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: Whata Fool on 4 Dec 2008 00:40 don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In article <psi6j49cqlurimac886ehmsgcko2851rmp(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: [snip all but one issue] >> The surface radiation would be more time constrained than the >>present atmospheric radiation that can take place at all levels in all >>directions at the same time. > >????? - can you explain that one? > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) The fusion production of the sun, and any solid body radiating, is time constrained (random active events, but averaging a constant) according to some physical process. But in the atmosphere absorbing and emitting IR, there can be many processes going on at once from all different altitudes and all directions. So the return of thermal energy to the surface can cause the surface to radiate at a greater rate than just a solid surface at a given temperature. In a real situation, only a very thin layer of surface has to be involved in thermal transfer, and measurement of what is going on there may be difficult. With H2O present, any surface frost quickly reduces thermal transfer though. In the lower troposphere, the GHGs cause rapid redistribution of thermal energy, the only thing that really puzzles me is why the temperature doesn't normalize laterally almost all around the Earth.
From: Don Klipstein on 4 Dec 2008 00:49 In article <pan.2008.12.01.08.03.56.78740(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward wrote: <And I snip everything said more than thrice as well as at least some responses said at least twice, and maybe a bit more> >On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:43:17 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > >> Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:48:14 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: >>> >>>> Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>One rotation of what per what? >> >> Of the Earth, the changing rocky surfaces would be getting hot and >> then cooler/colder every revolution. > >Yes, that seems obvious. I don't see the relevance. It's as different as >night and day, literally, same as now. >> >>>If you look at a satellite image, you'll notice a lot of clouds. Many, >>>especially in the tropics, came from convection of humid air. I don't >>>think Trenbuth's method of estimating latent heat from estimated total >>>precipitation is correct. It ignores virga, recirculation in deep >>>convection, and all the other ways that clouds can evaporate without >>>falling to the ground. >> >> >> Virga may cool as it falls and absorb latent heat as it becomes >> vapor again, but there is only virga below clouds. >> >> Condensation and re-evaporation may be more considerable >> (quantity) >> within clouds, but still probably a small part of the total convection. >> >> Are there strong thermals above small lakes or other bodies of >> water? > >Not usually. The surrounding area is generally hotter than the water >surface. >> >>>We've discussed the immense power density available in updrafts, so I >>>think there's some burden now to explain how there can be updrafts >>>_without_ transporting a lot of latent heat. I think the existence of a >>>near-adiabatic lapse rate guarantees it. >> >> I haven't had much experience with updrafts, they don't affect >> a B-25 as much as a sailplane. > >I bet you've felt some pretty good bumps under clouds though, even in a >B-25. > >> I suspect the total latent transport might be somewhere within >> a factor of two times that as measured as total annual global precip. > >Could be, but the question then is, why is it so low, when there is so >much available? And why is the lapse rate so close to adiabatic? Actually, the global average tropospheric lapse rate is close to the lower of the 2 separate adiabatic ones ("wet" and "dry"). Despite close to half the world having no clouds overhead at any altitude, and the other half including plenty of area with tops of highest clouds well lower than tropopause. > If the troposphere were in radiative equilibrium, there would be no >lapse rate. The temperature at all altitudes would be the same, and it >wouldn't be a troposphere. There simply has to be convection to support >the observed lapse rate. Radiation alone can support a lapse rate positive but short of adiabatic - such as in the "radiation layer" (or whatever it is called) within the Sun, especially a layer over 100 km thick outside nearly-enough-all of the heat-production but transporting heat outward without convection - despite most photons present in that layer having low prospects of traveling so much as a few micrometers before being absorbed. >>>>>If someone has a lucid explanation showing otherwise, I'd like to see >>>>>it. >>>> >>>> I don't see how any AGW proponent can say that the Earth's >>>> atmosphere is warmer now than it would be with NO GHGs at all, >>>> to do that they would have to show how the N2 and O2 would be >>>> cooled after solar heating and convection from the rocky >>>> surface. >>> >>>I'm not sure how relevant it is, but it's an interesting question. >> >> You don't? >> >> If the atmosphere would be warmer with only N2 and O2, then >> doesn't that mean that GHGs cool the atmosphere (regardless of >> the temperature of the solid or water surface)? > >It would seem so. In the real world, I suspect cloud tops have a key role >as BBs. They do play a significant role, and often do so far from the tropopause. >> And if GHGs cool the atmosphere, then adding CO2 should cool >> the atmosphere one or two degrees in 100 years. > >Maybe, but I think in reality, on Earth, the negative feedbacks from water >would obscure it. What negative feedbacks? Water vapor is a net positive feedback mechanism for global temperature change in response to change of atmospheric GHG content causing surface temperature to change! - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Eeyore on 4 Dec 2008 01:08 Bill Ward wrote: > In fact the more we learn about chaos the more closely it seems > to be bound up with nature. Fractal structures seem to be everywhere we > look: in ferns, cauliflowers, the coral reef, kidneys See the pics I posted in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic Graham
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 03:03 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:45:45 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In article <pan.2008.11.30.21.41.11.102553(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill > Ward wrote: >>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:28:18 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >>> On 29 nov, 21:38, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:58:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>> > On 28 nov, 16:55, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > <SNIP deeper levels of quotation> >>>> >> That needs a little explanation. Â CO2 gas is not a BB radiator. >>>> >> Â At the temperatures in question, the 15u band should be the >>>> >> only radiation it can absorb or emit. Â How do you come to the >>>> >> conclusion it emits in a -55C BB spectrum? Â Do you have a link >>>> >> supporting that? >>>> >>>> > I didn't say that it emitted a black body spectrum. It emits the >>>> > same spectrum as any volume of carbon dioxide at 218K would, which >>>> > is different from the spectrum emitted by warmer carbon dioxide. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>>> You said, "a spectrum that matches the roughly -55C temperature of the >>>> bulk of the stratosphere", not a "218K CO2 spectrum". >>> >>> Same thing. >> >>Isn't the CO2 absorption/emission spectrum a band, not a BB distribution? >>In part of your previous post (which you snipped) you linked to this: >> >>http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img7.gif > > That appears to be a sampling of a layer of CO2 representing less CO2 > than one has to pass through from surface to outer space. > > Another version of CO2 IR spectrum is at: > > http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif > http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html > >>It doesn't look like a BB to me. Are you having trouble keeping your >>stories straight again? > > But CO2 is close to blackbody within some range of wavelengths where > emission is close to peak of a 218 K blackbody. And the range does > widen somewhat when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. Look at this graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png Now please tell me if you think the CO2 absorption spectrum (3rd graph) is similar to the 210K blackbody emission spectrum line in the top graph. Assuming you agree they are different, please explain how CO2 bonds could emit in wavelengths they can't absorb. >>>> > This follows from the second law of thermodynamics. The fact that >>>> > the 218K spectrum is going to be different from the spectrum >>>> > emitted by a warmer lump of gas depends on the proposition that the >>>> > numbers of molecules occupying higher energy vibrational and >>>> > rotational quantum states changes with temperature, and it is this >>>> > distribution across the accessible quantised energy levels that >>>> > dictates the shape of the emission spectrum. >> >>The "lump" would need to absorb and emit just enough to stay in thermal >>equilibrium. Why would the general spectrum suddenly change? What you >>are saying doesn't make sense to me. Please explain. >> >>>> Outside the 15u band? Â How much difference is there between the >>>> energy in the spectra at the two temperatures? >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body >>> >>> work it out for yourself. >> >>Let me rephrase: I don't think there's a significant difference. Show >>why you think there is. Start by showing why you think it's a BB >>distribution. > > CO2 acts fairly like a blackbody at wavelengths within the 15 um band. > 15 um is a wavelength where a blackbody has spectral power distribution > about 96% of peak. It appears to me both tails of a 210K blackbody spectrum are missing (looks like about half the total area). Cold CO2 is not a black body - it's a narrowband source.
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 03:24
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:30:18 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In <pan.2008.12.01.00.23.21.593448(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward said: >>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:02:11 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: >> >>> Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:28:18 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > <And I snip most previously quoted material to edit for space> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> <SNIP response to snipped point> >>>> >>>>Isn't the CO2 absorption/emission spectrum a band, not a BB >>>>distribution? In part of your previous post (which you snipped) you >>>>linked to this: >>>> >>>>http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img7.gif >>>> >>>>It doesn't look like a BB to me. Are you having trouble keeping your >>>>stories straight again? >>> >>> >>> >>> He is confusing me, doesn't the AGW consensus claim that AGW has >>> caused the stratosphere to cool to a lower than normal temperature? >>> >>>>The "lump" would need to absorb and emit just enough to stay in thermal >>>>equilibrium. Why would the general spectrum suddenly change? What you >>>>are saying doesn't make sense to me. Please explain. >>> >>> Haven't all measurements shown that the stratosphere has cooled, >>> and that added CO2 concentration [AGW] caused it? >>> >>>>>> Outside the 15u band? Â How much difference is there between the >>>>>> energy in the spectra at the two temperatures? >>>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body >>>>> >>>>> work it out for yourself. >>>> >>>>Let me rephrase: I don't think there's a significant difference. Show >>>>why you think there is. Start by showing why you think it's a BB >>>>distribution. >>> >>> That page contains the following sentence; >>> >>> "This is the black body temperature as measured from space, while the >>> surface temperature is higher due to the greenhouse effect." >>> >>> I claim, and strongly suggest that thinking scientists must >>> understand >>> that statement does not represent the true physics, because it ignores >>> the probability that an N2 and O2 (78 + 20) atmosphere would be hotter >>> than at present without GreenHouse Gases. >>> >>> Unless somebody can explain how N2 and O2 could cool after being >>> warmed by solar energy and convection from the surface. >> >>I suspect the equatorial to polar temperature gradient would invoke >>convection bands that would tend to equalize the temperatures by >>conduction to the surface. The nighttime surface would be colder then >>the adjacent atmosphere, the daytime would be hotter and, "on the >>average", it looks to me like the (lower) atmosphere still might be >>warmer than the surface, because of the day/night asymmetry in >>convection. > > That does indeed occur. > >>I think adding GHG's with no latent heat would overall cool the >>atmosphere and warm the surface via the nighttime IR blanket effect. > > That is indeed true. > >> But I also think that on Earth, latent heat transport by water >>overwhelms any IR warming by CO2 > >>If someone has a lucid explanation showing otherwise, I'd like to see it. > > Could well be greater, without negating significance of warming of > surface and lower levels of the atmosphere by CO2. Also consider that > significant heat transport by atmospheric movement is not latent heat. But transport of water vapor is, by definition. When the WV condenses, the latent heat has been transfered from wherever it evaporated. If there is a significant cooling contribution from water vapor, it wouldn't take much negative temperature feedback in the water cycle to compensate for the hypothetical ~1.5W/m^2 "forcing", from anthropogenic CO2. > Just as an example of an extreme - cyclones of baroclinic nature (the > "usual extratropical cyclone") where water vapor presence is low. Such > things do occue in central and northern Canada in mid and late winter, > when water vapor presence is low enough to not account for much heat > movement. Such things do occur in desert areas. "Dust devils"? > They even occur on Mars without a cloud anywhere. > > I remember a demonstration by a Sunday School teacher showing > baroclinic cyclones and baroclinmic events in general forming without > latent heat - in a big pot of water on a record player turntable, with > red food dye dropped in over the circumference, and blue dye dropped in > at the center - and then heat the circumference with a propane torch. > Baroclinic events result in global or regional convection and heat > transport across latitudes through the otherwise-barrier of local lapse > rate being short of allowing local vertical convection. That's some Sunday school. I'm envious. |