Almost zero It can only penetrate water less than the thickness of a human hair
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/03/0...
Link has a good explanation
Not much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Absorp...
However, since there hasn't been any significant change in deep water penetration, one would think that it's not really part of the discussion.
On the other hand, energy escapes from the ocean by 2 means.
1) IR that escapes from the surface of the water.
2) Liquid water that's turned into gas.
As CO2 rises, it's safe to assume that less IR escapes from the ocean -- ie, more of it is radiated back, warming the water. That leaves more energy to transform liquid to gas. OR, alternatively, stay in the water and increase it's temperature.
If we assume that the layer of air at the surface of the water is saturated, then there is a limit to how much water will be able to evaporate. As the temperature of the air increases, that allows more water to evaporate. If the air temperature does not increase, then that energy must stay in the ocean, raising it's temperature.
I think that pursuing how deep UV or anything penetrates is, at first glance, a waste of time. However, as the oceans become more and more polluted, then both light and UV will exhibit less penetration, warming the waters near the surface more, and have a slight cooling effect on deeper waters. This is due to pollution, not global warming, but will have an effect, albeit slight, on global warming.
This is where I always seem to lose the warmers. I think it is rather easy to assume that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not going to make the sky clearer. So CO2 has little effect on the amount of ocean heating due to the sun's radiation. We can consider this constant, at least in term of "global warming". So if the oceans are heating, then it must be due to the heat exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere.
So lets' say you heat the atmosphere by 0.3 degrees. The ocean are going to relatively be cooler and suck in heat from the atmosphere. BUT we also know that teh larger the differential in heat between the ocean and the atmosphere, the more energy the ocean will suck up. So if you heat the atmosphere to 0.6 degrees, the oceans will be pulling more energy. Similarly, if you decrease the temp of the atmosphere by 0.3 degrees, the ocean will be sucking in less heat to the point that the ocean will start putting heat into the atmosphere.
In this manner, the oceans serve as a HUGE negative feedback. So when the warmers claim that the mssing heat is in the oceans, they are correct. BUT, where they go entirely off is that they act as if the oceans will start to place the energy back into the atmosphere. They will not. In fact, they will continually suck in more energy as the temp differential increases. So not only are they off because of a failure to account for the "missing heat" in the ocean, but they will continue to be off, because they are denying that the oceans do serve as a negative feedback.
Conduction of heat is part of convection. And for a molecular compound with bond dipoles, radiation is part of conduction.
But radiation does not travel far in water, except by a large number of steps, similar to the UV radiation in the Radiation zone in the Sun.
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/ypop/Sp...
"convection cannot work upside down, it is always away from gravity"
Hmmm - so it leaves a vacuum behind it?
I see you're keeping up with Dr Roy Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/can-...
probably not much..The infrared spectrum of liquid water is dominated by the intense absorption ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagn... ) . Downwelling is mostly a convection transport of temperature
perhaps you can keep up with more academic papers
http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/3606/1...
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursef...
How far can it penetrate water?
