The Photon Current - 3

Fig. 1 OSNAP (red lines) and Rapid (blue line)

A dictionary defines the word 'current' as "a body of water or air moving in a definite direction, especially through a surrounding body of water or air in which there is less movement" but it also applies to electrons in an electric current.

So now, since photons were discovered ages ago they are relevant today.

 Since photons in seawater flow from warmer water into cooler water, obeying the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that is actually an electromagnetic current.

The photon current exists in some degree in the form of visible light, but vastly more so in the form of infrared radiation.

Infrared radiation is the heat carrying photons that are not visible which TEOS nomenclature describes as potential enthalpy (The Ghost Photons, 2, 3).

Thus, ocean heat is transmitted by photons ("it is perfectly valid to talk of potential enthalpy, h⁰, as the 'heat content' ...”; In Search Of Ocean Heat, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14).

Current oceanography is plagued by ocean current confusion:

"We note that there is a fundamental difference in the language and symbols used in thermodynamics versus in fluid dynamics. As we have noted, the FTR, Eq. (2), applies only to reversible processes, and yet the FTR has been combined with the First Law of Thermodynamics, Eq. (1), to arrive at Eqs. (3) and (4) which are written in typical fluid dynamics form using material derivatives. There is a disconnect here, a disconnect that is common in the literature and is the source of much confusion. In fluid dynamics we do not require mixing processes to occur only for an instant and then to have these process switch off while the fluid slowly comes to thermodynamic equilibrium (as would be required to technically obey the thermodynamic restrictions associated with the FTR which we have used). Rather, in fluid dynamics we imagine the mixing processes and the dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy to occur continuously. Moreover, a state of thermodynamic equilibrium has spatially uniform fields of in situ temperature and chemical potential, and such a state is not what we observe or expect in the ocean which is mixed by turbulent mixing processes (see the discussion of this point on the last page of Appendix B of IOC et al., 2010). Hence it is clear that the restrictions associated with use of the FTR are not fulfilled when we combine it with the First Law and write the result using fluid dynamic notation and interpretation as though it might apply to the real ocean. We conclude that there are small thermodynamic inconsistencies involved with combining the FTR and the First Law into the forms of Eqs. (3) and (4). This same inconsistency is common to all advanced thermodynamics textbooks and is rarely discussed; a rare mention of the issue appears on the last page of Sect. 49 of Landau and Lifshitz (1959). Importantly, we point out below (in the paragraph that contains our Eq. 6) that in physical oceanography we do not need to use the evolution of entropy as it appears in Eqs. (3) and (4), but rather we exploit the fact that entropy is a function only of state variables and so can be expressed in the functional form η̈ (S A , h, P ). This sidesteps the otherwise annoying conceptual issues that would arise when applying fluid mechanics concepts and fluid mechanical mathematical nomenclature (such as material derivatives) to the FTR where the same symbols have a different and more restrictive meaning."

(Thermodynamic potential of seawater, December 2023, emphasis added). The errors in textbooks related to other issues also have a history of perpetuity (The Appendix of Vestigial Textbooks, 2).

Anyway, let's look at a recent paper that is impacted by issues of perpetuity mentioned in the "Thermodynamic potential of seawater" paper quoted above, and relate it to another recent paper focused on perceived dangers of an ocean current:

"One of the most prominent climate tipping elements is the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), which can potentially collapse because of the input of fresh water in the North Atlantic. Although AMOC collapses have been induced in complex global climate models by strong freshwater forcing, the processes of an AMOC tipping event have so far not been investigated. Here, we show results of the first tipping event in the Community Earth System Model, including the large climate impacts of the collapse. Using these results, we develop a physics-­based and observable early warning signal of AMOC tipping: the minimum of the AMOC-­induced freshwater transport at the southern boundary of the Atlantic."

(Science Advances, February 2024, emphasis added). Other discussions of AMOC (Britannica, Earth Science, NOAA).

The focus of the concern is simple: if that current stops flowing it can have serious consequences to human civilization.

But the researchers were misled by the current misunderstanding caused by confusing fluid dynamics related current analysis with ocean heat flow dynamics.

One area of error is caused by forgetting that photons carry heat from one molecule or atom to another at the speed of light, whereas, ocean currents don't even break the speed limit on a typical highway or freeway.

Furthermore, photons travel through space between molecules and atoms whereas ocean currents push their way through the seawater around them.

There is no mention of photons nor of potential enthalpy in the paper, and my problem with it is that is does not use vast amounts of available data in the WOD.

Various experts commented on the paper, one indicating that "the model used it is still not high enough resolution to resolve all the fine-scale structure of important aspects of the ocean circulation" (Expert reactions to modelling study).

In today's appendices (Appendix TPC 03 and Appendix TPC 06) I show the entire set of in situ measurements and TEOS calculations of the WOD Zones where the equipment utilized by the researchers is located (see Fig. 1).

Appendix TPC 03 shows graphs of WOD Layer 3, while Appendix TPC 06 shows graphs of WOD Layer 6, in two ways.

First, it shows the entire layer (latitude band around the globe) and Second, it shows the section of that layer alone (only the zones in the Atlantic section of that layer) for each instrument (both OSNAP and RAPID locations).

The abundant WOD data provided in today's appendices offers no evidence to support the theoretical model's opaque suppositions IMO.

Further, the "Science Advances" paper was limited to the 0-1000m depth levels while the appendices include measurements at all depths.

One interesting thing to note is that the deepest layer in those zones, the Hadopelagic ('Hado') is warmer than the shallower depth above it, the Bathypelagic ('Bathy').

Yep, the photon current carrying potential enthalpy is obeying The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

---

---