The world has never seen such freezing heat
in [Design]
|
Prev: Class D audio driver with external mosfets
Next: NE162 mixer: input/output impedance in balanced mode?
From: Don Klipstein on 15 Dec 2008 23:26 In <pan.2008.12.03.06.10.49.320434(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward wrote: >On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:31:02 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: <edit for space> >> In <pan.2008.11.28.16.09.18.798577(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward wrote: >> Meanwhile, watwer vapor is said to achieve 36-66% of GHG effect, while >> CO2 is said to achieve 9-26%. Despite water vapor concentration in the >> atmosphere being generally at least an order of magnitude greater. > >How is the 9 to 26% range determined? What assumptions are required? Can >you explain the mechanisms involved? It appears to me that thermal IR radiated from surface and absorbed by GHGs overhead and reradiated towards the surface has breakdown by accountability among the specific GHGs to being 9-26% to CO2. The absorption spectra recently cited (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png ), are for GHGs to the extent they actually have some determination of existence in the atmosphere. <SNIP from here, because I believe I edit for space more than anything else> - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Bill Ward on 16 Dec 2008 04:28 On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:26:00 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In <pan.2008.12.03.06.10.49.320434(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward > wrote: >>On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:31:02 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > <edit for space> > >>> In <pan.2008.11.28.16.09.18.798577(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward >>> wrote: >>> Meanwhile, watwer vapor is said to achieve 36-66% of GHG effect, >>> while >>> CO2 is said to achieve 9-26%. Despite water vapor concentration in the >>> atmosphere being generally at least an order of magnitude greater. >> >>How is the 9 to 26% range determined? What assumptions are required? Can >>you explain the mechanisms involved? > > It appears to me that thermal IR radiated from surface and absorbed by > GHGs overhead and reradiated towards the surface has breakdown by > accountability among the specific GHGs to being 9-26% to CO2. Then it would appear the estimate assumes only radiative factors, and omits convection and other feedback elements. I think I first saw it in a realclimate entry, based on removing one GHG at a time. I was hoping you had a more credible source and explanation. I'm skimming through the climate book http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf and am favorably impressed so far. The explanations are pretty good, and on pdf pgs 120-122, he has an actual summary of the greenhouse effect and AGW hypothesis that some readers may want to check out. It's the first one I've seen that is succinct and coherent. It should be interesting, and perhaps useful, to both sides to find out out exactly what they are defending or doubting. Note the footnote(4) at the bottom of pdf pg 122. I'm about halfway through, and find the author clear, credible and honest in his explanations and examples, but am still skeptical of some of his assumptions. Having only a hammer doesn't automatically make everything into a nail. > The absorption spectra recently cited (such as > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png ), > are for GHGs to the extent they actually have some determination of > existence in the atmosphere. See pdf pg 184 in the above text for a CO2 spectrum that may shed some light on the subject. > > <SNIP from here, because I believe I edit for space more than anything > else> Don't worry about it. You're clearly not trying to confuse readers by snipping context and misrepresenting the remaining content. John Morgan is a little over-sensitive because every time he tries that, I simply repost what he's snipped, exposing his dishonest tactic. He gets a bit miffed. I have no objection to legitimate snipping of dead text. Thanks for your comments.
From: Whata Fool on 16 Dec 2008 07:17 don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In <pan.2008.12.03.06.10.49.320434(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward wrote: >>On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:31:02 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > ><edit for space> > >>> In <pan.2008.11.28.16.09.18.798577(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward wrote: >>> Meanwhile, watwer vapor is said to achieve 36-66% of GHG effect, while >>> CO2 is said to achieve 9-26%. Despite water vapor concentration in the >>> atmosphere being generally at least an order of magnitude greater. >> >>How is the 9 to 26% range determined? What assumptions are required? Can >>you explain the mechanisms involved? > > It appears to me that thermal IR radiated from surface and absorbed by >GHGs overhead and reradiated towards the surface has breakdown by >accountability among the specific GHGs to being 9-26% to CO2. > > The absorption spectra recently cited (such as >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png ), > are for GHGs to the extent they actually have some determination of >existence in the atmosphere. > ><SNIP from here, because I believe I edit for space more than anything else> > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) Don, every time I begin to think you are a well disciplined and talented meteorologist, you say something that lacks good physics. In order for CO2 to be responsible for any percentage of downward radiation, it has to absorb more than twice that much, and radiate more than that upward. If IR radiation by N2 and O2 is small enough to be ignored, and IR absorption by N2 and O2 can be ignored, then all convected thermal energy must be transferred from what is absorbed from the rising warm and moist N2 and O2. So GHGs must radiate more than they absorb by EM IR radiation. And there is a lot of N2 and O2 to store thermal energy, providing an excellent source of thermal energy. For some reason, I keep wanting to see data on the temperature difference of a moist surface on a cloudy 68 degree F day, and on a clear 68 degree F in the shade, and on a 68 degree F clear night. There should be a big difference in the surface temperature under those varying conditions, 240 watts per square meter is a lot, an electric stove top element draws about 1500 watts and the metal gets red hot, and I need to relate that to the downward radiation from the GHGs in the atmosphere. It would even help to see data on how much thermal transfer takes place between a cubic meter of atmosphere at 2 meters altitude and at 20,000 meters altitude. I mean, the entire sky radiation has to warm the entire surface area which is not much less than the entire sky area, so there should be data on cubic meter to cubic meter transfer flux rates.
From: Whata Fool on 16 Dec 2008 07:37 don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >>> At 3 KM above surface, it really appears to me that air over a desert is >>> not that much drier on average than air anywhere else. It is air closer >>> to the surface than 3 KM that is greatly drier in deserts. >> >>Could be, but I don't really know. > > I picked that in response to "3k", but I also know that 3 km above a >desert the air is usually not much less humid than air elsewhere. > For example, Flagstaff AZ is about 2.4 km above sea level, and is close >to overlooking a lot of lower land. It appears to me that Flagstaff >barely qualifies as semi-arid but is close to humid, and Flagstaff on >average gets more snow than NYC does. > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) Don't both poles get more snow than NYC?
From: John M. on 16 Dec 2008 10:22
On Dec 16, 10:28 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:26:00 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > In <pan.2008.12.03.06.10.49.320...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward > > wrote: > >>On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:31:02 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > > <edit for space> > > >>> In <pan.2008.11.28.16.09.18.798...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward > >>> wrote: > >>> Meanwhile, watwer vapor is said to achieve 36-66% of GHG effect, > >>> while > >>> CO2 is said to achieve 9-26%. Despite water vapor concentration in the > >>> atmosphere being generally at least an order of magnitude greater. > > >>How is the 9 to 26% range determined? What assumptions are required? Can > >>you explain the mechanisms involved? > > > It appears to me that thermal IR radiated from surface and absorbed by > > GHGs overhead and reradiated towards the surface has breakdown by > > accountability among the specific GHGs to being 9-26% to CO2. > > Then it would appear the estimate assumes only radiative factors, and > omits convection and other feedback elements. I think I first saw it in > a realclimate entry, based on removing one GHG at a time. I was hoping > you had a more credible source and explanation. > > I'm skimming through the climate book > > http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf > > and am favorably impressed so far. The explanations are pretty good, and > on pdf pgs 120-122, he has an actual summary of the greenhouse effect > and AGW hypothesis that some readers may want to check out. It's the > first one I've seen that is succinct and coherent. It should be > interesting, and perhaps useful, to both sides to find out out exactly > what they are defending or doubting. Note the footnote(4) at the bottom of > pdf pg 122. > > I'm about halfway through, and find the author clear, credible and honest > in his explanations and examples, but am still skeptical of some of his > assumptions. Having only a hammer doesn't automatically make everything > into a nail. > > > The absorption spectra recently cited (such as > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png), > > are for GHGs to the extent they actually have some determination of > > existence in the atmosphere. > > See pdf pg 184 in the above text for a CO2 spectrum that may shed some > light on the subject. > > > > > <SNIP from here, because I believe I edit for space more than anything > > else> > > Don't worry about it. You're clearly not trying to confuse readers by > snipping context and misrepresenting the remaining content. John Morgan > is a little over-sensitive because every time he tries that, I simply > repost what he's snipped, exposing his dishonest tactic. He gets a bit > miffed. > > I have no objection to legitimate snipping of dead text. You're a lying piece of dried nose excreta, Bilbo, so don't get carried away by your present approval for snipping dead text. > Thanks for your comments. But no thanks for yours |