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 2 Dec 2008 00:55 In <pan.2008.11.26.21.17.23.310423(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward 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: >>> >>> >> You should note that the infra-red spectra of both carbon dioxide and >>> >> water vapour absorb are line spectra, and the lines aren't all that >>> >> wide (though this does depend on atmopsheric pressure and temperature >>> >> - search on "pressure broadening") and they don't overlap to any >>> >> great extent, which allows both gases to make independent >>> >> contributions to the greenhouse effect. >>> >>> Sloman resumes the AGW discussion of spectra, with no numbers >>> showing flux rates. Water vapor has some pretty wide bands, CO2 >>> much more narrow. >> >> In the near infra-red, which is the region of most interest for global >> warming, both carbon dioxide and water show line spectra. Both are >> triatomic molecules which means that they have symmetric and asymmetric >> stretches and a bending mode. Each of the vibrational lines shows >> rotational fine structure. The individual rotational lines are quite >> narrow (to an extent that depends on pressure broadening). >> >> Here's a high resolution study of the water vapour spectrum >> >> http://www.usu.edu/alo/lidarinfo/spie%204484.pdf >> >> both sets of spectra look something like a picket fence at the resolution >> you need to model the greenhouse effect. >> >>> >> There's also the point that the vapour pressure of water in the >>> >> stratosphere is pretty low, because the stratosphere is cold, and >>> >> carbon dioxide does more of the greenhouse work up there than it does >>> >> below the tropopause. >>> >>> Water has a very low boiling point in the stratosphere >>> because the pressure is low, does that make the vapor pressure high or >>> low? >> >> That's irrelevant - the temperature of the stratosphere is so low (-55C) >> that any water vapour around freezes to ice particles and the residual >> water vapour pressure is very low. >> >>> The stratosphere is cold, so the net energy transfer from the >>> surface to the stratosphere is upward, and the energy transfer to space >>> is great. >>> >>> AGW talkers completely leave out much of the physics, gossip >>> about spectra sounds mystical to the greenhorn greenie, real physicists >>> talk about energy transfer in flux quantities per unit of time. >>> >>> The amount of CO2 in the stratosphere is minute, because the >>> stratosphere has a pressure of less than one pound per square inch, and >>> not much mass. >> >> Sure. Most of the mass of the atmosphere - about 90% - is below the >> tropopause. But the stratosphere stretches out quite a long way. >> >>> Frankly, if the lower troposphere doesn't provide most of any >>> GHG effect, then how can the lower pressure, colder, less dense with >>> less mass layers above have as much of an effect? >> >> This is correct - the air temperature declines as you go up through the >> troposphere whch is to say that you've got a temperature gradient through >> an insulating blanket, and stabilises once you hit the bottom of the >> stratosphere at the tropopause, which is to say that the stratosphere >> isn't functioning as an insulator. >> >> Note that the top of the troposphere is also pretty cold and thus nearly >> as low on water vapour. >> >>> Rather than try to put physics to such vague gossip as >>> spectra bands, it would be better to start from scratch, study the >>> temperature, pressure, mass, specific heat and energy content of a >>> quantity of the atmosphere at each level, and the capability to radiate >>> or absorb Infra- red. >> >> That's what the climatologists models do, but they also have to keep track >> of heat flux carried by mass-transfer - both by simple convection and the >> heat that is moved upwards as water vapour to be released when the water >> vapour condenses to liquid water (rain and clouds) and ice (ice clouds and >> hail). >> >>> CO2 plays such a small part in atmospheric physics, it could >>> be totally ignored without changing the outcome a measurable amount. >> >> Wrong. >> >>> Water vapor concentration can increase and decrease many >>> times the total concentration of CO2 and it doesn't change the >>> temperature much, in fact, dry air can get hotter faster or colder >>> faster, than moist air. >> >> So what? >> >>> More moisture means more IR absorption, but moist air >>> moderates temperature changes. CO2 has no phase change at >>> atmospheric temperature and pressure, and has a very low activity level >>> compared to water and water vapor and ice. >> >> But is is very effective in "pressure broadening" the water vapour >> rotational lines - much more so than oxygen and nitrogen, which are >> non-polar molecules and don't stick to water during collisons for nearly >> as long as CO2. >> >>> At the temperatures at higher altitudes, IR radiation is >>> sparse, >> >> Nonsense, the Earth - or rather the tropopause - is a black body radiator >> in the near infra-red and the radiation flux out to the rest of the >> universe only depends on the temperature through the tropopause. > >Maybe we're getting somewhere now. How do you account for the fact the >tropospheric lapse rate stays close to adiabatic? Average lapse rate in the troposphere is close to the "wet adiabatic" figure while half the tropopause lacks clouds at any altitude. > Is it primarily by radiative transfer, or convection? It seems to me >it must be convective, simply because warm, wet air is less dense than >cold, dry air, and quickly rises to maintain the lapse rate. Much of the time the answer is a significant factor other than radiation and vertical convection. Much of the "global convection" involves air movement within a degree of horizontal, and often forming clouds when moving upwards. Sometimes the lapse rate there is between the "dry adiabatic" and the "wet adiabatic" rates and the clouds have billowy cumuliform tops or are cumuliform throughout. Sometimes "warm advection" occurs more at cloud-top level than at cloud-base level (from the windspeed being greater higher up in the troposphere), causing the clouds to be stratiform. >IR radiated from the surface would be quickly absorbed by WV, clouds, CO2, >and other GHGs, and at 500W/m^2 would be overwhelmed by the 10's of kW/m^2 >available from convection of latent heat. Half the Earth's surface has no clouds overhead at any altitude. The surface manages to radiate *somewhat* to outer space at night when the air overhead is clear - otherwise there would be no such thing as nighttime frost when air 2 meters above the surface is at +2 degrees C (a fairly common situation). Some of the outgoing radiation can easily be absorbed and reradiated a couple or a few times by GHGs, but net of that is upward (and upward net is reduced by increase of GHGs). >At night, convection stops, but cooling is not required at night. >Convection kicks in during the day, when cooling is needed. Cooling still occurs at night by radiation. 5 AM temperature has a great rate of being less than 10 PM temperature. Upper level of radiation by atmosphere at night has half of its radiation to outer space. That heat comes from radiation from surface - even if absorbed and reradiated a couple times along the way. The "upper radiation level" also varies greatly with wavelength. >I don't see how radiative cooling is even necessary below the cloud tops, >since there's plenty of cooling capacity from convection. When frost or dew forms on the ground and on cars and trucks, the heat loss has a very impressive rate of by being by radiation. >Once the energy reaches the tropopause, as you imply, it's a pretty >straight shot to 3K deep space, since there's not much atmosphere left to >absorb IR. > >Perhaps it's easier to see if you look at the lapse rate as bounded at the >top by the effective radiating temperature, and consider the surface >temperatures as derived from that and the adiabatic lapse rate. That gets complicated by half the troposphere having lack of clouds at any altitude, and there are separate adiabatic lapse rates for clear air and clouded air. The global atmospheric average is close to the "wet" one, leaving upward mobility of lapse rate in the clear half of the world and in clear layers of the atmosphere in the clouded half of the world. >>> <I snip from that next triple-quote symbol due to lesser relevance to argument in this little region of the massive thread> - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Bill Ward on 2 Dec 2008 03:15 On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:28:18 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In article <sfaqi41dau09mn1jdb9508t3f2t2hsj9ba(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >>>> >>>> You should note that the infra-red spectra of both carbon dioxide and >>>> water vapour absorb are line spectra, and the lines aren't all that >>>> wide (though this does depend on atmopsheric pressure and temperature >>>> - search on "pressure broadening") and they don't overlap to any great >>>> extent, which allows both gases to make independent contributions to >>>> the greenhouse effect. >> >> Sloman resumes the AGW discussion of spectra, with no numbers >>showing flux rates. Water vapor has some pretty wide bands, CO2 much >>more narrow. > > Cite? > > Also, CO2 has absorption at wavelengths where water vapor has little to > none, to an extent giving CO2 9-26% of total "greenhouse gas effect". > >>>> There's also the point that the vapour pressure of water in the >>>> stratosphere is pretty low, because the stratosphere is cold, and >>>> carbon dioxide does more of the greenhouse work up there than it does >>>> below the tropopause. >> >> Water has a very low boiling point in the stratosphere because >>the pressure is low, does that make the vapor pressure high or low? > > The water vapor pressure in the stratosphere is low due to low > temperature. > >> The stratosphere is cold, so the net energy transfer from the >>surface to the stratosphere is upward, and the energy transfer to space >>is great. > > Increased presence of greenhouse gases actually cools most of the > stratosphere. That would increase lapse rate - which would mean a > negative feedback mechanism. > However, there are a few positive feedback mechanisms, including > surface albedo (increases heat reception from the Sun) Isn't that related to ice melting? Most of the cooling is at low latitudes where there's not much ice. What other positive feedback mechanisms are you referring to? > - so lapse rate increase instead raises the altitude of the tropopause. > (Temperature difference between surface and stratosphere has to > increase by about 3.5 degrees F in areas of the globe having > convection to raise the tropopause by a mere 1,000 feet.) Another way to look at it is that the estimated 0.7K difference in surface temperature can be corrected by a 200 foot change in the tropopause. The tropopause naturally varies from ~30000' at the poles to ~45000' at the heat equator. http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/tropo.html It also says: "In other words, cold conditions lead to a lower tropopause, obviously because of less convection..." I would assume the reverse is also true, that warm conditions cause more convection, which leads to a higher tropopause. Perhaps you could explain your comments more clearly by referring to the graphs and text in the above link. You have made some logical leaps I'm not sure I follow. I also ran across the following related link which looks pretty good, although I've only briefly skimmed it. I'm going to dig a little deeper into it. http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/notes.html > >> AGW talkers completely leave out much of the physics, gossip >>about spectra sounds mystical to the greenhorn greenie, real physicists >>talk about energy transfer in flux quantities per unit of time. >> >> The amount of CO2 in the stratosphere is minute, because the >>stratosphere has a pressure of less than one pound per square inch, and >>not much mass. > > More like 20% of the mass of Earth's atmosphere is in the > stratosphere. > Even in the tropics where the tropopause is higher, the pressure at the > tropopause is about 1.4 PSI. > >> Frankly, if the lower troposphere doesn't provide most of any >>GHG effect, then how can the lower pressure, colder, less dense with >>less mass layers above have as much of an affect? > > The lower half of the troposphere does have significant GHG effect. > The lower troposphere has warmed a lot more since 1979 than the middle > troposphere has. > > (Remss.com provides among other things "lower troposphere" and "middle > troposphere" determinations of temperatuire trend. The "lower > troposphere" determination is from weighting of atmospheric thermal > radiation readings in a way to concentrate on the lowest 4 km, and that > excludes areas where the surface is at least 3 km above sea level. The > "middle troposphere" determination is done with weighting of atmospheric > thermal radiation readings weighted in a way to concentrate onto 4-7 km > above sea level.) > >> Rather than try to put physics to such vague gossip as spectra >>bands, it would be better to start from scratch, study the temperature, >>pressure, mass, specific heat and energy content of a quantity of the >>atmosphere at each level, and the capability to radiate or absorb Infra- >>Red. >> >> CO2 plays such a small part in atmospheric physics, it could be >>totally ignored without changing the outcome a measurable amount. > > But anywhere from 9-26% of GHG effect via having absorption at > wavelengths where water vapor does not? > >> Water vapor concentration can increase and decrease many times >>the total concentration of CO2 and it doesn't change the temperature >>much, in fact, dry air can get hotter faster or colder faster, than >>moist air. > > Dry air heats at surface more easily since adiabatic lapse rate is at > the greater dry rate over a greater range of altitudes. Air also heats > more easily when the land under it lacks water to be evaporated (big > heat burden). > Dry air cools more easily since lack of water vapor means less latent > heat (realized if dew or frost or fog or foggy low clouds form) and dry > air has less of a known greenhouse gas. > >> More moisture means more IR absorption, but moist air moderates >>temperature changes. CO2 has no phase change at atmospheric >>temperature and pressure, and has a very low activity level compared to >>water and water vapor and ice. > > CO2 has GHG effect in the range of 9-26% of the total GHG effect. You keep saying that, but I haven't seen your explanation of how you derived it. What assumptions did you make, and what mechanisms are involved? >> At the temperatures at higher altitudes, IR radiation is sparse, > > At -40 C, IR intensity is about 43% of that achieved by the 15 degree > C > that was close enough to the 1930-1980 average of global surface > temperature. -40 C is a fairly usual temperature for upper part of the > troposphere. > > Even -60 C has IR radiation intensity about 30% of that achieved by > +15 > C. > >>if the AGW "scientist" were to begin good science, they would devise >>experiments to show how much energy can be transferred in a given time. >> A colder atmosphere absorbs more from warm solids, liquids and >>gases, but radiates less. >> >> That means the net energy flow is upward, both from surface to >>high altitude, and from surface to space. >> And also from low altitude to high altitude. >> >> There is no net energy transfer from cold to hot. > > The truth of those (when considering source to be Sun-heated Earth > surface) does not negate AGW via increase of GHG. > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Bill Ward on 2 Dec 2008 04:04 On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:55:11 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In <pan.2008.11.26.21.17.23.310423(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward > 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> Â wrote: >>>> >>>> >bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >>>> >>>> >> You should note that the infra-red spectra of both carbon dioxide >>>> >> and water vapour absorb are line spectra, and the lines aren't all >>>> >> that wide (though this does depend on atmopsheric pressure and >>>> >> temperature - search on "pressure broadening") and they don't >>>> >> overlap to any great extent, which allows both gases to make >>>> >> independent contributions to the greenhouse effect. >>>> >>>> Â Â Â Â Sloman resumes the AGW discussion of spectra, with >>>> no numbers showing flux rates. Â Â Water vapor has some pretty >>>> wide bands, CO2 much more narrow. >>> >>> In the near infra-red, which is the region of most interest for global >>> warming, both carbon dioxide and water show line spectra. Both are >>> triatomic molecules which means that they have symmetric and asymmetric >>> stretches and a bending mode. Each of the vibrational lines shows >>> rotational fine structure. The individual rotational lines are quite >>> narrow (to an extent that depends on pressure broadening). >>> >>> Here's a high resolution study of the water vapour spectrum >>> >>> http://www.usu.edu/alo/lidarinfo/spie%204484.pdf >>> >>> both sets of spectra look something like a picket fence at the >>> resolution you need to model the greenhouse effect. >>> >>>> >> There's also the point that the vapour pressure of water in the >>>> >> stratosphere is pretty low, because the stratosphere is cold, and >>>> >> carbon dioxide does more of the greenhouse work up there than it >>>> >> does below the tropopause. >>>> >>>> Â Â Â Â Water has a very low boiling point in the >>>> stratosphere because the pressure is low, does that make the vapor >>>> pressure high or low? >>> >>> That's irrelevant - the temperature of the stratosphere is so low >>> (-55C) that any water vapour around freezes to ice particles and the >>> residual water vapour pressure is very low. >>> >>>> Â Â Â Â The stratosphere is cold, so the net energy >>>> transfer from the surface to the stratosphere is upward, and the >>>> energy transfer to space is great. >>>> >>>> Â Â Â Â AGW talkers completely leave out much of the >>>> physics, gossip about spectra sounds mystical to the greenhorn >>>> greenie, real physicists talk about energy transfer in flux quantities >>>> per unit of time. >>>> >>>> Â Â Â Â The amount of CO2 in the stratosphere is minute, >>>> because the stratosphere has a pressure of less than one pound per >>>> square inch, and not much mass. >>> >>> Sure. Most of the mass of the atmosphere - about 90% - is below the >>> tropopause. But the stratosphere stretches out quite a long way. >>> >>>> Â Â Â Â Frankly, if the lower troposphere doesn't provide >>>> most of any GHG effect, then how can the lower pressure, colder, less >>>> dense with less mass layers above have as much of an effect? >>> >>> This is correct - the air temperature declines as you go up through the >>> troposphere whch is to say that you've got a temperature gradient >>> through an insulating blanket, and stabilises once you hit the bottom >>> of the stratosphere at the tropopause, which is to say that the >>> stratosphere isn't functioning as an insulator. >>> >>> Note that the top of the troposphere is also pretty cold and thus >>> nearly as low on water vapour. >>> >>>> Â Â Â Â Rather than try to put physics to such vague gossip >>>> as spectra bands, it would be better to start from scratch, study the >>>> temperature, pressure, mass, specific heat and energy content of a >>>> quantity of the atmosphere at each level, and the capability to >>>> radiate or absorb Infra- red. >>> >>> That's what the climatologists models do, but they also have to keep >>> track of heat flux carried by mass-transfer - both by simple convection >>> and the heat that is moved upwards as water vapour to be released when >>> the water vapour condenses to liquid water (rain and clouds) and ice >>> (ice clouds and hail). >>> >>>> Â Â Â Â CO2 plays such a small part in atmospheric physics, >>>> it could be totally ignored without changing the outcome a measurable >>>> amount. >>> >>> Wrong. >>> >>>> Â Â Â Â Water vapor concentration can increase and decrease >>>> many times the total concentration of CO2 and it doesn't change the >>>> temperature much, in fact, dry air can get hotter faster or colder >>>> faster, than moist air. >>> >>> So what? >>> >>>> Â Â Â Â More moisture means more IR absorption, but moist >>>> air moderates temperature changes. Â Â CO2 has no phase change at >>>> atmospheric temperature and pressure, and has a very low activity >>>> level compared to water and water vapor and ice. >>> >>> But is is very effective in "pressure broadening" the water vapour >>> rotational lines - much more so than oxygen and nitrogen, which are >>> non-polar molecules and don't stick to water during collisons for >>> nearly as long as CO2. >>> >>>> Â Â Â Â At the temperatures at higher altitudes, IR >>>> radiation is sparse, >>> >>> Nonsense, the Earth - or rather the tropopause - is a black body >>> radiator in the near infra-red and the radiation flux out to the rest >>> of the universe only depends on the temperature through the tropopause. >> >>Maybe we're getting somewhere now. How do you account for the fact the >>tropospheric lapse rate stays close to adiabatic? > > Average lapse rate in the troposphere is close to the "wet adiabatic" > figure while half the tropopause lacks clouds at any altitude. Do you think that the "wet adiabatic" environmental lapse rate is related to latent heat, or is it simply less than the dry adiabatic lapse rate because it's not at equilibrium? > >> Is it primarily by radiative transfer, or convection? It seems to me >>it must be convective, simply because warm, wet air is less dense than >>cold, dry air, and quickly rises to maintain the lapse rate. > > Much of the time the answer is a significant factor other than > radiation and vertical convection. Much of the "global convection" > involves air movement within a degree of horizontal, and often forming > clouds when moving upwards. Sometimes the lapse rate there is between > the "dry adiabatic" and the "wet adiabatic" rates and the clouds have > billowy cumuliform tops or are cumuliform throughout. Sometimes "warm > advection" occurs more at cloud-top level than at cloud-base level (from > the windspeed being greater higher up in the troposphere), causing the > clouds to be stratiform. OK, that all sounds plausible, but I'm not sure how much effect the horizontal component would have, other than the obvious mixing. >>IR radiated from the surface would be quickly absorbed by WV, clouds, >>CO2, and other GHGs, and at 500W/m^2 would be overwhelmed by the 10's of >>kW/m^2 available from convection of latent heat. > > Half the Earth's surface has no clouds overhead at any altitude. Surely you mean "at any given time". Or are there really regions comprising half the Earth's surface that have never had a cloud in the sky? > The surface manages to radiate *somewhat* to outer space at night when > the air overhead is clear - otherwise there would be no such thing as > nighttime frost when air 2 meters above the surface is at +2 degrees C > (a fairly common situation). Some of the outgoing radiation can easily > be absorbed and reradiated a couple or a few times by GHGs, but net of > that is upward (and upward net is reduced by increase of GHGs). OK, no argument with that. I look at it as the surface radiating to a target warmer than 3K space, but it's the same math. > >>At night, convection stops, but cooling is not required at night. >>Convection kicks in during the day, when cooling is needed. > > Cooling still occurs at night by radiation. 5 AM temperature has a > great rate of being less than 10 PM temperature. Upper level of > radiation by atmosphere at night has half of its radiation to outer > space. That heat comes from radiation from surface - even if absorbed > and reradiated a couple times along the way. Agreed. At night the flux is always outward. > The "upper radiation level" also varies greatly with wavelength. Do you mean the "effective radiating altitude", which is calculated, or some sort of integrated spectrum involving all the photons reaching a surface outside the atmosphere, like a satellite imager? Neither I, nor apparently Google, is familiar withe the term "upper radiation level". > >>I don't see how radiative cooling is even necessary below the cloud >>tops, since there's plenty of cooling capacity from convection. > > When frost or dew forms on the ground and on cars and trucks, the heat > loss has a very impressive rate of by being by radiation. True, but radiation is peanuts compared to the available cooling capacity of latent heat during the day. If the surface radiation were blocked, convection could easily make it up. > >>Once the energy reaches the tropopause, as you imply, it's a pretty >>straight shot to 3K deep space, since there's not much atmosphere left >>to absorb IR. >> >>Perhaps it's easier to see if you look at the lapse rate as bounded at >>the top by the effective radiating temperature, and consider the surface >>temperatures as derived from that and the adiabatic lapse rate. > > That gets complicated by half the troposphere having lack of clouds at > any altitude, and there are separate adiabatic lapse rates for clear air > and clouded air. The global atmospheric average is close to the "wet" > one, leaving upward mobility of lapse rate in the clear half of the > world and in clear layers of the atmosphere in the clouded half of the > world. At any given point, the applicable lapse rate should be obvious, depending on whether cloud is present. I'm not convinced the lower "average" environmental lapse rate has much to do with latent heat. It might just be off-equilibrium due to transport lags or the like. Thanks for your clarifications. I appreciate rational discussion. > <I snip from that next triple-quote symbol due to lesser relevance to > argument in this little region of the massive thread> > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Whata Fool on 2 Dec 2008 05:47 don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In article <sfaqi41dau09mn1jdb9508t3f2t2hsj9ba(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >>>> >>>> You should note that the infra-red spectra of both carbon dioxide and >>>> water vapour absorb are line spectra, and the lines aren't all that >>>> wide (though this does depend on atmopsheric pressure and temperature >>>> - search on "pressure broadening") and they don't overlap to any great >>>> extent, which allows both gases to make independent contributions to >>>> the greenhouse effect. >> >> Sloman resumes the AGW discussion of spectra, with no numbers >>showing flux rates. Water vapor has some pretty wide bands, CO2 >>much more narrow. > > Cite? http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png These graphs show the spectra of GHGs without respect for the concentration of the gas, and without respect for the temperature of the source emitter. GreenHouse Gas theory science would be well served to have the availability of a graph that combines the all three quantity factors in absorption, concentration of GHG and temperature of source, maybe you can find one, I can't. So I have to estimate the absorption of each gas reduced by the relative ratio of concentration of the two gases, for the temperature of the source emitter. Below cloud level I get about 2 percent for CO2 and 97 percent for water vapor. Above cloud level, I estimate about 50-50, but only about 10 percent of the atmosphere mass is there. > Also, CO2 has absorption at wavelengths where water vapor has little to >none, to an extent giving CO2 9-26% of total "greenhouse gas effect". I don't think so in effect for Earth, but agree at equal concentration. >>>> There's also the point that the vapour pressure of water in the >>>> stratosphere is pretty low, because the stratosphere is cold, and >>>> carbon dioxide does more of the greenhouse work up there than it does >>>> below the tropopause. >> >> Water has a very low boiling point in the stratosphere because >>the pressure is low, does that make the vapor pressure high or low? > > The water vapor pressure in the stratosphere is low due to low >temperature. Same at the poles in winter, but ice sublimes some at any temperature, apparently within the biosphere. >> The stratosphere is cold, so the net energy transfer from the >>surface to the stratosphere is upward, and the energy transfer to space >>is great. > > Increased presence of greenhouse gases actually cools most of the >stratosphere. That would increase lapse rate - which would mean a >negative feedback mechanism. Feedback is obviously a flawed concept in GHG theory, humid days do not get as hot as dry days, etc. > However, there are a few positive feedback mechanisms, including >surface albedo (increases heat reception from the Sun) - so lapse rate >increase instead raises the altitude of the tropopause. (Temperature >difference between surface and stratosphere has to increase by about 3.5 >degrees F in areas of the globe having convection to raise the tropopause >by a mere 1,000 feet.) Since the temperature data used in calculating average temperature in AGW, the altitude of the tropopause seems to lose significance, >> AGW talkers completely leave out much of the physics, gossip >>about spectra sounds mystical to the greenhorn greenie, real physicists >>talk about energy transfer in flux quantities per unit of time. >> >> The amount of CO2 in the stratosphere is minute, because the >>stratosphere has a pressure of less than one pound per square inch, >>and not much mass. > > More like 20% of the mass of Earth's atmosphere is in the stratosphere. >Even in the tropics where the tropopause is higher, the pressure at the >tropopause is about 1.4 PSI. I assume about one PSI for the region where there is little water, but CO2 is also sparse is some parts of the stratosphere, and the pressure differential in the atmosphere may provide refraction of the direction of the IR radiation causing as much as 70 percent of stratospheric IR radiation to be to space. >> Frankly, if the lower troposphere doesn't provide most of any >>GHG effect, then how can the lower pressure, colder, less dense with >>less mass layers above have as much of an affect? > > The lower half of the troposphere does have significant GHG effect. >The lower troposphere has warmed a lot more since 1979 than the middle >troposphere has. I have lived there and have not noticed a warming, there is no way any year has been as hot as the early 1950s, although the average minimum temperatures have not been as low. > (Remss.com provides among other things "lower troposphere" and "middle >troposphere" determinations of temperatuire trend. The "lower troposphere" >determination is from weighting of atmospheric thermal radiation readings >in a way to concentrate on the lowest 4 km, and that excludes areas where >the surface is at least 3 km above sea level. The "middle troposphere" >determination is done with weighting of atmospheric thermal radiation >readings weighted in a way to concentrate onto 4-7 km above sea level.) The local warming obviously can have an effect on some species, but citrus growers can't control temperature over a few acres, why do AGW proponents think the temperature of the atmosphere can be controlled? The high temperature is what really counts and the number of hours at or near maximum, the low daily temperature only has a very significant effect on biology where the temperature goes well below freezing more than a few days a year. >> Rather than try to put physics to such vague gossip as spectra >>bands, it would be better to start from scratch, study the temperature, >>pressure, mass, specific heat and energy content of a quantity of the >>atmosphere at each level, and the capability to radiate or absorb Infra- >>Red. >> >> CO2 plays such a small part in atmospheric physics, it could be >>totally ignored without changing the outcome a measurable amount. > > But anywhere from 9-26% of GHG effect via having absorption at >wavelengths where water vapor does not? I don't agree with those numbers in actual effect, and if my premise that the atmosphere would be warmer is correct, then added CO2 could only make it cooler. :-) The trend in the Arctic and other local regions may not be caused by increased CO2 at all. >> Water vapor concentration can increase and decrease many times >>the total concentration of CO2 and it doesn't change the temperature >>much, in fact, dry air can get hotter faster or colder faster, than >>moist air. > > Dry air heats at surface more easily since adiabatic lapse rate is at >the greater dry rate over a greater range of altitudes. Air also heats >more easily when the land under it lacks water to be evaporated (big heat >burden). > Dry air cools more easily since lack of water vapor means less latent >heat (realized if dew or frost or fog or foggy low clouds form) and dry >air has less of a known greenhouse gas. But not less CO2. It is the feedback notion about water vapor that I am arguing against and the general claim of AGW of that higher temperature means more moisture, deserts are hot, and dry. >> More moisture means more IR absorption, but moist air moderates >>temperature changes. CO2 has no phase change at atmospheric temperature >>and pressure, and has a very low activity level compared to water and water >>vapor and ice. > > CO2 has GHG effect in the range of 9-26% of the total GHG effect. Your claim is noted, but not agreed with on the Earth. >> At the temperatures at higher altitudes, IR radiation is sparse, > > At -40 C, IR intensity is about 43% of that achieved by the 15 degree C >that was close enough to the 1930-1980 average of global surface >temperature. -40 C is a fairly usual temperature for upper part of the >troposphere. > > Even -60 C has IR radiation intensity about 30% of that achieved by +15 >C. And more of that high altitude radiation goes to space, that is what cools the atmosphere. Can you see fit to agree that GHGs cool the atmosphere? And can you agree the weather services temperature data is not the surface, it is the lower atmosphere? >>if the AGW "scientist" were to begin good science, they would devise >>experiments to show how much energy can be transferred in a given time. >> A colder atmosphere absorbs more from warm solids, liquids and >>gases, but radiates less. >> >> That means the net energy flow is upward, both from surface to >>high altitude, and from surface to space. >> And also from low altitude to high altitude. >> >> There is no net energy transfer from cold to hot. > > The truth of those (when considering source to be Sun-heated Earth >surface) does not negate AGW via increase of GHG. > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) How can you reconcile that statement with the seemingly (to me) fact that GHGs cool the atmosphere? Can you at least agree that _IF_ GHGs cool the atmosphere, much of the AGW mantra is completely false? And the historical record shows human life has benefitted from the "optimum" higher temperature over the last 5000 years? Even if every facet of AGW were true, should man strive toward extremism of trying to create conditions that are needed for every species of life, both animal and vegetable on Earth, and even if it harms mankind? If I did not think the premise that GHGs cool the atmosphere, and moderate the temperature of the surface, I would not be talking against the AGW agenda. Note that a moderated temperature can be interpreted as a "warming" in regions where it takes an extra 80 BTU to lower the temperature of water by a single degree F.
From: John M. on 2 Dec 2008 06:41
On Dec 1, 7:10 am, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: > On Nov 25, 8:06 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > > > It may stand popular thought on it's head, but not reality, > > unless you can explain how N2 and O2 could cool from daytime heating > > without GHGs. > > so a ball of gas composed entirely of N2 and/or O2 in space, with no > GHG, would never cool? and, as a corollary, of course, it would have > to be invisible, by conservation of energy. hey, you've solved the > mystery of dark matter! Before it cools it needs to get hot, but that could be a topic for tomorrow. AFAIUI the approach of diatomic molecules to one another and the interplay through van der Waals forces induces a dipole in each one. Presto, hey-type. The possibility to release a photon from the vibrational-rotational bands is there. |