Better still, and also addresses the enormous heat sink capacity of the ocean:
http://oceansjsu.com/105d/exped_briny/1.html
(skip ahead to question 12 for that)
Even better:
http://www.biology.duke.edu/johnsenl...bs/oceanus.pdf
Deep oceans are clearer than coastlines. Blue penetrates deeper than anything else a few hundred meters. Red is almost entirely absorbed in the first few feet. (see page 2)
UV about 100m or so.
Better still, and also addresses the enormous heat sink capacity of the ocean:
http://oceansjsu.com/105d/exped_briny/1.html
(skip ahead to question 12 for that)
As a cowboy and fisherman I can tell you that sunlight warms the water of the ocean and the more/hotter you get the warmer the oceans get. When I fish offshore in the gulf in August the water is 20 degrees warmer than it was in February.
As a diver, the visible spectrum is pretty damn dark at 100 feet.
Also, somebody explain to WC how thermoclines affect the heat sink potential.
Does that involve math? Cause math doesn't matter.
Yes, I know.
Manny keeps using tactics to avoid my points. My point is that there is still light being absorbed past that depth. Without accepting such facts, it is impossible to get a more complete understanding of the geosciences, which is needed for long term predictions of the earth climate.
Well, there's an exponential falloff in intensity with depth and that neglects the contribution of solutes to attenuation. So, that begs the question of significance.
How significant is the contribution (if any) of light absorption at depths greater than 400-500 ft?
It's pretty significant for the future when more energy is being collected by the earth, and we estimate it to be just under 1 watt/sq meter. Keep in mind, there is energy at shorter wavelength than visible light also at these depths. Water transmits blue light about 100 times easier than red light, and ultraviolet even better. All this energy ends up being absorbed one way or another until probably hundreds of years later. this is a trend that has been probably been occurring for a very pong time, since a balancing point is not reached. We know the sun has notable increases in intensity twice since the maunder minima. the most recent, about 1900 to 1950.
This whole energy balance is important to the earths warming and cooling cycles. The ocean plays a very important role as well. The AGW crowd seems to completely ignore some key aspects, probably because it destroys their agenda.
It does? Is any of this energy dissipated or is all of this excess being deposited into a closed system?
lol...blue light batteries ftw.
i am pretty sure that this is just an extension of his 'the energy is being hidden in the deep ocean currents' argument.
It should be also noted that he been asked for quantification and not 'pretty significant.' He is always limited to supposing the qualities that he wants when an analysis asks for anything more difficult than primary school arithmetic.
What form do you mean by dissipated? There are several ways heat becomes work. In the end, there needs to be some balance.
Why does this matter?
Your AGW experts says this is happening. Can we get back to the original question, or do you guys want to block any request a skeptic has?
All you guys try to do is try to silence questions of skepticism, blinded by your religion of climate pseudoscience. Your faith is so strong, you will not listen to reason.
This loss of 0.9 is not increasing in the atmosphere by that much. Such an annual rate would be a disasterIf CO2 is the culprit for the climate change we see, then how do you explain the extent of the energy budget loss of 0.9 watts/sq. meter into the oceans?
Let me remind you. Solar energy penetrates the ocean deep. LW from the downward 333 number is probably absorbed in the vapor above the water, and only causes more evaporation rather than any appreciable increase the water temperature. What little makes it to the water is still only heating the very top surface. Again, just more precipitation.
Also, do you know of any sources that provide a number for H2O LW absorption vs. ppm or percentage that can be compared to CO2?
Why does this matter??!!?!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Please explain it Agloco. Please.
Better still, and also addresses the enormous heat sink capacity of the ocean:
http://oceansjsu.com/105d/exped_briny/1.html
(skip ahead to question 12 for that)
That HTML is for an online course about oceanography.
Were you to have bothered with it, it explains exactly how energy is absorbed, at what spectrums, depths, and effects on temperature.
You should spend some time listenign to the little mini lectures.
interesting course.
Of course, it is taught by someone with a PhD, and is all sciency and stuff.
The guy is probably in on the AGW scam, so it must be all propaganda.
Right?
OMG...
No. I'm not jumping to such a conclusion without knowing more about him.
I know the intensity is minimal. Why are you guys fixating on the minimal levels?
Some solar energy makes it this deep, bot zero IR from downforcing makes it this far.
If I were to bother with it?
My God...
It's your incorrect assumption that I don't already know the basic facts outlined in that chapter 12.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)