I think I understand it now, Rog,
When you say that "the air doesn't warm the ocean", what you really mean is " the air doesn't warm the ocean to any significant degree compared to the heat directly from the sun".
I guess my next question is, what do you mean when you say, "the air doesn't warm the ocean to any significant degree compared to the heat directly from the sun"? :)
Do you mean that any long wave generated heat transfer into the ocean is insignificant, without comparing it to the sun? That it can't or doesn't penetrate below the boundary layer? By the way what is significant? Two watts per sq. meter?, over fifty years? Two hundred years? Six hundred years?
Considering that the atmosphere is responsible for keeping the planet 33 degree C or 91 degree F warmer than it would otherwise be, ( You do accept that basic physics, don't you?), and assuming the full 33 degree C is due to long wave, would you say that the an atmosphere that warmed the earth some 30 degree C, instead of 33C, would affect average atmospheric temps. more than average ocean temps.? And over several millennium?
I'm under the impression that like over land, low level night time cloud cover affects ocean/atmosphere boundary level energy flux. These conditions slow boundary level ocean cooling. Is long wave responsible for this absence of cooling , or warming? How is this different than the lower atmosphere and the ocean/atmosphere boundary level being warmed by downward long wave radiation from the mid and upper level atmosphere? In your world when would this flux achieve significance?
Well known and accepted physics indicates equilibrium planetary warming of about 1.15 degree C if the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubled from 280 ppm, (its concentration preindustry), to 560 ppm, assuming all else equal. As I've said before, this radiative capacity of CO2 to warm the earth, all else equal, is roundly accepted. Again, considering that the 1.15 degree C warming would be a result of long wave energy, which it would be, would you, given your statement that "the air doesn't warm the ocean to any significant degree compared to the sun" expect the planets oceans not to warm, or to "not warm significantly" under these circumstances? Over time? All else equal, of course.
You know, Rog, sometimes a guy gets to wonderin' about how things fit together. Don't you?
> "won't be getting any prizes"
I agree that you won't win any prizes for your contribution to physics. Well, it wold be a long shot.:)
> "I'll turn the tables"
You haven't turned any tables, Rog. You are wrong in thinking that long wave energy cannot significantly affect ocean temperature.
Climate science is impossible without the assumption of the radiative effect of CO2, and the fossil fuel origin of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is fundamental to all the sciences. Chemistry, geology, biology, all come to the same conclusion. That's the easy part. Try constructing a climate model without radiative CO2. You'd win a huge prize if you could do that!!! Why aren't you trying? Do you know of any organization that is working on that? Hmmmm, I wonder why no one is working on that? It seems like that might be beneficial to several large, powerful, and prosperous industries.
Beyond that, your reckless chatter and endless ankle nipping contribute nothing.
If I'm sounding contemptuous, I apologize. And when it comes to climate science, rhetoric is all that I'm capable of.