|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 26, 2010 21:02:53 GMT
Again you are not getting it. A body of air at a particular temperature contains a certain amount of CO2. The CO2 molecules are exited and deexcited continuously by collision. The proportion of time they are in an excited state depends on the temperature. The higher the proportion, the more the CO2 has chance to emit a photon. There is no "bypassing" of anything. Your confusion is somehow both annoying and amusing. You and all the others in the AGW camp are claiming that CO2 is going to slow down the process of radiating energy into space...from the surface. Now imagine if there were some magical process by which the warmed surface of the earth were picked up and carried most of the way through the atmosphere where it was allowed to emit from there...BYPASSING all of this CO2 that you're so hung up on you can't think straight. Well it turns out mother nature is way ahead of me. As soon as any temperature gradient shows up, the warmed air at the surface starts rushing up...and is replaced by cold air rushing down. Water vapor does even more. The higher the gradient, the more powerful the forces of convection and latent heat become...and at a much higher rate than CO2. LOL, it is transferred to the point at which convection and water vapor no longer have any sway...which, not at all coincidentally, is the point at which the temperature gradient inverts and CO2 offers no resistance to outgoing radiation. Its dropped off at the tropopause. Humid air doesn't actually _need_ CO 2 to provide a temperature gradient - its self generating. Humid air is lighter than dry air so starts rising; as it does it cools at the (wet) adiabatic lapse rate. The latent heat from the water ensures that the humid air is _warmer_ than the drier air around it and so accelerates the process. In the tropics these updrafts can accelerate to extreme vertical speeds as high as 100kts (far too exciting for some airframes). The water droplets in these updrafts can remain as unfrozen water well above 35,000 ft (~6 miles) due to the speed that they have been carried upward - they have no time to freeze.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 26, 2010 21:43:53 GMT
Yep...but that's too much information when someone's already having problems with a simpler version.
The perceptual issue here is that there are too many complex and it fills up most people's working memory to the point that they either drop a concept or smear two together into a uselessly oversimplified version. They are of course entirely unaware that this has happened...since being aware of it would require still more capability. To them its just plain old thinking and they have at most a vague understanding that someone else might perceive more simultaneously...even if they're exposed to someone with far greater capabilities on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by hiddigeigei on Mar 27, 2010 0:08:02 GMT
Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument About it and about: but evermore came out by the same door as in I went.
Has anyone on this board significantly altered an opinion by argument from either side?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 27, 2010 2:49:37 GMT
Oh I think so yes.
Whether it was in the way intended is another question. What is absolutely true is that I have learned a LOT from this discourse.
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Mar 27, 2010 20:09:13 GMT
So, how much should be in thermals instead of 17? Isn't that 333 back radiation just hypothetical number? It is warm here, because the air has absorbed the warmth from heated surface. Had that 333 back radiation been real, covering my face against the sky at night would be felt as immediate lack of warming. IMO, to spread the (wrongly calculated) +33K difference onto hypothetical back radiation is the basic mistake of the whole theory.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 27, 2010 20:43:26 GMT
" Had that 333 back radiation been real, covering my face against the sky at night would be felt as immediate lack of warming.
IMO, to spread the (wrongly calculated) +33K difference onto hypothetical back radiation is the basic mistake of the whole theory."
Indeed.
A simple test is to go out on a CLEAR cloudless night in an arid area with as close to zero humidity as possible, and see how much heat is 'downwelling'.
However, on a clear dry night the surface rapidly cools. Not feasible if 333Wm-2 is 'radiating down'.
You will note from the diagram that the entire Solar irradiance is only 341Wm-2 - the implication is that the diagram is full of mistakes and is only suitable for politicians.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 27, 2010 22:03:47 GMT
Isn't that 333 back radiation just hypothetical number? It is warm here, because the air has absorbed the warmth from heated surface. Had that 333 back radiation been real, covering my face against the sky at night would be felt as immediate lack of warming. Your hand radiates IR towards your face.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 27, 2010 22:05:53 GMT
A simple test is to go out on a CLEAR cloudless night in an arid area with as close to zero humidity as possible, and see how much heat is 'downwelling'. And scientists do that by measuring downwelling radiation at the surface. The 333wm-2 is a global average. But it is indeed feasible that if a location had only 333wm-2 downwelling radaition at a location the surface there would rapidly cool. Or that you don't understand it. Why don't you factor in that possibility? It is afterall far more likely than the idea that a well known diagram contains a basic error which no scientist in the world has ever noticed. Your should apply a bit of skepticism to your own arguments.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 27, 2010 23:24:32 GMT
Your hand radiates IR towards your face.
[/color] Yep extend your arm and slowly turn your palm towards your face and behold the awesome power of anthropogenic warming!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 28, 2010 0:09:51 GMT
A simple test is to go out on a CLEAR cloudless night in an arid area with as close to zero humidity as possible, and see how much heat is 'downwelling'. And scientists do that by measuring downwelling radiation at the surface. The 333wm-2 is a global average. But it is indeed feasible that if a location had only 333wm-2 downwelling radaition at a location the surface there would rapidly cool. Or that you don't understand it. Why don't you factor in that possibility? It is afterall far more likely than the idea that a well known diagram contains a basic error which no scientist in the world has ever noticed. Your should apply a bit of skepticism to your own arguments. Give me a citation of OBSERVATIONS that show that there is a global NIGHTIME average of 333wm -2 IR radiating DOWN to the surface - Note that I said NIGHTTIME average and actual observations on a clear night with very low humidity.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 28, 2010 0:23:21 GMT
How about you give me a citation of observations that show there is no backradiation from the night sky?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 28, 2010 1:23:35 GMT
Well you could start by looking at Meteo 101 and reading about radiation fog SoCold
Then you can tell me how you can possibly get frost with only 10wm-2 less IR than on a sunny day apparently being radiated downward out of the night sky.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 28, 2010 1:39:24 GMT
With all the billions available for climate "research", one would think it's supporters would have by now developed an experiment to test the CO2 AGW hypothesis in order to falsify it. However as many of us have discovered lo these many years (decades now), no matter what happens, it is always consistent with AGW. This grade school experiment (with no funding from Exxon) was designed to falsify Miskolczi's hypothesis. tnn93w.tripod.com/As CO2 is said to result in an amplification of the GHE via inciting wild positive feedback from water vapor, why hasn't upper atmospheric water vapor increased per that theory hypothesis speculation? Specific humidity looks pretty much constant to me Relative humidity; oops, not so constant or rising. Tropical tropospheric hotspot- old science OHC upper 700m- old science upper atmospheric water vapor increasing- expecting to be old science antarctic cooling- old science decrease in snow cover- old science stratospheric cooling due to rising CO2 levels- old science Someone help, the list is too long to remember. socold, I'm confused. What exactly is the latest CO2 AGW storyline these days?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 28, 2010 2:37:40 GMT
The 800 lb gorilla in the china shop, and how nobody knew it's been there since the beginning. I'm big into observational evidence, not theory and hope everyone else is as well. With respect to climate sensitivity and feedbacks, few have studied clouds in recent years as thoroughly as Roy Spencer. Like him or not, he has the most recent up to date satellite data and knows it well. He published a paper in 2008 showing the data can be mistakenly identified as positive feedback. After the SOP by the slimeballs at ReinventedClimate to attack Spencer personally, he handed their lunch to them. So to review, especially for steve and aj, please read carefully this entry from Spencer. It will be more in the spotlight later this year. Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Change (supercedes “Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?”)
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 28, 2010 8:22:35 GMT
How about you give me a citation of observations that show there is no backradiation from the night sky? There's radiation in ALL directions. Sideways, up, down...it makes no difference which way you look. Just answer this one question socold. Since MOST of the energy movement across the troposphere is from latent heat and convection...how is CO2 going to slow it down?
|
|