Scientists Find A CO2 Impact On Ocean Heat Content Changes Amounts To 0.049% At Most

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

 The radiative impact of CO2 on the ocean’s thermal skin layer cannot penetrate deeper than 0.01 mm. This effectively eliminates the potential for CO2 to be a driver of global warming.

According to mainstream anthropogenic global warming (AGW) science, 93% of global warming is manifested in the 0-2000 m oceans. Just 1% of global warming is manifested as a change in atmospheric temperature.

Image Source: IPCC (ipcc.fandom.com)

Consequently, for anthropogenic CO2 emissions to be a driver of global warming, CO2 concentration changes must drive changes in the Earth’s ocean heat content.

Oceanographers Wong and Minnett (2018) point out that total CO2 forcing can only radiatively exert an impact on the top 0.01 mm of the ocean’s thermal skin layer. (Human hair is about 0.06 mm thick.)

Image Source: Wong and Minnett, 2018

Problematically, the amount of solar radiation absorbed in the upper 0.01 mm layer of the ocean is just 4.9 W/m².

Thus, CO2 concentration changes may, at most, affect 0.049% of the global oceans’ thermal skin layer.

This is the total extent of the radiative impact for CO2 in global ocean heat content changes.

CO2 may therefore be ruled out as a driver of global warming.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

11 responses to “Scientists Find A CO2 Impact On Ocean Heat Content Changes Amounts To 0.04911 At Most”

  1. Zoe Phin

    It’s becoming more and more obvious that they got things exactly backwards!

    The proper causality is:
    Geothermal -> Land/Ocean -> Atmosphere

    http://phzoe.com/2020/04/12/lunar-warming/

    http://phzoe.com/2020/03/13/geothermal-animated/

    The big clue is at the bottom of highlighted text, where they show “solar” radiation increases with depth.

    No, it’s probably geothermal decreasing with anti-depth.

    Who agrees their junk science is 180 degrees backwards?

    1. P Gosselin

      You got my vote!

  2. Zoe Phin

    Just a correction to my previous comment:

    I meant geothermal supplies the difference …

    As we can see the tropical sun only provides a max of 261 W/m^2, or -12.7C.

  3. Gli scienziati hanno riscontrato l'impatto massimo della CO2 sul contenuto di calore oceanico che è pari al 0,049%

    […] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]

  4. Petit_Barde

    First of all, there is often a confusion between radiative energy transfer and radiative fluxes :
    – The radiative energy transfer between 2 bodies B1 and B2 is the difference between the radiative flux from B1 to B2 minus the radiative flux between B2 to B1. If B1 is warmer than B2 the radiative energy transfer between the 2 bodies is from B1 towards B2.

    Since the Ocean’s surface is warmer than the atmosphere, the radiative energy transfer is upwards, from the Ocean towards the atmosphere and then, from the atmosphere into space.

    The annual mean Earth’s energy budget shows that the atmosphere emits 170W/m² into space and “absorbs” some 17-20W/m² from the Earth’s surface (those data are from the IPCC itself – see Kiehl & Trenberth 1997, or NASA 2009, etc.) :

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/EnergyBalance/images/global_energy_budget_components.png

    All the radiative energy transfers relative to the atmosphere are due to the active gas in the atmosphere, hence, those gas contribute to cool the atmosphere (with an efficiency of roughly 85-90%) and hence, the Earth’s surface.

    But but but … What is the impact on global temperatures of a CO2 concentration increase ?
    The cross-correlation diagram from 40 years of measured data shows that the impact is rather insignificant and if anything, the only plausible assumption would be that the CO2 concentration act as a negative feedback with respect to global temperatures variation :

    https://youtu.be/2ROw_cDKwc0?t=559

  5. salah bela

    thanks
    It is the duty of man to protect the planet from pollution

  6. More Vindication for CO2isLife; CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 15 microns doesn’t warm the Oceans – CO2 is Life

    […] (Source) […]

  7. Scientists Find A CO2 Impact On Ocean Heat Content Changes Amounts To 0.049% – At Most – Truth is difficult but essential…
  8. Nieuws 20.4.2020 - Leefbewust.com

    […] on their animal host Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Slams CNN’s Gupta Over ‘Vaccine Misinformation’ Scientists Find A CO2 Impact On Ocean Heat Content Changes Amounts To 0.049% At Most Scientists Suggest To Have Cured Crohn’s Disease Siblings of children with autism may process […]

  9. Peter

    As a lay person I’m confused by all the terminology and jargon above and it seems to me it would be much easier for us dummies to understand the issue much easier if it were presented in a different manner.

    Apparently solar energy consists of about 50% IR and this cannot penetrate further than 1mm below the ocean surface.

    Other IR reaching the ocean surface are from greenhouse gases reflecing , around 80% of which is caused by water vapour.

    1. Of the total IR reaching the ocean surface, what percentage was created by CO2.

    2. If we can calculate the % of CO2 at 410ppm, then we should be able to calculate the difference at 290mm and see the total difference percentage wise since before the industrial revolution.

    3. If there is wind and water is very turbulent, does this change things?

    4. What differences do clouds make in total IR reaching ocean surface on a global scale.

    Is the above possible or am I just really thick?

  10. Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #406 – Daily News

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close