The volume of the earth’s oceans is around 1.35 billion cubic kilometers or 1.35×1018m3. Mass of salt water is around 1030kg/m3.
The specific heat capacity of sea water is 3930J/kg/K.
Thus the amount of energy required to heat the oceans for each 1C change is:
E = 1.35×1018m3 x 1030kg/m3 x 3930J/kg/K. = 5.46×1024J/K
71% of our planet is ocean and the planet’s surface area is 5.10×1014m2
so, if 1W of energy were arriving on every 1m2 of planet surface, then if this were all evenly distributed in the ocean, (ignoring heat losses) the time to increase the temperature of the whole ocean by 1C is:
Time = 1C x 5.46×1024J/K / (1W x 0.71 x 5.10×1014 ) = 1.51×1010
Time = 478years
In other words, if W is the power per unit area, then the rate of temperature rise is given by:
Temp rise of ocean per year = Watts per unit meter / 478
Or turning around
Time = 478 x Temperature rise / Power per unit meter
Thus to answer the obviously silly question:
“how long does it take to boil the oceans”.
Assuming an average temperature around 4C and an increase in power of 4w/m2 (around that usually cited for CO2 warming), the time taken is:
Time = 478 x (100-4) / 4 = 11,500 years
This calculation ignores the increasing rate of heat loss as the oceans heat up dependent on ΔT^4!
Of course it does – I just added the “boiliing water” as it might catch a few internet surfers.
The serious bit is the ~500 timescale.
I wanted to know the time-scale for heating the oceans as this is indicative of the periods over which it affects natural variation. It appears that scale is of the order of 500 years. In other words, random changes in ocean currents significantly change global temperatures in a random way over timescales as much as 1000years.
In other words, any idiot claiming “there’s no way to get natural variation because there’s no source” is talk through their lower orifice”.
All you have done is raise the sensible heat of the ocean by 3930J/kG/K, increasing evaporation rate increasing precipitation back to the ocean after EMR dissipates the extra (625x) 2500 kJ/kG of latent heat to space with no change in temperature. Where oh where is your boiling? Trying to use sensible heat (as temperature) to discuss anything of this planet is madness!
BTW; Who is this Dr. Gram that neuvo-physics use as a reference (name) for Newton’s (inertial) mass. Who is this Dr. Gravity that neuvo-physics use as a reference (name) for the projective potential (attractive) field to external Grams? Are the two related? By what means? Marriage or mirage? Dr. Internal (energy) is even more stupid. However, to take the cake!, bastard Dr. Energy and bastard Dr. Work are related only by Dr. Force times the number of attempted impregnations of Dr. Distance (interval).. Earthlings know nothing, all is but circular fantasy!
All the best! -will-
Will Janoschka says:
23rd March 2016 at 3:34 pm
All you have done is raise the sensible heat of the ocean by 3930J/kG/K,
James McGinn:
Well, you are right. Mike’s calculations involve evaporation not boiling.
Evaporation requires an atmosphere. And the rate of evaporation varies wildly depending on the humidity. So the 3930J/kG/K is meaningless.
There really is no such thing as boiling off water. You really are just increasing its rate of evaporation. Genuine gaseous H2O never persists for more than a few inches above the surface of a boiling pot before it recombines to form liquid water (which is the only reason one can see it). It will, often, then disappear as it spreads into the rest of the atmosphere. But this is not because it becomes gaseous, it is because the larger droplets evaporate into smaller droplets that are invisible.
There are many layers of misconception and pseudoscience associated with questions involving H2O in the atmosphere. Most people never get beyond the deep emotions they feel when their basic assumptions are shown to be nonsense, so they can never make progress. Instead they throw temper tantrums then wallow in the sadness of the fact that reality isn’t the way they want it to be.
Now we know why:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
Does anyone have some idea of how deep this academic physical technobable deceit now goes? The conceptual, hypothetical, fantastical, religious, political, stuff of the philosophical is endless!
The remaining number of physical rabbits upon this planetary surface has nothing to do with such academic deceitful philosophical, it only has to do with surface population density of rabbits/varmints.
All the best! -will-
More nonsense from:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114796
tallbloke says: March 17, 2016 at 1:40 pm
“And the amount of atmospheric mass above the tropopause compared to the amount of atmospheric mass above the surface varies by considerably more than 36%”
You keep referring to the third grade concept that atmospheric pressure is equivalent to the gravitational mass of the atmosphere at greater radius! There is absolutely no evidence that such is ever correct, for either inertial or gravitational mass of an atmosphere. The atmosphere tends to have a centre of gravity co-located with the centre of gravity of the incompressible planet. The Earth’s gravitational compressive force tends to maintain a stable Yukawa potential for the atmosphere not a coulomb potential. Earth’s gravity only affects atmospheric mass location when the two centres of mass become other than co-located. Such adjustments are limited to the speed of sound in that part of the atmosphere, and generally appear as atmospheric mass motion itself.
The actual mass of the atmosphere has never been measured, from either a gravitational or inertial point of view and may very well have a difference between the two. Only after both measurements have been done will any coherent theory of atmospheric mass motion become possible.
Ben Wouters says: March 17, 2016 at 6:07 pm
suricat says: March 17, 2016 at 2:39 am
(“Day time ‘on shore breeze’ and night time ‘off shore breeze’ is well documented for surface observation. However, the ‘inertia’ generated by this ‘must’ evoke an ‘opposite wind direction’ elsewhere (at altitude).”)
This clearly shows you are absolutely clueless about what Hydrostatic Equilibrium is all about.
You even have cause and effect completely backwards.”
see https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-113834
That is a comment from Roger Clague Agreeing that surface (sea level) pressure is independent of normal range of surface temperatures all, maintaining the heat of vaporization throughout the atmosphere. Roger in the same comment refuses to agree with your third grade meteorological catechism of atmospheric Hydrostatic Equilibrium. The obvious is that Suricat (Ray Dart) agrees more with Roger Clague than with you. What is your point?
“Ben Wouters says: February 16, 2016 at 3:06 pm
tallbloke says: February 16, 2016 at 1:03 pm
(“Let me refer you again to how much difference temperature makes to pressure at surface and altitude:”)
BW: “Temperature makes NO difference on the surface pressure at all.
Assuming same gravity and column mass the surface pressure will be exactly the same, whether the surface temperature is -50C or + 50”
That is comment by you #113788 of no significance! Please show any measurement of atmospheric column mass. Another meteorological fantasy. The atmosphere clearly has mass but no one has bothered to measure such. The astrologists are never wrong! Just ask them! This atmosphere is a mass symmetric self supported gas structure with gravitational forces maintaining co-located centres of mass between the compressible and incompressible.
Ben Wouters says: March 17, 2016 at 6:09 pm
suricat says: March 17, 2016 at 3:07 am
much that is true!-WJ
“No use having a discussion on the Coriolis effect as long as you don not understand what Hydrostatic Equilibrium is all about.”
Hydrostatic Equilibrium is all about why ships float! Such a concept is never applicable to an atmosphere that exhibits no weight.
All the best! -will-
Will Janoschka says: 26th March 2016 at 4:44 am
Does anyone have some idea of how deep this academic physical technobabble deceit now goes?
James McGinn:
Well, in my estimation it goes back to about 1840 by a guy named James Pollard Espy.
Ben Wouters says: May 29, 2015 at 8:48 am
Convection as we still know it today was discovered and published by James Pollard Espy in 1841!! He figured this all out using crude instruments like a nephelescope. and dry and wet-bulb thermometers.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/beginners-guide-to-convection-cells/comment-page-2/#comment-101750
James McGinn:
Note Ben’s wording here. He say, “He figured it out using crude instruments . . .”.
So, what do we gather from this? Well, some guy back in the 1840 figured out something using crude instruments. Nobody is quite sure what he figured out but everybody is sure that he must have been correct. So you all set upon nailing down exactly what it was that you were so sure that he must have been correct about.
So, the conversation over at Roger Tall Bloke continued over 11 months with the general idea to find an answer to that question. From time to time I would inject myself into the conversation to point out that the convection fails to explain the jet streams. Undaunted you all stubbornly persisted, seemingly believing you would eventually come to some kind of consensus. More recently that whole discussion appears to have devolved into endless arguing about semantics and definitions. (An argument that you appear to be trying to continue here.)
The mistake you all made was to take it on face value that, “He figured this all out using crude instruments like a nephelescope. and dry and wet-bulb thermometers. So, the discussion was doomed from the outset. In reality, convection is meaningless–kind of like CO2 Forcing–and meteorologists have been working diligently since 1840 to keep it that way.
As with discussions about global warming, the big clue that you all missed was the fact that there were no meteorologists in the conversation to clarify the issue and no resources readily available on the internet or anywhere along those lines.
Another more general truth that you failed to grasp is that all meteorologists graduate from the same department and are taught by the same teachers as climatologists.
What Drives The Jet Streams?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/tzpkqE0RBpQ/LC5DyLOQCQAJ
From Fantasy to Fantastic:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jGJ1t33XxNM/bfeuqkbmDAAJ