In Search Of Ocean Heat - 21

Fig. 1 from NASA Wow! Shocking!

Just how much do we want to know about ocean heat content in terms of current civilization's impact on it?

A recent series (The Saturation Chronicles, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) discusses the ocean heat content issue from the standpoint of limits of ocean absorption of it.

Are scientists basing their discussions of ocean heat content on sufficient evidence?:

"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause."

(Nasa Evidence). Are all or a conclusive number of them on board with that?

Early in his career, but after years of research, Tim Boyer who is currently a Principal Investigator of ocean heat content at NOAA/NCEI, was not certain that our current science had proven some fundamentals:

"Interviewer: But you yourself feel there is a problem that we need to address? 

Boyer:I do think there's a problem we need to address i think we're never going to prove it conclusively that the man-made co2 is and other  gases are causing climate change but there is enough evidence compiled by the IPCC and in a lot of other areas that says we really need to do something even if we're not a hundred percent sure. I use the example you know hurricane prediction is not an exact science ... but if someone told me there's a hurricane that might hit your house I'm going to do something at least going to board up the window."

(Principal Investigator, Tim Boyer, NOAA/NCEI; quoted from video below). "Cover your window, a cat 5 hurricane is going to hit your house" is naive, as is thermal expansion as Mr. Boyer also promoted (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51).

We need to get away from "classical physics" and move on into the very useful disciplines in quantum physics that deal effectively with the concept of ocean heat content.

The old school is shocked and perhaps offended at the statement:

"It is false to say "Heat is transferred ... through three processes: conduction, radiation, and convection" as is indicated in Principles of Heat Transfer"

Only one, not three, is the correct answer because we forget that:

"It is incorrect to speak of the heat in a body, because heat is restricted to energy being transferred. Energy stored in a body is not heat (nor is it work, as work is also energy in transit)."

(Encyclopedia Britannica, Heat). In TEOS-10 (the current oceanographic nomenclature authority) "ocean heat content" is "potential enthalpy" which is just another way of saying how many infrared photons are in-transit, or have been absorbed and stored in the molecules of seawater as "potential".

Heat in-transit is composed of photons of various quantities of energy per photon (The Photon Current, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 , 17, 18, 19, 20, 21; The Ghost Photons, 2, 3), and how many have be absorbed into the molecules of a cubic meter of seawater.

When they are no longer in transit, having been absorbed by an atom in a molecule of seawater, they are merely a potential energy amount that equals the energy quantity of the in-transit photon that was absorbed.

There is only a one way street in the realm of in-transit heat-energy:

The second law [of thermodynamics] states that heat flows naturally from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature, but that it will not flow naturally the other way.

(Wikipedia,  BU, DC). It is not the Highway 61 of Poet Bob Dylan, it is The Second Law Of Thermodynamics highway.

The previous post in this series is here.

---

---