Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

How the Oceans Get Warm? (Rephrased)

By

ACCORDING to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the oceans are warming [1]. But the IPCC does not explain the underlying physical mechanism, the IPCC does not explain from first principles how the oceans warm.

In 2000, in a short article for Science and Technology Magazine, a respected oceanographer, the late Robert E. Stevenson wrote that the popular scientific consensus that greenhouses gases were causing the oceans to warm was incorrect because infrared radiation from greenhouse gases heats only the top few millimetres of the ocean and as a consequence is soon dissipated by evaporation [2]. According to Dr Stevenson, it is only the sun that can warm the oceans.

Indeed incoming solar radiation in the visible spectrum* is mostly short-wave radiation and it is generally accepted, including by those who swim in the ocean, that this radiation can penetrate a significant distance into the water column and is stored as heat.

Physicists that specialize in quantifying heat transfer will generally concur with Dr Stevenson. They explain that evaporation, conduction and long-wave infrared radiation (for example from greenhouse gases) are all surface heat transfer effects. That is, they only heat or cool at the very surface of the water.

Not everyone understands concepts like conduction and infrared radiation. But most people understand evaporation. When water evaporates, for example from the human skin, it cools. Evaporation cannot occur underwater.

And so, long-wave radiation cannot penetrate the water surface.

Like evaporation, long-wave radiation is only a surface heat transfer effect.  It can not warm the ocean in the same way that incoming short-wave solar radiation in the visible spectrum can.

Some scientists will argue that there is a second reason why radiation from greenhouse gases cannot warm the ocean. They argue that the infrared radiation from greenhouse gases referred to by Dr Stevenson is, in fact, back radiation (energy from the sun radiated off the surface, absorbed by greenhouse gases above it, and then re-emitted back down) and to claim this back radiation can warm the ocean is to violate the 1st 2nd law of thermodynamics. They explain that while an increase in greenhouses gases can not result in warming from back radiation, an increase in greenhouse gases can result in warming by reducing the rate of radiative heat loss to space.

But, even accepting that more greenhouses gases in the atmosphere, for example from more carbon dioxide emissions, can result in an elevation of the average Earth’s surface temperature because of the re-radiation of more infrared long-wave thermal radiation, how does this get the ocean to warm?

In short, how is anthropogenic global warming going to get the oceans to warm given that long-wave radiation, like evaporation, only has a surface heat transfer effect?

******

* Corrects based on comment received by email from Bob F-J.  Bob also commented that: UV at shorter wavelengths is a substantial part of solar and is virtually “reflected”, and solar IR finds water to be virtually opaque.    Bob also commented that: the surface of the ocean will radiate EMR [energy across a range of spectrums] as a function of its temperature independently of anything else going on.  And that my article made no mention of this while emphasising evaporation.   Bob also mentioned that evaporation varies widely with relative humidity, temperature difference, wind speed and more.

I really did not mean to “emphasis evaporation”, but to use it to help readers understand the concept of a surface heat transfer effect.

In this post I have rephrased and added to an earlier post: How the Oceans Get Warm: Robert E. Stevenson. When I posted ‘part 1’ I stated: resolving this issues is fundamental to understanding not only global warming but also the related issue of ocean acidification.

The photograph shows me and a green sea turtle swimming in the warm waters of the Coral Sea.

References

1. Ocean Heat Content. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2.html

2. Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed: No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming’ by Robert E. Stevenson
In 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine, Summer 2000  http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html

Reader Interactions

Comments

  2. Lawrence says

    So the only way oceans can warm is primarily by the sun and short wave radiation with atmospheric long wave having a very neglgable effect.
    Mind you would any thermal venting would also be long wave, however if the biggest impact is shortwave then increased global cloudiness would have a massive impact on oceans as well as land.

  3. Nullius in Verba says

    Heat continuously enters and leaves the oceans by different mechanisms, and the amount of heat accumulated can increase either by increasing the input, or by decreasing the output. The actual mechanism proposed by the IPCC is that it decreases the output. The rate of heat flow across the surface depends on the difference in temperatures. The bigger the temperature distance the faster the upward flow, and warmer air just above the surface reduces that flow. (Wet skin feels warmer in warm air than cold air.)

    However, it’s not true that the greenhouse effect in a convective atmosphere works by back-radiation. This was Fourier’s and Arrhenius’s old theory and was falsified around 1900. For a long time the GHE idea was dismissed, but in the 1950s a new theory was developed based on a different mechanism. Serious climate scientists know and use it, but for some reason I don’t fully understand they keep on using the old theory in explanations to the public, and a lot of the warmists who cite it don’t realise even the mainstream dumped it a century ago.

    Nevertheless, there’s absolutely no point in debunking the old theory as a way of debunking AGW, since all the climate models use the new one – the one they don’t mention.

    Rather than go through it all again, I’ll refer you to my bits of Judith’s summary of the physics – start at the top, then scroll down to the ‘radiative-convective perspective’.
    http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/

    Incidentally, since liquid water is transparent to visible light and opaque to IR, it acts like an incredibly dense greenhouse gas, emitting intense back-radiation downwards throughout its bulk – and yet leads to no greenhouse warming. The new theory explains this easily – the lapse rate and emission height are both near zero – but the back-radiation argument fails miserably.

  4. Bob Fernley-Jones says

    FUTURE FORUM on ABC 24 TV tonight (Sunday)

    A don’t miss expert panel led by Robyn Williams following the recent Symposium in Cannes on the demise of coral reefs caused by climate change. 9:00 pm in Melbourne

  5. Neville says

    Oceans cover about 71% of the planet’s surface and in any 30 year period oceans plus clouds must be a major contributor to any variation of climate and temp.

    If ocean variables like oscillations change at different intervals than the previous 30 years ( just eg) and more/less short wave radiation due to the sun and more/less cloud cover then temp changes must be higher/lower in relation to that previous 30 year period.

    Surely if solar and cloud variation was 1% more or less than the previous 30 years then there must be variation in climate and higher or lower temps?

    Or does anyone really believe that over the next 30 year period the ocean oscillations, clouds and SW radiation contribute exactly the same variations and temp as the previous 30 years?

    To vary by 1% or so doesn’t seem to be out of the ordinary and then because of these changes there must be more or less heat waiting in the system to also contribute to the next 30 years.
    I’d think a 1% change would add up to a lot more or less heat to add to future climate variation.
    Then that begs the question ,what really causes rapid changes in climate over short and long periods of time?

    Why did the holocene optimum have much higher temps than today after the planets recent change into an interglacial?
    Sea levels were higher 4,000 years ago than today, so were did that extra heat come from so soon after an ice age?
    Also why didn’t the planet keep warming to levels that existed during the previous Eemian interglacial ( 130,000 years ago) with sea levels much higher than we experience today?
    The way climate changes over short and long periods of time is still a mystery and yet we know that before 1800 those large and smaller changes most certainly were performed by mother nature unaided by humans in any way at all.

  7. John Sayers says

    for those who can’t access The Australian here’s the latest garbage from Will Steffen.

    Clean up energy for the sake of our grandchildren

    by: Will Steffen
    From: The Australian
    July 23, 2012 12:00AM

    Increase Text Size
    Decrease Text Size
    Print

    THE next chapter of the climate change story is unfolding as the focus turns towards the many opportunities that are opening up in the transition to an economy powered by clean energy.

    Victoria is a good example of a state poised to move rapidly into this transition. The state has barely begun to develop the considerable renewable energy resources that lie within its borders. Victoria receives enough energy from the sun to produce double the state’s current energy needs, and there are considerable wind resources yet to be exploited. These resources are becoming even more valuable as the cost of renewable energy around the world is dropping rapidly.

    Although there will no doubt be some short-term costs to some industries and communities, as there always are in any type of major economic restructuring, there is an impressive array of extra benefits that can accrue from the transition to cleaner energy.

    Enhanced public transport systems, for example, not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also make cities healthier and more liveable. A shift to more active transport such as walking and cycling leads to health benefits such as a reduction in cardiovascular problems, respiratory disease and obesity, and thus reduces healthcare costs for individuals and society.

    Buildings can be constructed or retrofitted with more efficient heating, lighting, cooling and ventilation, which save energy costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create healthier and more productive conditions for workers. Melbourne has several state-of-the-art examples of green buildings.

    Economies as a whole can benefit from the transition to clean energy and Sweden, for example, already has the runs on the board. Over the past decade, the Swedes have reduced their emissions of carbon dioxide by about 13 per cent, the best performance of any of the world’s wealthy countries.

    Over the same period, the Swedish economy has recorded a higher rate of GDP growth than any of the OECD’s “big seven” economies, the US, Japan, Canada, Britain, Germany, France and Italy. So much for the myth that taking vigorous action on climate change will damage or slow the economy. Quite the opposite seems to be the case.

    Economists Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut have estimated the long-term economic costs associated with a transition to a very low-carbon economy and found them to be very much smaller than the costs of failing to take action on climate change.

    Some estimates of the drop in GDP towards the end of this century resulting from a lack of effective climate action are as much as 20 per cent. And Sweden is showing that there are actually economic benefits from taking effective climate action.

    Scientists have painted a clear picture of the risks from failing to act on climate change. The natural world would experience the sixth great extinction event in Earth’s history, coral reefs would almost completely disappear, and we would be facing metres of sea-level rise as oceans continue to warm and polar ice sheets melt and disintegrate.

    Over the past decade Victorians have seen a window into that possible future in their own backyard.

    The 2009 heatwave in Melbourne caused 374 excess deaths as well as triggering disruptions to electricity supplies and transport systems. The Black Saturday bushfires caused more deaths and significant amounts of physical and psychological suffering.

    The Big Dry of 1997-2009 put severe pressure on Melbourne’s water supply and damaged the state’s agricultural production, leading to an 80 per cent drop in grain production and a 40 per cent reduction in livestock production in the Wimmera Southern Mallee region.

    There is strong evidence that climate change influenced the extreme events Victorians experienced over the past decade. Without effective action on climate change, we can expect more such damaging weather and climate events in the future, and they will likely become more severe.

    But this is a future we don’t have to have. Although we are already committed to some additional rises in temperature and changes in rainfall patterns over the coming decades, the worst impacts — even more extreme heatwaves, mass extinctions and an ice-free world — are still avoidable. But time is running out. This is the critical decade to decisively turn towards a future powered by clean energy, and to grab the considerable opportunities that are opening up in front of us.

    The choice between our two possible futures could not be starker. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to make the right choice.

  8. Debbie says

    ‘There is strong evidence that climate change influenced the extreme events Victorians experienced over the past decade. Without effective action on climate change, we can expect more such damaging weather and climate events in the future, and they will likely become more severe.’

    Oh dear me…..here we go again.
    EXPECT? LIKELY?
    This is so far off anything that has anything to do with STRONG EVIDENCE that I simply have to laugh.
    And why, pray tell, are we suddenly focusing on Victoria?
    Like that isn’t a bleeding obvious question that has absolutely nothing to do with strong evidence about anything even vaguley scientific or statistical.

    I wonder if Steffan even understands the term ‘effective action’?
    What has been ‘effective’ in any of the ‘action’?
    He seriously needs to look up the definition of effective.

    And his title and concluding comment is ridiculous….he implies that caring about our children and our grandchildren is a NEW CONCEPT??????
    AND…. we have a CHOICE about 2 POSSIBLE futures
    Since when in the whole history of mankind was there only 2 POSSIBLE FUTURES??????
    AND…. that it is only people like Steffan who CARE about this NEW CONCEPT…..so therefore we need to place our TRUST in some completely undefined ability in some one somewhere to care for our future generations????????
    What planet does this man live on?

  11. Bob_FJ says

    John,

    I found the Future Forum show was not as bad as I thought it would be, and managed to hang in there all the way through. There was very little mention of climate change issues and sedimentation, overfishing, fertilizer/chemical run-off, and coal ports were among the main topics. None of the alarmist statements that appeared in the so-called consensus statement were repeated, such as:

    CO2 emissions at the current rate will warm sea surface temperatures by at least 2-3 °C, raise sea-level by as much as 1.7 meters, reduce ocean pH from 8.1 to less than 7.9, [by the end of this century] and increase storm frequency and/or intensity. This combined change in temperature and ocean chemistry has not occurred since the last reef crisis 55 million years ago.

    BTW, as at 6/July, 3 days BEFORE the start of the symposium, there were nearly 2,500 endorsees in the click HERE attachment. http://www.icrs2012.com/Consensus_Statement.htm The authors requested endorsements beforehand for maximum impact in the opening session!

    Terry Hughes the convener of the symposium was quite reserved and even expressed optimism (with others) about the future of the reef despite being one of three authors of the consensus statement

    Jeremy Jackson of the Smithsonian was outstanding. He hardly added to his credibility with some almost silly statements. He was reported to have said this at the opening session:
    .

    reefs around the world have seen severe declines in coral cover over the last several decades. In the Caribbean, for example, 75-85 percent of the coral cover has been lost in the last 35 years. Even the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, the best-protected reef ecosystem on the planet, has witnessed a 50 percent decline in the last 50 years.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gWoyetdQdul_BcgsavkYwprnOZ9Q?docId=CNG.035ca3a89a414e9b237ad84b8dbd6bdf.11

    Ove Hoegh-Guldberg was in the audience, and surprisingly only asked a meek question related to CO2, which the panel virtually passed over.

    In closing, there was general optimism but several panelists (including Jackson) expressed concern about climate change.

  12. Minister for Truth says

    By my calculations, and use of the OECD figures see here:

    http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx#

    ….Steffens use of the comparative figures is not to be trusted either, as Sweden is coming off the smallest base of all the countries, and its growth since 2001 has been only $117,882 bn in US$, (current prices and current ppp).

    Sweden is a real minnow comparatively speaking,even if its growth over the whole was 46.9% for the period 2001 to 2010

    Even within the EU Union, Sweden is a minnow, and the EU as a whole grew by US$4,786, 835bn or 42% as an average of them all.

    Australian in the same period grew by over 60%.

    Using Sweden as a guide, is a bit be like using the temperature at Marble Bar to say we are all going to fry.

    BTW the USA emissions have also reduced by huge amounts mainly through more use of gas and the need to be more self sufficient for oil and gas…

  13. John Sayers says

    Sweden’s energy sources are:

    Nuclear – 45.7%
    Hydro – 46%
    Wind – .6%
    Solar – 0%
    Biomass – 5.2%

    Coal, oil and Gas account for 2.1%

  14. Debbie says

    Precisely John!
    Bleeding obvious question and bleeding obvious answer.
    I am totally disgusted by this bleedingly obvious politically motivated behaviour continuing to masquerade as ‘science’ and a ‘concern’ for our future.
    Equally disgusting and laughable is the claim that there is ‘effective action’ being taken.

  15. Minister for Truth says

    Quite so Debbie

    I am disgusted that he cant even write a general article with any accuracy or credibility, telling all the truth and relevant facts, even the negatives, the same as you would if you were being a skilled scientist knowlegeable about how one would apply the scientific method…and he cant even do that properly

    This is beyond being funny any more.

  16. Robert says

    “Economies as a whole can benefit from the transition to clean energy and Sweden, for example, already has the runs on the board. Over the past decade, the Swedes have reduced their emissions of carbon dioxide by about 13 per cent, the best performance of any of the world’s wealthy countries.

    Over the same period, the Swedish economy has recorded a higher rate of GDP growth than any of the OECD’s “big seven” economies…”

    Ah, the Euro-sophistication angle! That should get the cultural yokels cringing. Let’s put Steffens in charge of implementing hydro and nukes in Australia. Should go well for him, with all those GetUp luvvies and Fairfax readers rioting in favour of dams and uranium.

  18. Bob_FJ says

    Hey Guys and Girls,
    Why do you take Steffens so seriously?
    The real truth surely rests in the el suprimo Flanelly and his wondrous crystal depth wisdoms?
    Surely he will leap forth soon with the incontestable reality?

  19. Robert says

    It’s extraordinary that guys like Steffens, Gore and Flannery survive their own comments. The masterpiece would have to be Gore’s televised claims about the temperature of the earth’s interior, back when he was spruiking geothermal. Sophisticates may have backed away from Gore after that screaming absurdity, but they haven’t backed away from GIM.

    Gore and Flannery, especially, may be blatant charlatans and just short of jail bait – but they could limbo under a pregnant snail.

  20. Leo G says

    Factors that vary the depth or extent of the mixing of the oceanic well-mixed layers should also affect near-surface ocean mean daily temperatures.
    Since the mixing depth is effected through diurnal variation of visible and ultraviolet radiation, the obvious direct factor is the pattern of power spectral densities of incident solar radiation.
    The contributing factors would include latitude, time of year, cloud cover, oceanic pollutants, atmospheric particulates, atmospheric trace chemicals and oceanic biota.
    Increasing the extent of light cloud cover could conceivably increase the oceanic surface temperature by reducing mixing depth even though cloud reduces the intensity of incident shortwave radiation.

  21. lurker passing through, laughing says

    Of course the oceans heat up because the CO2 causes acid, and everyone knows acid burns. So the heat goes somewhere into the oceans. And as the oceans heat up from the acid, they convert the CO2 in the oceans into acid as well, making it even hotter until we get to boiling acid. This is bubbling away all of the coral polyps and clams, leaving only time for one big last barbie, which the Koch Brothers and BHP Billiton are going to host, with free beer for all.
    An apocalyptic bar-b-q, as it were.

  22. Bob_FJ says

    Leo G @ 10:33 pm
    You make some interesting observations, but Jennifer’s point I believe is that visible light penetrates deep into the ocean whereas back radiation from GHG’s only affects the skin of the water. The rate of heat loss from the deeply absorbed visible is thus relatively very slow, compared with that in the skin. Sure there are complex dynamics involved with the deep absorption including that the sun does not shine at night, but they are all relatively slow compared with backradiation absorption and loss in the skin. You say:

    Increasing the extent of light cloud cover could conceivably increase the oceanic surface temperature by reducing mixing depth even though cloud reduces the intensity of incident shortwave radiation.

    Any chance you could elaborate on that? (do you have a graph of the visible spectra below the clouds?)

    May I refer you to these graphs which allege that back-radiating IR penetrates liquid water about six orders of magnitude less than visible, and UV nine orders or a thousand times less than backradiation. (the graph has log scale axis)

  23. Bob Fernley-Jones says

    Hey Lurker ptl,

    Even the recent 12th symposium on coral reefs’ so-called consensus statement (game set and match delivered before the symposium started) recently reckoned that the pH would only drop to about 7.9 from the current alleged 8.1 by the end of the century.

    Why be so gloomy?
    Their absolute truth is still alkaline (basic), and it only begins to get acidic below 7.0.
    I’d still fearlessly dip my toe in at 7.9 without any protection!

    Seen any images of the White Cliffs of Dover or Beachy Head in England which are part of the regional almost pure microfossil limestones about 500 m thick laid down in warmer seas with higher CO2?

  25. lurker passing through, laughing says

    Bob,
    It is clear to me that the time for taking seriously what the extremist apocalyptic hypester con-artists are pushing regarding the climate issue is long since past.
    Read some of the fools who pose as serious here and elsewhere.
    The devil hates to be mocked.
    Mockery is really the only response most of the climate crap-artists deserve.
    Their bs is not really any more serious or thoughtful than some nuns arguing about angels dancing on pin heads.
    And certainly not deserving of serious treatment at all.

  26. Bob_FJ says

    lurker passing through, laughing @ 1:55 pm

    Yes indeed, and it is essential to retain a sense of humour.

    I thought I might add to my comment on the White Cliffs of Dover, partly because it might help Jennifer in her proposed massive project concerning so-called acidification of the oceans.

    Here is an image of part of those fairly pure calcium carbonate (chalk) cliffs: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LW7tkv9pbhw/TlDjSchWvcI/AAAAAAAAALM/LeAHMVH1kqw/s1600/white-cliffs.jpg

    They also contain bigger fossils such as bivalves which the alarmists say are about to join a new mass extinction. http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/dover_kent_fossils.htm

    Here is one depiction of what is believed of geological past CO2 and temperature levels:
    http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

    From the second reference the currently exposed portions of the chalk cliffs are 85-89 MYO, but elsewhere the older stuff underground is said to be about 150 MYO. So, if you translate say 90 to 150 MYA onto the graph in the third reference, the CO2 and T levels were way, way up there. I don’t see this discussed by the several thousand experts that endorsed the disaster scenario at the recent symposium at Cannes.

  27. lurker passing through, laughing says

    Bob_FJ,
    Most excellent point:
    The Consensus clowns are like creationists ignoring the fossils.
    We have the fossils from when the CO2 was much higher.
    The extremists are, to be diplomatic, incorrect when they claim to stand on science regarding ocean acidification.
    .

  28. Larry Fields says

    Hi Jennifer,
    Do you remember that short Green Tree Ants article from 2009? I’m rewriting the ant puzzle that I posted there, and when it’s done, will publish it at Hubpages. Do I have your permission to use that striking photo?

    Cheers,
    Larry Fields

  29. Luke says

    Well let’s see the impact of a warming ocean.

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1627.html

    In early 2011, the marine ecosystems along the west coast of Australia—a global hotspot of biodiversity and endemism —experienced the highest-magnitude warming event on record. Sea temperatures soared to unprecedented levels and warming anomalies of 2–4 °C persisted for more than ten weeks along >2,000 km of coastline. We show that biodiversity patterns of temperate seaweeds, sessile invertebrates and demersal fish were significantly different after the warming event, which led to a reduction in the abundance of habitat-forming seaweeds and a subsequent shift in community structure towards a depauperate state and a tropicalization of fish communities. We conclude that extreme climatic events are key drivers of biodiversity patterns and that the frequency and intensity of such episodes have major implications for predictive models of species distribution and ecosystem structure, which are largely based on gradual warming trends.

  30. Robert says

    “experienced the highest-magnitude warming event on record”
    “Sea temperatures soared to unprecedented levels”
    “predictive models of species distribution and ecosystem structure, which are largely based on gradual warming trends.”

    I guess I can’t get into trouble or be accused of starting an argument if I simply highlight bits.

  31. Luke says

    True – but on your previous form I’m pre-disposed to take offence. You did a 60 Minutes edit job on your last quote too and deserve to be virtually snotted for that 🙂

    Of course you might just say well isn’t that all trucking interesting and have a good read.

  33. Robert says

    To be fair to Luke – who assures us he can’t be offended anyway – and to believers in CAGW-or-whatever, if I had been recommended a similarly worded article on this year’s European coldwave, I would have treated it with equal scorn. (For info on such against-script events, wiki actually becomes impartial, and it’s safe to give it as a reference:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_European_cold_wave)

    What a pity that one can’t pick up an article about the effects of some persistent warming of a large area of ocean, or an article about any important natural event, without the risk of being so clumsily and blatantly manipulated. Bring back Goyder! I’ll even settle for Hubert Lamb.

Trackbacks