"Conveniently ignoring measurements that it is affected by changes in energy input from above."
The top 10 microns (the skin) warms up but apparently not the region between 10 microns and 1mm (the subskin).
Such changes from above do not appear to affect the gradient from 1mm down back to the surface because the gradient is the same day and night. The graph confirms that.
Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde
If you're referring to the graph I think you are, it's just a schematic and can confirm no such thing. And for what it's worth, the gradient in the schematic is not quite the same, with the difference between skin and subskin looking a bit bigger during the day. But without actual data that doesn't mean a great deal.
BTW, I would have engaged with you over at SoD but was pretty busy the last few days.
As for the other points you are out of date. They were discussion points which I have moved on from. I now think that the net effect is zero and not enhanced cooling from more DLR because the energy available for extra evaporation is limited by the amount of extra DLR.
Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde
You'll note that I address both scenarios you have mentioned, both an enhanced cooling and zero net effect. I'm glad you at least saw the problem with the enhanced cooling situation.
All the extra DLR must be converted to a mixture of increased latent heat,not just latent heat but also radiation,convection and conduction otherwise the gradient from 1mm down and up to the surface must change.
Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde
Not sure this sentence makes sense. Can you clarify? If you're saying that the DLR is partitioned into those methods of energy transfer, then I have this to say: If increased DLR causes the ocean to emit more energy by radiation, then the top 10 microns must have warmed up. That's the only way it can emit more radiation. And if the top 10 microns has warmed up then the gradient across the top 1mm must have changed (edit: unless it warms at the same rate at all depths which wouldn't happen, though it might be a reasonable approximation for a small change in DLR, see the bottom of this post).
It appears not to. Evidence that it does change is needed but all the measurements appear to be at either 10 microns or 5cm. No one has yet determined that there is any change in the subskin but that is what AGW theory needs in order to demonstrate any effect from a warmed skin on the ocean bulk.
Think of it like a tributary joining a river. The volume of flow increases (from skin to air) but the rate of flow from upstream (ocean bulk to subskin) does not change. In the climate system the pressure differential between air and ocean works the same was as gravity does on a slope.
Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde
I see the logical problem with this is example, it has to do with what I highlighted above. Certain forms of energy transfer from the ocean increase if the skin temperature increases, most notably longwave radiation but also conduction (which would also increase if the air cooled down). A change in skin temperature has the effect of changing the slope so while the 'volume' increases because it's being contributed to by additional DLR, the flow of energy from below is inhibited by the slope (temp gradient) being shallower.
BTW, Scienceofdoom's article has brought Ward (2006) to my attention. From SoD:
"Below the skin, the high-resolution temperature measurements were measured by SkinDeEP, an autonomous vertical profiler. This includes the “sub-skin” measurement, from which the sea surface temperature was subtracted to calculate ΔTc (see figure 1)."
Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall so I don't know what they define the subskin as. It's possible that they do have a complete vertical profile including the subskin. I will say that with the subskin being the warmest part of the ocean (due to stratification at night and absorbtion of solar visible and infrared during the day), its temperature actually doesn't need to be altered at all by DLR for the additional DLR to indirectly warm the bulk ocean.
Here's why: If SSTsubskin stays the same and SSTskin warms up, there will be less energy transfer upwards. One can assume that, during the day at least, the mixed layer has no clue of what's going on above the subskin because the temp gradient reverses there. Anyway, this means that to maintain equilibrium the subskin transfers more energy downwards because that side of the 'slope' is steeper.
Indeed, it would be possible that because all this happens dynamically, the series of events is thus when DLR increases:
SSTskin increases -> Less energy transfer upwards from SSTskin + slight increase in transfer downwards -> SSTsubskin increases and bulk ocean temp also increases slightly. SSTsubskin increases to maintain the original temp gradient because the system is heading towards equilibrium.
Becuase of this dynamic system it occurs to me that you would see ΔTc (SSTsubskin - SSTskin) stay about the same because when SSTskin increases, so does SSTsubskin because it is holding onto more of the energy it is receiving, unless the rise in DLR was large and sudden enough to push the system significantly out of equilibrium, in which case you would observe a decrease in ΔTc. You must remember that the schematics we've seen deal with relative temps, not absolute temps, which is what we'd actually need to confirm or refute this.
Golly I do hope that makes sense.
Edited by user
02 February 2011 16:22:19
|
Reason: Not specified