The Climate Water Wheel

Posted: April 22, 2015 by oldbrew in climate, Ocean dynamics

Planet Earth or Planet Ocean? Ron Clutz offers a water-based model.

Science Matters

I recently came across this comment:

“During the height of the day at the equator, 1361 joules/m2/second (less 30% Albedo) is coming in from the Sun but the surface temperature only increases as if 0.0017 joules/m2/second is absorbed (or impacts the temperature at 2 meters). The extra 959.9983 joules/m2/second flows away from the surface effectively almost as fast as the energy is coming in.

Your calculator says surface temperatures should increase to 87C.

At night, virtually no radiation is coming in (and the upwelling less downwelling radiation) says the surface should be losing about 100 joules/m2/second but it actually only loses 0.001 joules/m2/second.

This is the real-world now versus the theoretical.” Bill Illis

And then Derek John posted this:

I was intrigued by the wheel in the diagram, but also puzzled about the numbers. In comparison to the moon, the earth’s temperature decrease is small, but still the image…

View original post 1,973 more words

  1. oldbrew says:

    The ideas above appear to be along similar lines to Stephen Wilde’s ‘new climate model’, in some respects at least.

  2. ArndB says:

    It is quite astonishing that we need to discuss “the-climate-water-wheel” today, when almost one hundred years ago had been observed and discussed that:

    “a tract of ocean 450 miles square and one-tenth of a mile deep, in being reduced one degree in temperature, would give off enough heat to raise the temperature of the atmosphere 10° over the whole of the United States up to a height of two miles”, said by G.W. Littlehales: “The Ocean among the Factors of the Control of Climate”; Symposium on Some Factors of Climate Control. American Geophysical Union; General Assembly, April 1927. Bull.Nat.Coun., Wash., No.61, 26-31, 1927.

    Ron Clutz’s “the-climate-water-wheel” is a very urgent reminder of what current climatology lacks, sufficient understanding of the global climate world. Thanks to him!

  3. Konrad. says:

    Ron is on the right track.
    This is planet ocean, not planet earth. And the surface of the oceans most assuredly are not a “near blackbody” that can only be heated to 255K for 240 w/m2 received.

    An interesting quote from the essay – “In essence, the Earth has accumulated 1.9 days worth of solar energy.” – Bill Illis

    A “near blackbody” would have no capacity to do that. Put 1.9 x 240 w/m2 into the short form S-B equation (land) and you get ~300K. Set absorptivity to .96 and emissivity to 0.7(water) and the result is 325K.

    My estimate from empirical experiment for “surface without radiative atmosphere” is 335K for oceans or 312K total surface average.

    It looks like other folks are seeing the light. The bright ocean penetrating light…

  4. tchannon says:

    “KLC: I am interested in some rather expensive thermopile-based radiation detectors called pyrgeometers (an example is the KippZonen CGR 3 instrument

    If a piece of equipment like this is pointed into the nighttime sky and reads something like 300W/m2 of downwelling IR radiation, what is it actually measuring?”
    — From WUWT.

    That is total bunk as I have shown on the Talkshop without dissent. Whoever it was never bothered finding out the truth. I did.

    We are dealing here with bare faced fraud.

    The actual reading is typically between zero and 150 W sqm *outgoing* day and night mostly dependent on cloud cover. Minus 150 not plus 300

    The fraud is an external addition (in a computer) of the static temperature field which actually cancels to zero except the lid is off so out goes the 150W upwards.

    Anyone disputing this either should look at the material provided then **do the finding out yourself**, ask if you need more help. Don’t take my word for it, persuade yourself, where I am pointing out where to look.
    You could start by downloading the installation manuals for the instruments from the manufacturer’s web site, not provided by me, go to the horse.

    The instruments are also as claimed perpetual motion machines. The particular instruments generate a tiny amount of electrical power. If you put the instrument in a closed box you will get a claimed high reading, maximum power output! This is purely the computer added value. The actual output then is exactly zero.

  5. smamarver says:

    Too far fatched to take water serious? About up to 90% of vapor around us is from the oceans (pending on the time scale).

  6. Ron Clutz says:

    Paul Vaughan says:
    April 23, 2015 at 6:57 am

    “Ron, I sincerely look forward to watching your heat content narrative evolve to duly credit wind. Your enthusiasm for climate discussion is refreshing. Some of the traditional climate blogs have soured so badly that I simply boycott commentary. There’s a need for a new kind of climate blog that’s positive about exploring the beauty of nature. The climate discussion has been killed by a handful of commentators at wuwt & ce. I was very disappointed observing the hosts of those 2 blogs simply allowing this to happen when banning or otherwise correcting only a handful of people would have prevented the wholesale deterioration of climate blogging that we presently observe. Here’s to the maintenance of hope that nature will once again regain the sober respect she deserves from man.”

    Paul, I do want to understand something of the complex ocean dynamics. Firstly, I had wanted to describe the role of oceans as a kind of flywheel stabilizing climate and temperatures. And I mentioned in passing that surface temperatures are noisy because of chaotic circulations. As you point out, there is more to it than that, and I agree. I would like to know of a model (conceptual) if such exists about the mechanisms operating at the interface between ocean and air.

  7. linneamogren says:

    Look at Venus where we see the day and night side of the Venusian surface remain almost the same temperature. One day on Venus equals 243 Earth days, which allows for massive heat accumulation on the dayside. The thick atmosphere on Venus distributes that energy efficiently to the night side which equals out the temps.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Well, the Venusian atmosphere rotates sixty times faster than the planet, so that’s a big factor.
    This study also says it found ‘two hundred and fifty five day oscillations displayed by the winds of Venus’.

    Maybe something put the brakes on the planet’s rotation but the wind just carried on as before?

  9. linneamogren says:


    Yes, the rotation speed of the Venusian atmosphere also aids the distribution of the dayside energy to the night side. The huge accumulation of energy or radiation on the dayside creates the massive atmosphere which distributes that radiation so effectively to the night side of the planet.

    ” Maybe something put the brakes on the planet’s rotation but the wind just carried on as before? ”

    That’s one of the great mysteries of Venus. Here’s an article that sheds some light on superrotation which I found very interesting.

    ” The waves travel down from the ionosphere, and through the thermosphere and mesosphere to the troposphere depositing most of the momentum and dissipating in the cloud layer, moving the atmosphere in a retrograde direction and driving the superrotation.”

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ron, once you (deeply) understand Sidorenkov on heat engines, this will be understood as a trivial consequence:

    Connecting Dots

    Some of you are no doubt aware of vukcevic’s GSO = GeoSolar Oscillations.
    What I wonder is how many have bothered to derive GSO from SCD = solar cycle deceleration. (Yes you can do that…)


    There are 5 BDO cycles near 20 years:
    1. LNC; 2. JSEV; 3. J-S; 4. Hale; 5. JEV

    vukcevic’s GSO can be shown to be subsumed by the generalized umbrella of SCD. (This is a trivial exercise for someone who understands the math — no more complicated than geometrically proving something simple about a triangle in highschool via side-angle-side or angle-side-angle theorems …literally.)

    CAM (core angular momentum) follows JEV, but the surface temperature record follows J-S. The connection between the 2 is via LNC, but due to the confounding between JEV & Hale there have been (unhelpful) misinterpretations.

    If anyone needs links to Sidorenkov on heat engines …or a skeletal outline of the LNC-JSEV framework of intersecting straight lines (that is strummed by the frequency shifts of SCD), go ahead and request.

    The modelers need to stop looking at single variables in isolation. The modeling needs to account for the whole multivariate geophysical picture, including earth orientation parameters. So long as climate models do not accurately account for earth orientation parameters, they should be (abruptly) dismissed.

  11. Ron Clutz says:

    Thanks for the references, Paul. I am looking into this.

  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    You’re welcome Ron.
    I appreciate your civility.

    Here’s a link to Sidorenkov’s book:

    To better facilitate efficient harmony, I’ll give your writing more attention and carefully consider how to paraphrase it concisely.

    I look forward to evolving cordial discussion of natural beauty.

    Best Regards

  13. Paul Vaughan says:


    Request for Community Assistance:

    I believe the widespread counterproductive convention of conceptualizing temperatures in anomalies is the root of stifling, fatally stagnating inattention to heat engines.

    Could we all please make an effort to think physically?

    Physically a temperature anomaly of +5 at the equator does not mean the same thing as a temperature anomaly of +5 in the arctic polar night.

    No one is going to physically understand the role of wind in evaporation and ocean surface currents by thinking in anomalies.

    There’s a difference between equator & pole due to insolation, which drives.


  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    When I see temperatures presented as anomalies, the first thing that comes to my mind is that the presenter is deliberately trying to obfuscate.

  15. Ron Clutz says:

    Pail, I saw this from Kenneth Richards at Paul Homewood’s site. In your wheelhouse I guess

    Here we present an exceptionally well-dated marine sediment sequence in the eastern Norwegian Sea which records 1–2°C variations of temperature in northward flowing Atlantic waters that are robustly correlated with various estimates of solar activity spanning the last 1000 years. The temperature and solar proxy variations appear to be synchronous within dating errors, which, together with the large amplitude of the temperature signal and its correlation into central Europe, suggests strong coupling of the regional atmospheric and oceanic responses to the Sun.

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    Good pick Ron.

    Response of Norwegian Sea temperature to solar forcing since 1000 AD

    They correctly identify sun-driven wind stress as the agent of warm water transport.

    Very, very refreshing indeed!
    Some people with a clue!!
    They actually exist.

    …and I know how to take their study further (hint: Rial, complex numbers, …).

    Sun-driven wind is spinning the water “wheel” …in 3 dimensions with sun-governed evolving spatial pattern — topologically it is a multi-looped wheel. Remember that Rial showed us the pelagic-benthic record-axis that’s analogous to bipolar contrast. It is a “stadium wave”, but there’s a need to revise the way that concept has been introduced and framed.

    In the complex plane it’s too vacuous conceptually for the climate blogs located more centrally in the climate blog network. They seem fatally dependent on belief in a need to dumb it down, but then of course they’re stuck being wrong. Their problem… They can figure it out… (I’m going sea-kayaking… …and then I’m going hiking. They can sit chained to their computers thought-policing — have fun with that….)

  17. tjfolkerts says:

    “the surface temperature only increases as if 0.0017 joules/m2/second is absorbed”

    Does no one actually check these numbers???
    12 hr = 43,200 s
    0.0017 J/s/m^2 * 43,200 s = 73 J/m^2 over the course of 12 hours.

    On the other hand, the specific heat of rock is about 1,000 J/kg. So this 73 J in each square meter could warm about 73/1000 = 0.073 kg = 73 g of rock by 1 C in a day.

    Way more than 73 grams of rock are warmed by way more than 1 C over each square meter of land during the day. The comment references “2 meters” of rock, which is closer to 6000 kg, not 0.073 kg! “0.0017 J/s/m^2” is off by a few orders of magnitude!

  18. tjfolkerts says: April 29, 2015 at 2:58 am

    (“the surface temperature only increases as if 0.0017 joules/m2/second is absorbed”)

    “Does no one actually check these numbers??? 12 hr = 43,200 s 0.0017 J/s/m^2 * 43,200 s = 73 J/m^2 over the course of 12 hours. On the other hand, the specific heat of rock is about 1,000 J/kg. So this 73 J in each square meter could warm about 73/1000 = 0.073 kg = 73 g of rock by 1 C in a day. Way more than 73 grams of rock are warmed by way more than 1 C over each square meter of land during the day. The comment references “2 meters” of rock, which is closer to 6000 kg, not 0.073 kg! “0.0017 J/s/m^2″ is off by a few orders of magnitude!”

    I check the numbers, they are correct at a surface depth of 2 meters! What do yo mean by warmed? Where are your numbers that you have measured? BTW: what is the thermal conductivity of your fantasy rock?