
“anna v (21:31:50) :
Re: Harry Lu (Apr 7 13:14),
The inside layers of the water, supposing there is no convection, will lose heat by conduction only. … LW in water can travel less than a micron before being absorbed, so it cannot get out as long wave except from the few microns of the surface. It will reach the surface through conduction.”
If I am understanding you, then 1um below the surface will not radiate to the air but heat will conduct to the surface and then radiate/conduct/evaporate to the air.
This is the same as I understand it.
but I also assume that radiation will go in all directions from each heated molecule. Some will heat the 1um towards surface. some will heat the next 1um down the 1um down will also radiate in all directions but will be at a lower temperature. Hence there will be less radiation to surface than the surface radiates down.
There will be a net frow of energy from surface downwards by radiation.
The conduction I assume is also equal to all connecting molecules so conduction from the surface hot molecules will conduct to the lower cooler molecules and the cooler molecules will conduct to the hot molecules but at a lesser rate.
Hence there will be a net flow of energy downwards.
Convection will cause energy to flow in the direction of the molecular gross movement. At normal (non freezing) sea temperatures the surface will be made up of less dense warm water and the lower layers will be more dense cold water
Hence convection will not occur? there will be mixing by molecular motion but again this will favor heating the cool layers.
TSI SW will penetrate the depths warming them but as I pointed out 198W hits the surface, less hits each succeeding molecule as it passes downward therefore more energy will be absorbed by the surface layers (assuming homogeneous water absorption). the surface 1um will also receive the back radiation (LW) 321W.
As far as I can see the hot layer will control the loss of energy from the depths. Hot surface = hotter depths
/harry
” George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
Bob you are so charitable. LWIR warms the top few cm. I figure that atmospheric (tropospheric anyway) LWIR can hardly be significant below about 3-4 microns…; so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. How much of that energy remains following the prompt evaporation from that hot skin.”
Have you not forgotten conduction? It operates in all directions!
So we have the top few cm heated by sw and lw and a few 10s meters down heated by UV
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Global_Vegetation_Monitoring/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22217_EN.pdf
So the surface cm is absorbing a percentage of the SW (as does each cm of the deeper water except the percentage is of a progressively smaller maximum) plus all the LW re-radiated from GHGs.
The surface is also receiving LW from the layer under the surface and radiating LW down to this lower layer. Because the surface is hotter this will average out to an energy transfer downwards.
So the hotter the surface the less the lower water energy will be radiated (lost) into the atmosphere. Less loss with the same SW TSI heating the lower layers will mean a hotter temperature.
Of course the surface is loosing heat via conduction in all directions radiation in all direction, and forced air convection upwards (sideways!)
However, The surface layer heating must effect the lower layer cooling in my books.
According to your diagram of energy buget:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/trenberth_mine_latest_big1.jpg
Only 169 w/m^2 of SW radiation gets absorbed (198w/m^2 hits the ground)
The back radiation from GHGs is 321 w/m^2 absorbed by the ground.
If 321W/m^2 is absorbed in the top layer and 169w/m^2 is absorbed in 10s meters the the top layer will be much warmer than the lower layers.
So is it not true that this top layer must control the temperature of the lower layers?
“”" Harry Lu (20:11:48) :
” George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
Bob you are so charitable. LWIR warms the top few cm. I figure that atmospheric (tropospheric anyway) LWIR can hardly be significant below about 3-4 microns…; so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. How much of that energy remains following the prompt evaporation from that hot skin.”
Have you not forgotten conduction? It operates in all directions! “”"
Haven’t forgotten a thing Larry; you obviously didn’t read my post very closely; or alternatively I didn’t write it very well.
My post dealt with one very simple 8th grade high school science concept.
# 1 the incidence of solar spectrum radiation (UV to IR) on the deep ocean surface; at approximately 1000 W/m^2 max (sun directly overhead no clouds).
#2 the incidence of LWIR thermal radiation from the atmosphere (or from cloud reflections) in the range of perhaps 6-100 micorns on that same ocean surface at 324 W/m^2 according to Trenberth.
That is ALL that my post was about; those two electromagnetic radiation sorces of energy; both of which are treated by “climatologists” as “forcings”; so many Watts per square metre. As if somehow they are the same thing and produce the same results given their relative surface irradiances.
Of course they are NOT the same thing because of the things I clealy stated in my original post.
Nothing in my post suggested that there were NO OTHER physical processes of any kind going on as well; so my post contained nothing about quantum chromodynamics, or starlight, or backside thermal radiation from the moon, or anything else.
If you wish to contribute something about conduction (why didn’t you include convection) to the discussion; please do so; but don’t go thinking that I didn’t include that in my post because I forgot about it.
Obviously you didn’t understand the nature of the difference between solar spectrum radiation and its water absorption curve, and LWIR thermal radiation and its very differnet water absorption curve. That alone is what my post was about; not a complete treatise on global thermal physics.
Harry Lu (13:14:53)
Mr E. Smith, why so angry!?
your comment said:
” so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. ”
I simply suggested that this would also propagate downwards by conduction and would not remain at 10um – and I don’t thinc convection works upside down at temps above 0C approx.?
I then suggested that if there was a hot water layer (even very thin) it would enable the underlying thermal structure heated by SW radiation to heat more since the energy loss is effectively stopped. energy radiated down into layer 10um below 10um surface hot layer is greater than the energy transported from the lower lay to the upper. i.e. there is a net flow downwards.
The fact is the sw radiation looses energy to the water at reducing amounts from the surface down. Each molecular layer absorbs some (say A%*169) energy and the rest passes through to the next layer (169-A%*169). This layer absorbs A% of what it receives (169-A%*169)*A% etc The surface layer therefore absobes most LW and a bigger quantity of the SW than subsequent “layers”. As you say it will be much hotter than layers below without any mixing or conduction.
This must stop the lower layers losing heat??
If you can convince me otherwise I am willing to listen.
Harry Lu (15:01:02)
“anna v (21:31:50) :
Re: Harry Lu (Apr 7 13:14),
The inside layers of the water, supposing there is no convection, will lose heat by conduction only. … LW in water can travel less than a micron before being absorbed, so it cannot get out as long wave except from the few microns of the surface. It will reach the surface through conduction.”
If I am understanding you, then 1um below the surface will not radiate to the air but heat will conduct to the surface and then radiate/conduct/evaporate to the air.
This is the same as I understand it.
but I also assume that radiation will go in all directions from each heated molecule. Some will heat the 1um towards surface. some will heat the next 1um down the 1um down will also radiate in all directions but will be at a lower temperature. Hence there will be less radiation to surface than the surface radiates down.
There will be a net frow of energy from surface downwards by radiation.
The conduction I assume is also equal to all connecting molecules so conduction from the surface hot molecules will conduct to the lower cooler molecules and the cooler molecules will conduct to the hot molecules but at a lesser rate.
Hence there will be a net flow of energy downwards.
Convection will cause energy to flow in the direction of the molecular gross movement. At normal (non freezing) sea temperatures the surface will be made up of less dense warm water and the lower layers will be more dense cold water
Hence convection will not occur? there will be mixing by molecular motion but again this will favor heating the cool layers.
TSI SW will penetrate the depths warming them but as I pointed out 198W hits the surface, less hits each succeeding molecule as it passes downward therefore more energy will be absorbed by the surface layers (assuming homogeneous water absorption). the surface 1um will also receive the back radiation (LW) 321W.
As far as I can see the hot layer will control the loss of energy from the depths. Hot surface = hotter depths
/harry
2010/04/03
The full Video Set
A collection of videos:
Higher definition versions are available as a download here:
amsre arctic.avi
sst arctic.avi
sst global 25.avi
sst nindian.avi
sst1e.avi
sstAgulhaBenguela.avi
sstgulfstream.avi
Atlantic North - A few years of sea surface temperature video
MW_IR Gulf of Mexico
Global
Arctic AMSRE from Jaxa
North Indian Ocean
Agulha and Benguela currents
Gulf Stream
Higher definition versions are available as a download here:
amsre arctic.avi
sst arctic.avi
sst global 25.avi
sst nindian.avi
sst1e.avi
sstAgulhaBenguela.avi
sstgulfstream.avi
Atlantic North - A few years of sea surface temperature video
MW_IR Gulf of Mexico
Global
Arctic AMSRE from Jaxa
North Indian Ocean
Agulha and Benguela currents
Gulf Stream