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: Malcolm Moore on 30 Nov 2008 05:50 On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:04:21 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Malcolm Moore wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >Malcolm Moore wrote: >> >> Eeyore wrote: >> >> > >> >> >I spent some time working in radar. Does that make me ineligible for any other branch of >> >electronics, or will I always be >> a 'radar shill' ? >> >> > >> >> >That, quite frankly is what your pitiful 'argument' boils down to. >> >> >> >> If you were advocating that any harmful effects of radar were a >> >> nonsense, I'd expect your previous employment to be made known. >> >> I also hope you wouldn't attempt to give your advocacy more credence >> >> by claiming to be a physiologist. >> >> That is effectively what the NZCSC is doing when it claims the first >> >> eight names on it's list are all "Climate Scientists". >> > >> >You're a screaming LOONIE ! >> >> Given your tendency to write in upper case, the epithet "screaming" is >> more applicable to yourself. >> >> As for thinking I'm "loonie", you introduced the radar analogy so it >> can't be that. Therefore I guess you think I'm loonie because I >> thought you might behave ethically by declaring previous employment, >> and not using undeserved titles. Your habit of making unattributed >> snips should have warned me that was unlikely. > >A very lame attempt at obfuscation. You're becoming absurd. >Expalin why certain groups of people should be 'disallowed' from discussing AGW or not taken seriously and only 'believers' allowed >to contribute, in a rational scientific manner please. Your statement is a nonsense. I've not attempted to disallow anything. On the contrary, I've suggested NZCSC should publish more information, namely full CV's of their members. At present, they are disallowing you from considering that information. You however seem to believe that others shouldn't be able to critique organisations for which you have a fondness. -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
From: bill.sloman on 30 Nov 2008 10:13 On 29 nov, 06:43, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:25:22 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > On 27 nov, 20:50, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:50:47 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> > On 27 nov, 06:32, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:09:40 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> >> > On 26 nov, 22:17, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:53:11 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> >> >> > On 26 nov, 12:28, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote:> <big snip - Bill Ward does go in for mindless repetition> > > Since the effective radiating altitude is 6km above ground, right in the > > middle of the troposphere, this seems to be exactly the right place for > > a radiative transfer model to be effective. > > There's an excess of water vapor available to convect latent heat up to > the effective radiating altitude. The air at the effective radiating altitude is well below the freezing point of water - the earth radiates as if it is a black body at -14C, and while this is an average over all wavelengths (for wavelengths absorbed and re-radiated by CO2 the temperature has to be closer to -55C) it makes sense that the radiation appears to come from a layer where water vapour - the predominant greenhouse gas - has condensed out. The partial pressure of water vapour above the cloud tops is too low to convect any signficant latent heat higher > It's in the 10s of kW/m^2 compared to the 500W/m^2 max from surface radiation. It was at the surface, where the partial pressure of water vapour is around 2300 Pa. The saturation vapour pressure has dropped to 603 Pa by the time the temperature has dropped to zero Celcius. It drops off even faster over ice, so it certainly isn't beating radiation at the effective emitting altitude. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-air-d_689..html http://www.answers.com/topic/dewpoint-jpg-1 http://faculty.matcmadison.edu/slindstrom/VaporPressure.doc >The lower troposphere is translucent in the 15u band. How could CO2 play any significant part, > compared to radiation? Above the clouds, it has a clear shot to space. CO2 has both 5u and 15u absorbtion bands http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm What do you mean by "translucent"? CO2 absorbs and retransmits infra- red radiation at specific lines within both bands, and this radiation won't have a "clear shot at space" until it gets high in the stratosphere. CO2 is also disproportionately effective at broadening water vapour absorption lines, and this will be significant in the region close above the cloud tops where there's still some partial pressure of gaseous water to absorb and retransmit at water vapour's absorbtion lines. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John M. on 30 Nov 2008 12:04 On Nov 30, 4:28 pm, bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: <big snip> > What I should have said here is that the radiation it does emit has > the same intensity as a blackbody radiator would emit at that > temperature. This follows from the second law of thermodydnamics - if > it wasn't so a blob of CO2 surrounded by a blackbody would end up at a > temperature other than that of the blackbody. Err... Isn't it the Zeroeth Law that assures temperature homegeneity?
From: Bill Ward on 30 Nov 2008 13:32 On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:28:15 -0600, bw wrote: > > "Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:pan.2008.11.29.04.28.21.555150(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com... >> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:38:49 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >>> On 28 nov, 19:01, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 05:54:19 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>> > On 27 nov, 19:38, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:55:09 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>> >> > On 27 nov, 02:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >>>> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:09:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>> >> >> > On 26 nov, 22:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >>>> >> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:43:36 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>> >> >> >> > On 26 nov, 06:57, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >>>> >> >> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:15:34 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >>>> >> >> >> >> > On 25 nov, 22:31, Bill Ward >>>> >> >> >> >> > <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:42:55 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > On 25 nov, 17:50, Bill Ward >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:14:09 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 25 nov, 09:47, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >>>> >>>> > <snip> >>>> >>>> >> >> Now explain in your own words how traces of CO2 can affect >>>> >> >> Earth's surface temperatures in the presence of a large excess >>>> >> >> of water. Include the effects of latent heat convection, the >>>> >> >> near adiabatic lapse rate through the troposphere, and the >>>> >> >> observation that the effective radiating altitude and cloud tops >>>> >> >> are near each other. >>>> >>>> >> >> Can you do that, or are you just blowing smoke? >>>> >>>> >> >> <end repost> >>>> >>>> >> >> At this point, you're not only blowing smoke, you're looking a >>>> >> >> bit dishonest with your snipping, then complaining. >>>> >>>> >> > I thought I'd covered that. In the near and middle infra-red both >>>> >> > water and carbon dioxide have spectra that consist of a lot of >>>> >> > narrow absorbtion lines - rotational fine structure around a few >>>> >> > modes of vibration. >>>> >>>> >> > Only a few of these lines overlap, so to a first approximation >>>> >> > the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide and water are >>>> >> > independent. Water doesn't mask CO2 absorbtions and an vice >>>> >> > versa. >>>> >>>> >> > The situation gets more complicated when you look at the widths >>>> >> > of the individual absorption lines. These are broader in the >>>> >> > atmosphere than they are when looked at in pure sample of water >>>> >> > vapour or carbon dioxide in the lab, which increases the >>>> >> > greenhouse effect. >>>> >>>> >> > The mechanism of this "pressure broadening" is intermolecular >>>> >> > collisions that coincide with the emission or absorbtion of a >>>> >> > photon - this slightly changes the molecule doing the >>>> >> > absorption/emission, slightly moving the position of the spectal >>>> >> > line. >>>> >>>> >> > Polar molecules - like water and carbon dioxide - create more >>>> >> > pressure broadening than non-polar molecules than oxygen and and >>>> >> > nitrogen. They interact more strongly with the molecules they >>>> >> > collide with - creating a bigger spectra shift - and the >>>> >> > collision lasts longer. >>>> >>>> >> > So more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes water a more >>>> >> > powerful green-house gas and vice versa. >>>> >>>> >> > Happy now? >>>> >>>> >> No, you just spewed the dogma again. I think the troposphere is >>>> >> there because of convection lifting the surface energy up to the >>>> >> cloud tops, maintaining a near adiabatic lapse rate. >>>> >>>> > Convection becomes progressively less effective as the pressure >>>> > drops - gas density decreases with pressure, which decreases the >>>> > driving force you get from a given temperature difference in exactly >>>> > the same proportion, and the quantity of heat being transported per >>>> > unit volume is also reduced. >>>> >>>> So the gas is expanding. It's still rising, and the resistance is >>>> decreased. Lift is roughly constant at least to 14000 ft, from >>>> personal observation. It doesn't generally drop off linearly with >>>> altitude. >>> >>> But it is less dense, so it's transporting less heat. >> >> Energy is conserved. Where did the latent heat go, if not up? It's >> carried by convection to the cloud top, and radiates away. The whole >> notion of somehow "trapping" energy in the atmosphere seems ludicrous. >> It's either sensible heat, latent heat, or radiation. It doesn't just >> disappear. >> >>>> >> Radiative transfer is blocked by GHG's, >>>> >>>> > But only at the specific narrow bands of frequencies at which the >>>> > GHG's absorb. >>>> >>>> Water vapor is pretty much broadband, except for the window around 9u. >>> >>> Only if your spectrometer can't resolve the rotational fine structure. >>> And the partial pressure of water vapour drops off very rapidly with >>> altitude because the any water vapour is condensing as the air >>> temperature falls, so there's very little of it left to do any >>> absorbtion or pressure broadening by the time you get to the >>> tropopause. >> >> I'm talking about the effective radiation layer which happens to be at >> the cloud tops. >>> >>> Water vapour can only be an effective greenhouse gas in tolerably warm >>> air, and the infra-red frequencies that water vapour blocks gets a free >>> run to outer space well below the tropopause. >> >> OK, that's my point. Once convection carries it to the cloud tops, >> where it has a clear shot to space, what role can CO2 play? There's not >> much left, and the 15u band is well off the peak. >> >>> The earth radiates as if it's temperature - averaged over all radiation >>> wavelengths - is -14C which is a lot warmer than the -55C of the >>> mid-latitude tropopause, and in fact the equivalent radiating level is >>> about 6 km above ground, about half-way through the troposphere. >> >> Good. You finally seem to be following my argument. Now what happens >> to the condensation layer if absolute humidity increases? It drops, >> because the dewpoint is at a higher temperature/lower altitude. What >> happens when the condensation layer drops? The source temperature of >> the emitted IR increases. Then the emitted energy increases by the 4th >> power of the change in temperature, which provides gain for a negative >> feedback loop. So increasing surface T and humidity thus increases the >> cooling rate. >> >> How hard is that? >> >>> This also seems to coincide with the global average cloud top height >>> >>> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19121191 >> >> Thanks for the link. It confirms what I'd puzzled out on my own. >> >>> I don't really like the concept of a single equivalent radiating level >>> - >> >> Nature doesn't really seem to care what I like, but maybe you're on >> better terms. >> >>> it looks to me as if we should be able to calculate an equivalent >>> radiating level for each infra-red wavelengths. >> >> Why? Cloud tops should act as black bodies. >> >>> For those wavelengths >>> where CO2 and other non-condensing gases absorb strongly, this will be >>> presumably be somewhere in the stratosphere, at -55C (and I appreciuate >>> that the exact temperature does vary with latitude). This sin't going >>> to represent all that much of the total infra-red flux, so it isn't all >>> that surprising that the equivalent radiation level is close to the >>> height where you run out if water vapour and cloud cover. >>> >>>> > As the pressure decreases and the water vapour contnet drops, these >>>> > absorption lines get narrower, which facilitates radiative transfer. >>>> >>>> The radiative transfer is indeed facilitated above the cloud tops - >>>> that's my point. Water vapor transfers the surface energy to those >>>> cloud tops, not radiation. When it does radiate, it's got a clear >>>> shot. >> >>>> >>and plays little part below the tropopause. >>>> >>>> > Evidence? >>>> >>>> Are you off on that "WV is not a GHG" kick again? >>> >>> That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that there isn't much >>> water vapur in the top half of the troposphere, so it can't act as a >>> greenhouse gas in this region, which does complement the observation >>> the "equivalent radiating level" seems to lie about half way between >>> the ground and the tropopause. >> >> Thunderstorms have been seen well into the stratosphere, and they carry >> quite a bit of energy. I think there's way too much averaging going on >> where there should be integration. > > Correct. The answers are in understanding how to define the "homogeneous" > eleements, boundries, etc. Meteorology has been doing this for a century, > application of scientific method to earth's physical properties. > > You have reached a level understanding climate that should compel you to > write a concise summary of the major components. Thanks for those very kind, optimistic words. Right now, I feel just about confident enough to read such a summary. Can you recommend one, other than IPCC 4? It doesn't make sense to me, and I'm suspicious of the "emperor's new clothes" syndrome. I'm looking for a readable, coherent, complete and consistent explanation of the exact mechanism that allows traces of CO2 to determine surface temperatures. Right now, I'm just trying to put bits and pieces together with what I know, and I can't make them fit the claims of the proponents. > Then take a break before adding biological feedback !! It is not > surprising that one of the defining characteristics of life on a water > planet is "homeostasis". And probably life anywhere. Chaos + feedback = local order.
From: Whata Fool on 30 Nov 2008 14:29
Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:28:15 -0600, bw wrote: > >> >> "Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in message >> news:pan.2008.11.29.04.28.21.555150(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com... >>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:38:49 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>> >>>> On 28 nov, 19:01, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 05:54:19 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>>> > On 27 nov, 19:38, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:55:09 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>>> >> > On 27 nov, 02:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >>>>> >> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:09:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>>> >> >> > On 26 nov, 22:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >>>>> >> >> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:43:36 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>>> >> >> >> > On 26 nov, 06:57, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >>>>> >> >> >> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:15:34 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >>>>> >> >> >> >> > On 25 nov, 22:31, Bill Ward >>>>> >> >> >> >> > <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:42:55 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >>>>> >> >> >> >> >> > On 25 nov, 17:50, Bill Ward >>>>> >> >> >> >> >> > <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:14:09 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 25 nov, 09:47, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > <snip> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> Now explain in your own words how traces of CO2 can affect >>>>> >> >> Earth's surface temperatures in the presence of a large excess >>>>> >> >> of water. Include the effects of latent heat convection, the >>>>> >> >> near adiabatic lapse rate through the troposphere, and the >>>>> >> >> observation that the effective radiating altitude and cloud tops >>>>> >> >> are near each other. >>>>> >>>>> >> >> Can you do that, or are you just blowing smoke? >>>>> >>>>> >> >> <end repost> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> At this point, you're not only blowing smoke, you're looking a >>>>> >> >> bit dishonest with your snipping, then complaining. >>>>> >>>>> >> > I thought I'd covered that. In the near and middle infra-red both >>>>> >> > water and carbon dioxide have spectra that consist of a lot of >>>>> >> > narrow absorbtion lines - rotational fine structure around a few >>>>> >> > modes of vibration. >>>>> >>>>> >> > Only a few of these lines overlap, so to a first approximation >>>>> >> > the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide and water are >>>>> >> > independent. Water doesn't mask CO2 absorbtions and an vice >>>>> >> > versa. >>>>> >>>>> >> > The situation gets more complicated when you look at the widths >>>>> >> > of the individual absorption lines. These are broader in the >>>>> >> > atmosphere than they are when looked at in pure sample of water >>>>> >> > vapour or carbon dioxide in the lab, which increases the >>>>> >> > greenhouse effect. >>>>> >>>>> >> > The mechanism of this "pressure broadening" is intermolecular >>>>> >> > collisions that coincide with the emission or absorbtion of a >>>>> >> > photon - this slightly changes the molecule doing the >>>>> >> > absorption/emission, slightly moving the position of the spectal >>>>> >> > line. >>>>> >>>>> >> > Polar molecules - like water and carbon dioxide - create more >>>>> >> > pressure broadening than non-polar molecules than oxygen and and >>>>> >> > nitrogen. They interact more strongly with the molecules they >>>>> >> > collide with - creating a bigger spectra shift - and the >>>>> >> > collision lasts longer. >>>>> >>>>> >> > So more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes water a more >>>>> >> > powerful green-house gas and vice versa. >>>>> >>>>> >> > Happy now? >>>>> >>>>> >> No, you just spewed the dogma again. I think the troposphere is >>>>> >> there because of convection lifting the surface energy up to the >>>>> >> cloud tops, maintaining a near adiabatic lapse rate. >>>>> >>>>> > Convection becomes progressively less effective as the pressure >>>>> > drops - gas density decreases with pressure, which decreases the >>>>> > driving force you get from a given temperature difference in exactly >>>>> > the same proportion, and the quantity of heat being transported per >>>>> > unit volume is also reduced. >>>>> >>>>> So the gas is expanding. It's still rising, and the resistance is >>>>> decreased. Lift is roughly constant at least to 14000 ft, from >>>>> personal observation. It doesn't generally drop off linearly with >>>>> altitude. >>>> >>>> But it is less dense, so it's transporting less heat. >>> >>> Energy is conserved. Where did the latent heat go, if not up? It's >>> carried by convection to the cloud top, and radiates away. The whole >>> notion of somehow "trapping" energy in the atmosphere seems ludicrous. >>> It's either sensible heat, latent heat, or radiation. It doesn't just >>> disappear. >>> >>>>> >> Radiative transfer is blocked by GHG's, >>>>> >>>>> > But only at the specific narrow bands of frequencies at which the >>>>> > GHG's absorb. >>>>> >>>>> Water vapor is pretty much broadband, except for the window around 9u. >>>> >>>> Only if your spectrometer can't resolve the rotational fine structure. >>>> And the partial pressure of water vapour drops off very rapidly with >>>> altitude because the any water vapour is condensing as the air >>>> temperature falls, so there's very little of it left to do any >>>> absorbtion or pressure broadening by the time you get to the >>>> tropopause. >>> >>> I'm talking about the effective radiation layer which happens to be at >>> the cloud tops. >>>> >>>> Water vapour can only be an effective greenhouse gas in tolerably warm >>>> air, and the infra-red frequencies that water vapour blocks gets a free >>>> run to outer space well below the tropopause. >>> >>> OK, that's my point. Once convection carries it to the cloud tops, >>> where it has a clear shot to space, what role can CO2 play? There's not >>> much left, and the 15u band is well off the peak. >>> >>>> The earth radiates as if it's temperature - averaged over all radiation >>>> wavelengths - is -14C which is a lot warmer than the -55C of the >>>> mid-latitude tropopause, and in fact the equivalent radiating level is >>>> about 6 km above ground, about half-way through the troposphere. >>> >>> Good. You finally seem to be following my argument. Now what happens >>> to the condensation layer if absolute humidity increases? It drops, >>> because the dewpoint is at a higher temperature/lower altitude. What >>> happens when the condensation layer drops? The source temperature of >>> the emitted IR increases. Then the emitted energy increases by the 4th >>> power of the change in temperature, which provides gain for a negative >>> feedback loop. So increasing surface T and humidity thus increases the >>> cooling rate. >>> >>> How hard is that? >>> >>>> This also seems to coincide with the global average cloud top height >>>> >>>> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19121191 >>> >>> Thanks for the link. It confirms what I'd puzzled out on my own. >>> >>>> I don't really like the concept of a single equivalent radiating level >>>> - >>> >>> Nature doesn't really seem to care what I like, but maybe you're on >>> better terms. >>> >>>> it looks to me as if we should be able to calculate an equivalent >>>> radiating level for each infra-red wavelengths. >>> >>> Why? Cloud tops should act as black bodies. >>> >>>> For those wavelengths >>>> where CO2 and other non-condensing gases absorb strongly, this will be >>>> presumably be somewhere in the stratosphere, at -55C (and I appreciuate >>>> that the exact temperature does vary with latitude). This sin't going >>>> to represent all that much of the total infra-red flux, so it isn't all >>>> that surprising that the equivalent radiation level is close to the >>>> height where you run out if water vapour and cloud cover. >>>> >>>>> > As the pressure decreases and the water vapour contnet drops, these >>>>> > absorption lines get narrower, which facilitates radiative transfer. >>>>> >>>>> The radiative transfer is indeed facilitated above the cloud tops - >>>>> that's my point. Water vapor transfers the surface energy to those >>>>> cloud tops, not radiation. When it does radiate, it's got a clear >>>>> shot. >>> >>>>> >>and plays little part below the tropopause. >>>>> >>>>> > Evidence? >>>>> >>>>> Are you off on that "WV is not a GHG" kick again? >>>> >>>> That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that there isn't much >>>> water vapur in the top half of the troposphere, so it can't act as a >>>> greenhouse gas in this region, which does complement the observation >>>> the "equivalent radiating level" seems to lie about half way between >>>> the ground and the tropopause. >>> >>> Thunderstorms have been seen well into the stratosphere, and they carry >>> quite a bit of energy. I think there's way too much averaging going on >>> where there should be integration. >> >> Correct. The answers are in understanding how to define the "homogeneous" >> eleements, boundries, etc. Meteorology has been doing this for a century, >> application of scientific method to earth's physical properties. >> >> You have reached a level understanding climate that should compel you to >> write a concise summary of the major components. > >Thanks for those very kind, optimistic words. Right now, I feel >just about confident enough to read such a summary. Can you recommend >one, other than IPCC 4? It doesn't make sense to me, and I'm suspicious >of the "emperor's new clothes" syndrome. > >I'm looking for a readable, coherent, complete and consistent explanation >of the exact mechanism that allows traces of CO2 to determine surface >temperatures. Right now, I'm just trying to put bits and pieces together >with what I know, and I can't make them fit the claims of the proponents. > >> Then take a break before adding biological feedback !! It is not >> surprising that one of the defining characteristics of life on a water >> planet is "homeostasis". > >And probably life anywhere. Chaos + feedback = local order. There is no "order" in ecological "succession", 100 years after the explosion of Krakatoa, there are hundreds of species where all were wiped out (except for some that lived underground. Man is not responsible for all changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis |